Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 20, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:33:37

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #982

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 20th of August 2024 and I am joined by Stelios.
	Hello.
	And Harry Miller of Faircop.
	Very pleased to have you.
	Yeah great to be here, great to be here.
	And I've actually pulled up your website here so you can explain a little bit about it because I imagine you've been very busy and I'm probably going to unintentionally direct a lot more traffic your way so sorry about that.
	We have been busy, I mean we've been inordinately busy.
	I can't believe that all my predictions about Keir Starmer, that a Labour government would be exactly the same as the Conservative government, that it would simply be a different coloured tie on the doorstep of Number 10.
	Well, it shows what a great political forecaster I am because It seems to me that Starmer has been born, fully formed as Chairman Mao and he's taken all of the great officers of state with him.
	The notion that we have a separation of powers, well that's now ancient history because all of the powers that there are in this country seem to be operating under the sole direction of Herr Starmer and Yvette Cooper.
	Which is troubling.
	If you are remotely interested in freedom, if you're remotely interested in preserving the rights of the individual over the state, preserving autonomy, then the sharp turn to, I don't even know whether it's to the left, the sharp turn to Maoism has got to be extremely concerning and I think that's probably the reason why we are so busy.
	We've picked up on our ex-accounts We increased our numbers by I think between five and seven percent within the first fortnight of Starmer getting in because what he's done immediately is generate a chilling effect on free speech.
	Anybody who is slightly to the right, anybody who voted for Brexit, anybody who's expressed a view about immigration, anybody Who has expressed a view about limiting who is allowed to live here and woe betide anybody who's expressed a view about where terrorism in this country seems to be stemming from.
	Well if you're in that group or one of those groups then you are in severe danger of coming to the attention of Keir Starmer's state and that is terrifying.
	People are terrified so so far You know if one of the key performance indicators of a new government is to create a chilling effect then we've got to give Keir Starmer 10 out of 10.
	But what you do here is you provide people with the means to resist the police potentially persecuting their speech as well as I think you also help police officers being persecuted by the sort of institution as well as I understand.
	Yeah we do all of that.
	I think at some point we're going to have to produce some form of toolkit as to what to do.
	On Saturday night I addressed a group of around about I think it was about 300 largely women on an X Spaces meeting on a Saturday night.
	That's a lot of people.
	The majority of them were concerned about what do we do if we get a knock on the door.
	Well, my advice is this.
	Give yourself just a once-over check.
	Have I done something wrong?
	Have I committed a crime?
	Do I think That this knock on the door is warranted.
	Because one of the things about committing a crime is, you're supposed to know you've committed it.
	Alright?
	That's the element of what we call mens rea, the guilty mind.
	You don't commit crimes, or most crimes, unintentionally.
	Most crimes are committed with the intention of causing hurt, damage.
	It's the guilty mind.
	It's one part, it's one part of what constitutes a crime.
	Guilty mind plus guilty action minus a defense.
	So just check with yourself.
	Have you been stalking somebody?
	Have you been harassing somebody?
	Have you been threatening somebody?
	And if the answer to all those questions is no, then there's a fair chance you have not committed a crime.
	So the next thing that you have to do is this.
	You have to ask the police officer, are you investigating me for a crime or for a non-crime?
	If they say we're investigating you for a non-crime, you have the option of that door of shutting the door and telling them to kiss their arse goodbye.
	If they say they're investigating you for a crime, the first thing you need to do at that point is turn your phone recorder on.
	At that point, what they should do is caution you.
	That's straight away.
	The second that they have identified you as somebody who is the possible perpetrator of a crime, they are the suspect in a crime, you have to be cautioned.
	You have to be cautioned.
	So, Be on the lookout for that.
	Stick your tape recorder on and then don't agree to do anything without first speaking to me and definitely without seeing a solicitor.
	Now one of the great... what tends to happen these days is that the police, rather than arrest you, which is a bit messy...
	The police will ask you or invite you for an interview under caution.
	Now, the thing with an invite to an interview under caution, a voluntary interview, is you can say no.
	What tends to happen is they say, if you say no, we'll arrest you.
	So it's worth asking that.
	If they ask you to go to a voluntary interview, ask the question, what happens if I say no?
	If they say well we might have to arrest you then we are generating a for a future claim of coercion here.
	All right.
	If you do go in for a voluntary interview, A. make sure you take a solicitor and B. make sure you take your phone or some other recording device and record them.
	Because it's voluntary, you can do that.
	You don't even need to tell them you're recording it.
	Just record it and then once you've done that, send it to me and we'll have a look at it because nine times out of ten, the police will have, all they'll have done, they'll have been on a fishing trip.
	They'll have been on a fishing trip, that's it.
	And we can then, we then have the means to fight back because unless the police have objective grounds, genuine objective grounds for believing that you have committed an offence, they have no right whatsoever to be approaching you on that basis.
	What they want to do is get you down into an interview, they want to scare the life out of you, tell you that on this occasion it will probably go no further and leave you with their words ringing in your ear so that you back off and become state compliant without ever troubling the criminal justice system.
	That's what they want to do and it's our job not to play with them.
	It's our job not to play ball.
	It's our job to think of a way to defend ourselves and to turn the boot onto them.
	That's what Fair Cop does.
	I have a question.
	I heard you saying before that people should turn the recording on if the police says, if the people knocking on the door say that we're investigating you for a crime.
	But how will, let's say they say we're investigating you for a non-crime.
	Turn it on, turn it on.
	The second is the police, turn on the recording.
	How will the people be able to prove something?
	Because if they don't have any recording, it's going to be the police officer's word against them.
	Right, so most people have a recording device, most people have got an iPhone or some form of smartphone.
	You need to familiarise yourself beforehand with how to record a conversation.
	It's quite easy, voice memos or what have you.
	Just make sure it's there, make sure you know how to do it and then before you open the door, you press the record button.
	It's as simple as that.
	We have helped a A huge amount of people on the basis that they've recorded the interview because we've then unpicked it and said there was no caution, there was no basis for the interview, what they were doing was simply investigating the fact that somebody had been offended but they were entirely unable to attach that offence to a legitimate crime.
	And if we can do all that, we are then in a position where we can A. get you off the hook because you shouldn't have been on the hook in the first place and B. turn the tables on the police and then make them answer for their behaviour.
	Make them answer for their behaviour.
	What I'm looking for in the next year or so It's for this to happen to somebody and for us to then make a criminal case against the police for harassment.
	A public order case against the police for harassment.
	Because let's face it, if you went up to somebody's door as a complete stranger, knocked on their door and said, by the way, you have to do what I say, otherwise I'm going to lock you up and take away your freedom.
	You would consider that to be harassment, okay?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Why is it any different?
	Because it's a police officer doing it.
	The only way a police officer can do that, it's not by virtue of their uniform, it's not by virtue of the police car, it's not by virtue of that they physically have the power to do it.
	It's because they have been given, they've been granted by the state, an extraordinary power.
	The power to investigate crime and the power to threaten an arrest and to make an arrest.
	But if they are abusing that power, or if they are simply using it negligently because they haven't thought it through, Then they need to be taken to task.
	They need to be taken to task.
	So what we're looking for, actively looking for, is cases where we can not only go against the police and show you were wrong, not only go against the police and say we want a bit of conversation, but go against the police and say now prosecute yourself.
	Prosecute that officer.
	Prosecute whoever ordered that officer to come round.
	Prosecute the chief constable if they've created it.
	Prosecute whoever, but you as police officers cannot do this.
	You cannot unleash hell against the public and give yourself a pass because you happen to be in uniform.
	We're not having it.
	Hear, hear.
	And I think that one thing that isn't done enough, and part of the reason that things have been allowed to get to this point in the first place, is that people haven't really gone on the attack against the institutions that are persecuting them, more or less.
	We've sort of been saying, well, they shouldn't do that, please reform.
	We're not actually pushing back and saying, actually, we should prosecute you.
	And I think that that's a really important step, because one of the things that I think that has changed
	The nature of policing is things like the Black Lives Matter protests for example that I've heard from multiple different police officers that following those protests they were far more afraid to deal with black criminals basically and they actively avoided trying to investigate those crimes to a degree far greater than they would have otherwise and so I think this ties in very nicely to the fact that the police no longer
	necessarily seem to care nearly as much about what is right and wrong and more so about their appearance and their reputation and I think that had they looked at you know doing the right thing they wouldn't have to worry about their reputation but they're doing it in the sort of short term and I think there's a lot of political pressure going on here you've got the police and crime commissioners exerting political pressure and there's a more cozy relationship which you alluded to
	Earlier I think between politicians and the police that are incentivizing these sorts of things and I think that I've been told at least that if you're to get beyond the rank of inspector you need some sort of understanding of politics.
	There's also an element of it as well which I was quite shocked to hear, this is from I believe the Met Police I was told, that you need to have basically grasped on one of your colleagues to get beyond the rank of inspector and this is normally for something that is sort of politically correct so for misogyny or they might say something off-colour or there might be a bad joke and you need to have that on your record that actually you're willing to uphold standards.
	against your colleagues but what that does is it creates a very clear climate of basically political fear within the police I think and it gets them in line with the political messaging that the only way that you can maintain your career in policing is that you more or less follow the political prevailing wind and you enforce that and you do basically the bidding of politicians That's right.
	I had a very sad case about two years ago where a traffic officer, formerly of Hampshire Police, now working at a different force.
	Very experienced traffic officer.
	He was on a night shift with a very long-standing colleague, someone who he thought of as a friend, someone who he trusted.
	During the night shift, they happened to make a comment about, oh, where's PC so-and-so this week?
	And he said, oh, he's on one of these flippin' diversity courses, isn't he?
	And they got chatting about it.
	The police officer said, well what a waste of time they are.
	He said, all they do is teach people that men can become women.
	Well, I don't believe any of that nonsense.
	His mate reported him.
	His mate reported him.
	Yeah.
	And the reason that his mate reported him was because everything in that car was being recorded anyway.
	So if he'd failed to report his mate for that, Then he could have been seen to be condoning it if there had been a spot check on the conversations that had taken place in that car.
	Now what that does, one, what they did with the police officer, they put him through an investigation.
	He's a Christian, so he said, look, really, I don't need you to be... I am considering making a claim against you because you're discriminating against me based on my religion.
	So they said, okay, we don't do that.
	What we want to do is send you on a re-education course, the old re-education course.
	So that was what they wanted to do, to change his thinking, to drive out any belief system that he had and replace it with an approved policing system.
	But you can't have a situation where on a night shift, or even a day shift, you were afraid to make conversation with your colleague.
	Because there is an inordinate pressure on your colleague to report you if you say anything that is off script.
	That is utterly demoralising.
	One of the things you need to be, when it comes to working for any of the services, army, fire service, I guess ambulance service, certainly the police, Is you need to have absolute trust in your colleagues because on a daily basis you're going into horrendous situations.
	Horrendous situations.
	One of the coping mechanisms is honesty.
	Brutal honesty.
	Black humor.
	I mean we used to use black humor all of the time.
	As does every single emergency service.
	Every single person who's ever been in that situation throughout history has resorted to black humor.
	We do it here as well.
	Now unfortunately if you resort to black humour there's a fair chance that you're going to be reported for it and there's a fair chance you're going to face a disciplinary and you're going to be taken off being an active police officer as you await disciplinary.
	You're going to be on full pay.
	These processes take months and months and months and at the end of the day you have very good police officers who are thoroughly demoralised and who are leaving the job and who is replacing them?
	Diversity hires.
	Diversity hires.
	We have the ludicrous situation, fairly local to me actually, where a Pakistani woman was taken from the community to become a police officer.
	She was due to be fast-tracked to detective And it all started going very, very wrong within the first few weeks because A. She didn't think that she should be made to work weekends.
	B. Nobody told her that she was supposed to work nights.
	And C.
	12-hour days were far too long anyway.
	What did they think they were doing?
	And it took them forever to get rid of her.
	Why?
	Because she was a diversity hire.
	That's where we're at.
	What you're describing completely destroys any element of collegiality.
	Correct.
	And I think it can be extended throughout culture, because what we are encountering on a daily basis is basically an informant culture.
	There are incentives in every organization for people to rat on each other.
	I agree, but the other thing about this particular officer is she quite openly stated that she wanted to join the police in order to put the police right culturally following the Sarah Everard incident.
	Well, I'm sorry, if you're a police constable, a new recruit, it is not your job To be sorting out systemic problems, systematic cultural problems within the whole of the police.
	It's your job to come in, do your job, arrest the bad guy, do long shifts, go to traffic accidents, go to domestics, do all of that crappy
	Day-to-day stuff and then maybe one day when you've proven yourselves way down the line maybe you'll get lucky and maybe you'll invited to go and join the mandarins at the College of Policing where you can fill your boots with political nonsense and leave policing as a thing on your CV because once you join the College of Policing you'll never do any policing again.
	So one thing that I have sort of thought about here is that because there is this sort of informant culture, as Stelios put it, within the police I think it justifies it in many police officers' mind to apply this to the population at large because if it's the conditions they live under then well it must at least be somewhat justified to apply that to other people and so this level of scrutiny, this very high level of scrutiny of political statements
	Well they must be looking at it through their sort of internal lens of what can I get away with and looking at the populace at large and enforcing those standards upon people right just from a sort of almost psychological sense.
	I'm not sure whether it's personal or not quite like that.
	What I am certain is is that the standard of recruit is so abysmally poor that there is no real understanding of the difference between Law, you know, what is legal and what's just, you know, nice or what's not nice and what's fantasy, no.
	And the police, I've said this before but it's true, it needs saying again, the police seem to be far more concerned about being on what they consider to be the right side of history than they are about being on the right side of the law.
	If they think that society is moving in a certain direction where being offensive is an offence, then they will treat being offensive as an offence right now.
	They'll treat it that way right now.
	Even though they know being offensive is not an offence, they'll treat it as such.
	Which is why we had, four years ago, the ludicrous sight of a 12-foot billboard being trailed around the Wirral.
	That said, backed by the police, that said being offensive is an offence.
	I remember that.
	We've had to pull up Derbyshire Police for tweeting out being offensive as an offence.
	We've reported numerous other police forces and said, but it isn't.
	It isn't being offensive, it might not be nice, but you're not the nice police, you're the law police.
	It's your job to police the law, not to get ahead of the law, not to predict what the law might be in 10 years time, and certainly not to impose the law as you wish it was.
	It's your job to impose the law as it is and if you don't like it, well suck it up sister, do it anyway or stop being a police officer.
	There's also this phenomenon here that I found very interesting covering some of the recent riots and that is the fact that many Muslims came out on the street with weapons and I think it may have been, is that a community support officer?
	I'm not entirely sure but basically the official line and what I think was actively and institutionally enforced in many police forces was that Certain communities are more suited to being community policed.
	So in Muslim communities they may have their imams who they listen to.
	It's almost like the police are not seen as the legitimate force and you see the riot in Leeds where many Muslims were involved and this seemed to my mind to be a sort of rejection of the legitimacy of British law.
	It was rejecting the notion that the police can be involved and they were driven out of the community.
	And we're seeing the continuation of that, and I'm told from police officers that they're actually taught to treat certain communities differently, deliberately, so... Yeah, absolutely.
	I mean, let's take this that we see here, okay?
	Addressing a crowd that's fully tooled up and saying, look guys, what I'd really like you to do is just, we'll not arrest anybody, but if you don't mind just going and putting your weapons in the mosque, that'd be really, really cool.
	Okay, can you imagine saying that to a bunch of big, fat, white guys wrapped in union flags who are carrying weapons?
	Can you imagine a police officer standing before them and saying, guys, Would you mind just dipping back to Wetherspoons and leaving your weaponry there?
	You can pick it up after, but right now, please take your weapons, your clutches, your knuckle dusters, your bats, all the rest of it.
	Just go and leave them at Wetherspoons.
	Just go and leave them at Wetherspoons.
	You can pick them up later.
	Would that ever happen?
	It would not happen in a million years.
	You see a group that you know have got weapons, If they're flying union flags, if they're white, what you do, you call in the big guns, you call in the cannons, you call in the water hoses, you call in the helicopters, you call in every riot squad in the area because you are not going to back down to that crowd.
	You are not going to do anything to that crowd other than subdue it and arrest as many people as you can and confiscate as many weapons as you can.
	Now that's what they should be doing here.
	If you're out on the street as a group with a weapon, no quarter should be given to you whatsoever.
	No pleases, no thank yous.
	We're going to take your weapons off you.
	We're going to arrest you and we're going to put you inside for as long as the justice system will allow because we are not having this.
	We are simply not having this.
	And it's instances like this which people see, which make us say that there is two-tier policing.
	And it doesn't matter that Sir Mark Rowley says there isn't.
	There clearly is.
	It's irrelevant that Keir Starmer says there isn't.
	We've got it documented.
	Yvette Cooper is dreaming if she thinks we haven't noticed that there has been two-tier policing on our streets for a very very long time and we know there is because we can predict with a high degree of accuracy how a police force will operate on any given moment.
	You tell me what group it is they're going to police and I will tell you with a degree of accuracy how they will police it.
	If it's left-wing, if it's BLM, if it's Climate change, it will be one way.
	If it's a bunch of women who believe that women are women and women don't have penises, if it's a bunch of people who are concerned about immigration etc, it will be policed in an entirely different way and we will be right about that every single time.
	Sorry Stelios, just in a bit.
	We've actually got an example of this from the Palestine protests here, where 80 of the counter-protesters were arrested by police in riot gear, whereas the people, more or less dressed as Hamas, chanting for genocide and even some were carrying swastikas, were allowed to carry on.
	But sorry Stelios, do go ahead.
	No, I just wanted to say about the two-tier policing thing, not only do we have ample evidence, but Yvette Cooper and Keir Starmer, they're lying when they're saying that there isn't, because they're pro-multiculturalism, and multiculturalism is all about granting group-differentiated rights, which manifests in this case, the problem you just mentioned, that some people are allowed to get away with things that people from white communities aren't.
	So I think that the police view themselves as only the legitimate authority of the British people and not other ethnicities.
	I think that that's the way things are being treated at the minute and you can look at things like the anti-lockdown protests when we were, you know, in the Covid times compared with the Black Lives Matter protests and the difference between the two.
	Well the anti-lockdown protests were not treated with kid gloves whereas the Black Lives Matter ones were certainly treated With a certain amount of reverence even, you could say.
	And also the Sarah Everard protests that occurred then.
	It seemed that the police were far more interested in cracking down on the protest than they were in sympathising with it and allowing it to run as, you know, giving them as much leeway as possible.
	Because I think the police are, unfortunately, and I hate to say this, the police are primarily about protecting themselves.
	Again, we know this objectively.
	When in 2014 we had the nonsense of non-crime hate incidents, and just to remind your listeners and viewers, that a non-crime hate incident was any incident that didn't quite reach the quality of being crime, but which was nevertheless an instance perceived by either the victim or any other person to be motivated by hate, The guidance said it must be recorded against the individual as a non-crime hate incident.
	No leeway, it must be.
	We put in a subject access request to the Metropolitan Police and said how many non-crime hate incidents have been recorded against police officers between 2014 and 2021 and the answer came back zero.
	Absolutely zero.
	That can't be right, because if you just do a cursory look at the internet, the police are very often accused of disablism, racism, sexism, all sorts of stuff.
	Now, they may not have committed a crime, but it doesn't matter.
	The guidance that they were operating under said that where there wasn't a crime, they must be recorded for non-crime agents.
	So why, Mr. Police Officer, were you not recording yourself?
	Why were you only persecuting the public?
	You were giving yourself an absolute total pass.
	Why is that?
	One of the particularly insidious parts of this is that these non-crime hate incidences will come up in an advanced background check as well.
	So say you're applying for a job that requires that, well that's going to then come up even though you've not done anything wrong by the law.
	Correct, correct, correct.
	That's why we're, you know, it was such a great victory that we had in 2020 or 2021 was it?
	Where we got all of that non-crime hate incident stuff struck down.
	Now we didn't get it entirely struck down and we never argued for it to be entirely struck down.
	We said the police can record non-crime hate incidents but it's down to them to justify doing it.
	So if you've got a situation, if you've gathered some intelligence about people And the intelligence you've gathered doesn't suggest that there's a crime yet taken place, but it gives a strong indicator that the person you are looking at is likely to be committing a crime in the near future.
	Then of course we want you to record that against that person.
	That's the job of policing.
	Of course we do.
	But you can't do that legitimately if at the same time you're recording people because they said, for instance, my cat's a Methodist.
	That's not an indicator of a crime anyway.
	If you're recording the fact that I said I was assigned mammal at birth, but I identify as a fish.
	That's not me indicating to the police that I'm about to embark on a life of crime, is it?
	It's not.
	It's simply a free expression.
	So even if in even if in that sort of quarter of a million non-crime hate incidents that the police recorded there may well have been some very very interesting stuff in there but you lost it all in the noise.
	You lost it all in the noise.
	Too much information is every bit as bad as too little information.
	That was what is going wrong here.
	So one final thing before I bring this segment to a close is this statement here.
	So Elon Musk labelled the UK a police state.
	I don't know whether you've actually read what he has said but what are your thoughts on that?
	What does he mean by a police state?
	What we have in this country, and the same in the States, is we have to a degree a separation of powers where we have the government We have the judiciary and we have the police.
	And whilst they're not entirely, they could never be entirely separate, can they?
	Of course they can't.
	But one isn't supposed to be controlling the other.
	There's supposed to be a large degree of independence between all three of those bodies, okay?
	That has broken down.
	That has absolutely broken down.
	We saw it during Covid where Boris Johnson simply made announcements about what the law was and about what the guidance was and nobody knew the difference between a law and guidance and the police didn't seem to care because they simply went out and they policed guidance as though it were law.
	So there we have a breakdown between the separation of powers.
	We then have the judiciary who over the last few years have been operating on what's called the Judicial Bench Book.
	If you read the Judicial Bench Book it is a love letter to Wokery.
	It is an absolute love letter to Wokery and the introduction tells judges not that they have to follow the book but that they should.
	Follow the book.
	So, for instance, if you're accused of racism, if you're accused of misogyny, if you're accused of any of these sort of hot topics, then the last thing you want to do is look at the judicial bench book because you're already guilty according to that.
	What you're relying on is getting a judge who is independent minded enough, stubborn enough to ignore what the judiciary bench book has told him to do.
	That's it.
	That's it.
	So we have a position where the judiciary are coming under the influence of government and the police are coming under the influence of government and at that point we have, in effect, a police state.
	So Elon Musk is right.
	And frankly this means that there is no rule of law because the less separation there is... There is a rule of law but it's an illegitimate law and it's a law based on the wrong model.
	Like you look at Maoist China.
	There was definitely the rule of law but there was no separation of powers.
	And so there was no sense of real, honest justice.
	We still have, in this country, one of the most admired justice systems on the planet.
	Where Britain goes, other countries go.
	But we are in danger of losing it.
	Ronald Reagan was absolutely right when he said we are just one generation away from tyranny.
	One generation away from tyranny.
	And that's why we have to be aware of what's going on here.
	And Elon Musk is absolutely correct.
	We're not a police state like you had in Haiti under Pol Pot.
	We're not a police state like we had under Stalin or under Hitler.
	But we are in a police state.
	Sure.
	So we have a few comments that we've been sent.
	So the last Russian says, I like this.
	Please let Harry rant away.
	This is quality.
	They'll come for all of us.
	We all must know this and be prepared.
	Thank you.
	And then that's a random name says, I think we should take the initiative away from the coppers by issuing thought crime licenses from the Department of Criminality.
	Checkmate communists.
	Yes.
	But anyway, I think now it's time to get on to the justice system because you're already touching on the justice system.
	We've talked about policing.
	Obviously two-tier policing has been on the cards as a topic to talk about.
	It's even been raised to Keir Starmer himself.
	So clearly there is a lot of concern about this but less attention has been focused upon the justice system and I think there's just as much injustice going on there as in policing and I think that before I do that it's also worth addressing some difficult reporting.
	So here we have the BBC saying a 67 year old man has been jailed after chanting you're not English anymore at police officers during a violent demonstration in London.
	So this might lead you to believe that they were jailed for saying that right?
	That's the way the BBC has reported this?
	However, this isn't actually the case.
	So if you look at the actual article itself within the body of text, he admitted to violent disorder and they also had a history of crime.
	That is why they've got Such a long sentence.
	I think they got a couple of years and this person, here we go, same name, jailed for 20 and 12 years respectively for their roles in an operation involving nearly half a million pounds of class A drug.
	So They're clearly dealing drugs right and that is part of the reason why they got such a large sentence and that's why they've got these 20 months as well as being involved in violent disorder rather than it just being that they're chanting these slogans and I think the media reporting on this This is very unhelpful because not only does it mislead people about being angry about legitimate things, but also it makes people scared to just say stuff.
	It makes people even more afraid about speaking their mind about things.
	What's interesting in a case like this is that there's no such thing in this country as hate crime.
	It doesn't exist.
	Except when it comes to uplift of sentence once you've been convicted of a crime.
	So if you've been convicted of a crime, if the prosecution showed that there was a hate element to your crime, then that can be reflected in the sentence.
	So rather than getting 18 months, you get two years.
	Rather than getting two years, you get three years or what have you.
	So it exists there.
	What I think is happening here This lad here is clearly a wrong-un, clearly a bad-un, obviously an habitual criminal.
	What's happened is that he's made it easier for himself, he's made it easier for the judiciary to lock him up for a longer time because they've been able to identify something that he said that is not entirely related to his criminality and say there's a criminality here But you've expressed hate over here.
	We're going to pull these two things together and we're going to use that as the pretext for giving you a higher sentence.
	That I think is what's happening here and that I think is actually quite worrying.
	I'm all for Being hard on crime.
	I'm all for being tough on criminals.
	If you're found guilty of a crime in this country, there's a fair chance that you committed the crime.
	And I want to see you found guilty.
	I want to see you thrown in prison.
	But I want you thrown in prison for the crime you committed.
	Not for the crime you committed plus something that you said on Facebook or something that you shouted at a protest or some opinion that you otherwise expressed because that's not justice.
	That is justice that has been tainted by politics and we can't have that.
	That gets my goat.
	I don't like that at all.
	And a clear violation of the principle of proportionality of punishment to crime.
	Yes absolutely, absolutely.
	So I have some sympathy.
	You know if you beat somebody up then there's a sentence.
	If you beat somebody up because they're a Jew or because they are a Pakistani then I get the argument that there's a targeted element to it and perhaps there should be, I don't necessarily agree with it, but perhaps there should be an uplift of sentence.
	I get the argument, even though I don't necessarily fully agree with it.
	But what we can't do is start bringing in aspects of a person's character and their political life.
	Forcing it onto their legitimate crime and treating it all as one thing.
	That, I think, is the kind of behaviour that is typical of a police state.
	And of a state where the judiciary has been captured by the policy of the government at the time.
	Absolutely.
	So there was another case of interesting reporting here, doing much the same thing as the previous one.
	So it says four people sentenced for violence in Plymouth, and you know, that's where I'm from, including man who waved prosthetic leg at protesters, which sounds like the crime was waving the prosthetic leg, doesn't it?
	Until then, you scroll down and you read a little bit about the man.
	So, John Cann, 51, from Patner Place in Plymouth, was sentenced to three years in jail.
	So that sounds like a lot of time for waving your prosthetic leg right.
	He was caught on camera waving his prosthetic leg at opposing protesters during the violence.
	The court was shown footage of Cann launching a firework or flare towards the counter protesters before falling off his mobility aid, which You know, one has to wonder why he's there in the first place.
	The police body cam footage also showed Kan bending down to pick up an object from the floor before throwing it at opposing protesters.
	So obviously he's being violent.
	There is a crime being committed there.
	It's not waving his leg.
	And it's also worth mentioning that he got such a long time in prison because he'd previously spent 357 months, which is nearly 30 years, in prison.
	So that's why he got such a large sentence for his involvement here.
	And people are saying, well this guy attended a protest and he got arrested for three years for waving his leg.
	This just muddies the water for legitimate criticism of the justice system, which there is lots, but if people start sharing this sort of thing...
	We've got to be careful because the left are very quick to jump on any story and expand it as though it was in their favour.
	We've got to be careful when we do that, that we don't start using their tactics.
	And look, hands up, I've been guilty of it.
	I've been fooled.
	I've been fooled by those fake Guardian headlines in the past.
	You know and posted you know with any to outrage from the Twitter account and realize it was just a wind-up or I've got that we sometimes do get our facts wrong what's worrying of course is that getting our facts wrong can now be a criminal offense that is that is that is utterly terrifying the notion that you simply may have got it wrong is
	Now we're in a position where, sorry, you're now a criminal because you shouldn't have said, you shouldn't have given that opinion or spoken that so-called fact without checking it.
	Well, where are we supposed to check it?
	Well, according to the government, we're supposed to check it with the government.
	There is now only knowledge which is government approved and knowledge which is not government approved is criminal.
	You've sort of presaged what I was going to go on to because I was going to say that there has been an appetite within the sort of legal profession for the introduction of this sort of thing amongst some of the practitioners at least obviously not all of them.
	But it fundamentally results in a lot more work for them doesn't it?
	In that they're going to be prosecuting a large number of people because the way information is at the minute it's almost impossible for people not to occasionally get something wrong and I think that's just the fast nature of things like social media and I think that's particularly
	the justification for you know people saying oh we need to arrest Elon Musk and of course that's a bit silly you know he's not responsible for what goes on on his platform to that degree but there's also an added element to this that they're talking about releasing prisoners because rioters and people posting on social media more generally
	...being imprisoned, whereas people who have been involved in gang-related crimes, you know, violent crime, some of the more serious drug crime, they're getting perhaps even slaps on the wrist sometimes, I've seen.
	And we're going to look at a few of these cases.
	And again, here's Elon Musk talking about this, reiterating the police state line about the fact that they're releasing actual criminals from prisons to move in anti-immigration protesters and of course some of them have actually committed legitimate crimes by being violent which I don't approve of.
	So this one I think is an interesting case of it.
	So this is an actual case of someone getting arrested for speech.
	So they were just arrested for supposedly threatening and hostile gestures towards police, calling them bad words and joining in the chants of you're not English anymore and who the F is Allah so he's not implicated in any violent disorder maybe there are things that weren't reported here that he did
	However, you can compare this to other crimes, for example, a man who scammed a bank out of £40,000, I think.
	Here he is, this is the article it's shared from.
	He received no jail time whatsoever.
	...for stealing money from people.
	He also happens to be someone who was, I think they did, five months in prison for being found with £100,000 worth of heroin in his family's luxury home.
	Which is interesting, isn't it?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	And we had cases last week of, I can't remember where, but people involved in child abuse given the lightest of sentences.
	Oh, we've got those.
	You've got that, haven't you?
	Yeah.
	You got that on there?
	We do, yeah.
	So I was going to go to this case, Samuel Mellier as well.
	He was, I believe, he got two years for inciting racial hatred for having anti-immigration stickers and having books that he wasn't allowed to have, apparently, you know, even though it's legal to both buy and sell them.
	And you can compare this to this case here.
	So I'm going to read a little bit from this article.
	It says, Adil Rashid, 18, claimed he was not aware that it was illegal for him to have sex with the girl, who was 13 by the way, because his education left him ignorant of British law.
	And of course ignorance is no defense against the law.
	Yesterday, Judge Michael Stokes handed Rashid a suspended sentence saying, although chronologically 18, it is quite clear from the reports that you are very naive and immature when it comes to sexual matters.
	Earlier, Nottingham Crown Court heard that such crimes usually result in a four to seven year prison sentence, but the judge said that because Rashid was passive and lacking assertiveness, sending him to jail might cause him more damage than good.
	Why are we caring about the damage to a paedophile?
	So what?
	He's had sex with a third year and you're absolutely right that ignorance as to law is no excuse, none whatsoever.
	So again, people see this happening and they see it happening time and time and time and time again to the point where you can predict it.
	When you can predict what's going to happen, it's because you have fallen upon a recognisable pattern that tells you the way it's going to go.
	That's why people are so damned angry.
	You know, with the case showed just previously, I want to see the guy who pushes a police officer, screams in the face of a police officer, I want to see them locked up, but...
	I don't give a toss if he says who the F is our whilst he's doing it.
	I simply don't care because who the F is our actually.
	Who is it?
	Who is our?
	In this country we are a secular country.
	I know we're maybe a Christian country but primarily we're a secular country.
	You get to believe in God or you get to not believe in God.
	You can choose whichever God you believe in and you can choose which God you don't believe in.
	It's as simple as that and you can make fun Of any God you wish.
	I know people got all in a tither about the opening to the Paris Olympics where it appeared that the organisers had mocked the Last Supper.
	I'm a Christian and I simply didn't care.
	I didn't care.
	What did I expect from a secular French nation?
	I expect them to behave like that.
	I'm not going to be offended by it.
	What I am offended by is the two-tier approach to religion where the police are quite happy to lock you up if you're stood on a soapbox down in Brighton town centre and you happen to be reading from the book of Genesis.
	For instance, they'll lock you up for espousing anti-LGBT hate, and at the same time you will arrest somebody because they dare to offend the god of your favourite religion, which is clearly Islam.
	Let's not forget.
	There's been a school teacher in hiding now for, was it three years?
	Because he happened to show a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad at a class in Batley.
	Where's the outrage over that?
	Where is the outrage over that?
	And it's only two years ago since the police sat alongside the imams.
	And I think it was Kettlebury in West Yorkshire because a young boy had committed the the unforgivable sin of dropping a copy of his own Quran on the floor which absolutely incensed that Muslim community.
	The video of the mother was really quite harrowing because you could see just how worried for the safety of her son she was when she was in the the mosque I believe it was giving an apology like listen he's autistic he's only a kid he didn't know what he was doing please you know.
	Again, if it was me, I'd be like, yeah, I dropped it on the floor, so what?
	So what?
	I dropped a copy of Jane Austen on the floor the other day as well.
	I've got a Bible here.
	I've just dropped that on the floor.
	What are you going to do?
	What are you going to do about it?
	We do not have in this country blasphemy laws, and thank God, and I say that as a Baptist Christian, committed Christian.
	I do not want to see blasphemy laws in this country.
	If you want to mock my God, go ahead and do it.
	My God's big enough to cope with it.
	I'll tell you another God who's big enough to cope with it.
	And that is the God of the Mormons.
	Because in London, at the theatre, every single night other than a Sunday, they rip the shit out of Muslims.
	They rip the shit out of the Angel Moroni and that entire religion.
	Are there any police there?
	Are there any police there making arrests and arresting the cast because they've offended the Church of Latter-day Saints?
	Of course they haven't because Christians, Mormons don't count.
	The only religion that counts and the only religion that gets a pass on the one hand and protection on the other is Islam.
	Absolutely and I think that it's very interesting as well that I think it was today the lady who was arrested for silently praying outside an abortion clinic was awarded £13,000 for a wrongful arrest and you know what crime was she committing there?
	But of course the point is not that she committed any crime it's to discourage further behaviour like that because they want to scare people away from doing that sort of thing isn't it?
	That's what it is.
	It's the chilling effect.
	The police are less interested in the wheels of justice which turn ever so slow.
	Well, not so slow at the moment.
	If you're right wing, they'll turn incredibly quickly for you at the command of Hairstarmer.
	But generally speaking, they run slowly.
	That's where we're at.
	That's where we're at.
	We've got some other cases as well here as well.
	So there was that guy who we mentioned previously who was sentenced for 20 months in prison.
	I actually know that this is a separate case, sorry I misspoke.
	So there was a couple of people I believe who posted on on Facebook about encouraging people to attend the protests and target the hotels which eventually went, I think they are eventually torched.
	So there was potentially their incitement to violence.
	However, this same judge that sentenced them to 20 months for that, which is still a crime, which is perfectly reasonable, right?
	However, there is also a case where a paedophile was allowed to walk free who had, what was it, over 400 images and videos of children being both abused and tortured.
	Yeah, they didn't even get a criminal sentence for that.
	And if you're doing a crime which has the political spotlight, You do a lot more time than things that I think the vast majority of the population would like to see cracked on pretty hard on.
	And there's a good reason for that and I'll tell you precisely what it is.
	Keir Starmer is interested primarily in the preservation of power.
	So anything that threatens his power base, he will come down on with the full force of the police and the law and anything else at his command.
	Because he is more interested in preserving power than he is in protecting.
	Children.
	He wants to protect children, but they're down his list.
	Women.
	Once he can work out what a woman is, he wants to protect them, but they're way down his list.
	What he wants to protect primarily is his power base.
	When he says Britain first, party second, what a lie.
	What an absolute lie.
	This is all about party first, party second, party third.
	That's what Keir Starmer is about and he's marshalling The great officers of state and the great institutions of state, to that end he's marshalling them so that they learn and know to prosecute anybody harshly who dares stand up against the state.
	If you're simply, you know, harming another member of the public, well deal with it, but not in the same way that you would deal with offences against the state.
	That's where we're at with this current Keir Starmer.
	He is a hateful hateful Maoist nutjob.
	He should be nowhere near power.
	He should be nowhere near number 10.
	When I heard his first speech following the riots My heart sank because I don't think I've ever heard a speech which was that divisive in recent history.
	You know you thought Enoch Powell was bad.
	That was worse.
	And just to hammer that point home the final thing I wanted us to look at is the fact that the two men jailed for the social media posts here of course received 20 months Two asylum seekers who stole £25,000 worth of Rolexes in, I believe, a Soho area.
	I don't know whether it's a shop or off of individuals.
	They were allowed to walk free.
	And it turns out that, yes, if you are an asylum seeker, you are provided more legal defences in the British justice system than the British people themselves.
	That seems clear as day to me.
	It is clear as day.
	We've got clear and obvious two-tier justice.
	And whilst I don't want to excuse the right in any way, shape or form, But when riots took place in the 1970s and we had hardcore socialists commentating on it, they used to talk an awful lot about alienation, all about white working-class alienation.
	They talked about it in sociological terms and, you know, I was skeptical because I was never really, I was never very left-wing, but at least we understood the socialist left-wing logic that these people were behaving badly because they felt alienated.
	Why is Keir Starmer not affording the same thing to those who are behaving badly right now?
	Why?
	He doesn't even consider the possibility that they feel alienated from their own country, that they feel alienated from their own future.
	The concept of alienation, which is a solid Marxist concept, has been entirely lost in this Starmerian version of Marxism, because he knows the diagnosis.
	The diagnosis is that these are right-wing thugs who need to be faced with the full extent of the law.
	When he saw what was going on with the Black Lives Matter protests, to be fair, he did condemn it, but he only condemned the action.
	He said the action was wrong, but the cause was noble.
	That they shouldn't have torn down the statue in that way, it should have been torn down a different way.
	So he was ascribing, correctly, Actus Reus, the criminal act, to what the BLM rioters did down in Bristol, but then he gave them a massive mitigation when it came to their state of mind.
	These were good people doing a wrong thing.
	When it comes to the current rioters...
	These are just bad, bad people.
	Not alienated people, not products of a broken system, but bad, evil people who have been infected by the right-wing virus which must be prosecuted, crushed and off to the gulag with you.
	The whole sense of Marxism and alienation, he is not, Keir Starmer is not a socialist, he's a Nazi.
	He's a national socialist, is what he is.
	I want to say that when it comes to alienation, he definitely thinks that some people shouldn't feel alienated.
	I think that's his approach to the matter.
	He understands that people are not happy, but he doesn't care.
	And he just said, no, you shouldn't be alienated.
	That's right and this is because I think largely, I will put this down to his mindset as a prosecutor.
	He's former Director of Public Prosecution.
	Now when you're a prosecutor it is not your job to reach across the aisle.
	It is your job to make the other side suffer.
	You've got to show a that they've committed a guilty act, b that their mind is entirely corrupt and they've got a guilty mind and c that there is no defence whatsoever.
	So, with that mindset of a prosecutor, that is how he is approaching government.
	That's how he is approaching political resistance.
	So, if he was to talk about alienation and disaffection and all the rest of it, then he would be not doing the role of a prosecutor.
	He would be doing the role of a social worker.
	He doesn't want to do that.
	Keir Starmer is a prosecutor and his desire is to win and win fully and at all costs and then to be as little mitigation as possible.
	That's why he's so dangerous.
	So we have some comments before I move on.
	Do I have time for one comment?
	About alienation, just because you mentioned alienation and Marxism.
	I think that for people who are not drawn into Marxism and they want to find out about alienation, Adam Smith is definitely the source and a lot of Marxists are taking ideas from Adam Smith and they're saying that they are just our ideas.
	They're just not crediting it.
	Just correcting the record.
	A point for Scottish Enlightenment.
	So, um, I had cared more for locking up violent protesters if the state had gone after the grooming gangs with the same fervour.
	Also, who the F is Allah, who the F does he think he is, says someone.
	Matt G Hammond says, are the UK police leadership elected or appointed by the local council?
	In the US many elected sheriffs refused Covid lockdowns, appointed city police commissioners did it without question.
	I believe police leadership is usually not elected is it?
	Some of the oversight is.
	The oversight's elected, but chief constables are not.
	Chief constables are appointed the same as any chief executive of a board is appointed, although it has to come with Home Secretary's approval.
	Thanks for having Harry on, some great advice.
	There we go.
	Excellent.
	All right, Stelios, cheer us up a bit, shall you?
	Right.
	Do you want to have a vasectomy?
	That's right, I'm asking you.
	Do you want to have a vasectomy?
	We have free vasectomies for everyone.
	But you're going to have to go to Chicago to the National Democrat Convention, which is absolutely insane.
	Now, let me just tell you there is Planned Parenthood, which is a sort of NGO and organization or something, that is providing free vasectomies for all men at the DNC.
	And we have here Eric Elliott who is celebrating and saying this is a huge win for all XY people and will help with climate change, endangered species, border security, inflation, housing shortages and bring peace to the world and stuff.
	So you're telling me left-wingers are choosing not to have children?
	I don't know, but would you say that vasectomies could also help with two-tiered justice system and policing?
	I'm not even sure because I had a vasectomy.
	That is a snip, right?
	Yeah, that's a snip.
	I had a vasectomy some years ago and it's been quite amazing because I've seen, you know, peace break out everywhere I've gone and I just thought it was my charisma but clearly it's because I had my ball snipped.
	That might be it.
	Who knew?
	The Democrats here have a Frida Womb, the inflatable intra-turing device, and they just have it there.
	It's an 18 feet tall, just to celebrate the DNC.
	This is a perfectly normal expression of political belief, isn't it?
	This is, as the commentator there points out, that they're calling J.D.
	Vance, Trump's VP pick, weird whilst having inflatable wombs outside of their convention.
	Yeah, because it's all about the appearance.
	I mean, it is relevant.
	Josh, it has to be relevant.
	Okay.
	I don't even know what it is that I'm looking at.
	Explain it to me.
	I think that this is the device that doctors use to perform several... Oh, that's the IUD is it?
	Yeah.
	Right, okay, right.
	For some reason they thought it was a good idea to just have an 18 feet tall device like that outside the National Democrat Convention.
	Right okay I'm getting it now yeah bit weird that innit?
	Yeah, so we have a lot of cogent arguments against Christian street preachers.
	And I'm warning you, I'm going to play this.
	And I think that we always need to listen to the opposition, because in listening to the opposition, listening to what the other side says, we can also improve our arguments.
	Look.
	Well, I for one feel like my arguments are improved now.
	I don't know, it's just around the DNC and also within the DNC.
	I'll show you both.
	We just have so many magical moments.
	I mean, I spent four years at university studying psychology and even I'm sort of astonished at this.
	What I love about these trans rights activists is they're all so logical and sane, aren't they?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I mean, how can you not agree with them when they come across with such compelling arguments as going, yeah!
	It convinces me.
	Yeah, and also they are making some claims about the sexual orientation of God, but apparently we could also ask if they made the same kind of comments about the God of another religion, would they get such a treatment?
	What, Allah?
	Yeah, I'd like to see them try.
	If we suggested that Allah was perhaps bisexual, there might be a bit of a kick off by either.
	So of course I'm not doing that.
	But the reason I'm not doing that is because I'm afraid to do that because there's a pretty good chance that I would get targeted.
	I don't want to target him.
	That's where we're at.
	Right, but you would expect that people from Palestine and people from the Middle East would be particularly friends of the LGBTQ lobby, wouldn't you?
	I mean, last time I checked, that was what the Democrats were trying to tell us.
	As you know, Saudi Arabia and that area is notoriously gay-friendly.
	It's basically a Mecca for gay people.
	They shout it from the rooftops, don't they?
	They throw you from the rooftops I think.
	So here we have protests outside the DNC and this in this case we have a lot of leftists actually protesting against Biden and Kamala Harris and they're joined together with LGBTQ flag with pride flags and also with Palestinian flags.
	Just you can't make this up.
	We have here also Fatties Against Fascism joining the pro-Palestine marches.
	They've rolled in the tank division.
	Exactly.
	Shouting that Palestine will be free.
	You see them here.
	It's like Baron Harkonnen from Dune is joining the Free Palestine protest or something.
	Here we have a lot of hatred against the police and there are also further questions as to whether such kind of hatred would be allowed if the people who displayed it weren't people from these communities.
	We have people who are constantly shaming police officers and they're saying shame on you pig and F you pig.
	But apparently there's nothing to be done about it.
	That's not a hate crime in the eyes of leftists.
	And we have also people who are saying a lot of stuff.
	They are breaking the fence.
	Now, let me just show you this.
	What is interesting is that, as a lot of people have pointed out, the Democrats aren't in favor of the requirement of an ID for voting, but they are in favor of the requirement of an ID for entering the DNC, the Democrat National Committee.
	And that is interesting because they have miles of fences around the... I thought they didn't like borders.
	Well, it depends who is being left out.
	It's funny that.
	So the pro-Palestine protesters and the LGBTQ crowd that is joining them and also the fatties against fascism that are joining them are trying to destroy the fence and go in and hijack the DNC and basically saying that Kamala Harris and Joe Biden are war criminals and stuff like that.
	So it's very peaceful.
	Now here we have a piece of very, very advanced leftist logic.
	I don't know where we can find these arguments, but they are really saying reproductive justice means Palestinian liberation.
	Now, you understand what this is supposed to mean?
	I don't quite understand the link between the two.
	It's just a word salad isn't it?
	There's no possible logical meaning attached to that at all.
	Reproductive justice, I don't even know what that is, but it certainly does not equate to Palestinian liberation.
	It cannot do that.
	You get a mathematician to write that down as a piece of algebra, you'd be getting zero points for that because it can't possibly hold true.
	It's simple.
	But I'll tell you what is interesting.
	Matt is racist.
	Well of course, Matt's racist.
	I forgot about that.
	I forgot about that.
	But it's quite interesting though isn't it, how the pro-Palestinian lot seem to get absolutely everywhere and have a complete and utter pass to do that.
	I don't know why they're not seen as the far right.
	I don't know why they're not seen as dangerous pro-terrorists.
	I don't get that.
	Again, I don't understand how You can condemn some symbolism and give other symbolism as past.
	For instance, the judge who let off those two rioters, protesters, because they were carrying the symbols of the parachutists from the October the 7th massacre.
	The judge let them off!
	The judge let them off!
	Why?
	Why?
	Because if you're woke, it seems like you are pro-Palestinian.
	And I don't understand why being woke equals being pro-Palestinian, why being left equals being pro-Palestinian.
	I don't understand how these pro-Palestinian nutters, terrorists, terrorist sympathisers, terrorist supporters, they get in absolutely everywhere.
	Just a few weeks ago, I was at a Pride March in Newcastle and the chief constable of Northumbria was marching behind people chanting from the river to the sea Palestine shall be free and Intifada riot and all this sort of stuff.
	A chief constable marching behind them.
	How does that happen?
	Can you imagine a Tommy Robinson rally?
	Can you imagine that?
	It's not going to happen, is it?
	Well, this sort of thing just has no place in the West.
	We've got no involvement with it, really.
	You know, perhaps in the United States they are at least sending a lot of weapons to Israel, so there's a bit more legitimacy there, but this still goes on in Britain and other European countries as well, which goes to show, you know, we have no involvement whatsoever with the conflict.
	It's going to go on anyway and it's just signalling.
	No, no, no, I agree with you.
	And I wanted to say that ultimately, when they make pronouncements such as these, what they mean is unless we get everything we want, we get nothing and we're victims and victims require extra protection, or are in a position where they have to defend themselves.
	And anything they're doing will be seen as being done in self-defense.
	Yeah, it's a state of perpetual victimhood.
	They don't want to win because then they'd have nothing to moan about.
	That's the problem.
	And I cannot believe that the Democrats have fallen for this.
	You know, the Democrats used to be quite intelligent, once upon a time.
	But not any longer.
	They fall for all of it.
	Here we have something that is really interesting and very considerate on behalf of Democrats.
	We have a gender-neutral praying room within the convention.
	We can play this here.
	I don't know if that makes sense.
	Does it make sense?
	Might have to just pan through, dragging the video across because Twitter sometimes doesn't like it.
	We have some technical difficulties but you can just see here gender-neutral praying room, Yes, let us refresh it.
	Oh, there we go.
	There we go, these prayer mats there.
	Gender neutral prayer room.
	So, it's interesting as well that they've got Islamic prayer mats there.
	Yeah, prayer mats there.
	Just open it here.
	Maybe it's for the, if someone is of that faith and also has an LGBTQ orientation or something.
	I'm sure it's for non-binary Buddhists.
	Maybe.
	What are we even looking at?
	Again, what is a gender-neutral Islamic prayer room?
	Have they de-sexed Allah?
	Is their God no longer the sort of strong man spoken about by Muhammad?
	The interesting thing that they've conceded here is that in most other prayer rooms women are not allowed in the same room as the men and same in mosques as well there are specific prayer rooms for women and men and they're not allowed to mix so that the fact they've got a gender-neutral Islamic prayer room is actually quite controversial in a sense.
	I mean it's it's the Democrats who did it.
	Okay, here we have a Moss Free Palestine protester taking the stage, shouting, Palestine will be free all the time.
	John Fetterman here, Senator John Fetterman said that he would skip the convention, because he can't handle it.
	He cannot handle looking at the anti-Israel madness.
	I have to say, I don't understand his position, because he's supposed to be a politician, he's supposed to argue for his views.
	So he should be at the convention, and he should make his points.
	Here we have a very animated Randi Weingarten at the DNC.
	She's on stage and raging and screeching while jumping up and down talking about Kamala Harris and how she's needed.
	She resembles some figures from the mid 20th century with the kind of pattern and vigour she's talking about.
	I don't remember them being quite so flamboyant but there we go.
	No but they are trying to overcompensate for the tired image of Biden for the last years.
	And now we have a very funny thread you can check here from Vigilant Fox, who's talking about 10 most embarrassing moments at the DNC.
	And I want to show you two.
	One is Biden talking about women not having electrical power.
	His decision over turning Roe v. Wade, as you heard earlier tonight, the United States Supreme Court majority wrote the following.
	Maybe, I don't know, there needs to be a new energy policy for women.
	He says, not without electoral or political.
	Maybe, I don't know, there needs to be an energy, a new energy policy for women.
	And here we have the stunning.
	Some random state senator says that Trump could even weaponize the Department of Justice to go after his political opponents.
	Oh, that would be terrible, wouldn't it?
	Imagine the authoritarianism, yeah.
	It would be awful if, you know, say the Democrats did that, wouldn't it?
	Yeah, that would be authoritarianism, wouldn't it be?
	It would, yeah.
	I mean, if they get into power and they meet with Keir Starmer, I'm pretty sure that will be on the list.
	Right, here we have Joe Biden saying that there were fewer border crossings today than when Donald Trump left office.
	Which even the government data disputes.
	It disputes.
	His own government's data is disputing his claims.
	He also disputes it because he says something else.
	Just listen.
	Let me refresh.
	It is just delicious.
	I wouldn't be surprised if that was just him normally, just pausing there at the podium.
	Yeah, how can you tell you?
	Kamala and I are committed to strengthening illegal immigration.
	He just said Kamala and I are committed to strengthening illegal immigration.
	Well that was a great Freudian slip there, wasn't it?
	I think, what is it, a million a year now, illegal?
	So we certainly have it bad in the UK, but in America it's ridiculous.
	No idea, it's just, you know, it's just that there are so many funny moments.
	And here I want you to listen to a union leader Who has a very nice voice, by the way, and she's essentially promising Darth Labor.
	Dark Labor.
	I thought you said Darth Vader, then.
	Yes, exactly.
	His label after Order 66.
	They're gonna build a Death Star, are they?
	I am April Barrett, and I am the president of SEIU, representing two million service and care workers.
	We're all in for Kamala Harris because Kamala Harris has always been all in for us.
	Vice President Harris joined fast food workers on the picket line and she walked the day in the shoes of a home care worker.
	She shares our vision for a modern day labour movement.
	A movement that meets the needs of workers in the 21st century and an economy that is ready for the future.
	It is going to be together that we write new rules to make it easier for all workers to join a union.
	And we, y'all, we are going to build a younger, darker, hipper, fresher, sneaker-wearing labor movement.
	Can't wait, can't wait.
	Play some nails on a chalkboard so I can just sort of palate cleanse my ears there.
	What does she mean when she's saying to make a darker, hipper, sneaker-wearing labour movement?
	Well, I think we take her at her word.
	I think that's exactly what she wants.
	I think that she wants a world that is run by precisely that sort of people to bring in this brave new world of complete nutters.
	Crap!
	And we see though how the working class is treated here by Starmer's government.
	That it's supposed to be the new and forward-looking labour movement that is supposed to express the working classes.
	The labour movement in this country has hated the working class for a long, long time.
	What they're doing, they've reimagined the white working class as As basically a necessary evil.
	I honestly think that if they could turn back time and that they could repeal the 1918 Act that gave people the vote, non-landowners the vote, I think that they would do that.
	Because they believe in democracy as a concept, providing it's not used by the wrong people.
	And the white working class are definitely the wrong people.
	We want them to have the vote in theory, providing that they don't use it.
	They are, to borrow from Hillary Clinton, they're a basket of deplorables.
	That's what they are, and if only we could, if only the government had the balls to repeal that Act and take away their vote, then we wouldn't have the awful problem of Brexit, we wouldn't have the awful problem of the occasional Tory landslide, and we wouldn't have the awful problem of people being peed off
	because their vote doesn't seem to count well let's stop it counting let's stop it counting let's put these people back in their box let's put them back in their place and let's just have the the elites the land-owning elites the liberal Elites.
	Those who have a higher degree.
	Let them be the ones who have the suffrage.
	And let the rest provide services as Amazon drivers, as plumbers, as electricians, as gardeners.
	But my God, don't let them anywhere near the serious business of voting.
	That's what Keir Starmer would say were he honest.
	Exactly, yeah.
	And what is something that we need to add here is that especially Keir Starmer and a lot of the new woke leftists, they're constantly using terms like far-right and racist.
	Well, it's true of the Democrats in America as well, and everything that can be said about But I think that when it comes to finding out how the notion of racism is used, I think I had a breakthrough.
	for donald trump you know you can remove the word brexit brexit and say voting for trump and it is the same thing it's going on across both sides of the atlantic isn't it but i think that when it comes to finding out how the notion of racism is used i think i had a breakthrough today some welsh librarians had a breakthrough and they said basically that people should avoid meeting in racist buildings i hate it when buildings are racist They are, aren't they?
	Yeah.
	They have eyes and ears, and as I wrote... Bad intentions.
	Yeah.
	We need to protect people from the sexist, racist, male gaze of the white walls.
	So what's the example of this racist building?
	They say stuff will be instructed in critical whiteness studies and dealing with a dominant paradigm of whiteness.
	We've got to make libraries really ugly and have no books in them.
	Bring back Brutalism is what I say.
	Burn the books and bring back Brutalism.
	Then everything will be fine, won't it?
	I just, I'm so far past caring about being called a racist.
	I honestly, I honestly don't care.
	I know I'm not a racist, absolutely not a racist, but I'll tell you what, I'm definitely culturalist because there are some cultures which I admire, there are some cultures that I am proud to be a part of, and there are some cultures which I bloody well abhor and loathe and I don't want them, I don't want them here.
	If they do come here, I want them to be only here on the condition that they are subject to British law and our way of life.
	Otherwise, bugger off.
	Well, that's me ranting again, isn't it?
	No, it's very inspiring.
	I think you've got some comments.
	Yeah, let's read the comments.
	Let's be honest, the vasectomies are a great idea.
	No sane person wants Democrat voters breeding.
	That's what I was alluding to earlier.
	Dog Breath the Third.
	Thank you.
	Interesting name as well.
	Okay, Jossy Angels.
	Cheers, Samson.
	Thanks for the heads up and for making the pub quiz most entertaining.
	You shouldn't have given a heads up before I played the video.
	That was the whole idea.
	Not just a string.
	An important lesson is that mockeries are a main tool to expose the Emperor Starmer's ideology has no clothes or merit.
	Memes, jokes and pointing a mirror at the people flying their best to rule you.
	Trying their best to rule you.
	Absolutely.
	That was what I was talking about last week, wasn't it?
	That actually using humour against memes and even just sometimes screenshotting an article that speaks for itself.
	There were people sharing articles of, what was it, just screenshots.
	The only one I can remember is the most controversial one, but I suppose, you know, this isn't going to YouTube anymore, but there was one where it was just like, after, what was it, 30 years of majority rule in South Africa, why is everything not working?
	Which I thought people were just sharing that to say well maybe you know things aren't going well in South Africa because of that right?
	And you can share the individual article itself with no commentary whatsoever and allow it to speak for itself and you can get your political message across and not be asserting anything and there's nothing that can be done to prosecute you because you're sharing state approved stuff but when it's removed from its original context as a news article and being shared around people think oh hang on a minute i need to view this with a fresh pair of eyes why is someone sharing this and um that is always very very powerful
	but um should we read some comments of course do we have videos or not for today um i don't think so we've we've we've We've not got too much time.
	It is also worth mentioning, I don't know whether I mentioned it in the announcements but I'll say it now, thank you very much to Russian Garbage Human for sending in all the biscuits.
	We also have a clock which we can see but you can't see and also We have a fly swatter in the studio now, which Samson's very happy about.
	He'll probably use it to discipline the presenters, but we'll have to see.
	But anyway, on to the written comments.
	Could we swap the far left with that?
	That would be a crime, wouldn't it?
	Yeah, far left swatting.
	No, it's okay.
	Anyway.
	So, Russian Garbage Human says, Harry, yes, glad to see him back, always a quality guest.
	Thank you very much indeed.
	Functioning Society Appreciator says, great to see Harry speak, so insightful.
	Oh, well, there we go.
	What can I say?
	Sarging your ego here.
	I'm all for that.
	Bill Clance Knight says, it's great to see Harry on the podcast again, his insights are always interesting and appreciated.
	Blimey, this is getting a bit much, isn't it?
	Excellent episode today, guys.
	Always appreciate seeing Harry on Great Insights and Great Takes.
	Josh the Jew Hendon, sorry, I can't read or speak.
	It's been a while.
	I've been on holiday.
	Reform Candidate says, Hi Harry, it was great to hear you on Ali Miraj the other week and even better have you on Lotus Eaters today.
	Thank you very much.
	Okay, so for the first segment, um, Screwtape Lasers says, uh, it's good to hear Lotus Eaters discussing strategies for fighting back, it's time the UK and America too.
	That's very true, and I think that actually just talking about, well, they're persecuting us, well, you know, isn't it terrible, they shouldn't be doing it, and then doing nothing.
	No, I agree.
	It's frustrating.
	If you can think back to, what was it, just over a year ago, the famous lesbian nan interview.
	Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I covered that actually, yeah.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	The great lesbian nan interview where the girl was arrested because she said to the police officer, you look like my nan and she's a lesbian.
	And the police officer was so affronted by this that she arrested the girl.
	I wrote an article for The Critic And I said that that police officer should have been prosecuted for kidnap.
	And I stand by that, because in any other instance, if you'd broken into somebody's house, if you had taken them away against their will, if you had confined them and then placed conditions upon their release, that action fulfills the conditions necessary for kidnap.
	Why are we not prosecuting the police for kidnap?
	When if you did that as a regular member of the public, they would prosecute you for it.
	And that's what I mean by fighting back.
	It's not enough.
	It used to be enough to say, Yippee!
	I got off with it.
	I showed them.
	But you didn't really show them, did you?
	You only show them when we turn the tables and go, I'm just going to remind you that the police are the public and the public are the police and You used your illegitimate power against us and we are now going to use our legitimate power against you.
	So you get in the back of the van, you get taken down to the dock, you get prosecuted and we're going to throw that at you.
	That's what I mean about resistance.
	What I found absolutely harrowing in just a sentence was how the other police officers were very casual about it.
	They were just very calm and they just, yeah, our colleague got offended.
	It's because they don't know.
	They don't know.
	Like I said before, they are so low on law.
	They are so, they are so lacking in understanding of the law.
	And I don't blame the individual officers for this.
	I blame the College of Policing.
	I blame the Chief Constable.
	I blame anybody who is above the rank of Chief Inspector.
	Because it's your job to make your constables understand that we are here to enforce the law, not to enforce a political ideology and not to scare the living daylights out of people who commit wrong think, wrong speak, wrong expression, etc.
	That's the problem and we can only put them back in their box By active smart resistance.
	And that's what I'm all about.
	Active smart resistance.
	It would help if the police and crime commissioners who are in fact elected would do their job and start sacking chief constables.
	That would be really useful and really helpful if they did that.
	But by and large, other than a few, they're cowards.
	So JJHW says, remember the police covered up Jimmy Savile, the Catholic child rapist priest, Anglican child rapist priest, Pakistani, oh blimey this is heavy, they actively supported jihadis including those at Finsbury Park Mosque.
	When the 7-7 attack happened they had to come up with excuses to not arrest them which is why they lied and said it would compromise sources and methods.
	The police also went along with the cover-up of the murder of Dr David Kelly, a good man who served our country honourably.
	Yes, there's obviously been lots of examples in British history of the police not doing their job and it's not necessarily a new thing but I think the nature of policing today is sort of a different phenomenon of these historic oversights.
	I think that there is an institution-wide thing whereas these perhaps were blips in a better time.
	I don't know how you No, I agree.
	I think about particularly to the miners' strike and particularly the battle of Orgreave where the police were... they'd been ideologically adopted by the Thatcher government.
	And that was wrong.
	That was wrong.
	No government should align itself with a police force.
	The police should be there to uphold the law, uphold the rule of law, to uphold the peace, to keep the Queen's peace, the King's peace, what have you.
	And the second there starts to be the perception That the police have become the tool of a government, whether that's a Thatcherite government or a Starmerist government, then we all need to start worrying because it's wrong.
	The preservation of the separation of powers is something that is very dear to my heart and it should be dear to all our hearts because it is the basis, it's the basis of our freedom.
	I couldn't agree with you more because I'm trying to express this but I haven't done so as eloquently as you have.
	So on the justice system segment Alex has a little bit of pushback for you saying the suggestion that the UK's legal system is a world leader is ludicrous we are a laughingstock.
	We're simply not that's just that's just not the case you might be laughing at it but the rest of the world takes our examples and tries to follow it that's just a that's just a simple fact.
	Case law in Britain is cited right across the world that is simply objective fact.
	Kevin Fox says the judiciary and police are just trying to catch up with the military.
	You are guilty unless we let you prove otherwise, which is, you know, seemingly relatively fair enough to say about the police these days, because particularly of the officers themselves, I think.
	Yeah, I must make that distinction.
	I am very much in favour of police officers.
	If you're from, you know, Chief Inspector Down, then we have absolutely got your back.
	It's from Chief Inspector Up, Superintendents.
	They then become political and I don't really hold I don't hold to account the rank-and-file police in the same way that I do the police chiefs because I know that many rank-and-file officers are getting it wrong because they've been instructed very very badly and we know that ignorance is not an excuse and we know that the defence of ours just obeying orders doesn't wash But it does wash a little bit.
	It does.
	The fact of the matter is, it does.
	If you're a lowly police constable and your chief constable and superintendents and the rank are telling you to do it in a certain way, you're going to do it in that way.
	It's as simple as that.
	And I don't hold you responsible.
	So one final comment from my segment before going to yours Stelios.
	Eloise says, seems liberal interpretations of sentencing guidelines will see the migrants minority with special status in previous grievance of hardships as needing higher care concern and somehow having less agency are a ignorance of the laws so an automatic mitigating factor but it seems sentencing for natives R.E.
	Facebook posts doesn't afford the same level of mitigating factors.
	R.E.
	Ignorance of the law or how you're supposed to express yourself.
	Obvious inconsistency.
	That seems entirely uncontroversial to me, yes.
	That is how, particularly how the media, the left and even prosecutors these days talk about people from minority communities.
	They talk about them like they don't have agency.
	And it's a really quite dehumanising way of talking about people, really, if you think about it.
	But then, as soon as it comes to the native British, all of a sudden we're responsible for our crimes, and we're granted the rank of having agency all of a sudden.
	But, of course, having agency or not doesn't necessarily determine your capability to commit violent crime in the future, so it still doesn't matter about preventing crime.
	If one of the aspects of justice is preventing crime, well, having someone that doesn't even view themselves as having agency, perhaps, it doesn't really make a difference if it's their capacity to commit crime in the first place, I think.
	I agree.
	Right.
	Andrew Cooper says, whatever degeneracy, doom and despair courses through the world, somehow Stelios always manages to brighten up the day.
	Thank you very much, Andrew.
	You thrive off of it, don't you, Stelios?
	Not exactly.
	It's just that I think that it's a coping mechanism.
	And that's, I mean, that's the whole thing we're doing here.
	It's more like a family feeling.
	We're talking about very difficult stuff.
	We need to make it bearable somehow.
	It's black humor, isn't it?
	It's the kind of humor that we would be punished by Wokery for.
	Colin P. I do love the idea that the Democrats are offering population reductions measures to their own supporters.
	I'm sure those political opinions will carry on to the next generation.
	Oh, wait.
	And Sexy Jess Phillips writes, removing... Excuse me?
	Yeah, that's the name of the account.
	Removing their genes from the gene pool.
	Good.
	I think the problem with leftism and wokery I think though is that it's not about giving birth to leftists, it's converting those who have already been born.
	So I don't think that this would solve the issue.
	Well that's why they're fighting so hard to capture education in the United States isn't it?
	That they want dominion over other people's children because they're not necessarily having their own.
	And Michael Dribblebiss, I was going to say, the sectum is for Democrats, leftists don't have balls anyway.
	What are they snipping?
	They're already nutless.
	Why not go all the way and get castrated?
	Well, there seems to be a running theme throughout the comments here.
	Well, I think we're pretty much out of time, aren't we?
	So thank you very much for coming down.
	It's been a pleasure.
	I really enjoyed it.
	I love your show.
	And thank you very much for watching and make sure to tune in same time tomorrow.

▲