All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 27, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:33:05
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1051
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lothar Seaters, episode 1051 for Wednesday the 27th of November 2024.
I'm your host Conor, joined by Harry and Beau.
Right, gents.
And today we're going to be discussing Keir Starmer's terrorist clients, the hot new thing you can do for the NHS, and how Trump's transition team is shaping up.
So we're going to go from bad to hopefully some good news.
That'd be nice to end on.
And then obviously we'll get to your comments.
But before we do so, you can only leave comments if you're a Lotus Eats Premium subscriber.
And what you can also do at 3 o'clock, because it's a Wednesday, I'll be back live.
It's my show, Tomlinson Talks.
And I'll be going over how the UK is descending into a Soviet state.
Not just looking at the policies from the recent budget, the liquidation of the Kulaks, and Keir Starmer's...
Colourful communist past, but also comparing it to various parts of Soviet history, which should be quite interesting, I hope.
Fingers crossed.
I'll have to run it past you in future to make sure I've got everything right, but you should be watching Epochs as well.
Just a gentle reminder.
But, without further ado, any other announcements, or should I just jump straight into it?
Subscribe to and watch videos on the new channel, Lotus Eaters Daily.
It's amazing, it's incredible, it's perfect, you should watch it.
Many people are saying, also many people are saying, apparently the Trump merch is, is it going or is it gone?
Okay, it's going over the weekend, so you've got the last couple of days to go and buy your limited edition celebratory Trump merch to wear at the inauguration when the God Emperor returns, so go check that out on the website.
We are still demonetised, so the only way we make money.
But, without further ado, so I did this segment a while ago, and this was about Sadiq Khan's career history of voluntarily representing a lot of terrorists.
Because this is something that Lee Anderson got in trouble with.
This is his pretext for being kicked out of the Conservative Party and defecting to reform, and being Reform's first MP before the general election.
He said that Sadiq Khan had given over London to his Islamist mates.
And it turns out he's got a lot of Islamist mates, because I went over in this very popular segment, fortunately, lots of people now know about his career, that he represented Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who called white people devils and Jews termites, and Hitler a very great man.
Consulting for the defence of Zacharias Mwassi, the only man convicted in the US for 9-11, and attending a conference for the release of terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay, organised by Yasser Al-Siri, who fled to Britain after killing a 12-year-old girl in a car bomb in 1994, and was convicted in 2005. For planning the 1993 World Trade Center bottoming.
And just for good measure as well, he called Muslims Uncle Tom's on Iranian state TV in 2005. Now it turns out, he's not the only Labour politician with a penchant for defending terrorists.
Turns out, Keir Starmer has a lot of terrorist clients in his time as a human rights lawyer.
And I was set on to some of this...
Well, yeah, I was going to say I sat on to some of this because of this segment, actually, from last week, Harry, which turned out to be a sleeper hit.
It's up to about 350,000 views now.
Turns out Keir Starmer is such an unpopular man that people are digging through his history and thinking, what could have produced such a demented, ideological, socialist NPC? Turns out you went through a lot of his legal cases.
Well, it was all compiled for a section, a trilogy of articles that the Times put together at the end of July, or the end of June or the end of July, so either right before or right after the election.
And it was presented in a very neutral tone, but reading through it was quite remarkable how telling it was, because up to his time as DPP, His entire career was making sure that murderers, child murderers in particular in the Caribbean, did not face the noose, and that terrorists not only were not deported from this country, but also were able to walk around freely without control orders placed on them.
Yes, quite.
And he wrote the human rights textbook for Britain, literally.
He wrote the book on how to interpret the Human Rights Act that other lawyers use now.
Yes, and so I'm going to go through some of those cases where he thwarted the deportations of terrorists and represented them in detail as kind of a sequel segment to this because I just want to build a body of evidence that says all of the politicians currently in charge of London and the UK more broadly Are obsessed with defending foreign criminals and the worst kind of Islamic terrorists.
Just in case you had any delusion, they were still on your side.
Anyway, so here's one of those articles in the Times series, and I'm sourcing some of my stuff from there and some of my stuff from my own research.
So, starts with the September 11 mass terrorist attacks by Al-Qaeda on New York, obviously.
9-11.
And Washington, 2001, created a public emergency in Britain.
But as Labour Home Secretaries wrestled with how to protect the public from the growing jihadi threat, Keir Starmer, by then one of Britain's leading human rights lawyers, became a regular fixture in the law court seeking to persuade judges to relax or free restrictions on terrorist suspects.
In February 2007, his Doughty Street Chambers made a public statement noting Starmer's third High Court victory in a row against the Home Secretary John Reid's control orders, a form of house arrest that curtailed the movement and activities of terrorist suspects.
Lawyers point out that Starmer, and this is the neutral framing that you mentioned, was obliged to accept cases under the cab rank rule.
So the cab rank rule is basically the Hippocratic Oath for barristers.
It ensures that even the worst kinds of criminals have legal representation.
The idea is that if you're a cabbie and you're waiting at the rank, you have to pull up and accept the next feasible fare that someone asks you to do.
So if you're a barrister, you've got no cases, you have to sit in the line, and if someone gives you a case and you're not otherwise occupied, you have to take it.
Very charitable interpretation, one senior Whitehorse source told the Times that if Starmer was in a cab rank, it was parked outside Finsbury Park Mosque.
Well, this is the point that I made last week, which was that Keir Starmer, luckily, happily, always seemed to have space open in his diary to take these cases when they came across his desk, and similarly, he became known as the guy to go to if you were a terrorist suspect looking to get the best defence possible.
So, I described him as basically being like, better call Saul, but for terrorist suspects.
Yeah, quite.
I wonder if his membership of something called the Haldane Society, he was the secretary cited in their socialist magazine, is the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, right up until the time where he was the director of the Crown Prosecution Service and chief prosecutor, has anything to do with his attempt to subvert the natural moral order in Britain.
And again, it's worth bearing in mind that leading up to the election, Keir Starmer had been presented as a very safe Blairite centrist of the Labour Party.
If anything, he was presented as to the right of the Labour Party within the party itself.
And obviously he isn't.
Clearly he is an insane radical.
Radical even for the Labour Party.
Radical compared to Blair, radical compared to many people in that party, but he was able to cultivate that public image of himself through his time as Director of Public Prosecutions.
And in 2008, which is the year he took that post, he was being introduced to other members of the Labour Party by, I forget his name, Ed Miliband, I think it was, where he was already telling members of the Labour Party he's probably going to start a career in politics once he's done in this post.
So it seems very clear and deliberate from what I can tell that he knew that he was a radical, he knew that he had a bad public image, and so he used his time as DPP to clean up that image for his career in politics.
Have you seen the clip of him sitting down with Khan?
Yes, it was on Eid.
And they're just both agreeing that Islamophobia must be tackled at every possible opportunity and that they will have no truck with it in any stripe.
And on and on and on.
Yeah, it gives you the measuring man.
I mean, it's obviously, they talk about that they won't tolerate any hate of any type, but that's just not true, is it?
It depends.
If there's hate against British people, he doesn't seem to care about that, does he?
No, he actively accelerates it by importing foreign fifth columnists who seem to be at license to commit crimes against the native population, but if you complain about it on social media, you're a far-right racist and you'll go to prison for inciting racial hatred for two or more years.
So who exactly did Starmer defend?
Let's go down the list of...
Characters like those on the right.
So Starmer gave his services free of charge to a coalition of 14 organizations, including Amnesty International, Liberty, anti-torture group Redress, and the Law Society in a test case about torture in the mid-2000s.
The US was taking terror suspects to foreign countries, like Guantanamo Bay, for interrogation, a practice known as extraordinary rendition.
The Coalition, represented by Starmer, intervened in the case on principle, asking judges to tie the hands of then Home Secretary Charles Clarke and his successors.
Starmer won the case in the House of Lords, then the highest court in the land before the 2010 Constitutional Reform Act, which decided that the torture evidence was inadmissible in British courts.
A triumphant Starmer hailed it as the leading judgment in the world on torture.
The Guardian ran the headline, Torture ruling leaves terror policy in chaos since the government would now have to show that evidence used in cases where foreign terror suspects were being held had not been obtained under torture.
Right, so that's the most charitable reading, right?
He accepted pro bono work to prevent the unjust torture of terror suspects who may or may not have been guilty because he's just concerned about the government overreach of power.
Never mind the fact that he's currently overreaching in power by censoring and locking up all his critics, but let's say 20 odd years ago he did it in the best spirit of the law.
Well, in February this year, Starmer's office claimed credit for the Labour leader having overseen the deportation of countless terrorists when he was director of public prosecutions from 2008 to 2013. But before that era, terrorism suspects facing deportation were among his clients.
A suspect known as Wye, kept anonymous, exposed by the Times as a close associate of Abu Hamza, who ran the Finsbury Park Mosque in London, who had made copies of recipes for explosives and toxins.
why he was cleared at the Old Bailey of an alleged Al-Qaeda ricin plot Sounds familiar to the public, but was ordered to be deported as a danger to British security.
In his native Algeria, he was under a death sentence for organising an armed group.
I wonder why Starmer didn't want him to be deported.
Starmer, operating under the cab rank rule, plausible to my ability, So he tried to poison the British public, and Starmer decided he shouldn't be extradited to his country of origin to face the death penalty there because of his human rights.
Well, again, Keir Starmer fought pro bono again to abolish the death penalty in the Caribbean as well, and he managed to do so in Jamaica, which now has the highest murder rate in the entire world.
The case that got it abolished was one in which he was representing alongside two other lawyers, four people who'd been condemned to death row, one of whom had murdered his own nine-month-old daughter.
Yeah, he did that in other African countries as well, as I'll be mentioning in my show later, but he seems to have an obsession with just letting murderers and terrorists get away with it.
The thing that struck me there was the guy that before he even came here and had anything to do with racing was, what, an armed militant in Algeria?
He'd done something to earn the death penalty there.
Which of course immediately gets him Keir Starmer's sympathy.
Weird that.
There are more, so this isn't just the isolated case.
When Britain joined the American-led invasion of Iraq, Under Tony Blair, Starmer acted for Britain suspected of trying to join the jihad against coalition forces.
So he defended people who tried to leave this country to go and fight on behalf of Islamic militant forces against their own countrymen.
Very good.
Starmer's trio of successive victories, all instructed under the cab rank rule, of course.
How convenient.
Began when he challenged the first control order imposed on a Briton, a Kuwait-born student from Sheffield, who kept trying to board planes to the Middle East with items such as knuckle dusters and a lock knife in his luggage.
MI5 feared he was going to fight against coalition soldiers in Iraq.
Starmer persuaded a High Court judge to declare that the secrecy of the system which denied suspects access to evidence against them was incompatible with the right to a fair hearing under the European Convention on Human Rights.
That old chestnut that stops us deporting everyone.
Six asylum seekers, suspected by MI5 of supporting jihad in Iraq, were placed under control orders imposing 18-hour curfews and forbidding unauthorized social contact.
Starmer successfully challenged the restrictions as too strict under the Convention Right to Liberty.
The campaign group, Liberty, hailed this as an example of freedoms being protected by the Human Rights Act, which incorporates the ECHR into British law.
So Starmer is now responsible for case law, which stops us from monitoring and deporting Illegal migrants.
Do you want to know something else fun about that?
Please do.
Do you know who Liberty are?
The NGO? Yeah.
Yes.
They were formerly known as the NCCL, which were the ones that worked with Pi in the 70s and 80s.
Ah, and makes sense then that he would then make Harriet Harman the sort of mother of the house and one of the seniors of the Labour Party, infamous for working with Pi.
If you're not familiar, Pi stands for the Pedophile Information Exchange.
They're the equivalent of NAMBLA for Britain.
I cannot comment on that anymore.
I'll leave you to your own conclusions.
So, there's also another one.
MI5 assessed that a London-based suspect known as E, I'm glad that we get to hide all the names of known potential terrorists, was an accomplice to the bloody prelude to September 11th.
The assassination of the Afghan anti-Taliban leader Ahmad Shah Massoud on the orders of Bin Laden.
One of the killers had been harboured in London by E at a trial in Belgium, was told.
Starmer successfully argued in the High Court that Reid should have reviewed the possibility of putting E on trial in Britain once the Home Office received documents from the Belgian courts.
The judge quashed the control order because the Home Secretary had failed to consider the alternative route of prosecuting the suspect.
One of Starmer's early terrorism cases was representing the Al-Qaeda terrorist known as Khalid al-Fawaz, who was fighting his extradition from Britain to the US in 2000 for conspiring with Osama bin Laden to bomb American embassies.
Starmer also represented Fawaz under the Kaabrang rule, of course.
Stammer was instructed by Scheiner's public interest lawyers to seek the freedom of Hilal al-Jedda, an Iraqi living in Britain, who returned to his homeland and was interned by the British on suspicion of plotting atrocities against coalition fighters.
Stammer also defended another Iraqi suspect known as A.H. in the High Court.
Just a...
Consistent pattern here.
here.
I wonder why.
AH had transported Mukhtar Said Ibrahim, good British name, who had become ringleader of the failed July 21st London suicide bomb gang for a flight to Pakistan for what British intelligence assessed was a terrorism-related purpose.
Only the failure of the bombs to detonate on July 21st 2005 saved Londoners from a repeat of the carnage two weeks earlier when 52 innocents were killed on the transport system.
Ibrahim tried to blow himself up on a bus in Hackney.
Reid, as Home Secretary, banished AH into internal exile with a control order, forcing him to stay in Norwich with a 14-hour curfew.
Starmer represented AH as he fought against his control order on human rights grounds, including Article 3, which guarantees freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
Mr. Justice Mitting disagreed, saying, on the facts it is not remotely arguable that Article 3 is engaged or breached, the judge upheld the Home Office's restrictions.
So Starmer, as you mentioned before, was too much of a radical for successive, even Tony Blair, Home Secretaries, and fought to allow prisoners suspected of terrorism, credibly, complete license to just roam the streets until they were convicted after already being involved in numerous bomb plots.
Another one of the interesting things about these set of articles is in the first one they have a quote from Keir Starmer when he was talking about, this was in reference to trying to abolish the death penalty in lots of different places, but I think it's indicative of his overall mentality, which was that he wanted to find a way to systematically change the process of law for an entire class of people.
Which means criminals.
And so his entire career, and now he's in the perfect position to do so even more, was to essentially guarantee fair treatment for criminals, which means having them on your streets, making sure that their punishment is as lax as possible.
And I've got to say as well, I'd like to know how the Times journalists were able to get all of these cases that he handled, because I don't know how to do that, because I would love to go through all of his old cases and see what other horrors are in there, because these are just the ones that Times have picked out, these journalists, and have gone through the editorial process.
I know that there is probably guaranteed some even worse stuff in there.
Lots of them are publicly available.
I am sure that some of them have been sealed for public interest reasons.
I wonder if as people continue to comb through, or as certain restrictions are lifted over time, if they go beyond the number of years where you can't report on them, as often happens, if people are going to find some real horrors in there.
I wouldn't be shocked.
Another real horror was that, of course, A former government counter-extremism official said, of these people placed under these orders, they were some seriously dangerous people.
Those include an organisation called Hizbut Tahir.
Now, Hizbut Tahir, if you guys remember, was prescribed earlier this year as a terrorist organisation for their agitations on the streets of London in the aftermath of Voxover VII in Israel.
They're a very pro-Hamas group.
This reads, and this was done under James Cleverley, the most improperly named man in Britain, Now, that's not retroactive, of course.
And Keir Starmer would be pretty worried if it was, because it turns out he was their lawyer.
Now, if you're wondering the sort of thing that Hizbut Tahir have done over the years, have any of you read the Shawcross review of Prevent?
It's long and laborious, but it's where we got the information that, for example, only 22% of Prevent referrals in 2020 to 2021 were for Islamic extremism, despite im-Islamic extremism Being 80% of counter-terrorism's open cases.
So for some reason, Prevent were just overlooking Islamic terrorists, like Ali Harbi Ali, which we mentioned before, who killed Sir David Amos in 2021, who was meant to have consecutive follow-up meetings with Prevent, but they dropped his case and then he went on to stab an MP for reasons of foreign policy voting records in Islam.
Let's just put the emphasis on that, by the way.
The man who murdered David Amos had spoken to Prevent, they'd arranged meetings with him, and he just didn't show up, so they dropped the case.
That's how Prevent works.
I wouldn't be surprised if that has happened for other cases as well that we still have yet to know about.
It seems to be standard operating procedure there.
It's like if you've got a therapy session and you don't show up and the therapist destroys the shoulders, I guess you're alright then.
You probably get more follow-up from a therapist, an NHS therapist.
Quite.
An interesting thing about Kisbert Tahir is I remember right after 9-11 or during the next year when we had invaded Afghanistan and were gearing up to invade Iraq, so still in the Blair years, They talked about...
They had a massive following in Manchester.
One of my good friends who went to Manchester Uni said he used to see him on the streets all the time.
Anyway, they were...
I have a memory, definite memory, rolling around in my head that Blair was going to, if not had already, banned them.
I guess he just didn't in the end.
Just at some point was thwarted or decided not to.
Again, during the Cameron years when Theresa May was Home Secretary, Pretty sure I've got a memory of them talking about it all in Parliament.
She's saying we're going to ban this, we're going to prescribe them.
I think, it's crazy because memories can lie to you, but I distinctly remember being told that they were banned back then when Theresa May.
Obviously not.
They weren't banned.
And it's only now, like at the beginning of this year, that they finally did it.
There's part of the reason they weren't banned, as William Shawcross notes in here.
In 2008, Hizbeth here published a report framing the Prevent strategy as an attempt by the state to, quote, gain control over the Muslim community in Britain, to bring about a, quote, reformation of Islam, and to, quote, ban Islamic ideas.
All which sound great to me.
These lines of argument have set the tone for much of the campaign against Prevent ever since, so Hizbut Tahir has been responsible, through outside lobbying efforts, and as Stephen Edgington revealed recently this year, at least in some way, influencing the 700-strong Muslim activist network working in the Home Office,
for polluting Prevent to myopically focus on far-right extremism, which includes reading C.S. Lewis and watching Michael Portillo's Great Western Railway Journeys, that was actually on a list of monitored texts, While completely neglecting Islamic extremists who then went on to kill MPs.
Now you note that Hezbollah weren't banned all that time.
I wonder who was working on their behalf?
Yeah, Keir Starmer was Hizbut Tahir's pro bono lawyer back in 2008. Because what happened was, the Conservatives, while in opposition in 2007, had put forward a motion to ban this group, and Keir Starmer, who was then Director of Public Prosecutions in 2008,
took it upon himself to submit an application to the, again, European Court of Human Rights in June on Hizbut Tahir's behalf, because he said, and I quote,"...it is very important that everyone is represented." Let's listen, as of last year, to who Keir Starmer thought it was important was represented.
Volume warning, ladies and gentlemen.
Muslim armies rise up for jihad.
Right, excellent.
Keir Starmer thought that was very important to continue to be represented in Britain.
There's something even better about that as well, which is I learned about him defending these people from the Henry Jackson Society report that was released last year or the year before, looking into all of this.
They point out that because of the fact that it was a proscription from Germany that he was trying to defend them against, That cab rules didn't need to apply, actually, because there's an exemption for foreign cases.
You don't actually have to do them under cab rules, but he chose to do it anyway.
Maybe that explains why he was always able to have a little bit of space free for these people whenever it popped up in his diary.
Bear in mind, these people are sanctioned in Saudi, Germany, China, but also a bunch of other countries.
I wrote them down.
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, but not Britain until this year, thanks to Keir Starmer.
I actually documented the history of Prevent and Raikou in a new piece on Ayaan Hirsi Ali's website.
It's about 8,000 words.
You can go over there and it's got a lot of sources.
But the reason I mention Raikou, Prevent and the Home Office is because something else has happened under Keir Starmer's premiership, and this is the last one I'll end on.
Raikou, the research information and communications unit in the Home Office, the same body which centrally planned, don't look back in anger, and buses imams out to the site of terror attacks to gaslight the grieving families into not having hatred for any race or religion after some Islamist has just blown up their children.
They put out a report this week saying, and I quote,"...the grooming gangs are a grievance narrative run by right-wing extremists." This is what the Home Office are doing under Keir Starmer's jurisdiction, Jess Phillips as well, friend of the Lotus Eaters, Matthew Rycroft, Head of the Civil Service.
This is what they're doing with your money.
They are telling you that the well-documented, prosecuted rape of thousands of girls up and down Britain by Islamists is a grievance narrative.
More of these included in this paper were that the extreme right-wing views included cultural nationalism, with the main belief being that Western culture is under threat from mass immigration, And it said, right-wing extremist narratives, particularly around immigration policing, are in some cases leaking into mainstream debates.
Claims of two-tier policing, for example, where groups are allegedly treated differently after similar behaviour, is a recent example.
So, what, like the now Prime Minister, former Director of Public Prosecutions, taking pro bono cases for a bunch of Islamist terrorists while locking up any of his critics.
Would that be two-tier policing by any chance?
It turns out the Labour government have run screening from this, because even they realise it looks really bad.
A Labour source has told GB News, this was great work of Stephen Edgington as per usual, many of the points Raikou makes are completely wrong and don't reflect the views of the government.
In particular, child sexual abuse and grooming are immensely serious crimes which devastate the lives of victims and should always be discussed in the most serious terms and treated in the most serious way, which is why we're planning to strengthen the law to go after more of those who carry out this appalling abuse, blah blah blah blah, you're still going to keep importing them.
Point being, gents, Keir Starmer has made a career history of appeasing and representing Islamists, just like Sadiq Khan, so why is he going to break the habit of a lifetime?
It's just remarkable, isn't it, that attitude of someone like James O'Brien or someone like Keir Starmer.
James O'Brien's a good friend of mine.
It's where at every possible juncture you choose the path or the opinion which is most destructive to British people and British society.
At every possible juncture, under your own volition, apparently, you choose the most subversive and disgusting thing.
And that's our Prime Minister.
And I still won't accept any criticism from people who say, well, you said zero seats for the Tories, so this is what you get.
No, I don't accept that argument.
We're never going to get rid of both Labour and Tories.
This is the price we have to pay for the Tories being so terrible and inept for the last 14 years that we were doomed to someone like Starmer.
I'm sorry, I don't want to diminish our influence, but as well, if you think that a few people saying zero seats on Twitter and online had more of an effect than 14 cumulative years of Tory failure, then you're an idiot.
Quite.
And we only have one Rumble rant so far, and it's addressed to both of us.
The Habsification.
Love Comics Corner, guys.
Thank you very much.
When are you guys going to do a part three of Berserk?
So two things on that.
One, we filmed the Comics Corner that just went out quite some time ago.
It's just due to editing pressures and backstage stuff that didn't come out for a few months.
We're not sure when we're filming the next one yet, but we have some ideas.
Harry has all the Berserk volumes, so I'm reliant on him.
How much have we got left, slash how much do you actually have?
Well, I mean, the series isn't done yet, so that's kind of indefinite as to when we'll be able to finish covering it.
It'll be whenever the series is finished, especially now that Muir is dead.
Rest in peace to him.
I need to read through the...
It's literally called this bow, so don't raise your brow too high, the Millennium of the Falcon arc, and then I can start loaning them to you, and when we've got that one read, we'll probably cover that at some point, but I don't know exactly when that'll be, so I can't give you a definitive date.
There will be Comics Corners between now and then, though.
We're maybe thinking of covering, should we say, or...?
I hate Watchmen, so we might do Watchmen.
Yeah, we might do Watchmen, because that'll be interesting.
Anyway, I hope that's answered a few questions for you.
Now I've got a question for you both.
Do you love the NHS? And if the answer is yes, which it better be, how much do you love the NHS? I love the NHS so much that I would stick my head in a plastic bag and save air for all of the brave nurses that we've imported in the last years so that they can work in the NHS. So you'd be willing to die for the NHS. Like a true patriot.
Jeremy Hunt once told me that the NHS is the only thing that Britain's got to be proud of.
Well, I won't go that far.
But, happily, if you're willing to die for the NHS as a form of sacrifice, then I've got great news for you.
You soon might be able to do that.
Because in the UK, we've got a bill passing through Parliament at the moment, which is the Assisted Dying Bill, known as the Terminally Ill Adults End of Life Bill, which is so far only set to allow people who are at the end of their life, within the last six months, guaranteed terminally ill, to end their life with assisted dying.
But, if the example that we've seen from Canada, with their similarly socialised healthcare system, has shown us anything, is that these programmes are inevitably, and almost immediately, expanded far past their original remit, and then used as, more than anything, a cost-saving measure.
I have a quick question.
Remember when we were under house arrest like four years ago?
Two years I think that was.
Yeah, wasn't that to save the NHS from all the old people dying?
Yeah.
So now we're paying the NHS to kill all the old people to save the NHS? Yeah.
Alright, no further questions.
No contradictions, Connor.
The fact of the matter is, which is that this will be used eventually, if it passes, which it looks like it might, as a cost-saving measure for the NHS, also as an excuse to not actually improve the health services that the NHS already provides, which are woeful, which are terrible, which are already possibly the most expensive thing in the world.
That's a bit of hyperbole.
But if you go on the other channel that we've got now, Lotus Eaters Daily, if you could subscribe to it and watch the videos on it, you will not be disappointed because we've got some great stuff.
Carl just quickly went through 10 minutes, how much the NHS costs, because it costs a lot.
Did you know that it costs about, roundabout, a little over in fact, the projected budget for next year, £500 million per day.
Yeah, so that entire farm tax raid that's going to completely desolate our food security won't even fund the NHS for a single day at the most optimistic projections of the revenue it's going to take in.
Well, it might.
The optimistic that I've seen is about £520 million per year raised through the inheritance tax.
So we destroy the British farming agricultural industry for the sake of a day's worth of funding the NHS. And we might get an extra Rainbow Cross walkout.
Fair deal.
Probably not.
Probably not.
Let's be honest here.
So that's how much the NHS costs.
So this bill, and I understand that there is an ethical question to be answered about assisted dying, whether somebody is terminally ill, has dementia, is genuinely suffering in many different ways, psychologically, physically, etc, etc.
But I've got a question for you.
Do you trust...
Keir Starmer's government to appropriately and sensitively manage such a system, where they legalize the NHS assisting you in dying.
Basically, they legalize the NHS killing you, which it already does to enough.
Not just that, who's going to be carrying out the assisted dying?
Is it going to be all of the aforementioned NHS doctors and nurses that were imported here in the last few years that Priti Patel is so proud of, despite the numbers being fairly infinitesimal, who are getting done for qualifications fraud recently?
And many of those care workers on the similar visas working in nursing homes who can't speak English and have led to elderly people in care homes falling down the stairs and Dying from their injuries because they don't know the difference between breathing and bleeding.
Do we trust those people to carry that out too?
Or is that sacrilegious against the NHS? Well, hopefully it'll be painless.
So, again, it wouldn't be someone from...
I know that's not really what you were saying, but it wouldn't be someone from the Stama government that makes it.
It would be some NHS middle management person who's probably not even a doctor looking at spreadsheets saying, well, these number of people meet this criterion.
Let's just put them on the terminally ill end of life list.
Free up beds, free up...
It'll be some middle manager person.
It will turn into a bureaucratic system.
In the bill as it stands right now, there are safeguards against such a thing.
So let's read through some of what they announce on the government website and the Commons Library.
A funny note at first, it has a trigger warning at the top of the document here.
Warning, this briefing discusses issues around suicide which some readers may find distressing.
And if you do find that distressing, the NHS has a fantastic solution.
Coming very soon.
But, so what it says, the bill was put forward, it was a private member's bill from Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who is, I think, the sister of Jo Cox, infamously murdered in 2016. She presented the Terminally Ill Adults Bill to Parliament, having been drawn highest in the private member's bill ballot for the 2024-25 season.
The bill's long title states it would allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life.
The bill's second reading is scheduled for Friday the 29th of November, so this Friday.
In a letter to ministers, the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case confirmed that the Prime Minister has decided to set aside collective responsibility on the merits of the bill, and that the government would therefore remain neutral on the passage of the bill and on the matter of assisted dying.
Despite the fact that Keir Starmer himself has said he made a promise to, what was it, Esther?
Dame Arrester Ransom.
Ransom, yes.
Curiously, who worked at the BBC for all those years but didn't blow the whistle on Jimmy Savile.
Well, none of them did.
Very, very moral human being.
I want to just quickly explain, if I may, to our American viewers, because I've had questions from friends about this.
This vote is not subject to party whipping, so basically the party can't instruct its members how to vote, otherwise they're expelled.
This happened during the withdrawal of the Winterfuel Allowance from pensioners.
A bunch of Labour MPs didn't vote for it and were suspended from the party and are no longer Labour MPs, it's just independents.
This is a free vote, and this usually happens on matters of when you used to have An annual vote to reinstate the death penalty.
It got decommissioned because it never passed, despite the majority of the country wanting it back.
Votes on abortion, and now this.
So any vote which basically pertains to the sanctity of life usually is a free vote, so each MP can vote according to their own conscience, rather than be whipped into shape from a party directive.
One thing I would say is I think Esther Ranson had an adult daughter who got cancer and died, so she might have known something about it.
Because, I mean, the point is, is that if it isn't subverted and perverted just to kill people unnecessarily, if it's just purely the ethical question, I'm for it.
I don't want to spend my last few months Draining away in a hospital bed.
I've seen that first hand.
It's a terrible, terrible thing.
I would much rather put a bullet in my brain or let a doctor inject me rather than go through that.
100%.
So...
Yeah, I don't agree with the idea that some religious people say life is sacred and you could never ever take it away.
I don't agree with that.
I think it's a nightmarish thing to watch someone ebb away in pain.
It is a nightmarish thing.
So...
In those terms, I'll be for it.
But we all know that, as you say, it won't be that, will it?
The thing is, I think there should be a case when you can have an abortion, if it's a rape, for example, or if you know the child is going to be in terrible pain and die within hours of being born or whatever.
Yeah, maybe abort that baby if it's a rape or something.
But it should be hardly ever, right?
Hardly ever, like tiny, tiny number of cases ever.
But we just know that's not how it's gonna go, is it?
Like Canada, they're just gonna save money and free up beds.
Again, the ethics are not what I'm questioning here.
I think that's a different subject.
On the subject of Canada, we've seen what happened over there.
They're looking at it as a cost-saving measure, and we have had reports from inside of the hospitals where some patients are saying, the doctors have been pressuring me into this.
Because immediately the remit and those safeguards that were meant to make it so that it was very similar to this bill were expanded because all of a sudden you had ethical arguments being presented that, well, if we're allowing these people to take this service, why aren't we allowing this other subsection of people to take this service?
And we'll see already later on as we go through this segment that people are already starting to make those arguments.
Even the next link I have.
But first I'll go through the safeguards as they're presented here.
So first of all, under Section 2, the law as it exists right now, we have the Suicide Act of 1961, and under Section 2 of that, it's illegal for a person to intentionally encourage or assist the suicide of another person.
So this would remove that in these very strict cases.
The broad aim of the Terminally Ill Adults Bill is to allow adults aged 18 and over who have mental capacity, are terminally ill, and are in the final six months of their life to request assistance from a doctor to end their life.
The applicant must be a resident in either England or Wales.
Two doctors must each assess the request at least seven days apart to ensure that the person meets the eligibility criteria The eligibility criteria include that the person have a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life, and that they have reached this decision voluntarily, without coercion or pressure.
If both doctors state, independently of one another, that the eligibility criteria have been met, the person may apply to the High Court for approval of their request, so they need to get High Court Judge.
To approve it as well.
If the High Court decided that the applicant met the requirements of the bill, there would then be a 14-day reflection period.
After this time, the applicant may make a second declaration of request for the assistants to end their life.
If the doctor continues to be satisfied, then a life-ending approved substance to be self-administered would be prescribed.
To be self-administered is interesting there.
Do they just give you a drug that you take and then you pass away or would it be more something like what happens in Switzerland?
I don't know.
A person who provides assistance to another in accordance with the bill would not face any criminal liability and the Suicide Act of 1961 would be amended accordingly.
So it does seem, as the bill is set out right there, that there are safeguards in place, but there are criticisms of those safeguards that are being made already, particularly regarding the involvement of a High Court judge in the matter.
Even if you get two doctors involved, and that will inevitably be knocked down to one, just look at the gender issue, for example, where Anneliese Dodds, now the Women and Equalities Minister in the Labour government, tried to knock down the gender recognition certificate, two doctors sign off down to just one.
Those doctors will be ideologically corrupted.
And as you've said, the ineluctable logic of this bill, once you knock down the sanctity of life as an inviolable principle, will be it's your consent to decide whether or not you live or die.
This was the argument The Economist made in their front page splash.
So, if consent is the moral standard, anything getting in the way of why you should consent whether or not to live or die, whether it's a physical or a mental health issue, whether you're an adult or a child, and that has happened in the Netherlands and the like, whether it's one doctor or two, the doctors themselves will be on the side of, well, I should be...
Liberal, permissive about this, because I can't get in the way of someone freely choosing to exercise their consent whether or not to live or die.
So no matter how many safeguards you put in place, the logic and the people applying the logic and writing the law are always going to push towards more permissiveness.
You're just gonna end up killing people who shouldn't be killed.
For instance, this next article from The Conversation, which is from a legal expert that I don't know if they're named as part of...
It is up there.
Oh, is it?
Is it named up there on the right?
Adam...
Adam McCann.
Associate Professor of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice at the University of Reading.
He puts forward some of the criticisms of the bill and the safeguards that it has right now, but already...
Very early on is saying that, no, no, no, this isn't enough.
This isn't enough.
If it's six months before dying, why can't you say, well, I've just been diagnosed with a terminal illness that's going to kill me in a very horrible and painful way in five years' time.
Why can't I get it done now?
He's already saying, let's expand it.
But his main criticisms that he has of this are actually quite rational outside of his already wanting to expand it.
He says the rationale behind him...
Of the 27 jurisdictions worldwide that have legalized some form of assistance at dying, not one has opted for this approach of having a high court approval in place for it.
The rationale behind this aspect of the bill is that doctors cannot be trusted on their own to assess the patient's capacity to make this decision.
The court must do so.
However, court approval is not considered necessary for other end-of-life medical decisions.
For example, patients have the right to refuse life-saving treatment, such as a ventilator or blood transfusion, even if that refusal is irrational and will lead to their death.
The patient is assumed to have capacity and the doctor is trusted to assess this without any evidence of coercion or pressure.
So there's a rational argument being made there, which is, this is a separate set of standards for this thing, which is essentially the same thing.
Choosing to have assisted death is very similar to choosing not to have your life saved if you need it.
So why don't you need the High Court judge there?
Second problem with this in each case is the bureaucratic burden it would place on patients.
Some patients may end up seeking judicial approval earlier than they would have wished while they're still strong enough to do so.
The other thing is that it might actually just swamp the High Court with applications.
So he puts it here.
To get a sense of what might happen, consider the two following places where assisted dying is legal.
In Oregon in the US, 0.6% of all deaths in 2022 involved the assisted suicide of a terminally ill patient.
In Canada, and this is a horrifying statistic for the entire country, 3.9% of deaths in 2022 were assisted dying cases involving patients whose naturally deaths were, quote, reasonably foreseeable.
Bit of a, bit of a...
Nebulous term.
Yeah, floppy, standard.
Man, only 4%.
That's a huge number, then.
Yeah, and all because it was reasonably foreseeable, which, as you say, very nebulous.
Well, they offered maids to homeless veterans and a woman who couldn't get a stairlift.
So, they're very rapid to...
They're very eager.
They're very eager.
Have you thought of just killing yourself?
It's okay.
Says Maid.
We'll save tons on the nationalised healthcare budget if you do so.
Sorry, I could never imagine Keir Starmer, who, as we've established over numerous segments now, is a bastion of morality.
I mean, he's a human rights lawyer, for God's sake.
His government would never do the same thing.
Well, except for his political opponents that he then sends to prisons where, like Peter Lynch, they're likely to die.
Well, maybe.
Maybe.
That's all speculation.
So, for example, he says, if a similar proportion of assisted suicide cases had occurred in England and Wales in 2022, that would have either resulted in 3,463 applications, if it was 0.6%, or 22,509 applications, 3.9% of all deaths, before the High Court in that year alone.
So, it seems on a practical level, this isn't doable.
So, the bill seems to be...
I appreciate the safeguard's attempt to be put in place, but it doesn't seem to be practical.
Especially if you're talking about people who are six months before the end of their life, that sounds to me like it would just result in stamp, stamp, stamp, get them through, oh god, we've got 20,000 people applying for the stamp.
Well, the safeguards as well, by the people proposing the bill, frankly, as we've said about the logic of the bill, Are a token gesture to just get the people who have more reservations about this, like Richard Tice, to vote for it.
With the idea that, oh, don't worry, there are safeguards in place, it's up to snuff, it's all okay, it's just going to be the people that meet the standard and actually need it.
The people that want the bill through don't really care about the safeguards all that much because they think this is right anyway.
Well, and the worrying thing about that is that it appears that if all of the people who are backing it, who form, I think, a cross-party parliamentary group, if they all attend this vote on Friday, it will pass.
That's what it's looking like at the moment.
And let's cast our minds to the future, what will a Britain in which state-sponsored assisted suicide look like?
Well, we've already got an idea of that.
Because we've got adverts for it already.
Yeah, these adverts were curious.
I noticed something about them.
They weren't nearly as diverse as other adverts.
I've seen some that would lead me to disagree with that.
There was one chap.
One.
I'm sure I saw at least one other person in these adverts.
But yeah, look at this.
Does this advert of this person look like she's within six months of death, and is in incredible pain?
Or does it look like, yay, kill me?
What's also curious is who was putting these billboards up.
It was Global Player.
Now, Global Player run LBC, they run the newsagents, they basically co-sponsor James O'Brien and Carol Vorderman's entire careers.
And James O'Brien is definitely going to be in support of his listeners...
Are there any of them left?
The disconnect between this and what I have in mind.
Exactly.
I feel like, well it used to be the case years ago, decades ago, that it was illegal to attempt suicide.
If you tried to kill yourself and failed, the police would then come round and you might be prosecuted.
But wouldn't you be committed to a mental institution rather than thrown in prison?
Well, it would depend.
Sometimes you'd get off.
Sometimes they would put you in...
What if the police decided, yeah, you should have.
What if the police decided, yeah, you should have actually.
You were right.
Try again.
But so there's one that end of the extreme where you feel that life is so sacred to the point that even if you try to take it, then you should...
the state needs to get involved with the punishment for you.
The other end of the spectrum, just kill yourself.
Don't worry if you're even that ill or anything.
But for me, I feel like anyone should be able to kill themselves if you really want to kill yourself.
So for example...
It's incredibly nihilistic.
It's your life.
It's your life.
It doesn't belong to the state.
It's your life.
So for example, Tony...
People don't either love you, it might matter.
Well, so Tony Scott got, you know, Ridley Scott's brother, got diagnosed with cancer.
He was fine, he wasn't dying immediately, but he got diagnosed with terminal cancer.
And he went straight to a bridge and jumped off and killed himself.
That's how he chose to deal with it.
It's terrible for his family and everything, but that was his decision.
I think that was a very bad decision.
There's a much better way of going about it, but you are right that there is a qualitative difference between him choosing to do that of his own volition and the state sponsoring it, right?
And certainly there's a difference in what that shows society approves of and what that shows society is maybe encouraging you to do.
Because the worst thing is when there's someone, they're essentially bedridden, they're on morphine constantly, and they've just got to lay there for like six months, three months, for weeks and weeks and weeks, until finally their heart gives out.
Like, that is...
That is an unbelievable thing.
There's nothing you can do about it.
The doctors have to keep the machines going.
They don't have to keep the machines going.
We do have palliative care.
Well, yeah, assuming the person didn't go for palliative care.
There are some MPs saying that this will be taking away resources, or at least taking away focus from palliative care.
Labour MPs?
Diane Abbott of all people.
Yeah, Diane Abbott of all people.
Must have put the right shoes on this morning and came to a sensible conclusion.
She found the one pair she owns and put them on.
If I might as well, when you say...
...tolerating and then to promoting.
Have you read Matthew Paris' piece in The Times?
No, I haven't.
He said, we cannot afford to have a taboo around assisted dying.
Afford.
There it is.
And in it, he says, this will basically create a pressure for older people to shuffle off this mortal coil faster to save on pensions, and that's a good thing.
And again...
That is the true face of this.
And again...
That is horrible.
That is evil.
Again, after we shut down the country for two years to save those same people.
So, perhaps what we're learning here, shock of all shocks, is that the government will throw out any shit to get what they want.
What they wanted at Covid was not to save old people, it was to exercise an extreme form of power.
What they want now is not to prevent people from suffering, it's to exercise an extreme form of power.
What's the pretext for mass importing a million third-worlders in every year?
We've got to pay the pension bill.
So why is that going to continue if you kill off all the pensioners?
I can't wait to see that.
It doesn't make sense.
They literally just want you dead.
Well, there you go, and you get this in London, unsurprisingly.
Dignity and Dying, Campaign for Dignity and Dying, they're a pressure group, a lobby, that have funded a lot of this.
Here you can see, just down the tubes in London.
Thank you to Fleur for this video.
She works for Right to Life UK, actually, so she actually cares about this stuff.
But the interesting thing that you learn here is a lot of these are being targeted at areas of the tube which MPs will be going through very frequently.
Westminster, it's just...
It's Westminster and so obviously this is a very very targeted campaign for anybody who is as yet undecided before this vote.
They are putting a lot of money into making sure they get it through.
Similarly in Bond Street Station, which is a very wealthy area of London, there were last month lots of ads promoting divorce and all the couples were white.
Weird, that.
Big surprise.
But as I mentioned, oh yes, they've already been defaced with Samaritans, which is a very good thing.
But also, one of the interesting things here, if I click on this link that again Fleur has provided from the Telegraph, A.C. Grayling, who I believe is one of the patrons for Dignity in Dying...
He is the worst.
Yeah, yeah.
He's one of the worst people.
Yes, absolutely.
He's already said that the depressed should be allowed to kill themselves.
So he's already saying, not only should it just be this one incredibly small group of people who there is an ethical argument to be made that, yeah, they're suffering, they're in pain, perhaps it's more dignified for them.
No, depressed people, which is exactly where the legislation started to push in Canada, immediately.
Because, really, what better solution?
Again, if you're distressed at thinking about suicide because it's really depressing to you, NHS says, why don't you kill yourself?
A.C. Grayling, supposedly a professor of ethics and philosophy, says, yeah, kill yourself.
Why not?
Shrug your shoulders.
What do you have to live for anyway, he says, sitting at your bedside.
This is the philosophy that comes when you get rid of the inviolable sanctity of innocent human life.
And Robert Jenrick, fair play to him, has written about it as well for The Telegraph, saying that the poor and the lonely will feel societal pressure to end their life early.
Absolutely true, as you were mentioning.
Then again, as we've already hinted at, there is...
A bit of a lobby pressure group.
Charlotte Gill is great on this.
You should be subscribing to her sub stack.
Charlotte Gill points out, Guido Fawkes recently found the campaign group backing Kim Leadbeater's assisted dying bill.
Artists Dignity in Dying, as we've mentioned.
They've been ramping up their advertising game online.
In the past 90 days alone, they've splashed £181,122 on Facebook and Instagram ads, while since 2018, the total spend has topped £650,000.
She also points out that other parts...
For goodness sake, Substack.
Other parts of the media are very interested.
Paul Brand, the UK editor of IT News...
He was the one who had, right before the election, the down-the-phone interview with Esther Ransom and Keir Starmer.
He was in the room while they did it.
So he seems to have a particular interest in this topic.
Yes, yes he does.
He's been just like, look at all this.
Constantly posting about it on his Twitter.
His big thing, and this is a man who's an editor of the ITV News, and Carol Vorderman, associator of him, she's also been supporting this.
She's been talking about it, highlighted here from her book, talking about Dame Esther Ransom.
So there's an association there again.
She points out about Global, as you were saying, which runs LBC, has been pushing the issue hard on its shows, including the news agents.
Moreover, Global owns an enormous amount of outdoor advertising space in the UK, which has been used for these dignity and dying adverts in Westminster.
Of course, as she points out, the place where MPs and lawmakers are most likely to To see them.
Another coincidence relates to More In Common, the organisation set up in Joe Cox's name, again, Leadbeater's sister, which might explain the link to her, which seemed to become invested in the issue overnight.
Brand publicised its latest research in assisted dying, saying, although many might, this was one where they were trying to say, look, it's a groundswell of support.
The public love it.
The public want it.
Same thing for lowering immigration.
Why don't you listen to us on that?
Yeah, although many might think of More In Common as a polling firm, it has quite lofty ambitions.
It says, working on, quote, both short and longer term initiatives to address the underlying drivers of fracturing and polarization and build a more united, resilient and inclusive societies, unquote.
It's become a major force.
In global democracies, because of course polling is not to actually get the temperature of the public, it's to try and shift the opinion of the public.
So if you are undecided and you see here that, oh, only 13% opposed, well, social pressure, peer pressure says, I don't want to be in the minority, I want to be with the majority, so I'll just go along with it.
And then there's the other worrying implication of this whole thing, which Morgoth spelt out quite nicely, which is, uh, you tired of being taxed into poverty to pay for Infimity Bermalian seeing your kids trans?
Are you depressed?
Let me tell you about assisted dying.
So, yeah, that's how it's going right now.
The vote for this bill will be coming up on Friday and we'll see what happens with that.
I know that there is an ethical argument again for these very, very special cases.
That is not where this is going to end.
We are already seeing the narrative being pushed in a direction to expand all of this.
Excellent.
So we've got some rumble rants before we continue.
So we've got Lothar Troofer.
He has this in quotes.
So this is not me, whoever takes it out of context.
I'm not saying kill all the poor.
Just run it through the computer and see if it would work.
That awkward moment when the bean counters took 2012 Mitchell and Webb too seriously.
I would think per capita elderly English pensioners would take this up far more frequently, especially.
And also, if they expand it to mental health conditions, it will be young English teenagers who are hopelessly confused.
Especially because of the mental health crisis caused by lockdown, but anyway.
One dollar.
That's a random name.
To be fair, if I had to live in London, I would want to die too.
Fair.
Hot take.
Life is sacred.
However, some lives are more sacred than others.
With that being said, it is dangerous to go down this road because who gets to determine whose life is more or less sacred?
I think the principle of innocence applies.
I'm in agreement with the Vatican here.
You can kill criminals and save babies.
That's sensible.
We're doing the inverse at the moment $5 in XCO Not treating life as sacred Is a dangerous rubicon to cross And another $5 We already have assisted dying In the name of palliative care Good point This is just promoting suicide From a morally baculous monolith And finally for $10 Davyverse I'm willing to accept this bill If we can make a compulsory alternative For life in prison and pedophiles Yeah you're not going to get that That's just called the death penalty.
Your terms are acceptable.
One final one that's just come in.
Five dollars from J6681819. I hope that's not an ADL hate number.
There goes my career.
It probably won't be.
It probably won't be.
Regarding the adverts for assisted dying, perhaps we should look on the bright side.
At least white actors will finally have employment opportunities that they don't have at present.
Yeah, I do wonder, if people think representation matters, who thinks that white people should only be represented in adverts for divorce and death?
Anyway, Bo, take it away!
Good news, it wasn't an ADL hate number.
They're not going to get you for that one, Connor.
They'll have to find something else.
OK, I just thought we could talk a little bit, check in with the Trump train, see what's going on with his transition and his team.
So yeah, we'll look at who's going to be ruling the United States and by proxy a lot of the world over the next four years.
So the first link I had there is before we talk about some of the actual personnel.
The tariff stuff keeps coming up in the moment, hasn't it, the last week or so.
That seems to be in the news a fair bit.
They always seem to accuse...
I saw Destiny, but I've seen a lot of people accuse Trump of not understanding what a tariff is.
I don't think Destiny understands what a marriage is.
Or sexual propriety, judging by this Discord leak.
So I'm not going to listen to him.
Yeah.
And it seems to have...
Even just the threat of certain policy changes will, like, move the needle on stuff, right?
So...
Anyway, I thought we'd just mention, in passing, the tariff stuff.
You alright?
What's tickled you so much?
Don't.
Don't.
I do not want to talk about the Destiny leaks.
No, sorry.
Moving swiftly on.
Sorry, you caught me off guard with that.
Yeah.
I shouldn't have mentioned Destiny.
Never mentioned Destiny.
You keep mentioning him, you appear like Candyman behind you.
Shit.
Not like Beetlejuice, because that would be kind of whimsical and fun.
No, like the murderer Candyman.
So yeah, a lot of the leftists and globalists hate the idea of America standing up for itself economically in any real way and that everyone's a loser out of it.
Well, no, not at all.
Obviously not.
They don't understand what tariffs are used for in the Trump doctrine because they can't assert a doctrine of national preference for any country in the Western Hemisphere because it's full of successful straight white men.
But he uses them as a levelling mechanism.
If they have been cheating you on intellectual property or on trade and levelling tariffs against you, Trump will I mean, it's also sensible in the fact that it's trying to discourage all of the American businesses from just offshoring.
Everything.
Bring industry back.
That makes a lot of sense to me because what you're actually doing by handing a lot of industry over to China is you're empowering them on the global scale, which if they're a geopolitical rival, that's a stupid thing to do.
Yeah, I mean, it's just in the interests of America to promote people buying American-built, American-made merchandise.
What's wrong with that, if you had America's interest at heart?
There's nothing wrong with that.
Why buy a tat from China when you could buy American stuff for almost the same price?
Very nearly the same price anyway.
If you just slaps loads of tariffs on their stuff, then it highly incentivises people to buy American.
The argument is always, and this is a very sort of libertarian argument, which of course is a case of tactical libertarianism from leftists, which is that it will raise prices.
It will raise prices.
You're taking the bill and putting it on the public.
That is the short-term consequence, but...
It doesn't seem to be taking on the idea of the long-term consequences that, yes, if it does improve industry domestically, that eventually will also lead to the prices falling again.
And also, it's a question of quantity over quality.
Yeah, you could, as you say, buy a lot of Chinese tat that's going to fall apart and be very, very low quality.
Or, if it's produced in America domestically where they've got higher standards on things, then, yeah, you're going to be getting a better quality of product as well.
Also, if you deregulate businesses, cut taxes and ensure plentiful and cheap energy supply, the prices will themselves fall in tandem with the tariffs, so it should just cancel itself out.
Okay, so going on to Trump's team, he has made a fair few picks whether, you know, a lot of the cabinet ones have to get actually okayed by the Senate.
Is it and Congress?
I think it's just Senate approval.
Right, so whether Trump picks someone or not doesn't necessarily mean they're definitely, definitely going to get the position, but nonetheless.
So we've got a fair few names on this stuff now.
I suppose some of the biggest stuff is...
Well, Elon, first and foremost.
The Department of Government Efficiency.
Apparently he's going to put Vivek in there as well.
So whether that will be a double team.
I wonder whether who will be whose boss.
Or whether they'll sort of formally be put on the same pay grade.
I think they'll just be a partnership and just be attack dogs for the various places they want to go for.
I think Elon will go for business and energy and deregulation, particularly around the tech sector, and Vivek will go for the various government departments that are clogging up the works.
He's had it really in for the intelligence agencies, especially since January 6th.
Yeah, I mean, I'm looking forward to that.
I am looking forward to see what they do.
If it is an actual government, sorry, cabinet position, then one of them, assuming it's one of those two guys, is the secretary, one of them will have to be at least formally, nominally, above the other.
But anyway, it doesn't really matter.
I think Vivek would probably take the cabinet position because Elon is far too busy being amazing at Dota and sending rockets to Mars.
Okay, so that's one to keep your eye on when it happens.
I wonder how quickly they'll hit the ground running on that, whether they'll do, like, within a few days, like when Elon took over X. Within days, wasn't it?
Stuff happened and moved profoundly.
I wonder whether...
I'm really interested, probably the most thing I'm most interested to see is...
How quickly and what they do over government efficiency.
There is one thing I worry about with Vivek and Elon being involved in this.
We have the same concern.
Which is that Vivek and Elon as well might have the temptation to get rid of a lot of inefficient people clogging up the bureaucracy, yes.
And import elite human capital.
Yes, Indians.
They're very pro-migration, both of them.
They're very pro-elite human capital.
My best case scenario would be just high IQ Europeans being brought in.
But that doesn't seem to be how Elon has treated Twitter since he's come in.
And Vivek, I'm sad to say, the Indians are known for being very nepotistic.
That's just a fact.
Well, personally, this won't probably garner me many friends in our audience, but I don't like Vivek.
I don't like him.
I don't trust him.
There's something weird about him.
I don't like him.
I don't buy any of his shtick.
I think he's very intelligent, and I think he has gone to bat for Trump at, let's say, potential significant personal cost over the last couple of years, but would I want him as a successor presidential candidate, which he's obviously lining himself up for?
No.
Yeah, I just don't...
I've never bought that he's on the level.
I don't know why.
It's difficult to put my finger on exactly why.
It's that time he rapped Eminem, isn't it?
He what?
Do you not remember that?
He what now?
What was it?
Lose Yourself.
Oh, God, yes.
When he was on the campaign trail as a potential nominee for Republican president, he went up, did a rap in front of a big crowd of Lose Yourself, and all of a sudden his campaign tanked.
Yeah, I remember seeing that on Twitter.
I got through about four or five seconds of it.
It was like, oh, no, no, no, I can't watch this.
I'm sorry I reminded you of that.
And that's when you decided, not our guy, not my guy.
I just don't...
Yeah, I don't like him.
Anyway, Susie Wiles is going to be his chief of staff.
That was one of the first ones to come out.
I don't really know much about her.
Do you guys know much anything else about her?
I've got a few of the details that she worked with Trump for a while and then DeSantis for a while and then back with Trump.
I've heard she's a very competent campaign organiser from the people that I know in Washington.
That's about it.
So apparently it's a good pick from the people that want Trump to succeed.
Because the chief of staff role is an absolutely pivotal thing.
It's like if the president's captain of the ship, it's like he's your first mate, it's like your first gatekeeper, or she, it's like your first gatekeeper.
It's, yeah, looking back through chiefs of staff historically for presidents, it's sort of...
It couldn't be more important.
If they're inept or bad or corrupt in any way, that's terrible.
I'm not saying she is.
Like I say, I don't really know much about her at all, but I suppose just fingers crossed that she's going to be good at the job.
Was it...
What's his face?
Was it Kushner was Chief of Staff last time?
Who was it?
I don't think he's chief of staff.
I know he had a lot of involvement in the White House.
Didn't Trump go through more than one?
Oh, sorry.
I think he went through more than one, but it is a pivotal thing.
So, at Homeland Security, he's picked that Christy Noem.
Yeah.
Not great.
She decided to...
The thing we call the headlines about her book was that she was bragging about how she killed the family dog.
Which is odd.
But then she also made up...
Was that a mercy killing, was it?
What was the details?
No, it had mauled, I think, the neighbour's chickens.
And so she decided to...
What was it?
I think she shot it.
The more concerning thing was, in her book, she completely fabricated a meeting with Kim Jong-un.
Really?
Yeah.
And then she had to go later on Fox News and say, yeah, I didn't actually do that.
It was really bizarre.
That's a really easy thing to fact check as well.
Kim Jong-un.
It was strange.
Yeah, that's really...
I didn't know that one.
That's really embarrassing.
It's really, really embarrassing that...
Well, I just think, you know, you could have picked...
If you want someone to go to war with the Deep State...
I don't know, pick someone like Jim Jordan or something, who's the head of the Weaponisation of Governance subcommittee.
He'd be great.
Someone who probably doesn't lie about things.
Bar low.
Right, yeah.
You've got to lower the bar for politicians, mate.
The thing about Homeland is that they're absolutely gigantic.
Just the FBI comes under that.
Loads and loads and loads of things come under...
The umbrella of homeland.
It's a massive, massively powerful position.
I would have had someone who was in Congress grilling Christopher Wray or something like that.
I would want someone that was completely, like, as hard-line as you could be, really, really hard-bitten, gnarled, like, got completely their own mind.
I wouldn't want anyone where there's, like, a shred of weakness in them.
Not sure.
I mean, she seems like a nice farm girl.
She's a farm girl, right?
That's her shtick, right?
She grew up on a farm and she's all-American, North Carolina or wherever it is.
I can't remember where.
South Dakota.
South Dakota, sorry.
South Dakota.
Even more farm girl type stuff.
So that's well and good.
Well and good.
At Homeland, though, I want a badass who knows the system inside out, who's not going to let anyone stand on them for a moment.
I'm not sure if she's up to it.
She's got to take on the FBI. Really?
Kristy Noem is going to take on the FBI at an institutional level and win?
Is she?
We're in the era of girlbosses, who knows?
I hope so, I've got my fingers crossed for her.
Well, there's these two.
There's Kristy Noem at Homeland and the Director for National Intelligence is going to be Tulsi Gabbard.
I would have thought you might have inverted those roles.
Right, that's not a bad point.
I would have thought Tulsi Gabbard for Homeland Security and then someone You know, very strong for, not necessarily known, but for director of national intelligence.
Because national, as far as I know, actually national intelligence would be the military, wouldn't it?
Yeah, yeah.
Okay, that's more suitable then.
Yeah, all sorts of the security state come under that, like the CIA, NSA, all sorts of stuff.
So anyway, the point is, if Trump really wants to clean the swamp on his 10-point plan about cleaning the swamp out and dealing with rogue or subversive elements within the intelligence services, his two point people are Kristi Noem and Tulsi Gabbard.
Now, they're two pretty hard individuals, reasonably.
They're no pushover.
But have they really got the steel it's going to take to turn the NSA and the FBI and the CIA inside out and upside down and force them to become something new?
Have they got that inner steel in them?
I fear not.
I fear not.
It needs, like, those two positions I just want truly sort of badass individuals.
I'm not sure if they're going to be up to it.
I fear.
I hope they are, of course.
I absolutely hope they are.
Wish them the best.
But they're up against it.
There's certain things when you need a senior government minister to Grab a government department by the collar.
And dominate it.
Dominate all the bureaucrats within it.
Absolutely change it.
That you are the dominant force there.
And it will bend to your will.
Right?
This all sounds very authoritarian.
But like being a parent or something.
Or if you're trying to control an aggressive, dangerous dog.
Or a horse that's out of control.
Now you need a grasp of steel.
And that you will brook no...
Opposition to what you're doing and saying.
None.
That's what they would require if Trump's going to clean that swamp.
I just don't know if Gabbard, who didn't know him, can do it.
So anyway, I've labelled that point a bit.
Best of luck to them.
Best of luck to them.
Marco Rubio gets Secretary of State.
Now, it's interesting because Rubio hasn't been the strongest rhetorician.
Didn't he deliver the rebuttal to an Obama State of the Union address during the 2016 election cycle and had to keep leaning over and sipping water and being very awkward?
Rubio is not known to be the toughest talker, though I do know that he's got a very good team around him.
I have a friend on Rubio's team, and he's drafted some very strong bills trying to instantiate socially conservative policies within the military, trying to, for example, prevent them from becoming abortion stations within anti-abortion states by restricting their funding.
So he is willing to crack the whip on legislation, so that's positive.
Well, one thing about being a bit softer, that's not as bad at the State Department, because you're essentially the most senior diplomat, is what you are, right, at the State Department.
It's the equivalent of our Foreign Secretary.
I mean, other than the President himself, who's a type of figurehead or diplomat in a sense, isn't he?
Going around the world.
But at the State Department, you would want someone that isn't this hardline badass, it's my way or the highway.
That's not really necessarily what you want.
Maybe he's the good cop to Trump's bad cop.
Maybe, yeah.
Now, I don't mind Rubio.
I don't love him.
But, yeah, we'll see how that goes for him.
I was surprised.
I thought that...
One of the glaring omissions from this is DeSantis.
He might get a job still, we don't know, it's still relatively early days, but he is a glaring out, it doesn't look like Trump's probably going to give him anything.
I sort of suspected Rubio might put Rubio in the same camp, but obviously not.
One thing that does spring to mind right away is that, looking down four years down the road, Vance is going to have, I would have thought, going to have leadership.
Rival in Rubio.
Well, Rubio expected to be the VP. He expected to get the call on, didn't he?
Well, if we just looked briefly, quickly looked ahead in the next four years, assuming these people during the next four years don't completely ruin themselves one way or another with some sort of scandal or something, I would have thought Vance, Rubio, probably Gabbard again because you've got a track record.
They're going to have Vivek probably as well.
They're all gonna...
I don't think Vance will just get a coronation.
I don't think.
I think he'll have to fight for it.
But we'll see how that goes, obviously, in the future.
So yeah, good day for Rubio, I think.
RFK as health secretary.
Sort of an amazing thing, I think, because obviously he's not a Republican.
Sort of a brilliant thing, like an old school throwback that this guy on his own merits, merit, merit's really important, on his own merits has won a place in government with the opposition party.
Quite remarkable.
I've got my problems with RFK, particularly in terms of economic policies and some of his social policies.
He's quite a hardline lefty, actually.
On the environment with guns and abortion, he sucks.
On health, it's pretty good.
Right, exactly.
And that's what Trump's going to let him do.
Exactly.
So on the COVID stuff and Big Pharma, oh, it's great.
It's great.
Just don't ask him about his reparations policy.
Right, yeah.
Just don't ask him how much human growth hormone he's ingested.
Yeah, but I'd rather that than the gelatinous masses.
As Dan Keller said on our election night, the witch of the waste from Howe's Moving Castle that's seeming to be all the health secretaries across the US and Europe.
No, I'd rather have someone that's got arms and shoulders in their 60s or however old he is than some big fat gelatinous blob, yeah.
No, of course, yeah, yeah.
Again, good luck to him.
Good luck to him.
That Tom Homan as the Baldazar, he's a beast.
I want guys like that at Homeland.
I would want a dude like that at Homeland, you know?
And breaking up, scattering to the winds, some of the foreign intelligence services.
Just a monster of a dude.
Anyway, Pete Hegseth, his defence secretary.
I mean, he's a 20-year veteran of the military, graduated from two Ivy League universities, wrote the book on how to get rid of DEI in the military, has a deus fault and a giant cross tattooed on him.
Absolute Chad.
He does.
I mean, completely.
I mean, he has said lots and lots of base things, but, you know, he's 100% on board with the Israeli project.
I mean, if you scroll down a couple of paragraphs on that, you'll see, I can't remember what he says, if you love America, you should love Israel, sort of says it all.
So no real change in regard there.
Given Trump's own stated personal views, I imagine that basically all of his picks are going to echo that line.
But also, okay, no matter your feelings on Israel, I'm indifferent, I've never visited, Trump's going to wrap up the conflict so it shouldn't be in the headlines really anyway?
Well, we'll see.
That's an interminable conflict.
Well, you know, it won't go away in our lifetimes.
No, but it won't be pressing for the next four years, let's hope, for the next four years of the Trump administration.
There won't be a full-blown war between Lebanon, Gaza and Israel, hopefully.
My primary concern is that hopefully he can force people to the table to wrap up Ukraine.
That'd be nice.
That's my one, because obviously the regime as it exists right now has been all on board with that for a long time, and he isn't.
So for me, given that's in Europe, that's my most pressing concern.
Yeah, no, fair enough.
There's a few other positions, but I won't necessarily go through them.
The Gates debacle.
A little bit about him.
He was up for Attorney General, wasn't he?
Yes.
And powers that be sort of scuppered it.
And now he says he's not going to return to Congress.
Well, because he resigned, so he technically can't, unless he would be reinstated.
I believe he'd have to be reinstated by the rest of the Congress, if I remember correctly.
And he's ticked quite a few of them off, just being very anti-establishment.
So, I mean, we remember when Kevin McCarthy had a full-blown row with him on the Senate floor and barged into him and all that.
So, I think what Gates is probably going to get, he might be being lined up for Rubio's seat in Florida as a senator, because obviously Rubio's going to have to step down as a senator.
Yeah, I don't feel like it's the end of his career.
No.
So did he get re-elected at the beginning of this month?
He didn't even stand in that.
He did stand in that, got re-elected.
Won.
And since then...
He's resigned from Congress, yes.
The other thing with Gates, and this is the Justice Department, which is highly partisan through the investigation out and didn't charge him running.
His appointment was done under the dark cloud...
As they always do, of essentially Me Too allegations.
He's denied them, his legal team's denied them, no evidences have come to light to suggest that, but I think he did that to basically step away so that it didn't hold up the appointments process for everyone else, which, you know, innocent man, frustrating thing, probably a noble thing to do.
Yeah, maybe.
Maybe.
Who knows quite what's going on behind the scenes exactly.
But we'll see.
So, running short on time, so just another couple of quick points to make.
The new education secretary We'll be Mrs. Vince McMahon.
Linda McMahon has been picked to be the Education Secretary of the United States of America.
Yeah, she was head of the America First policy think tank for quite a few years, so I think people are hoping that she's the shortest serving Education Secretary in history before he dismantles it like a Lego set.
Right.
What do you mean?
Well, he said he's going to abolish the Department of Education.
Right.
So she's probably a caretaker head of the Department of Education.
So you might have just put her in as a joke then?
No, not necessarily a joke, but he's got a loyalist in there to help dismantle it from the inside.
Right, okay.
Want to be replaced by what?
Do you say the States?
Yeah, before the 1970s they did that, and they had actually better outcomes.
To be fair, if you wanted to dismantle it, you'd need to be ruthless, and the McMahons are nothing if not ruthless.
If anyone who doesn't might not know, Linda McMahon is the wife of Vince McMahon, the owner of WWE, formerly WWE. Now I'm just imagining Linda McMahon going in and saying, I want...
People have said this is the first Department of Education secretary that's been playable in NES. No Mercy from the 90s.
She appoints Hulk Hogan as her press secretary or something.
I think we all wanted that.
We all wanted, America, embrace your true and final form.
Donald Trump as president, Hulk Hogan as press secretary, Linda McMahon at education.
I know he's very controversial right now, but really, Vince McMahon is chief of staff.
I know he's very controversial.
We've got to dismantle the federal education system, brother.
Flex is on.
Yeah, yeah.
So anyway, Linda McMahon, who's done all sorts of funny things in the past.
Has she had a Stone Cold stunner done on her?
Or she did one to one?
She did one on someone?
Harry?
No, she's not done a Stone Cold stunner.
She's taken one.
She's taken a Stone Cold stunner.
Did she sell it well?
No, she sold it terribly.
It's happened again, we're talking about wrestling.
Oh yeah, sorry.
Also, there's an amazing clip of her pretending to be paralytic sat in a wheelchair as Vince McMahon makes out with a much younger woman directly in front of her.
So she's the first Secretary of Education that you can say that about.
It is, yeah.
I guarantee other ones have probably done worse.
Okay, and one last...
Most certainly.
If anything, at the sleaze level, the McMans are probably quite low down in Washington.
And there's a bit of sleaze there.
And that's saying a lot.
Yeah.
Okay, so the last point I just wanted to make is just that Trump's sentencing for all those felonies he was found guilty of has been pushed back again for some reason.
Don't really know exactly the legal reasoning...
They're gonna go nowhere and get dropped.
That's what it looks like.
But yeah, so that was sort of...
Well, was Steelius, I suppose, to some degree, hanging over his head.
But that's just something to mention on the ongoing Trump train.
Excellent.
Onto the video comments.
Do the play.
And that now we are at our rock bottom and this is where we are at.
I feel like I'm in a different world today.
This is so heartbreaking.
I am beyond, I'm beyond words and feelings today.
She made a video whining about not receiving equal rights and then says she's beyond words and feelings.
Dear god.
Are these people just so lacking in self-awareness?
Yes!
Don't telegraph your personal anguish and meltdowns on the internet for validation, it's embarrassing.
Just general good life advice.
Take that one to the bank.
I have to keep pointing this out.
I don't feel like the leftists actually care anywhere near as much as they used to.
Even in that clip that you played there, Sam, she's kind of like, oh, I'm so depressed.
Oh, I hate this so much.
Whereas if it was 2016, she'd be like actually ripping chunks of her own skin out, scratching her face, punching the walls.
I think that it was a bit performative to begin with.
Now it's completely Well, the best meltdowns from this election cycle were all of the shitlibs who thought they actually had a stranglehold on politics, realising that they don't.
It's Rory Stewart, it's Cenk Uygur, it's Alistair Campbell.
Destiny screeching on his stream, why aren't they counting that?
He was this close to denying the election results.
Yeah, it's all the people who thought they had much more influence than they did, so felt personally aggrieved.
All of the on-the-ground-level meltdowns are kind of just tame.
Oh well, on with the next one.
Hey guys, I wanted to shout out a really awesome food YouTube channel you should look into.
It's called John Kirkwood.
He's a retired chef and he does some really, really lovely English and British cooking.
You guys should have him on the show and you should use him to do the Lotus Eaters cooking show.
Seriously.
Lotus Eaters cooking show, guys.
Do it!
I will say in that thumbnail, that steak and Guinness pie looked fantastic.
My missus is making mince pies this Sunday, so I'm very much looking forward to it.
Very cute.
Very cute.
On with the next one!
Now a quick memo to Queer Stalin.
Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister with the biggest balls of any PM since Churchill, once called a general election a year early.
So Starmer's tough shit reaction to the millions signing a petition against him should remember that, although UK elections are every five years, that isn't set in stone.
And if Labour hopes to preserve its electoral viability, the Starmer bot may want to be very careful.
Well, we had three elections within the space of five years between 2015 and 2019, plus the Brexit referendum, so it's not impossible.
Ben Habib's prediction, and I think he's quite good on economics, is that there's going to be a sterling crisis in a couple of years, because Rachel Reeves is so incompetent, she's mismanaged the budget, nobody's going to be investing, the sterling's going to fall against the pound, and they'll have to go cap in hand to the IMF like they did in the 70s, therefore instigating a general election.
If he's so unpopular already, an economic crash might actually kill Labour off.
I don't think they'll actually respond in any way other than dismissing the petition but if it does get more signatures over a period of time than they got in votes there will be excellent propaganda.
It builds momentum and discontent.
It keeps up morale if it takes five years.
Things like this are useful.
We've got a It's that thing that David Cameron and Nick Clegg brought in, if you remember, that there is a certain amount of time.
It used to be that it was at the PM's discretion within quite a large window of time, but now there's a certain point where you cannot keep parliaments going.
David Cameron brought that in in, what, 2010 or 2012 or whatever it was.
So of course the PM could call one early, but yeah, my reading is that Starmer, he could have 20 million signatures and he would just ignore it.
Because that's who he is.
He's the type of politician, an old school lefty politician, will never give up power of his own accord.
We'll talk about where Welby in the office the other day, we talked about where Welby was under a little bit of pressure and he resigned.
People were saying, I wonder if Starmoor would do anything like that.
No!
No, no, no!
Never in a million years you don't understand the man remotely if you think he would.
No, no, you'll never walk away from the game.
And he's been building up this for decades at this point.
He's had goals that he's wanted to achieve and sadly it seems that he's been very successful over his career in achieving them.
And I think there's a very old-fashioned term for what Keir Starmer is, which is evil.
And he's evil in a position of great power.
Communist, that's a synonym.
We've got a couple of rumble rants and we'll do some website comments.
SoberSaint for $5 and has a very strong opinion on this.
Any sort of a assisted dying is cowardice.
You're afraid of pain and losing your dignity and want to take the easy way out to save face.
I wouldn't reduce it to that.
I don't...
I mean, I have strong objections to it.
I wouldn't dismiss people's emotional turmoil as just mere cowardice and trying to preserve their reputation.
Yeah, that's bullshit.
That's coming from someone who doesn't know about misery and suffering and death.
It's never really stared it in the face, I don't think.
So, I reject that.
Yeah, I think it's difficult to say something so strong unless you've been in that position or seen somebody else in that position.
You want to say face and dignity and pain?
Yeah!
Yeah.
Well, also, I don't think that's a particularly persuasive line of argument against it, and I say that as someone who does argue against it, so there you go.
$2, Bobabad.
Did you know if you type destiny three times into r slash cuckold, a shirtless mutant dwarf will appear in the corner of your room and just watch you while sitting lopsided?
That is nightmarish.
That's a thing I just read out.
Thanks.
He might also offer you his wife while he's sat there.
You never know.
JM Denton for $10.
Thank you.
Vivek is a biotech CEO, a class known for pump and dump.
I wish I hadn't read that out.
It's ridiculous to trust him as a politician.
He made a bet on MAGA, but just before he saw the way the winds were going, he said he cried about January 6th.
I mean...
I didn't know about the January 6th statements.
Understandable.
Lots of people made silly statements about Trump.
I mean, do you remember JD Vance in 2016 said he's gonna be America's Hitler?
He's now his VP. I'm not saying that Vivek is a perfect candidate or sincere.
I don't know the guy.
I just think that's probably not worth writing off someone in Trump's orbit for that reason, because pretty much everyone in the MAGA coalition who's now a successor or heir apparent has done the same thing.
I think Gabbard and Rubio both threw quite a few barbs Trump's way over the years.
RFK? Yeah.
Pretty much everyone in his orbit now either ran against him for president or actively disparaged him.
It is a credit to Trump's character that he's prepared to...
Like I say, the RFK pick alone is quite a remarkable thing.
He doesn't have the ego that people think.
Yeah, alright, yeah.
Can't be said for politicians over in the UK, unfortunately.
I don't think so.
That's very unlikely.
Yeah, I don't think so.
If they did something very, very obvious and just came up and said, right, we're in power now, enough of the jokes, enough of all of the shroud of democratic legitimacy, we're in power, I think that would actually be the one thing that might set the Americans off to use their guns that they're so proud of.
Other than that, no.
And even then, if you think, oh, it might be like the shooter earlier on this year, I mean, that would have to be a damn good shooter in an event like that.
Yeah, and obviously none of us hope that, and we don't hope the intelligence services pull anything off wily.
Not that they haven't before.
Yeah, I think it's more likely they're going to try and frustrate him economically.
I mean, Jerome Powell has said he's not going to resign as chairman of the Fed, so he's just going to use interest rates to attack tariffs, I reckon.
We'll do a couple more website comments and then we'll wrap up.
Screwtape lasers.
Bo, the reason you don't like Vivek is because, as with me, you're burdened with the sight of middle age.
You have met all types of people and Vivek is obviously a plastic shape-shifting snake.
I would like to say that I've met some very tricky people, especially considering I've been in Westminster politics.
So I know how to spot them.
I'm maybe just being excessively charitable, but who knows?
For me, he screams untrustworthy.
He screams you're playing a character.
I don't know.
What are you cackling at?
Someone's name on the comments right now is Rory is a pikey.
Listen, just because he looks like one, sounds like one, acts like one, smells like one, I forgot where I was going with that.
A bit much for Rory, blimey.
Poor old Rory, even in the office today.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Rory will be on the Lads Hour soon, though, and I can't wait for that one.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
He will, won't you?
That's going to be a good one.
Right.
Baron von Warhawk.
To compare Keir Starmer to Saul Goodman, Harry, is an unforgivable insult to Saul, since he came clean at the end of the series and willingly went to jail for his evil, something Keir would never do.
Saul also had a very charming personality, let's give him that.
Yeah, quite.
Peter Harvey.
There would only be two reasons Keir Starmer always seemed to be free for defending terrorists.
Either he was intentionally free, or just a terrible lawyer that no one wanted, which is not impossible.
I don't think that's true.
I think, by the sounds of it, I know it was a joke.
By the sounds of it, he was an excellent lawyer.
He purposefully vacated spaces for these clients, it seems.
That's what it sounds like.
Harry, do you want to do something from yours?
Yeah, I'll read a few.
Chase Ball, oh, so a doctor can tell me to kill myself, but when I do it to others on Twitter, I get banned.
We live in an absolute society.
That we do, my friend.
Roman Observer.
You don't need to grow food if you're dead, and the NHS can help you with that.
Arizona Desert Rat.
Last six months of life guaranteed when it comes to medical care and living and dying.
There is no guarantee, especially with the NHS. And Run Car Snow Pen.
I don't know if I've been made to say something rude.
Assistant dying is such a semantic mess.
It's euthanasia.
I hate how, as a linguist and writer, we see the destruction of meaning to fool the common man.
Quite, I agree.
Bo, do you make any of the ones that you've got yours?
Colin P says, I have friends in Florida who would much rather Ron DeSantis remain as governor there than join the federal government.
I think he can't, because didn't he opt to not run for re-election because he was running for president?
I might misremember that.
Doesn't he only have a term up to 2028 anyway, as governor?
Might well be.
I'm gonna have to...
Weren't his figures just in the presidential run, aborted presidential run, just not good enough?
He's just not likes nationwide enough.
He slipped down to third on a fair few occasions.
He also made some strange PR choices that seemed to slip under his nose.
Okay, Kevin Fox says, National Intelligence, James O'Keefe.
He'll root out the swamp things.
Who's James O'Keefe again?
Former head of Project Veritas, he does all the undercover recordings.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
The one who we presume dresses as women, tricks, redditors.
Right.
I mean...
They don't understand the difference.
I think, unfortunately, James O'Keefe, this is something that people have to understand.
Certain people are suited for certain roles.
It's like you'd waste Douglas Murray as an MP. I think James O'Keefe would be wasted in that department.
I think he's actually best used exposing our enemies.
He's doing what he loves and is good at.
He just looks too good in a dress.
And Kevin Fox said, Homeland should go to Don Jr. How on earth would Don Jr. run?
Don Jr. runs a great podcast.
I don't think he can run that.
Sorry, just one of those things.
Anyway, look, I'm in favour of American Dynasties, but I don't think he's qualified.
But, Aaron, though.
No, he's just Caesar.
I believe.
Bless you.
Anyway, we've reached the end of our podcast.
Thank you very much for joining us.
We'll be back tomorrow at one o'clock.
And I'll also be doing Tomlinson Talks at three, so it's just in under half an hour for premium subscribers.
▲
Export Selection