Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 24, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:52

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1007

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to Podcast of the Lotus Eaters, episode 1.
	007, if you don't count the 1.
	24th of September, I'm joined by Carl!
	Hello!
	And nobody else.
	It's just us today.
	Cosy.
	Yes.
	Good chat ensue, I'm sure.
	We won't tell you what we were just talking about, because it was quite bizarre.
	No, it's just that I haven't properly fleshed out the thesis yet.
	Well, I'm not even semi-convinced at this stage.
	Trust me, it'll make sense when it's done.
	All right, okay, fine.
	We look forward to that.
	Anyway, today we are going to be discussing how Labour are going to bring joy to this country by removing everything that we take joy in.
	We're going to discuss what the FBI crime stats tell us, and I'm sure you'll find that it's going to be a big surprise, especially the twist that I put on it.
	And we're also going to be asking if David Beckham is a good father or not.
	I don't know anything about that segment, so we will see the arguments.
	Things to promote, and we will do this continuously because it's not out for much longer.
	Islander Edition 2.
	Now, last time we did one of these, as soon as we stopped taking orders, loads of you then got in touch and said, can I place an order?
	I was too late.
	No.
	No, you can't.
	So you either order it now, definitely this week, maybe one more week, but you've got a good week, and if you don't do it, you'll be cast into ignominy forever.
	And also, what else have we got going on?
	Oh yes, the first batch has been printed.
	So those of you who got your orders in admirably early will be getting it soon, and you can then start phonemailing everyone.
	Right, with that... First England.
	I'm going to tell you something you didn't know.
	The Labour Party are about to screw you out of as much money as they can.
	I had guessed.
	Every single way.
	Right.
	You had guessed, had you?
	Wow.
	But before we get onto that, I thought we'd start with Labour's expense, well not expenses, gifts scandal.
	Free Gear Keir is what people are calling him now.
	What I like about Starmer is he does actually have a name that lends itself to rhyme and poetry and alliteration.
	So there are lots of these names, Two-Tier Keir, Three-Gear Keir.
	There was another one as well, I can't remember off the top of my head what it was.
	Oh, Starmer Granny Harmer?
	So there are lots of these names that people are making up about Kier.
	And you can tell when someone is genuinely hated when people start organically making up these kinds of names.
	Generally they don't do it.
	There's nothing for Tony Blair, nothing for Gordon Brown, nothing for Boris Johnson or Liz Truss or David Cameron.
	But with Maggie, you did have Maggie Maggie Milk Snatcher.
	Yeah, Thatcher Milk Snatcher, yeah.
	She was genuinely hated by a significant segment of the population.
	So, Starmer's arrived at that kind of position, where he's genuinely hated, despised, by a significant section of the population.
	Okay, well, I mean, maybe if you weren't such an anti-British robot, that wouldn't be such a problem.
	But let's begin with the gifts and freebies scandal, because the Telegraph have counted it up.
	And this is in nine months.
	They've managed to rack up £800,000 in donations and freebies.
	And this is to the politicians personally.
	This isn't to the party.
	This is to those politicians.
	I've got to say, I do find it at least a little bit admirable that they're not even... Tony Blair...
	It's a bit admirable, isn't it?
	With Tony Blair, he at least tried to do the whiter than white thing and the ethical foreign policy.
	He pretended that he was doing everything right and he was embarrassed when the scandal came out.
	With these guys, they just don't care.
	Oh, it's better than they just don't care.
	We'll get to it.
	It's better than that.
	They're proud of this.
	They're proud of it.
	So, David Lammy has received the most, if you can believe it, since the beginning of 2024.
	He's accepted more than £150,000 worth of donations, freebies and gifts.
	This included £2,500 worth of tickets to see Tottenham Hotspur with the use of the hospitality box.
	I mean, like, £150,000?
	is like four times, three times average wage in this country.
	Yeah.
	And he's racked it up in nine months, which is just, I mean, it's impressive.
	It's double an MP's salary, more or less.
	Absolutely.
	It's an impressive commitment to corruption.
	That's the thing.
	I mean, I knew it was going to be the case, but it's genuinely impressive.
	The largest sum donated to him was from Labour Together, a Starmarite think tank, which donated £40,000 for the quote, provision of research and writing services.
	Oh yeah, David Lammy, famous researcher and writer.
	Like, come on!
	Come on!
	Which basically means money that he can then use to employ his family members and get a kickback home.
	Oh yeah, who knows what he does with that.
	I mean, I don't know what any of the Labour Party spend any money on, because they seem to get everything free.
	Labour cabinet ministers have received £750,000 in donations and another £90,000 in gifts.
	Lammy is followed by Wes Streeting, who received £117,000 in donations and gifts.
	Among them, four tickets and hospitality seats to Taylor Swift at Wembley, costing over a grand.
	And this is a weirdly recurring theme.
	They're all like, you know, of course we accepted the free Taylor Swift concert tickets.
	It's like...
	Why?
	You're on 100k a year, just buy it.
	Yes.
	You can afford it.
	Yes.
	But the Health Secretary's biggest donation was valued at 48,000 in four installments from OPD Group Limited, a company controlled by Peter Hearn, a recruitment mogul, and one of Labour's biggest donors.
	Angela Rayner got $104,000 in gifts and donations, $2,500 or $2,200 for clothing from a luxury British fashion brand.
	And, of course, Sama got $16,000 in clothes for his wife in one donation and things like this.
	So the Labour Party are kind of swimming in money and hospitality at the moment, which is lovely for them.
	Yeah.
	While everyone else is struggling.
	Again, I am quite impressed by the way they just don't care about any of the things that used to matter in politics.
	Yeah, they don't.
	They don't.
	Propriety is what they don't.
	Yeah, that's it.
	So Bridget Philipson, who's the Secretary of State for Education and Minister for Women and Equalities, was just like, yeah, no, I mean, it's perfectly normal.
	Your declarations show that you received £14,000 from the Labour donor Lord Alley last year.
	What for, exactly?
	Yeah, so I received that money from Waheed Alley, who's a long-standing Labour peer.
	It was used to fund two events, all of which was declared properly and thoroughly.
	That's why that information is in the public domain.
	The first event was ahead of my birthday, so I was turning 40.
	I thought it was a good opportunity To get people together in a professional context.
	So it was journalists, trade unionists, education people, MPs and Shadow Cabinet.
	So clients.
	I got the journalists, I got the trade unionists and I got fellow MPs and cabinet members and all that.
	So it was a big loving.
	We got 14 grand for a massive birthday party for me and the closest clients of the Labour Party.
	Remember when Keir Starmer was in 10 Downing Street?
	He was like, the country's been putting back in service of you.
	And who is it?
	It's a bunch of journalists and staffers and clients.
	The more I realise it, all politics really does just come down to the friend-enemy distinction.
	It does for Labour.
	Yeah, that was good because it was a collection of her friends.
	People protesting about children being murdered, they're bad because they're enemies.
	And it is as simple as that.
	Criminals?
	Well, they're lifelong Labour voters now, as one of the criminals who was let out early said.
	The second event was an event that I held also again for lobby journalists, for people in the education world as part of a reception.
	That looks like a forced smile.
	No, no, she looks like she can't stop herself from smiling.
	She's desperately trying not to laugh in your face, right?
	But what was this one?
	This one was for more journalists and teachers.
	Oh right, the other Labour client groups.
	So it's like, OK, great, you were just holding parties.
	And obviously Trevor Phillips is just like, well, if this were the Conservatives, you'd be going mental.
	And she's like, haha, maybe, but it's not.
	That's basically the essence of what she's saying.
	It was in a work context.
	That's a very nice thing.
	If a Tory had done that two years ago, I know exactly what you'd be saying to me this morning.
	They should pay for their own birthday parties.
	Look, this was in a work context.
	I didn't even invite my own... You just said the same thing.
	Come on.
	I didn't even... My own family didn't come to that.
	It was in a work context.
	I celebrated my actual 40th birthday with my family.
	We went for a pizza.
	I celebrated with my kids.
	You're so cheap!
	Oh, well, I know we had 14,000 for a massive workday because that was paid for something else, but for myself, well, we're going to Peterhut.
	Yeah.
	You know, unbelievable.
	But anyway, so no contrition.
	No, like, oh, yeah, it does look bad.
	I don't know if you're playing more, but if this is the interview I've seen, she justifies it later by saying, yeah, but I declared it all.
	Yes.
	They think, oh, well, I just told you that I've received all these gifts.
	But let's move on.
	So, you know, she took Taylor Swift tickets.
	OK, is that a work context?
	Look, I'll be honest, it was a hard one to turn down.
	I appreciate there was big demand for the tickets.
	It was a privilege to be there.
	One of my children, you know, was keen to go along.
	It's hard to say no if you're offered tickets in those circumstances, but it was declared.
	I've been clear about that, but I do recognise that, you know, I'm in a fortunate position to be able to receive it.
	I'm just higher in the hierarchy than you are.
	Don't you understand?
	No apology, no retraction.
	No, yeah, good point.
	It does look a bit bad if, you know, we're imposing what is essentially austerity 2.0 on the country and taking loads of freebies.
	But my daughter really wanted to see Taylor Swift.
	It's like, well, then you could have bought the tickets.
	Yes.
	You know, they are for sale.
	It's like, no, I just accept the freebies.
	I kind of want to make an AI version of this.
	I just don't have the skills of interviewing Stalin.
	And he was like, well, yeah, I did genocide the kulaks, but I did declare it.
	Yeah, exactly.
	They did everything they could to hide it.
	Yeah.
	But anyway, again, there's another Labour MP who's like, yeah, no, I took Taylor Swift tickets.
	Do you accept those tickets now in the light of what has happened?
	My declarations, you'll see, I don't think I've accepted very much at all.
	I did take my children to see Taylor Swift, which was more for them than it was for me.
	But do you think that all of you now need to think twice about accepting things that perhaps other people would love to do but simply can't afford?
	I think everybody has to make consideration about what they can and can't do with the time they have available with their family.
	No contrition.
	No admittance of wrongdoing.
	It's like, no, we're just more important than you, right?
	We're not the party of equality.
	We're not the party of all of this nonsense plebeian, like, you know, fairness or rule of law or any of the other things that Labour parties in the past might have said.
	No, we get the free Taylor Swift tickets.
	We declare them so you know we get them.
	And screw you.
	You're in charge.
	Simple as.
	Yeah, it's literally like that.
	And, of course, there are more free tickets.
	And, again, they're just... I mean, literally, I'm not going to play it just because of time, but the summary of all of this is just, we're politicians.
	Of course we expect people to butter us up with handouts.
	Why do you think we got into this business in the first place?
	That's the through line, right?
	And then they've got this particular one from the Labour Party conference, which is just going on at the moment.
	I haven't seen this one.
	Oh, this is just incredible.
	I'm really proud of people who want to contribute, not just their time and volunteering, but their money to our politics.
	It is a noble pursuit, just like giving to charity, and we don't recognise that enough.
	The alternative is we ask taxpayers to fund our politics.
	I think they'd rather their taxes went into the NHS and our schools, or stayed in their own pockets.
	He's going to a Taylor Swift concert, a noble cause.
	I'm sure Keir will shake it off, but let me say Nick, I'm absolutely delighted in the BBC's newfound conviction that no one should be paid more than the Prime Minister, that they shouldn't give or receive hospitality, and will judge the performance on the social media media.
	That is so brazen.
	I'm really proud of people who give us money.
	You're just funding our politics.
	It's basically charity.
	Like, again, the total arrogance of the Labour Party at the moment.
	But also, really below the line, when he was saying, I'm really proud of people for giving us money, and that's money that's not had to come from the taxpayer, the implication clearly is, if they weren't getting all of these freebies... We would be rinsing you!
	Yes, we'd be taking even more from the taxpayers.
	This is the only reason we haven't trebled our salaries.
	It's incredible, isn't it?
	And I love it, it's a noble pursuit to slush money into the Labour Party and give us free Taylor Swift tickets.
	I mean, 30 years ago, for something like this, you would have resigned in shame.
	And then 15 years ago, you might not have resigned, but you would have at least had the shame.
	In fact, two years ago, you would have had the shame.
	Now, there's no shame at all.
	Think about when Boris Johnson accepted, like, 50 grand to get 10 Downing Street wallpaper and stuff.
	It's like, okay, that's really petty.
	I don't really care about it.
	But everyone was at least like, you know, ooh, that was bad.
	And they had the decency to look a bit hangdog about it.
	Okay, fair enough, you got us on this one.
	But no, we're proud.
	This is a noble pursuit.
	Give us more free Taylor Swift tickets.
	Give us more free football tickets.
	Unreal!
	It's just unreal!
	And it might just be the unfortunate point you've paused it there, but he looks like he's about to glass him for asking this question.
	Oh yeah, well, I mean, you could see his response in the whole thing.
	He looks like he's combative.
	Like, no, I'm allowed to take these because I'm part of the government.
	And that's how this works.
	Now, I mean, when asked, of course, That only washes with a quarter of the public.
	Two-thirds of the public are like, no, they shouldn't be taking free tickets and gifts.
	Why were you even asking me this?
	So they've very much misread the mood of the public on this one, which I think goes to show that they are becoming far more isolated.
	And of course, this I love this so much, because this is the arrogance of them.
	And actually, this is one of the things I spoke about in my latest Islander article, which is exclusively in Islander, so you can't read this anywhere else.
	But I'll read you a very quick quote, because I think this really summarizes it, right?
	You wrote that.
	You wrote that.
	I wrote that.
	Quite good at this writing thing.
	I appreciate that.
	Best article I've written so far.
	I spent a lot of time on that.
	Go and get it now because it's only going to be available for another week or so.
	And it won't be reprinted no matter how much you ask, so don't miss out.
	But eventually, eventually, Keir Starmer was like, you know what?
	Despite the fact that only a quarter of the public are fine with this.
	Again, the Labour hardliners are fine with this because, of course, it's our party.
	This is part of them.
	It's part of the hierarchy.
	Despite the fact that everyone else is like, either I don't know or I disapprove, it took them about a week to be like, yeah, OK, all right.
	We won't accept any more.
	We promise, Gov.
	They're not going to reimburse the money that's already taken.
	No, of course not.
	Well, they were donating to a noble pursuit, remember?
	But, yeah, so... Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves.
	So they won't take any more donations for clothing after the row.
	People are struggling... Sorry, this is what Lisa Nandy said.
	People are really struggling in this country and we don't want people to believe that we are living very different lives from them.
	We don't want people to believe it.
	It's not that it's not true, we just don't want you believing it.
	Yes.
	Very interesting.
	And so, let's go on to how they're going to absolutely screw you, because your life is about to get markedly worse, and theirs isn't.
	So, you remember that Kiyosama a month ago was like, look, things are going to get worse before they get better?
	I was like, oh, we know.
	We're well aware.
	We've got the Labour government in charge, of course.
	I'm not sure that's accurate.
	I think things are going to get worse before they get worse.
	Yeah, well I mean, that's just a truism anyway.
	We just don't know when they might get better.
	Maybe in a thousand years, after we've recovered from the damage Labour have done to the country, things will end up getting better.
	But yeah, obviously this is going to be the case.
	Sorry, I've got the bug going around that everyone's had, and it's very annoying.
	So, of course, Rachel Reeves has been going on about the £22 billion black hole in the public finances, which Labour are going to fill by fleecing you.
	Absolutely fleecing you.
	Because, of course, we're not going down the road of austerity, right?
	This is what LBC have informed us, which of course is true.
	The government will not be spending less.
	Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves explained this.
	Look, we're just going to do this.
	And in fact, explicitly, we're going to increase government spending.
	So we've got a £22 billion hole in the finances, the public finances.
	So Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is going to increase public spending.
	How is that going to be paid for, Rachel?
	And you know how they push out ideas to see what the pushback is going to be?
	One of the ideas that I've seen that Rachel Reeves is pushing out is changing the fiscal rules so that they can spend more, basically so they can ramp up more debt.
	Yeah.
	Well, it's undoubtedly what's going to happen.
	Yeah.
	Because, as they say, no return to austerity.
	Now, austerity means a reduction in the amount of public spending on services.
	Oh, no, actually, actually it doesn't.
	Oh, go on.
	Right, because the famous era of Tory austerity in 2009... Oh, did it not reduce it?
	No, and actually I had this argument with the Tory Minister that I knew, because I said to him, you realise there isn't actually any austerity, all that's happening is the planned increases are going to be slightly lower, but I said your spending is going up, and he didn't believe me, and we actually had to go over to the Treasury and get a copy of the budget, and I showed him, look your department spending is going up, and he didn't realise it.
	Okay.
	Austerity is supposed to mean, thank you for the correction, that public spending on services and benefits is reduced.
	That's not going to happen.
	Rachel Reeves is not lying.
	She's not pulling the wool over your eyes here.
	No, no, we're not going to cut public services.
	We're going to increase government spending.
	Get used to it.
	So again, the way she frames it, the public understands the need for sacrifices to stabilize the economy.
	I know that you think we're going to have to make sacrifices.
	Again, Labour not making any sacrifices.
	Well, I mean, the doctors just got 22% didn't they, or something?
	Yeah, the nurses have just rejected a 5% increase as well.
	Yeah, but I mean, fair enough.
	If the doctors got 22%, why would you accept 5%?
	Well, you wouldn't, would you?
	Using your bargaining position to... Surely there's something else that we can take away from the pensioners because they don't vote Labour?
	There is, in fact.
	We'll get to it in a minute.
	The concept of joy is what we're going to take away from the pensioners.
	She says, quote, there won't be a return to austerity, there will be real-terms increases to government spending in this parliament.
	They just say it.
	They just say it.
	It's like, no, no, we're going to increase the amount of money the government spends, which of course means you're going to have to pay for it, because the government doesn't have its own money.
	So it's just like, right, I mean, they're just about to say it.
	This, in previous eras, would be unthinkable.
	Right?
	Yes.
	In the previous years, you would never be like, yeah, so we're going to just increase the amount of money the government spends because that's good.
	And it's like, no, that's evil, actually.
	I mean, literally.
	Well, especially in this context, it's not even the amount of money that we're going to pay because it's all going to be done through debt.
	So it's going to be the amount of money that our kids and grandkids pay.
	Yes.
	But it is also going to be a tax increase for you in the October budget.
	And that, yes.
	We all get screwed.
	Every generation is going to get screwed.
	You know what's interesting?
	I've recently been reading Thomas Paine, the most wrong man about democracy ever to have written.
	But, like, 70% of the things that he writes is whining about governments taxing people, which is totally fair.
	And on that, I can't find any fault.
	It's like, yeah, we're getting screwed for taxes.
	It's like, yep, that's true then, in 1790... Wasn't he a proto-liberal or something?
	Yeah, he was, yeah.
	He was a Republican revolutionary.
	Okay.
	But he was still... A lot of his argument hinged on the fact that the government, in his time, was taxing people way too much.
	It's like, you don't even know... I mean, I can't even imagine what he'd say about the government now.
	Yeah, but the tax rate back then was like 5% or something.
	Uh, yeah.
	Right.
	Slippery slope.
	There was a 2% stamp tax on duty on imports from India and stuff like that, you know?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Slippery slope.
	Like, if they saw the taxes we have to pay now, they'd be like, my god, you know?
	I won't even go any further on that.
	But anyway, yeah.
	Real-term increases in government spending.
	God, thank God.
	So, uh, how are they going to make up this money?
	Well, they're not going to be deporting the illegals, which apparently are costing us 14 billion a year.
	Uh, they're not going to be ending any foreign aid, which, uh, this is costing us 4.3 billion a year in foreign aid, which is wonderful, according to the, uh, the...
	22, 23 budget.
	We're going to be sending 3 billion a year to Ukraine for as long as it takes.
	And we're not going to be cracking down on health tourism.
	It's 180 million a year.
	I mean, it's small, small flow.
	No way it's that low.
	Oh, it's way more.
	Yeah, it's going to be way more.
	But this is just the, what is recorded.
	Right.
	Right.
	So it's just what they, the government themselves, recognise.
	£180 million is actually a very low ball.
	I've seen other figures where it's £300 million a year.
	So I used to live in central London near one of the hospitals and I would regularly see Indian families turn up with their elderly relatives with their suitcases still in hand with the tags on them and go straight into the hospital. 100%.
	It's going to be a lot higher than this, but this is just what the government recognises.
	They're not going to crack down on that.
	They're not going to crack down on foreigners living in social houses.
	And I think this is just, like, amazing, right?
	So, on the right-hand side there, you've got social housing and privately rented.
	And, as you can see, the dark blue is social housing.
	So, 30% of sub-Saharan Africans are in social housing.
	30% of the Africans in this country are being paid to live here by the taxpayer.
	Nearly 20% of Pakistanis.
	17% of all foreign borns.
	Why is any foreign born?
	Why are 14% of EU people allowed to live in social housing?
	Why is any foreign person in social housing?
	Why am I paying for them to live in our country?
	It's crazy.
	This is costing us billions, of course.
	Nothing will happen around that.
	Instead, what's coming is tax hikes, right?
	So, obviously, the budget will be out in October, but we know the sort of things they're going to talk about in it, and they're going to do in it.
	So, one of the things you'll notice there, they will not increase national insurance, income tax, or VAT.
	Okay.
	There are lots of other things they can do.
	First thing being inheritance tax.
	So inheritance tax at the moment is 40% on the value of an estate above £325,000 when someone dies.
	£325,000 when someone dies.
	Now £325,000 is not very much in the era of massively inflated house prices.
	No in fact that's slightly below average house prices.
	100%.
	If you bought a house in the last 20 years, you are absolutely going to be falling into this.
	Yes.
	So when your parents die, and they sell their house, 40% of that is going to the government.
	Especially boomers, because they all live in mansions that they bought for £200 in 1961.
	Yep.
	The government is going to absolutely increase tax on that.
	They could also reduce the number of years allowed when giving away assets before someone dies, before the inheritance tax kicks in as well.
	I think it's at the most seven years.
	So they could be like, yeah, it's two years now.
	So that's the thing.
	Capital gains tax is the next one.
	So this is the profit imposed on the sale of capital assets including second homes, shares, business assets and most personal possessions worth £6,000 or more apart from cars.
	And that's a really bad tax because what it does is it makes sure that capital stays in really inefficient places and so it removes the innovation that happens in an economy.
	Yes, it makes your economy far less dynamic and static because of course if I sell this thing then I'm going to lose money on it because the government has got their hands in my pockets.
	Brilliant.
	Excellent.
	What we need is a much more calcified economy, where less money is flowing around.
	Everything is static.
	So there's less opportunities to earn money.
	Absolutely.
	The next thing is council tax.
	And I really hate this because council tax is set in bands based on 1991 valuation of homes and a chief economist for the Labour Party has been like, well, I mean, you know, we could do sensible structural reform and quote, raise extra money at the same time.
	It's like, great, more money.
	And 80% of the council tax in Swindon, for example, is redistributive.
	So it's money the council takes from you to provide services to various people.
	It will be bed and breakfasts for single mums.
	Not just that, it's... And immigrants.
	Yeah, but it's, you know, poor Billy has a sight deficiency, so you've got to pay for his specs and stuff like that.
	We're putting a disabled ramp on the thing, blah blah blah.
	But that's 80% of your council tax.
	Yes.
	80% of it.
	The next thing they're going to do is business rates.
	Labour are understood to be consulting on charging business rates, which are on most non-domestic properties with relief, including for some small businesses, retail, hospitality and leisure.
	But that's great.
	Let's penalise business for making money.
	Is that a good or bad thing for an economy, Dan?
	Well funnily enough near me there's actually an old 70s shopping block and it is rammed.
	Every shop is full, it's really vibrant and I can never figure out why until one day I discovered that because it's so dilapidated they can't charge business rates.
	Oh really?
	So no business rates, the most vibrant bit of my local area.
	Well, there's something about not having to give loads of your money to the government that makes a business work.
	I haven't figured out what that is yet.
	Stamp duty is the final thing.
	Stamp duty is the amount you pay on the cost of a property over £250,000 when you're buying and selling.
	And as Sky pointed out, it discourages people from moving home and is part of the reason that older people are not moving out of expensive, larger properties.
	That's good.
	And also, they're going after the car.
	I don't know if you've got this in there, but they're talking about a 15p per mile road charge.
	Yeah, well, we'll get to that, in fact, now.
	Yeah, so another thing they're like, OK, well, this is a bit of a problem, because as more drivers switch to electric vehicles, which currently do not pay car taxes, revenue made from the added tax on petrol and diesel will fall, which is a problem.
	And therefore, they're like, yeah, so we're just going to pay you for the mileage.
	No, we're going to rinse you for the mileage, not pay you.
	So the average amount of mileage a person in the UK does is going to be a thousand pounds nearly.
	So if this comes in this will cost me 20 pounds a day to come here.
	15p per mile.
	Yeah.
	Unbelievable.
	20 pounds a day to go to work.
	So they're hitting on both sides.
	One they're saying okay if you move house we're going to dramatically increase your capital gains and we're going to increase your stamp duty So, you can't really move?
	No.
	Okay, so what happens if I get a job somewhere else?
	Can I drive there?
	No, you can't.
	We're gonna penalise that as well.
	So what do they want us to do?
	Just work in the local shop or something?
	They expect you to do exactly as you're doing now, but just to pay them more money.
	Well, yes, I suppose.
	That's what they say.
	But notice who's being targeted.
	It's just the hard-working, tax-paying, middle-income England that is just going to get squeezed.
	They're not going to take benefits away from people who are too lazy to work or people who have come abroad.
	They're not going to take any of that away.
	They're not going to stop giving away foreign money.
	They're just going to make sure you have less of your money.
	That's the only...
	We're gonna lock up all the far right?
	it was rather ironic when kirsten was like yeah we're gonna bring joy back to people's lives now at two o'clock today he's giving this speech which i guess we'll call the joy speech i'm looking forward to watching it because i really can't imagine what he's going to say that's gonna make things any better we're gonna lock up all the far right well yeah but that's that's not good is it that's probably the only thing that brings him any joy but what i love about this i don't know kirsten feels that it's his job to bring back joy to people's lives kirsten's Keir, just leave us alone.
	Just leave us the hell alone, my god, man.
	And of course, part of the mission to bring back joy was stopping people from smoking outside of pubs, and of course, shrinking pints.
	But I mean, so there was a study found by advisory academics to the Labour Party, that if the beer consumption dropped by 10% when they, you can't shrink a pint of course, a pint is a measurement, but if they sold them in smaller amounts, and speaking on BBC2 Politics Live, the former Culture Secretary said, Offering people what looks like a pint, feels like a pint, but isn't a pint.
	So the entire conception of this is based on deception, right?
	It's about conning you into thinking you're getting a pint, but you're not getting a pint.
	But it means you end up drinking less and getting healthier.
	Right.
	So this isn't about anything other than making sure we save the NHS money, because the NHS costs us a huge amount of money because of the black hole.
	But it's not even that, it's just that if they, let's say they take it down by a third, well that just means I'll just order three in the space of time that I would normally order two.
	And then I pay more duty.
	Well, you will.
	Absolutely will.
	But this study has found you will drink 10% less.
	And that means 10% fewer liver cancers or something like that on the NHS.
	Because that's what this is all about.
	It's about saving the NHS money, right?
	Well, the thing is, when you socialise medicine, you then therefore have to start socialising the behaviour that leads to anything that might go into that socialised system.
	So you end up having to run your life.
	Yes, you do.
	Which is why the pubs are going to be forced to close early, Labour think.
	Hang on a second, if you can stay up till like 11 o'clock or something, drinking, well if you'd left at nine, that's two hours of liver failure that you're saving the NHS.
	Yeah, I don't think that's going to happen.
	What's going to happen is people go home and drink, and they drink more because it's significantly cheaper at home.
	Quite possibly.
	But Health Minister Andrew Gwynne said the government is considering tightening up the hours of operation.
	I mean, if you're in somewhere like London, good luck finding a pub that's open past nine o'clock.
	Just good luck finding it.
	You can't go drinking.
	It's not a drinking city.
	But that just means that this is going to be everywhere else.
	And why do they think it is their right?
	I know why they're doing it, because of the socialised healthcare and the need to raise the revenue.
	This is not the government's job.
	We'll get to that in a minute.
	Sorry this is going on a bit, but there's so much here.
	I don't think there's any plan to shut pubs early.
	office minister pat mcfadden was like uh no no we're not we're not we're not gonna make you turn out seven o'clock in the evening or something don't don't be stupid i don't think there's any plan to shut pubs early the pub is a great part of british life which is why 50 of them close every year yeah The trend.
	And do you know what's interesting?
	No, no, no.
	It's 50 a month.
	Oh, sorry.
	Yeah, no, good point.
	50 a month.
	I apologise.
	That was correct.
	Yes, 50 a month, which is a huge number.
	There are 39,000 in the UK, so we have got a lot.
	I think that rate has slowed down.
	I remember the rate was massively higher during COVID.
	Of course it was, because the government literally locked you in your houses and prevented you from going.
	But the point is, after COVID, it's still going down.
	So there's still a decline.
	And one thing I found that was interesting is that once the taxes and costs of the beer that you drink have been deducted, pubs make an average of 12p profit on each pint.
	Wow.
	That is staggeringly low, isn't it?
	I mean, I did know that they make most of their money from food and the rest of it, but I didn't realise it was quite that.
	It's because the taxes on beer is unbelievably high at the moment.
	So yeah, it's staggering.
	Complete mismanagement, complete decline.
	But this, I think, was particularly revealing from Lisa Nandy, where she explains Labour's vision for what government should be.
	What does austerity mean to you?
	Because a lot of people will be looking at the spending plans, and in particular the cuts for unprotected apartments, saying, well, if it looks like austerity and smells like austerity, it is austerity, isn't it?
	Well, in 2010, George Osborne and David Cameron put forward an argument that they believed that the state had grown out of proportion to Britain, they believed it was crowding out the market, and they wanted to see the state pull back.
	Rachel Reeves is making a very different argument today.
	She's saying to the country that we believe in active government walking alongside communities and businesses in every part of Britain to grow our economy.
	What is austerity?
	Well there we go, right?
	Active government in every part of Britain walking alongside as if there's no coercive nature to government or something.
	It's very depressing living in a country which is ruled by people right in the middle of the IQ bell curve.
	Also by women right in the middle of it.
	Yes.
	Like this is a very sort of, you know, oppressively mothering.
	Yeah, very much.
	The entire country's being long housed.
	Yes.
	It's like the oppressive mother has come in and they're like, no, we need to be there for everything you do all the time.
	No exceptions, no area outside of our gates.
	That's the philosophy that Rachel Reeves is putting forward, according to Lisa Nandy, but what would she know, you know?
	And what I found really funny about this is, again, just a very last thing at the Labour conference.
	Again, look at who we're talking to, a school mom type.
	It's always the same kind of person.
	Like a Roald Dahl character.
	It is indeed.
	It sounded like you were suggesting that Labour could potentially be out of office within five years.
	Well, I think they get one shot.
	People aren't going to wait for 10 years.
	If they can't get some movement in this Parliament, I think we might end up with people voting with their feet and that would be a problem because Labour has got good intent.
	There's no doubt about that.
	I'm meeting with Secretary of State, I'm meeting with Keir all the time and they have got good intent.
	The problem is that these choices around the fiscal rules are totally and utterly wrong.
	So she goes on, but as you can see, even the unions are like, hmm, they ain't getting a second term.
	They've burned up any goodwill they might have had.
	And that's quite easy to do, because so few people voted Labour.
	I mean, they won because so few people turned out.
	So all you need is a relatively small proportion of the people who don't bother to vote last time to turn out, and it could swing wildly at the next election.
	100%.
	And I think they're well aware of it.
	And I think they're well aware of how unpopular they are.
	And yet the devouring mothers of the Labour Party.
	We've got good intent.
	It's like, okay, but you're tyrannical and evil and you're making everyone poorer.
	You're immiserating the entire country.
	You're ruining everything.
	I don't care how good your intents are.
	Stop screwing us.
	We'll leave it there.
	Right, so let's have a chat about the FBI crime statistics, which I will try to do very carefully and sensibly.
	So if you're watching on the big red censorship platform, hopefully you get to see all of this, but don't be terribly surprised if you have to come over to LotusEats.com to watch the whole thing.
	But I will try and do it sensibly.
	Right, so thanks very much to... Cremier?
	Where's my mouse thing?
	This chap.
	It's Cremier.
	I found out about it via Carl, who found out about it via this chap.
	He links through to the main statistics.
	Now, before I come on to tell you the utterly surprising things that you might find in the FBI crime stats, I'm just going to very quickly mention the Islander Magazine second edition has come out.
	If you want to get it, you've got a week, maybe a little bit more, but you've got a week in order to order your copy, so don't delay on that.
	Right, so, FBI crime stats.
	Let's see if this thing works.
	Now, does your mouse work?
	Can I have the mouse?
	Pass us that one.
	Pass us that one.
	I haven't got it turned on.
	Oh, that's probably why.
	Right, so overall crime stats.
	Now, there's a whole bunch of stuff in here.
	Let's just start with a bit of homicide, shall we?
	Because it gives the same sort of thing.
	So it gives various breakdown by age.
	I think I'll give you a graph on that instead, because that's a little bit easier.
	We've got the breakdown by sex, where I had some mobs of it.
	How do we turn off this dark mode business?
	Because I can't see anything.
	Hang on.
	People are just turning up.
	There we go.
	Right, there we go.
	So there's the breakdown by sex.
	They give us a breakdown by race.
	Oh, do they?
	Which is a lot more balanced than these FBI crime stats normally look.
	The big breakdown between the black and the white crime.
	Although then you notice that there was an ethnicity tab and what they've done is they've included Hispanic into white.
	So I then had to manually pull that back out again in order to get to something a bit more useful.
	Even if Hispanics are packaged into the white statistic here, I can't help but notice that would be about, what, 80% of the United States?
	Hispanic and white?
	Interesting patterns emerge when you do the per capita thing.
	Yes.
	So if you're leftist watching this, you have no idea what I'm talking about at this point, but we will try and cover it.
	So, right.
	First interesting thing about the rate, because they can dally around the numbers a bit from bit, but the one thing you can normally rely on at least a bit is the trend.
	Where is the trend going?
	So this is interesting.
	So the red line that you see going down this ski slope here is robberies.
	So, pleasingly, that has been going down quite nicely.
	So, just a thing on this.
	I wonder if that dovetails with the legalisation of petty theft.
	Oh yes, it might do, yeah.
	It's like, why would we rob a person on the street when we just smash and grab?
	Well, you don't even need to smash and grab, you just need to wander into the soup, casually load up a trolley and then push it out and they're not allowed to stop you.
	So, robberies have been going down quite significantly.
	The old homicides and aggravated assaults, look at that spike over the COVID era.
	Yeah, that's weird, isn't it?
	Why did it go up so much during COVID?
	Yeah.
	Because, I mean, I didn't look at this, but I'd expect things like burglaries to be down because people are home most of the time.
	It's a little bit harder to get away with it.
	But something about that period really wound people up to the point where they were aggravatedly assaulting people or killing each other.
	Wait, being locked in houses all day every day with one another?
	Yes.
	Wasn't there a brief period when they were all encouraged to go out?
	So you have to stay in your house, which wound everybody up, but then they gave them a reason that they could go out that wasn't going to spread the virus.
	They may have done, but this may well be about domestic assaults, basically.
	No, I'm thinking of BLM, that was it.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Yes, so they're allowed to go out for that and rampage through the streets.
	We're assuming this is strangers attacking, so it might not be.
	Ah, well, let me go back to the previous one.
	They do have that breakdown.
	Oh, okay.
	Right, so...
	Oh, here we go.
	Relationship to the offender.
	Oh, wow.
	Unknown's quite high.
	Yeah, unknown is high.
	Okay.
	Acquaintances is the next highest category.
	Then stranger.
	Right, so actually friend, girlfriend, wife, they're actually all very, very low.
	Yes.
	53,000 just strangers.
	Yes, and sometimes people are killed by their father, their girlfriend, their... They're all, you know, that's probably about 10,000 in total.
	Yes, it's very much the long end of the tail of the data.
	Yeah, yeah, very much.
	But yes, most of these do go in the unknown.
	In fact, that's the big problem with this data, is that a lot gets shoved into the unknown category.
	But I did some thinking about that, but I will come back to my thinking on that.
	Massive spike in violence and homicide over the lockdown period.
	Somewhat alleviated by being allowed outside to do the BLM rioting and burning and stuff like that.
	So I thought that was interesting.
	Age.
	I think there are... 90 plus?
	Why is there a spike on 90 plus?
	Ah, the blue line is victim.
	No, it's offenders.
	Oh yeah.
	Oh, that's right.
	When people get to about a hundred, it's like, you know, I've had enough.
	It's interesting.
	And I assumed it was the other way around, but you're right.
	Yeah.
	People, people get to 90 and they're like, okay, I've had it.
	Next time, next time there's some eco protesting blocking my way.
	I'm just going to, I'm just going to, well, whatever it is.
	How are 90 year olds committing so much homicide?
	Yeah, it is interesting, isn't it?
	It's a hundred years old and you're just like, going out.
	And it's significantly higher than, I mean, I suppose it's 90 plus.
	So, I mean, between 80 and 89, it's quite low because it's only nine years, whereas 90 plus could be anything up to 150 or something.
	So I suppose that's one, it is not a very good excuse.
	I mean, honestly, it's remarkable, the capability.
	Yeah.
	I mean, it's kind of low-key impressive to be honest.
	Maybe there's a problem with the data that's translated here.
	That can't be correct.
	Maybe an extra zero has been added on.
	Let's go, maybe the guy who put the chart together, because it was that Kremlux guy who put the chart together, maybe he mixed around offenders and victims.
	Let's look at the actual data, because... Where is it?
	Age... There we go, it's the first tab.
	Yeah, that can't be correct.
	So...
	Fender Age Showmore, is it?
	Showmore.
	Yeah, 71, right.
	He must have included an extra zero on there by accident or something.
	Yeah, 90 plus.
	90 plus.
	Yeah, there's not a... Yeah.
	I think he's got that mixed around the other way or something.
	But anyway, apart from that one anomaly... Not terribly surprisingly, young men.
	Yes.
	And I'm assuming that most of these offenders are men.
	But it shows there's a real sweet spot for crime in the mid-twenties.
	In your twenties you get a little bit...
	Murdery, from the looks of this.
	And that's consistent with the rest of the data we'll look at in a minute.
	It's basically young men doing the dying and the killing, which is interesting.
	I was initially thrown off by this, because you've got this category here, 10 to 19, and I assumed it was continuous, and I thought, bloody hell, the 10-year-olds are doing a lot of killing.
	But actually, no, they're just lumping everybody from 10 to 19 on this data point.
	18 year old gangsters.
	Yeah, it's gonna be 18 year olds, isn't it?
	Like 17 and 18 year olds, but that's quite high.
	But this right here, I can't help but think, if we had a society that didn't villainize men to the extent it does, that didn't make it as easy as it is for women to make the main provider the state as opposed to a husband, And basically you had more fathers in the house, that's what I'm driving at.
	I can't help but think that this, because it's very much skewed to young men, so it's men who are finding out what they are in life, what their nature is, and it's these young men that are doing all the murdering.
	If you had fathers in the home, I can't help but think this would be significantly reduced.
	Yeah, I think so.
	And the other factor of course is schools as well.
	Schools have moved from a model of masculine led, sort of masculine authority, to the women sort of led.
	I'm at the point where I think a segregated education is probably a good thing.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	I think there should be boys' schools run by men, and girls' schools run by women, and I think you get better outcomes from those.
	Yeah, and I think that's true, because I remember reading a psychological something-something years ago, and it was basically saying that part of the reason for higher crime rates amongst men, young men, who are raised by their mothers, is because you find the same instruction coming from a mother emasculating, whereas you wouldn't from a man.
	So if your mother is telling you to do something it's a bit emasculating if you were like a 17 year old or 18 year old but if it's your father telling it you just accept it.
	I think there's also areas of life which women aren't very well versed in, to be honest, and I think interpersonal violence between young men is one of those things, and so they have to learn it themselves.
	That, but there's also something in the way that men give authority as well that is different.
	I've noticed this, when I've got two girls, so it's a fraction of the problem it would be, I'm sure, if I had boys, but when they're fighting between themselves, If it's the mother who's looking after them, and something happens, she'll say, okay, well, tell me what happened.
	Okay, what did you do?
	And what it promotes is this victimization thing.
	Oh, she did that to me.
	She did that to me.
	And then I'm such a victim and stuff like that.
	Whereas when I'm looking after them, I just say, look, I don't care who did what.
	I want you to stop it.
	It stops now.
	It stops.
	And when I'm looking after them, and they're not too bad to be fair, but there's just so much less squabbling when I'm in charge.
	Yeah, I've noticed something similar.
	My oldest son's nine, and already my wife is complaining to me that he's just not doing as she tells him.
	And so I have to go in and, like, you know...
	Big and angry.
	If your mother says it, you can take it as if it's come from my mouth, because I'm going to come in and punish you if you don't.
	So get on with it.
	I don't want to have to use the dad voice, but it works and sometimes you have to use it.
	And women just don't have a dad voice.
	They don't have the depth of the chest or whatever is required.
	It's just a sad fact of life.
	Yeah, and I don't know quite how bad it is in schools, but I mean, we know a number of former teachers in our orbit, you know, people like Aaron, for example.
	And, you know, speaking... I don't know how much about he's spoken this online, but I know he's spoken about it to me, is that you just can't use the masculine energy in school.
	Everything gets longed how, so he's not allowed to just tell them to pack it in.
	He basically had to let them get away with it and just watch.
	Insufferable, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	So that's the big factor on age.
	Right, what have I got next?
	Oh yes!
	I might start to get a little teeny tiny bit controversial here, but I'll try not to.
	So, this is homicides by sex.
	And as you can see there, men are doing a lot more of the killing.
	They're also doing a lot more of the dying, but they're doing a lot more of the killing.
	Now, in this one, we've got unknown and non-specified.
	I'm not sure... This is gonna sound like a weird question.
	How are there more offenders than victims?
	Because two people can kill one person, presumably.
	Oh right, okay.
	Could be that.
	I don't know, I didn't check.
	Right, now anyway, so I took these numbers, and I get into this a lot more when we get to the race question, but okay, sex.
	So here we are, murders.
	So I stripped out all the unknowns and the non-specified, and when you do that, offenders for murder are 88% and the, what was that, 14?
	12%.
	Yeah, maybe I left in a legacy because of the unknown or something like that, but anyway.
	So the offender race is quite clearly male.
	And then I thought, and don't get upset please because I'm not saying this, I'm just saying that some people say this, some people class abortion as murder.
	Some people do, yeah.
	So I added that back in.
	Right.
	When you do that...
	That changes the numbers somewhat, does it?
	So before it was 88% male, it drops to 10% male.
	So I added in back the... Oh no, that's rapes down here.
	I added back in the million abortions.
	And when you add back in the million abortions a year, murders are now 93% female.
	So just to be very formal about this, abortion is not legally murder.
	No, I'm not saying it is.
	And so I think from a very formal perspective, the first statistics are the quote-unquote correct Oh absolutely, absolutely.
	I'm just noting that some people would say that, and if that is your... If those wrong people would say that, well... If that is your perspective, then women are doing 93% of the murders, which turns it around quite a bit.
	When do you stand on abortion, if that's not too much of a... I hate it.
	Right, because as a young man I used to be pro, was it, pro-choice because I believed all the stuff which about they're just a clump of cells and it doesn't matter and stuff like that and then in fact I've got I put the photo up that that's my first child at 18 weeks.
	Not a clump of cells.
	It's not a clump of cells and that's just a still image and you don't see it very well you don't see you don't see the arms and legs but they're absolutely there.
	You can see his toes at the bottom there.
	I mean the legs are a bit curled up but it is a properly proportioned body and you could see the hand clenching and unclenching, you could see the legs stretching every now and again and the toes wiggling and you could see the head turning.
	And that was at 18 weeks.
	Now I went into that scan expecting it to be just A blob.
	Yeah.
	No, it's a person.
	And it was a person.
	So I then moved to being pro-life.
	I'll tell you my first... My wife got these 3D scans done when she was pregnant and so you get like a genuine like a it's almost like a photograph of their little baby face and it's adorable she's got some on the walls and stuff and it's like yeah this this is not you know they're not it's not yeah it's it's not what they are saying it really really it's a person quite early really is a person even even at just 18 weeks And the thing as well, I mean you probably remember your wife telling you how the baby's acting when it's inside her.
	The personality is already there.
	Like my middle son kicked a lot more than the others.
	And I tell you what, it shows now, he's a real terror.
	Well, you know, it's slight detail but that's how I went from being pro-choice to being pro-life.
	I've moved on since then.
	I now think, because I've developed my thinking, I now think that abortion should be banned in red voting areas and mandatory in blue voting areas.
	It's unironically the current policy.
	Yes.
	Right, anyway, slight detour aside, so yeah, so the murder by sex changes quite significantly when you add back in abortion.
	Right, what about rapes?
	Because that should be fairly unambiguous, shouldn't it?
	So, rape victims.
	Right, okay, that's interesting, because perpetrators surely, I mean, English law, British law, doesn't recognise that a woman can rape a man.
	Penetrative via the genitals.
	I mean, to be fair, most of those are probably going to be men raping men.
	True, yeah.
	Is there not going to be a... I can't see the bottom of the table.
	Is there a female perpetrator?
	Oh, we would have to go to the... Let's go back to the data, the original data.
	I'm reasonably sure the British law doesn't recognise that.
	Yeah.
	Crime.
	All violent crime.
	Just rape.
	Scroll down to sex.
	So there's still 19,000 females?
	Okay so yeah presumably US law does allow for females to rape males.
	In fact I think it can be a thing in this country if it is somebody whose care you are in.
	So for example if a teacher has consensual sex with an underage student that's automatically rape and if a female prison guard has sex with a male prisoner that's also automatically rape.
	I think UK law allows that.
	I'd have to double-check.
	Fact-check me on that in the comments.
	Yes.
	But anyway, going back to my data, on rape, so it's overwhelmingly female victims, but what I then did was I added back in prison rapes.
	And that changes the picture because there are about 1.2 million and these are estimates because you have to take... What's going on?
	I'm moving it so I can see it.
	Right, okay.
	That's including prison.
	So they actually keep prison rapes separate from normal rape?
	Yeah, so the FBI statistics only include crimes that happen outside of prison.
	If you include crimes that happen inside a prison, then it turns out that America is probably the only country in the world where male rapes outnumber female rapes.
	Jesus!
	Quite significantly as well.
	70% of the rapes victims are male in the US when you add that back in.
	So yes, that was interesting.
	Should be working.
	Okay, right.
	I will now go to, and I'm going to try even more to keep this non-spicy, homicide rates by race.
	Right.
	Yes, treading carefully here.
	So that's what the FBI statistics will tell you.
	That's the sort of breakdown between black and white.
	So 57% from the black community and 39% from the white community.
	Yes.
	Of course, this doesn't take into account population size.
	No.
	And the other interesting thing... Let's go back to the dataset.
	Okay, I want to go to Homicide.
	And then I want to go to... Have I got Homicide?
	Work!
	There we go, Homicide.
	Now I want to go to Race.
	That's the breakdown, although interestingly within white they've decided to include Hispanics.
	So you then have to do another calculation to add them back in or to split them out.
	So this is my starting table here.
	And if you look at just the FBI stats as presented, you've got this large amount of unknown, which I will come back to.
	Then I looked at, okay, the offender, how many of that group per offender?
	So basically, you would need to scoop up, aliens would need to come down and scoop up 8,000 random whites to find one murderer.
	Right.
	But they only need to scoop out 1,000 African Americans, apparently, to find a murderer.
	And then you can look at the comparative rate and basically it's 8.1 to 1.
	So it's 8 times more likely.
	So, I understand why you would do that.
	Yes.
	But I know that there are people on the internet who do not understand why you would do that.
	And they would say yes, but the one number is bigger than the other number.
	And I think And you know what?
	Okay.
	One thing that intelligent people have trouble with is modeling the mindset of a thick person.
	Yes.
	Right.
	So, okay, let's, let's go down to that.
	Okay.
	So looking at this then, if we go to a fender race, which number is bigger than the other number?
	Yes.
	we don't even need to worry about per capita now yes now we just accept that one community has 50 percent higher than the other community on pure numbers just the the raw amount well on on the fbi numbers as presented it gets worse of course it does right Right, so then what I did is I added, no I split out the Latinos because you can work backwards from the data to do that.
	So now we've got the African-American rate is the same, the white rate comes down fairly markedly and you've now got this new category of Hispanic and Latino.
	Right.
	So when you do that, using again white as the baseline, Right.
	Hispanics are 60% more likely and blacks are 840% more likely.
	Right.
	So, that isn't good.
	However, then I decided, okay, let's go a little bit further with these numbers because, you know, I'm having fun with the spreadsheet here.
	Because you know the overall population, and you know the propensity to murder, you can extract from the unknowns and the non-specified.
	You could break them down.
	Yes, and this data could be wrong.
	It could be that every single black and Hispanic murderer gets caught, whereas more than half of the white murderers get away with it.
	But it's not very likely, is it?
	It's more likely that the unsolved murders are in the same proportion as the rest.
	So, I then added that back in.
	So there we go.
	We've lost the unknowns and the none specified to generate a more likely murder rate, which is...
	It speaks for itself.
	It does.
	For those who are listening, these hypothetical aliens would now need to scoop up only 747 random African Americans to find somebody who had committed a murder in that one particular year.
	Yeah, in 2023 or whatever it was.
	And you'd have to scoop up 8,000 whites to find somebody who had committed a murder in that particular year.
	In fact, if I had more time, I probably would have then extrapolated this as to what is the probability of having committed a murder by group by the time you turn 40 or something.
	And I just know that those numbers are going to be quite stunning.
	Maybe somebody's already done that and they can link us in the comments.
	You can see that when asked, the black community, why they don't want to abolish the police.
	Yes.
	Well, I mean, and it's not quite a one-for-one ratio, but normally the offenders also match the race of the victims, so it's very much a problem for them.
	Interracial violence is actually quite a small percentage of the actual violence that happens.
	Most of it is in communities and neighbourhoods.
	It's mostly interracial.
	Now when you do that, these FBI crime statistics are suggesting for every murder that a per capita white person commits, you get almost twice as many from the Hispanic and Latino community, and 11 times as many from the black and African-American community.
	Which obviously shows that there is institutional racism or something, or maybe there's more youth clubs are needed or something.
	I forget the precise argument.
	So anyway, I think I navigated that very deftly, and we can probably get away with putting that on YouTube.
	Oh yeah, I think so.
	If we're still here, thank you very much.
	Okay, let's move on to talk about something that's really petty, that's not in any way timely, but that really bothered me, right?
	It really bothered me.
	I don't know why it bothered me.
	It must be because I'm a dad.
	It really bothered me.
	And also, I found myself growing very fond of David Beckham.
	I'm not a football guy.
	I didn't care about his football career.
	You never had an opinion one way or the other.
	Well, exactly.
	I never thought about him, right?
	But it was when he was queuing for the Queen's funeral and he spent 13 hours in the queue with everyone else.
	Oh yes!
	He's not a Labour politician, didn't get free tickets like Philip Schofield and Harley Willoughby.
	Yeah, because a lot of them skipped the line, didn't they?
	He did!
	Well, we're important people.
	We've got to save the life.
	Yes.
	No, David Beckham was there in his flat cap and his waterproofs, just standing in the rain like everyone else.
	And I was like, OK, that's really noble.
	I really appreciate that.
	And so when this came across my timeline, I was like, what?
	And I ended up looking into this, and it really bothered me.
	But before we begin, go and get the second issue of Islander.
	It'll only be on sale for about a week, perhaps two.
	I'm not entirely sure.
	Two at most.
	Two at most.
	And when it's gone, it's gone.
	We will not be reprinting it.
	Any of them.
	Because value comes from scarcity.
	That's what makes the right wing great.
	That's what makes the left wing terrible.
	The scarcity and the boundaries and the privilege of having the thing.
	So, this is actually a bit of an old story for David Beckham as well.
	Because David Beckham has publicly been very affectionate to his own children.
	Now you might think, is that newsworthy?
	Well, that's just normal, isn't it?
	You would think so.
	But there are obviously lots of people for whom this is not normal.
	And those people are wrong, right?
	So this is not the first time this has happened, but this happened back in June.
	And like I said, it's only just occurred to me.
	So his daughter's 12, he's 49, you know, and he's giving her just cuddles.
	Nothing inappropriate about these cuddles.
	Just, you know, his hands, it's all totally normal.
	And he's just like a beaming dad, obviously, you know, really loves his kids.
	You know, totally normal and happy and everything like that, right?
	So they go to some, uh, into Miami playing St.
	Louis and Fort Lauderdale.
	Okay, great.
	You know, totally fine.
	Seems okay, fine.
	Not in any way controversial.
	If anything, it just seems like a really, considering who he is, how rich he is, how famous he is.
	He seems like just a regular London lad, you know, an old school sort of English lad.
	So what's the issue?
	Well, the issue was... cringeworthy.
	Totally inappropriate, say... What?
	Totally inappropriate?
	Cringeworthy?
	Who's saying that?
	Well... A bunch of lefties?
	Yes, and women whose dads didn't hug them enough, I think, is the answer.
	There are lots of people, of course, who are on the side of it, who are like, yeah, no, that's adorable.
	That's lovely.
	And I just wanted to become one of those people on that side, right?
	One user wrote, Beckham needs to realize his daughter is growing fast.
	He cannot hug her the same way he did when she was five.
	Cringeworthy pictures.
	She looks about 18.
	Totally inappropriate.
	Well, even if she was 18, right, even if she was 18, that's not an inappropriate picture.
	What's wrong with that?
	No, that's still... This is odd.
	I mean, the first thing that happens when I get home is the kids come up and give me a hug.
	Yes.
	It's just normal.
	In fact, when I leave for work in the morning as well, they're getting changed for school and they come down and they both give me a hug and then I go out the door and I go off.
	It's just normal.
	It's just what you do.
	But I think their issue is that David Beckham is just so public about it, right?
	One of those things where, and I'm guessing, I don't know anything about these users who are saying this, I'm guessing their dads didn't give them as many hugs as they would have liked.
	Definitely women making these comments.
	Bit resentful that this young lady is...
	Getting the best start in life, and both the parents are apparently very affectionate with all their kids.
	And it's like, no, that's normal and wholesome, and I mean, I don't... Yeah, for people who aren't left-wingers, but maybe if you're a left-winger, you've got daddy issues, and... Quite possibly.
	Yes.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And it would be creepy for hugging his daughter.
	And it's like, okay... Jordana Shell thing.
	Yeah, yeah, exactly.
	Again, people who obviously didn't get hugged by their own dads.
	But I mean, OK, it's one thing being the embarrassing dad, right?
	Because there is an argument on that side.
	OK, she's 12, she's nearly 13, she's becoming a young woman.
	He's being an embarrassing dad by just, you know, showing a lot of love to her in public.
	I can understand from the 12-year-old girl's perspective, she might be like, Dad, come on, all my friends are watching or something.
	But I mean, she didn't seem to be.
	No, I wasn't getting that read from it.
	No, I wasn't at all.
	But OK, I can totally understand it.
	But creepy?
	Oh right, okay, so now we're going to add a sexualised dimension to this, because that's what that means.
	Do they have to destroy everything?
	Exactly.
	No, he's totally open, he's just happy, giving one of his pride and joy a big hug.
	There's nothing creepy about that.
	There's no undertones to this.
	This is all completely above board and totally normal and totally wholesome, and I just found it really insufferable that people were calling him that.
	They are spiteful mutants, aren't they?
	I just, I just want to, I just want to make, you know, I'm not going to say it, but I just want to put it in the back of your mind that maybe your dad's a predator.
	That's what I'm doing here.
	I'm just putting it in the back of your mind.
	And it's like, no, no, that's totally inappropriate.
	It's totally wrong.
	There's no reason to think it.
	And by God, David Beckham, do not make this segment age poorly.
	Right?
	I don't want it, like, in a year's time or something for this to come out.
	You better make sure this ages well, Dave.
	The thing is, I'm sure it will.
	I don't get any of that vibe from him at all.
	I mean, it's not like he works for the BBC or something.
	Well, exactly, yeah.
	He's not a BBC presenter.
	And there was loads of these going around.
	So this particular one, The Secret Life of Mum, this blog.
	So they're talking about how people react to it and stuff like that.
	And what I found really interesting... I mean, you know, like I said, there are loads of pictures of him giving hugs.
	It's totally normal.
	But, read more at the bottom.
	How parent's affection shapes their child's happiness for life.
	Oh yeah, okay, well let's have a look.
	So, they're like, oh, warmth and affection expressed by parents provides lifelong positive outcomes for the kids.
	Oh.
	So it's not creepy.
	He's not being weird.
	He's actually giving her the best start in life by being affectionate to her.
	Well, it looks like they wrote an article based on data, but when it came to their visceral reaction, it was... Yes.
	We have a problem.
	Exactly.
	They do say, in particular, a mother's affection, but obviously affection from both parents.
	researchers at duke university followed nearly 500 babies from birth until age 30 they tested the theory that the quality of their interactions with their mother or primary caregiver would impact their health and happiness adults and the results oh drumroll contain your surprise uh the babies who got lots of affection did best in life yeah they had significantly lower levels of emotional distress most the most notably impacted their levels of anxiety
	the more childhood affection they received the less likely they were to have high levels of anxiety as adults so they grew up to be well adjusted um ed dutton did an interesting video on this lately he was talking about how you know you know in universities if if a group sets up that is non-left aligned yes you get all the you get all the lefties normally women but not exclusively but normally women saying this makes them feel unsafe for you know a conservative speaker has come to the campus or something like that They make them feel unsafe.
	And he was breaking down why is it that they feel unsafe.
	And I can't remember the full argument but it was something along the lines of because they were treated badly in childhood and because they could never understand how to win parental approvement because it was so all over the place, like behaviours could sometimes be punished or rewarded or they never got this balanced level of this sort of safety.
	Whereas if you have a well-adjusted child or well-adjusted parents, they know what the baseline is, so that when they go out into the world, it takes genuine danger to trigger, okay, this is off the baseline.
	But if you've got a kid who just doesn't have a baseline because they never developed one, basically everything makes them afraid, and that's why they're saying, okay, this makes me feel unsafe because, you know, a conservative speaker has come to my university campus or something.
	I don't know what this means.
	I mean, assuming they're making the argument in good faith, which is unlikely.
	Well, they think they do, anyway.
	Yeah, assuming they're making it in good faith.
	One thing that has become profoundly apparent to me, it's simply regularity that children most need, I think.
	So this is the point of structure, order and consistency.
	So they know where they stand.
	That's just the whole mission of the parent.
	is to make sure your child has a stable life that they understand that tomorrow will be predictably like today which was predictably like yesterday.
	Well that's that's why for a young child the word no is so important because if they learn the rules of the house that means that from quite a young age they can have the run of the house.
	Because the parent knows that they know what no means, they know what the boundaries are, and then you're quite happy to let them run around.
	But if they don't understand no and they're constantly going for things that they shouldn't be going for, getting into dangerous situations, they have to be either monitored or basically shut in one room or something like that.
	So no is really valuable for a young child. 100%.
	But again, according to just the literature listed in this, high affection shown to children by their parents causes higher self-esteem, improved academic performance, better parent-child communication, fewer psychological and behavioral problems, and they go on to point out the importance of hugs.
	Hugging and physical displays of affection are incredibly important for the healthy development of a child, especially for babies.
	In fact, hugging makes your child smarter.
	A study done on babies in an orphanage found that just 20 minutes of hugging a day improved their performance on brain development tests.
	Also, of course, it helps you bond with your child and improves their physical and mental well-being because it releases oxytocin, which is an important hormone for these things.
	I'm not a scientist.
	I don't know.
	I'm going to take the word for it.
	But the point being, the people who are like, well, I mean, David Beckham giving her hugs is creepy.
	It's like, no, it's totally wholesome.
	It's 100% good for her.
	And this is why she looks happy and totally at ease with her dad giving her just a wholesome hug.
	And that whole thing about her being 12, well, that's only two years older than my eldest daughter.
	I have no intention of stopping hugging my daughter when she's, you know, 18 or 26 or 30 or 40.
	I mean, it's just...
	No reason you should either.
	It's this sort of demented way of making men seem creepy or predatory.
	Honestly, I'm a pretty good judge of Body language.
	Beckham is just being a normal dad in this.
	You can just tell by his facial expression.
	This is totally normal.
	He's doing the right thing and he knows it.
	A couple of times I've picked up on some long leftist screed on Twitter and I've started reading through it and I've just replied, daddy issues.
	And the reaction of the person who I said that to is enough to convince me that I was bang on the money.
	So you do have daddy issues then.
	Right, okay.
	Anyway, so yeah, not a lot I'll say about this, and this wasn't like a world-breaking segment or anything, but it just really bothered me.
	You're right to raise it, it's because these people, they just have to corrupt everything.
	That's right, it's about corruption.
	That's exactly right, because this is a very wholesome relationship they've obviously got, and they're trying to insert intentionality into it.
	Like you say, it's corrupting it.
	And it's obviously not appropriate.
	It's obviously not there.
	Well, that's the thing.
	When you first showed the story, it was like, okay, where are we going with this?
	Because it wouldn't have occurred to me.
	But to them, they see it from the outset because they're spiteful mutants.
	It's hard to disagree.
	Anyway, we'll leave that there.
	I actually forgot to read the Rumble Soup chat, so I'll go through and read them now.
	Right, yes.
	Because I totally forgot them.
	So, Torgo says, Carl does a great Colonel Sanders cosplay.
	Listen, right, I'm reclaiming the white suit.
	There's no reason we need to hand this off to some chicken merchant in America, okay?
	We can have nice, light-colored suits to make us not look dull and boring and depressing.
	That's how I feel.
	I've got a white suit.
	Only break it out on really hot days, though.
	Yeah, Aaron McIntyre's got a good phrase for this.
	left in either political party that doesn't need measuring for a new hemp collar.
	No.
	Bald Eagle says, seems like Labour is taking to the victor go the spoils a little too literally.
	They're stealing as much as possible before they collapse everything.
	Yeah, Aaron McIntyre's got a good phrase to this.
	We're in the looting the treasury phase.
	Oh yeah.
	Of the Empire, and I completely agree.
	I mean yeah, because well, take the US, what have they got?
	They've got like, whatever, it's 36 trillion of debt.
	Everybody knows that they are not going to pay it back.
	And they know that we know that they're not going to pay it back.
	So, if it's going down anyway, it's just a question of filling your boots while you still can.
	So absolutely, he's right.
	Yeah.
	That's a random name says, but your honour, I reported my corruption so it's perfectly legal.
	The more time goes on, the more I realise politicians are just prostitutes in suits.
	Utterly shameless.
	Lockrussian says, the nonchalant blasé way in which they are dealing with this scandal makes me think that this is a 4D chess move to receive future donations via funnels that don't have to be declared public.
	Yeah, there is that, isn't there?
	It's like, look, we declared it.
	It's like, OK, you know, that doesn't make it right or good.
	But the Conservatives did it.
	It's like, yeah, and you were going on about them hammer and tongs when they were doing it.
	It's all friend and enemy.
	Binary says, as I've said before, we should create a system where every MP receives £100k salary and stays in the halls of residence in London, but it's subject to no appeal death penalty for taking a penny more.
	Well, £100k seems a little low for that, to be honest.
	It doesn't Singapore pay them like a million dollars a year?
	And they're just not allowed to earn any outside money?
	I probably want a few fewer of them, but yeah.
	Sure, I'm not terribly opposed to that system.
	I don't want to pay 650 million for it, but if we could chop it down by half...
	At least.
	Maybe have a hundred of them, pay them a million each.
	I know, I'm thinking, this can't be right, okay.
	We need some sort of proportionally inverse government spending versus MP salary.
	Yes.
	The lower you get government spending, the proportionally higher your salary becomes.
	Oh yeah, just introduce it at a certain point, and then just say, okay, for the percentage that the government spending goes up from today, your salary goes down, and for the percentage that the government spending goes down, your salary goes up.
	Whatever percentage of GDP it is.
	Oh no, don't do it on GDP, because they just import millions of...
	Well, yeah, whatever it is, but like, whatever metric, but you know, as the size of the economy grows, whatever, legitimately, the lower you get the spending, the higher your wages go.
	So then, having selfish people in government would actually make sense.
	It would actually be profitable.
	The incentives, that's the issue.
	OPH UK says, Labour is asking Brits to sacrifice grandma for the economy because otherwise they can't fund importing the third world.
	Perfectly illustrates what Stammer and Zilk think of you.
	Yeah, they literally just see you as a cash cow.
	Okay, we're just going to squeeze you.
	We're going to shut your pubs.
	We're going to starve granny and freeze granny.
	We're going to just keep taking your money and we don't care how miserable or poor this makes you.
	It doesn't even occur to them, I don't think.
	I mean, we're here to be taxed, so why wouldn't they tax us?
	Yeah, same as the millionaires and multi-millionaires and billionaires.
	It's like, no, we'll just crank up the taxes.
	It's like, yeah, but they will go.
	We know they'll go.
	We know you won't get the money you're expecting.
	So, not just a string of... But they will spend it first, and then they'll put other taxes in to make up for it.
	Fixing government spending requires a very successful peaceful political party.
	Pray a very not peaceful solution on money that disables governments from debasing taxpayers.
	Wow.
	Caleb says... Well look, all I'm doing is reporting on what the Labour Party have done.
	reasons this is a joke labor well look all all I'm doing is reporting on what the Labour Party have done so yes if that's enraging you I don't blame you Sean says just thought I'm thought mainstream media if you can astound them with if you cannot astound them with brilliance baffling them bs uh should be their motto as a ranax says kamala harris and keir starmer are focused on joy oh yeah that's another thing i i love how keir starmer's just like right i'm just gonna steal kamala harris's new tagline so it's right here no one thinks you're the bringer of joy
	You don't cackle like a mad woman.
	No one's ever associated with joy with Keir Starmer.
	I can understand the association with Kamala Harris because she's always laughing.
	Keir Starmer's much more like the bloke who would dissect you without showing a flicker of emotion.
	Without using anaesthetic.
	Yes.
	In a leather coat.
	In a basement.
	But the fact is, they've had to steal yet another thing.
	Freddie says, remember our 90-year-olds have guns?
	No, he's mistaken the data.
	The 90-year-olds are like, well, time's ticking.
	Russian says, why more murderers and victims?
	Well, Carl, have you seen the compilations of the diversity attacks?
	Whites, Asians and Jews nearly always in packs.
	Good point.
	I can't pronounce.
	Forensic criminologist in Australia.
	Most men in prison come from broken homes and have been sexually abused as children.
	Yeah, that's another point.
	Yeah.
	Threadnaught says, I don't think any of them have ever met their dads.
	Pure envy.
	Yes.
	By the Islander magazine, it is finger-licking good.
	That is completely true, says Colonel Benjamin.
	Again, we're reclaiming this from the Americans.
	They don't have to have it all.
	And Carl is right.
	Consistency is really important in childhood, as are firm boundaries.
	Right, shall we watch a video?
	Yes.
	An empire that fielded Horatio Nelson and Lord Wellington can be forgiven for backbenching him.
	But Edward James Corbett is nonetheless a jewel in the crown.
	He personally killed the most prolific man-eating leopard and man-eating tiger ever known to have existed.
	You should do an epox on him.
	I actually don't know who he is, but it sounds like he was a Brit in India.
	I was distracted by the dog.
	Yeah, the dog's adorable.
	There are some great stories of Imperial India where, like, I listened to a video the other night about this giant elephant, a particularly big elephant, that for some reason decided it just hated humans, and so it went on this rampage just destroying villages.
	And in the middle of the night, it would loom out of the darkness.
	And because the village is made of bamboo, it would just rampage through them and just level entirely and just stamp people to death.
	Not a lot you can do about that.
	Well, it killed hundreds of people.
	And like, you know, the local native Indian police would have pistols, but it wouldn't do anything to a bloody elephant.
	And so it required some big game hunter with a giant gun.
	And they eventually tracked it down and shot it.
	But even then, they shot it and it ran off.
	They had to hunt it down.
	But it's like, for some reason, this elephant was furious at people and would just kill indiscriminately just as many people as possible.
	There was one time where there were a bunch of laborers who were collecting bamboo, I think, just sleeping on a riverbank because they'd been working all day.
	And the elephant comes along and they wake up and they see that, oh Jesus Christ.
	And so they split up and a bunch of them dive into these really thick bushes and the elephant can't get to them.
	So it goes back, traces back its own steps and finds this other guy who dived into a different bush but it could get him, grabs him and just starts smashing him to death on the floor.
	It's like, Jesus Christ!
	You know, what has happened to this elephant?
	Some traumas.
	Yeah, some British big game hunter who had to take that out.
	Just some fascinating stories from the Empire.
	Yeah, must be.
	Right, what's this one?
	Feel better?
	Well that was awesome.
	Yeah.
	Is there another one?
	Castle review.
	Vilnius City Castle was built in early 1400s on a sandy hill.
	After the city pulled up all the trees that held it together, the hill started sliding for some reason.
	Now it's been enriched by this painting by some Frenchman.
	I give it a 3, specifically due to this painting because I hate it with all of my heart.
	It's not terrible.
	I can think of worse things.
	Yeah, it could be worse, I suppose.
	But it doesn't add much.
	It's fine without that.
	Trees are really important for soil consistency.
	Thank you very much, Ru.
	The trees, they act as a kind of lattice inside it.
	I watched a video about it.
	Do you want another one?
	It's kind of funny you bring up the idea of the FBI arresting the CIA agent.
	We've long had the theory in the United States that many times when you read about the FBI breaking up a white supremacist plot or dealing with the American Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan, we're often surprised how many confidential informants and how many agents have infiltrated these organizations.
	At this point, I think the FBI practically runs these organizations.
	Wasn't it the case of the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot?
	Where... We're running it, literally, yeah.
	Yeah, they were literally running it and trying to essentially entrap some poor schmuck.
	Yeah.
	Himself.
	Basically dragooning them into it.
	Yeah.
	So, yeah.
	That's not...
	Oh, is that all of them?
	Right.
	To the comments we go.
	Grant says, Carl needs a rocking chair, a cigar and a wraparound deck in Alabama.
	Well, apart from the heat in the southern United States, the rest of it sounds amazing.
	Yes.
	Definitely.
	And a steamer ship.
	Yeah.
	William Survivalist says, funny brokenomics idea for Dan.
	Do a breakdown of what an all-female economy and workforce would look like.
	Aaron Clarey's A World Without Men book would be a great place to start.
	That idea has occurred to me.
	Yeah?
	What's a female-run economy look like?
	Yeah, but I might get in trouble because I think basically you'd end up in the Stone Age.
	Well, that's Camille Paley's opinion.
	Right, yeah.
	Because there was a really interesting, I mean there's two factors on this.
	One is, I can't remember which country, it's either Greenland or Iceland or something like that, they have a day every year where the women go on strike and they refuse to do any work and it makes no difference whatsoever.
	But I bet there's an economic boost.
	Power's still on, trains still run, the postal gets delivered, it's exactly the same.
	And the other example would be this Yeah, I think I've seen that.
	It's like, why don't you build a little thing to raise yourself above the sand so the ticks don't bite you?
	by the end of it, the men have got basically looking at women and still sleeping on the dirt getting bitten by insects.
	Yeah.
	I think I've...
	I think I've seen that.
	And it's like, why don't you build a little thing to raise yourself above the sand so the ticks don't bite you?
	Yeah.
	But they didn't get that far.
	Yeah.
	Henry says, the only way Keir Starmer is going to bring joy is when he's dumped out of power.
	Cromwell banned celebrating Christmas and I bet he'd be more popular than Starmer right now.
	I'm not sure Cromwell did actually ban Christmas, I heard that wasn't true.
	Oh.
	I haven't looked into it.
	I thought that was a thing.
	But let's assume that he did just because it's funny.
	Yes.
	Yeah, Cromwell would be more popular than Starmer, even though Cromwell was an insane Puritan.
	Jimbo says 2B Akir might be the most devastating nickname for a leader in Britain.
	Well the thing is, you're thinking pints.
	Again, it's like, we can have it two thirds of a pint.
	It's like, just piss off, man.
	Roman Observer says Labour finally arrived at the left end point.
	The plebeians should just stop making a fuss.
	Remember, equality is important, but some animals are more equal than others.
	Which I... I just can't believe how brazen they are.
	They're just so brazen.
	Yeah, they just don't care.
	No, again, it's all about hierarchy to them.
	Where the government go, it's fine.
	We're the good guys.
	Yeah.
	Donations to pay for clothes?
	Buy your own darn clothes like the rest of us, says Arizona Desert Rat.
	Totally.
	Henry says, so we've got Free Gear Keir and now renowned plagiarist Rachel Thieves.
	Oh, that's good.
	Yeah, yeah.
	There's a lot more but I'm gonna skip over it for time.
	Mr. Flibble says, the government, I hate them.
	They have no shame whatsoever and idiots are defending this because it was declared.
	What I love is the increasingly narrowing circle of people who will defend the government.
	The James O'Brien types.
	I tweeted the other day.
	He's on LBC.
	He's got a really red face.
	And it's just like, look, you look like you're in the Führer bunker.
	You're just like, how can we defend Labour from this?
	Why do you have to?
	I don't particularly care because he's an obnoxious lefty, but there's something going wrong with that man.
	Oh yeah, he's just totally out of it.
	He looks like he's about to explode.
	He looks very angry all the time.
	But you've got the Labour government you wanted, why aren't you happy?
	And yet he's angrier now.
	Because he has to defend all of the malfeasance.
	He has to defend it.
	And it's like, why don't you just not defend it?
	You could just let it go, you know?
	But he doesn't.
	William says, the best part about Labour's corruption scandal is they are working with a small number of wealthy business owners who want their businesses to be nationalised so that they can get an extremely cushy job in government where they cannot easily be fired.
	Two good examples of these people include Dale Vince, an investor in Green Energy and the owner of Ecotricity, And I forget the other guy, the CEO of Octopus Energy.
	Yeah, he's pretty bloody woke as well, the CEO of Octopus Energy.
	I remember covering him a few years ago.
	The entire Labour government at this point is Keynesian economics on steroids.
	Yeah, but it's interesting.
	I want a massive payout, and then I'm going to get a cushy government job forever, and this somehow is social justice.
	Yeah, sounds right.
	Kevin says they're not going to accept any more personal donations, or they're not going to report the donations.
	With how they've behaved lately, I think the latter is more likely.
	Yeah, I mean, I just don't think that they're going to stop taking donations.
	I just don't think they've got it in them.
	Hector Rex on the FBI says, Dan, some of the major cities in the US stopped reporting their crime stats to the FBI because it's no longer required so the data is artificially lowered.
	Yeah, I meant to bring that up.
	Because if you miss out just two or three of the top cities, it would move the numbers significantly.
	That is interesting.
	RB says, I imagine making face masks only mainstream but required to go out might have something to do with enabling robberies.
	Yeah, I mean, robberies are actually down, but violent assaults are up.
	I do genuinely think it's just because they can steal from the shops.
	If we make it legal, then it doesn't matter.
	The spike for offenders of unknown age, which sounds more like illegal migrants than knife-wielding retirees, that could be it.
	Michael Debrece says, how are 90-year-olds committing so many assaults?
	World War II veterans are more willing to smack some punk in the head for getting frisky.
	No, it was just wrong.
	I'm glad I double-checked it.
	Oh yeah.
	form candidates says you're absolutely right carl about segregated schools i went to a boy's secondary school we started out with a headmaster halfway through we got a headmistress instead the school notably declined after that this is despite the fact it is a jewish school the headmaster wasn't jewish the headmistress was he was still massively more respected than her yeah young men respond to oh yeah men yeah umar says
	there are too many parallels between therapy and schooling and how they're geared towards servicing women but treating men and boys like malfunctioning women i think you're onto something with segregated schooling if only because men and can never truly understand each other's perspective That's a good point.
	The schools have got a therapeutic aspect, which is not good.
	Because what they used to have was a kind of cathartic aspect, where young men would deal with their problems with each other, and eventually the emotions would get purged through either a fight or something like that.
	Yeah, and you'd just work it out.
	Yeah, and it was over.
	The therapeutic aspect is essentially to live with the contradiction forever, which, of course, just makes it worse.
	I mean, I'd fight at school and it was just done and dusted.
	But if we were being longhouse back then, I would have to then go to some struggle session.
	Yeah.
	The last fight I got into was when I was 13.
	I just haven't had to It was with this kid called Gavin, and I just remember he had really bad teeth.
	And I was unlocking the lock on my bike, and he came up and kicked me in the leg.
	It didn't really hurt, but I was so angry that he, the temerity of it, I might have been 14, but we had these stone table tennis tables, and basically I had him like, I was choking him over one of these.
	And the thing is, after that, We never had an argument again.
	Because we used to bicker all the time in school.
	I don't remember over what.
	And it was him pissing me off as well.
	I didn't really care about him.
	But after that, we just completely dropped it.
	And all the men listening are going to be like, yeah, that's what happens.
	And all the women are going to be like, what?
	Yeah.
	It's like, why wouldn't he be resentful?
	It's like, I don't know.
	It doesn't work like that.
	Again, I do think there's this cathartic element that is just being lost.
	Do you want to do a couple from yours?
	We've got time.
	George says, the thing about the female journos, Who, or feminist journalists, who tried to demonize David Beckham.
	So they hate the family unit, and especially hate seeing men happy.
	Yep.
	These articles are pure spite.
	That's the thing.
	Exactly.
	Look at the picture.
	Hate seeing men happy.
	That's, and a woman is the cause, a female girl is the cause of it, you know, and there's nothing weird or corrupt about it.
	It's so totally normal, wholesome, and he's clearly doing very well in his life and doing the right thing.
	And it's also quite admirable that, because he married that... Victoria Beckham.
	Yes.
	Victoria...
	Spice, or whatever her name was.
	Yeah, whatever her name was.
	But normally, these celebrity couples are completely dysfunctional, but these two seem just fine.
	Well, they've been married for like 30 years or something.
	Yeah.
	It's been a long time.
	Good for them.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Very good for them.
	But yeah, he says, these articles of Pure Spite totally agree.
	Charlie says something very similar.
	This whole controversy is very telling.
	Again, this happened in June.
	This isn't breaking news or anything.
	But these pictures are only cringe and inappropriate.
	Somebody's never come from a stable and loving family.
	And yeah, you are right.
	Like, for them being in their position, They've had a stable, loving and affectionate family.
	It tells you a lot.
	And what's interesting is they're both working class people.
	Oh, yeah.
	Maybe that's a factor.
	Yeah, maybe that is a factor.
	They both made it big, got married, had a bunch of kids and they're still together and look happy.
	But they presumably grew up in functional households themselves and they knew what that was.
	And so, despite the fame, just got on with what they knew.
	But, you know, they're not being weird Americans about it.
	A lot of the Americans are weird, dysfunctional, rich Americans with dysfunctional family lives.
	And this is another reason why I like the MAGA folks, because they're just normal people.
	Awesome.
	Right, I think we might have run out of time.
	So, thank you very much.
	Remember to buy Islander, and see you all tomorrow.

▲