Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 17, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:46:21

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1102

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 17th of February 2025. I am joined by Beau and I have the pleasure to introduce Henry Bolton and now I have quite an extensive number of things to say here.
	So you've had an extensive political career including becoming leader of UKIP and you recently became a member of the SDP. You had a long career in the army, didn't you?
	Reasonably long, yeah.
	You're a former police officer, you're an author, and you've also been appointed an officer of the Order of the British Empire.
	And I probably missed out some things there as well.
	We'll be going through the entire podcast schedule, listing off all the things, but it's very nice to have you here today.
	It's a pleasure to be here.
	And today we're going to be talking about how Britain has...
	Become a tyranny beyond parody.
	Beau's going to be giving us a bit of light relief, talking about the real identity of Jacques the Ripper, which, as we were saying just before we went on air, is a condemnation of the state of politics that this is the relief, talking about serial killer.
	And then we're going to be going on to...
	How the aesthetic of the UK, with a Y and two O's, is that of a dystopia.
	And this is, of course, looking at how multicultural phenomenon has influenced the aesthetic of Britain and changed it to something other than the Britain that we know and love.
	And so, I may as well get on with it.
	So, I'm going to be talking today about what amounts to...
	A large degree of judicial activism, I feel, as well as some general things that I see as a form of tyranny from other branches of the state.
	And I'm going to start off right away with this one.
	And this, I thought, was just beyond parody.
	It's a form of satire in a different age and a better time.
	That a failed asylum seeker can stay in the UK because she joined a terror group.
	Rather than, you know, she has her asylum claim rejected because of this.
	Does that make any sense?
	So I'll tell you all about it.
	So she's a Nigerian migrant who had a case thrown out eight times before succeeding with the claim that even the judge himself admitted was not honest, which one has to wonder why he allowed it in the first place then.
	She had become involved with the indigenous people of Biafra.
	Pretty much, seemingly, only in order to create a claim for asylum.
	And she came to the UK in 2011 and has been here applying for asylum ever since.
	And she joined this group in 2017. And the group itself is a separatist group that has been blamed for acts of violence against the Nigerian state, which shouldn't necessarily be Britain's problem.
	But they're classed as a terrorist organisation in Nigeria, but they're not prescribed in the UK. And it's a bit of a loophole whereby...
	She can now be protected because if we deport her back to her home country, then she will face persecution according to human rights lawyers.
	However, she's willingly done this to get this asylum claim in the first place.
	Cynical, isn't it?
	Well, it's not just cynical, is it?
	It's fraud.
	She's doing this for that purpose.
	It's a form of fraud.
	Here in the UK, even.
	And one could, I suspect, criminally...
	Perhaps even argue that case, trying to gain some sort of, particularly if she was able to access as a result benefits or any sort of material benefit, then you've got pecuniary advantage through fraud.
	Well, so perhaps there's even a case there.
	But I think that the point here is that there are...
	Also, people behind this who have clearly advised her, who clearly directed her as to how to avoid the deportation.
	So we've got people who are actively working against the spirit of the law.
	There are loopholes in just about every piece of legislation.
	No piece of legislation, no matter what it's about, can foresee every single set of circumstances.
	And that's one of the things about common law, really.
	I mean, you look at the circumstances, you know, just accordingly.
	I'll come back to that.
	But in this particular case, we have got people who do not want to, lawyers and others, activists, who are not looking at what the purpose of the law is, but the actual letter of the law.
	In a rather, as though it's codified law.
	Now we've been exposed, without talking about Brexit, to 40 years thereabouts of European Union codified law.
	So, which is very much, you know, the letter of the law.
	They don't have the same judicial system as us.
	They don't have the common law system.
	And as a result, I think a lot of our lawyers, a lot of our judges, 40 years, that's a career.
	Pretty much, you know.
	So people have entered the legal profession being exposed to European legislation, which is a very different beast.
	So it's not about the spirit of the law and what it's there to do.
	It's about the letter of the law, whereas our tradition is somewhat different.
	Now, I'm not a lawyer, but that's how I see things as a former police officer and having dealt with the European Union, worked for the European Union for three years.
	And so I think, you know, there is all of that that we've got to unpack as a nation.
	Do we want law that has a purpose and we respect the aims of that law?
	Or do we want to simply apply the literal letter of the law?
	Now, that's what a judge is for.
	A judge makes a judgment as to whether or not this is right or wrong, ultimately, in our tradition.
	You go to, I don't know, Austria.
	You can be an Austrian judge.
	You go through your training and then you become a judge.
	You don't have to have the experience because all you've got to be able to do is look it up.
	Now that's what we're doing here now, I think.
	And it's being exploited because, as I say, no law can predict every single set of circumstances.
	Like this is a unique set of circumstances.
	And we see it over and over again, that same application.
	Plus, of course, we've got the problem here in the UK of the Human Rights Act, which...
	Really, you know, linked to the European Convention on Human Rights.
	And so we've got all of that to unpack as well.
	And when people say to me, well, why can't we just do what the Americans do and, you know, just make a decree that we're going to do X, Y and Z? Well, the United States never tied itself to these sort of things.
	It never tied itself to a sort of extra national or higher multilateral form of legislation like the European Convention on Human Rights.
	So we've got to untangle ourselves from that if we're going to solve these sort of problems.
	And they are prolific, as I think you're going to...
	Maybe touch on some others.
	It certainly will, yeah.
	So anyway, that's not really in a nutshell, but I think there's a lot to this, and there's no simple answer.
	It's not simply activist judges.
	That's part of the problem, yes, because there's this sort of intellectual, sort of urban elite kind of attitude regarding multiculturalism, regarding how society should look in the modern era.
	You know, and the globalist sort of agenda, but all of that is there as well.
	So we've got a lot of work to do if we want to safeguard the British public.
	I think there is this giant edifice, just this individual Nigerian woman.
	It's obviously not in our interest to have her in this country, but she's just the tiny pinnacle of the problem, as you say.
	So do you think it's...
	Do you think it's too radical or too authoritarian to say, let's look at this giant monster of the NGOs, the activists, the lawyers, the nature of the judiciary itself, the questions of actual jurisprudence, what should law be?
	And what do we need to do to actually prevent us being exploited in this cynical way?
	It should all sit with Parliament, right?
	It should.
	So get rid of the Supreme Court, get rid of the ECHR, anything that stands in the way from preventing this sort of thing from happening to us over and over again.
	It all should be looked at and, if needs be, got rid of.
	I agree.
	And this is a matter for our politicians.
	And we, you know, without the Conservative Party in no way, no how, let's get this clear, deserved anybody's votes at the last general election.
	I mean, negligence, incompetence have run this country right into the ground.
	However, as I was warning before the general election, be careful, because if Labour get in, particularly if they get a stonking majority, we are going to have an even greater problem.
	And people were telling me, no, Labour can't be as bad as the Conservatives, no way, no how.
	Well, we've got Labour, and they are a damn sight worse.
	And that's part of the problem.
	We're not going to be able to tackle any of these problems as long as we've got a Labour government.
	And, yeah, the Conservatives dug us deeper into the hole, I agree, but through negligence and incompetence, as I say, not through deliberate ideological policy, I think.
	But that's maybe another slightly different discussion.
	I agree with you that we've got to address all of those things.
	I agree with you, effectively, what you're saying, that Parliament...
	Is the authority.
	The people are sovereign, but Parliament is the representatives of the people, and therefore it is up to them to do democratic bidding.
	The country is downright angry at this sort of thing.
	It is not the democratic will of the British people, as exercised in elections or on the streets or in any other way, that this should happen.
	What they want is this sort of thing like this Nigerian woman.
	They want that stopped and ended.
	First problem, Parliament, elected representatives need to listen to the people.
	I think we might touch on that later.
	The second thing, though, is, as I say, it can't happen overnight.
	Some politicians would have you believe that just having the determination, the will, the courage to say, no, get rid of these people and get rid of the Supreme Court and...
	The Council of Human Rights Act can just be driven by personality.
	Wrong.
	Because we are, we have tied ourselves into these various mechanisms and systems.
	We have to untangle all of that.
	And pieces of legislation...
	Very rarely stand alone.
	Like the Human Rights Act relates to the ECHR. So you've got to untangle yourself from all of this.
	We're tied in this net.
	It's doable though, right?
	It's doable.
	It's not a Gouldian knot.
	It's not beyond the wit of man.
	No, but it's a very complicated knot.
	And we do have to untangle it.
	I mean, you get a bit of fishing line.
	You can untangle it, but by God, by the end of it, you're going to be exhausted.
	So it's a bit like that.
	It can be done.
	But it can only be done if you've got the vision, the courage, the will, the determination and the political support to do it.
	And what we've done in the last general election is not just hand Labour power, but a massive majority.
	And they are unassailable.
	There are people who say, well, you know, give it a year, 18 months, they'll be out or whatever.
	They won't because they are not going to vote themselves out.
	There's no way of getting rid of them at the moment.
	And we're in a hole.
	So this situation is going to get worse and become more embedded.
	That's my fear.
	And no political party really...
	I won't play party politics, but I don't think really any political party is yet effective in proposing how we untangle this.
	There is, I will.
	We must.
	They've got it wrong.
	This is a problem.
	But there's no solution out there.
	There's no...
	Incredible solution being put over in a way that the people on the street can either access or understand.
	And that's a problem as well, because then people follow.
	We were talking before we came on air about, you know, psychology of people sort of following the group type of thing.
	That's because they're not well informed, because no politician is putting out there the real facts, nor is the mainstream media, really.
	So, anyway, so...
	You asked a fairly straightforward question and I went off on one, sorry.
	It's all very interesting.
	It's great, it's why you're here.
	Great stuff.
	So I've got lots of other examples that are probably rather infuriating, but I'm going to go over them nonetheless.
	Criminal avoids deportation to Portugal.
	Remember, Portugal is supposedly a safe country, a European country.
	People in Britain go on holiday there, so it can't be that bad.
	Because he has a child with special needs.
	I imagine Portugal has the ability, this child with special needs, I believe, has autism.
	I don't think Portugal is so bad as you can argue that it is completely uninhabitable for people with autism.
	I think that's a very tough case to argue.
	Of course it is.
	But again, we go back to the letter of the law.
	Judges aren't...
	Some of these tribunals are not looking at what is reasonable or what is in the interests of society.
	They are looking at the letter of the law.
	And if you find some sort of gap in it, then you can exploit it.
	That's the reality of where we are.
	Parliamentary time taken up if they want to and trying to close that little hole rather than the judicial system doing its job and the tribunal system doing its job to make sure that the purpose of the law.
	The spirit of the law is imposed on the case.
	Now, I mean, when you look at this, I mean, I know people who have emigrated to Portugal from the UK because they think the conditions over in Portugal are a great deal better in all sorts of respects than here.
	I don't know.
	I've never been to Portugal.
	So it's not a recommendation.
	So it's not about safety and so on.
	It is about what's in the interest of the British people and the laws of this land.
	Are the laws of this land.
	And they are for the people who live in this country.
	Not the people who would do it harm.
	Not the people who don't have a right to be here.
	We've got to put the British people first.
	And I have still yet, again, to hear...
	I mean, yes, Nigel Farage and William Clauston, they put the British people first.
	But I have yet to feel that...
	There is a movement in this country, a political movement back into the House of Commons, back into Parliament, where our role is to enhance the confidence, the optimism, prosperity and security of every man, woman and child living in the United Kingdom.
	British citizens first amongst those.
	I don't see that.
	And I don't think that's rocket science.
	But it seems to evade politicians of all sorts.
	I very much agree, and I'm going to bring up another example, and they're going to get even more frustrating.
	Zimbabwean paedophile allowed to stay in UK because he would face hostility back home, and I don't think we've exactly got a positive reception here either, so I don't know how one can make that argument, but I imagine it's the same sort of thing that you were alluding to before.
	We're seeing...
	Even more sort of twisted, dark irony here.
	Here's another one, again from The Telegraph.
	They've been very good recently.
	Pakistani paedophile escaped deportation because it would harm his children, which, you know, where do you even start with that?
	It's just ludicrous, isn't it?
	And look, to my basic way of thinking, and I think probably a good 90% of the British population, if a foreign national comes to this country, And commits a crime, such as paedophilia, then they damn well need to go home, and I don't care what the consequences for them are.
	They face the consequences.
	He knows the law.
	One of the problems we've got in this country is a lot of people come to this country, they don't want to integrate, they want to bring with them their own culture, their own...
	And sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't.
	But sometimes it creates tensions, and again, we might talk about that, I don't know.
	But if somebody comes to this country not integrating...
	Wanting to live the way they do back in their home society back here in the UK. And they commit a criminal offence.
	They're doing so with that grounding in their own legal system, their own social norms, their own cultural norms back in the country that they've come from, Pakistan or wherever.
	So don't come here and commit a sex crime, particularly paedophilia.
	And then expect to get away with it.
	Damn well, F off back to the place you came from, and if you don't like the consequences, well, you shouldn't have bloody well done it, should you?
	And that's how I see it.
	You know, we've got to look after the interests of the British people, not foreign nationals.
	It's for those countries to look after and deal with the justice issues and the criminal issues of those people, not us.
	What a state we're in that even really needs to be stated, or that opinion, or your voice.
	It has to be on some sort of alternative media platform.
	What a terrible thing.
	It should be just de rigueur.
	I don't care that your country of origin has got human rights abuses.
	That's on you.
	Again, don't do the crime then.
	Do you know what this almost implies?
	Almost.
	Probably some lawyer who's not got the interest of the United Kingdom at heart but actually can make some money out of this might one day argue.
	I hope no such person is listening to us now.
	I don't want to give them ideas.
	But it almost says, if you have committed paedophilia in Pakistan, then you can claim asylum in the United Kingdom.
	Now, that's almost what this says.
	If you're in the United Kingdom and you do something like that, then you can stay here to avoid the consequences back in your own country.
	Well, if you're already in that country...
	The next step is to say, come here to avoid prosecution there.
	It's a slippery slope, and I cannot grasp how any politician in Parliament, or anywhere else, can fail to stand up and say this.
	Because by not saying it, they're saying, well, it is, it is.
	Because it's back to that...
	Confidence, optimism, prosperity, and security.
	You're neglecting confidence, optimism, prosperity.
	Well, not the prosperity so much, but the securities most certainly.
	And security isn't just about...
	Guns and bullets, it's also about this sort of thing.
	Of course, it's not just Pakistan and Nigeria.
	It's any country that's internationally recognised as being guilty of human rights abuses, where you might face torture or an unfair trial or something in the country of origin.
	So that's vast swathes of the world.
	Of course it is.
	I mean, we are very, very lucky in this country, and sometimes we forget it.
	I'm constantly moaning and grumbling about the state of the country.
	We all are, probably.
	But actually, we forget that...
	Most of the world is in a pretty poor state.
	And if we're going to say that anybody who can receive better health care in the UK or is less likely to be or more likely in the UK to get a fair hearing on something or whatever it might be, then we are opening the doors in principle to the majority of the world's population.
	Now, then we come on to the practical impact, as well as the cultural impact and the tensions, the social tensions that it brings.
	But it's just ridiculous.
	You can't do that and survive.
	What happens is you don't level up the rest of the world, you level down the United Kingdom.
	And the United Kingdom can never be, again, if you do that, what it was held up to be for centuries, really, as being the sort of bastion of...
	Of fairness, of democracy, of human rights, of justice.
	We're losing that, not because we don't still try to build it, but because we're letting in so many people that compromise those positions.
	There's also another dimension to this, in that...
	People outside of Britain are now aware that we're a soft touch on these sorts of things, and I'm reminded of what one of my former colleagues, Callum, said.
	He went out to Afghanistan and spoke to the Taliban there, which, you know, hats off to him.
	And they were saying that, well, loads of our worst people...
	You know, the worst people in Afghanistan have fled to Europe because they've realised that they can basically get away with their crimes more easily in European countries than they can in Afghanistan.
	And I think that we're seeing that to a large extent.
	Lots of other countries, particularly those in North Africa and the Middle East, are pretty candid about the fact that the people who are coming here are their worst.
	And they're all too happy to get rid of them as well.
	And of course, they're going to go to...
	A place where they can do whatever they want.
	And this fact is not only frustrating from...
	The point of view that it's an injustice in and of itself, but also that it promotes further injustice by advertising the fact that this is going on to other people.
	And there was a trend that I managed to identify, actually, in who was actually looking, what international outlets were reporting on the number of illegal boat crossings into Britain.
	And it was all of the countries in which the majority of the so-called asylum seekers were coming from in the first place.
	place and so what these media organisations were actually doing is creating an advert for these people.
	So I was confused why the Afghani press was concerned about our border security or some North African countries and it's because there's interest in it because they want to do the same.
	It's not that they look upon us with sympathy, it's that they're looking at us to exploit our good nature.
	Indeed.
	For some...
	I was advisor to the Albanian Prime Minister years ago.
	And I also headed up the UK's efforts to counter transnational organised crime coming from that era of the Balkans, what's now the Republic of Northern Macedonia, Southern Serbia, parts of Greece, Kosovo and Albania.
	And I was also...
	In Kosovo before the NATO bombing.
	You know a thing or two about Afghanistan?
	I do.
	27 months in Helmand, yeah.
	But he's not the only one who's spoken to the Taliban.
	Different topics, perhaps.
	But in Albania, when Tony Blair opened Britain to Kosovar refugees, Sweden did likewise, particularly Sweden.
	There were a handful of us, because there were only a handful of us in the region at the time, who were saying, for God's sake, don't do this, because part of the war in Kosovo, unknown, because this never hit the mainstream media, everybody had the idea, I mean, you know, I'm not backing any side in this at all, but the Serbs were the evil, nasty ones, and the Albanians were the victims, because that was against the backdrop of the Balkan Wars, where the Serbs had been, you know.
	But we were saying, actually, both are a problem.
	Part of the problem in Kosovo, and part of the trigger for the war in Kosovo, was Albanian organised crime and the Serbs not having the sophistication, if you like, law enforcement or security sophistication, to address it with minimum force and in the appropriate manner.
	So there were two sides to that.
	But we were saying to London and to Washington, do not do this.
	Do not bring these people in, because if you do, you are just going to have a flood of organised crime.
	Because organised crime in that part of the world was absolutely prolific, particularly Albanians.
	I think we're seeing the consequences of this, because I was actually able to calculate with the government statistics that Albanians, relative to their population, are 32 times overrepresented in our prisons.
	And that's actually the highest of any nationality.
	I think one in four Albanians in this country, if I understand this correctly, has at some point been imprisoned in this country.
	With the Albanians came human trafficking.
	It's the sex trade.
	Came a lot of opiate trafficking.
	A lot of firearms trafficking.
	And when we talk about borders, we talk about the immigrants and the boats coming across the channel.
	But all of the cocaine, all of the heroin, about 97% of the firearms used in crime in this country come across our borders illegally.
	A lot of that is down to Albanians.
	Now, we opened all of that.
	When you've got one in four of an immigrant group living in the UK having served a prison sentence in the UK. Give or take a little bit.
	Surely, if your interests are protecting the UK and enforcing the rule of law, it's time to say no more Albanians come into the United Kingdom.
	Until this is sorted out.
	Albania?
	Point the finger at Albania.
	But we don't.
	And I don't understand it.
	I get so upset.
	Because I see this threat.
	Everybody sees this threat.
	And it is a threat.
	If you've got four people in front of you, and you know that one is an international heroin smuggler, then you've got a concern.
	You've got to, you know, you can't just ignore that.
	But we are.
	It's back to Parliament again and the government.
	So, I think, you know, yes...
	They themselves, the Albanians, have been incredibly engaged on social media in terms of moving across here.
	But it's not just social media.
	It's about the networks of transnational organised crime.
	And our police are way behind the loop.
	The police look at what they call cross-county lines.
	It's not cross-county lines at all.
	That's an American phraseology.
	It's actually...
	That terminology in itself kind of creates layers of criminality in the UK, which is inappropriate in the UK. It's just a buzzword that makes you sound good if you're a senior police officer.
	The fact is we've got transnational organised crime bringing all these illegal commodities into the United Kingdom, and we're doing very, very little about it.
	Very little.
	And because we fail...
	One of the...
	I know...
	I'm talking a lot, forgive me, but in Russian, bolton means chatterbox.
	If you refuse, for whatever reason, to acknowledge that a particular part of the British community has a propensity towards certain criminality, then you are failing to acknowledge that...
	The problem.
	No, put it in a medical analogy.
	If you don't diagnose the disease correctly, either you'll think there's no disease and you don't have to treat it, or there's a good chance you'll apply the wrong treatment and possibly even kill the patient.
	We're not diagnosing this because we can't talk about it.
	When I was a police officer in Reading at that time, the Pakistani community had a particular propensity.
	Pakistani lads, towards theft of and from motor vehicles.
	Fine.
	You know, more so than any other part of the community in Reading.
	We couldn't talk about that.
	But then, so what, you have to apply the same policing methodology to everybody?
	Because you can't say, well, it's just those people in that part of the town.
	Well, it's wasting resources.
	It is.
	So you see my point here.
	And we don't talk about...
	The fact that a lot of these predatory sex crimes are committed by people from particular societies.
	I'm not going to say Muslim, because there are a lot of places, Muslims in the country, that absolutely find this abhorrent.
	But there are other societies, other communities in the world from which we've received immigrants, asylum seekers or others, where it's not, where it's acceptable behaviour.
	Going back to Afghanistan, the British military were very well aware and had a bit of an issue with how to manage the fact that adult men, particularly district governors and so on, would employ T-boys.
	Now these T-boys, once a year the district governor would gather, families would come into the compound, bring their 11-, 12-year-old...
	Boys in to be sort of interviewed and looked at by the district governor and then employed by the district governor as the T-boy.
	Well, the T-boy would be sleeping with the district governor.
	That's the reality.
	If you want details, that's not something I suppose or I've heard.
	It's something I know.
	And then those families would gain...
	Privileges as a result of this lad being with the governor for a year or so, that family would get the patronage of the district governor.
	So, you know, this is normal.
	There's nothing involuntary about this.
	This is normal social behaviour.
	So when you bring people in from those sort of societies, without acknowledging that, and you don't require integration...
	Which we don't.
	You don't make any effort.
	There's 17 different categories of people who come into this country who don't have to meet the English language tests.
	So when you do that, then you've got to expect.
	You're stupid if you don't expect that sort of behaviour to be transferred and transplanted into the United Kingdom by those people.
	It will be.
	It's normal for them.
	They're used to it.
	Now, let's not even judge it.
	But it brings their behaviour into conflict with our values.
	There we have a problem.
	I'll judge it.
	It's disgusting, completely obscene.
	I know.
	I thought you might.
	I do as well.
	My point is you don't even have to judge it to know that these two cultural norms, if you like, and values and principles are so vastly far apart that there's no bridge across them.
	And that's my point.
	Even if you don't even judge it, that's a huge gulf that is going to create problems in society.
	And if you haven't got a united society, you haven't got a society.
	You've got friction.
	And then if you go down to the judgmental route, absolutely right, then how much does that multiply that effect?
	So...
	You have to whip through a few links.
	Yeah, no, no.
	I think we've made the point, but yes, there are some other ones.
	A drug dealer was allowed to stay in Britain after promising to only smoke cannabis, which is still against the law.
	It is like a parody.
	It is.
	It's like a sketch.
	And then...
	Starmer has actually backed the deportation of one person.
	Apparently an Albanian, relating to a previous conversation, has tried to resist his deportation because his son only likes chicken nuggets in Britain.
	He doesn't like foreign chicken nuggets.
	To be fair, when I was in Albania, there was no McDonald's.
	There probably is now.
	But you get the point, right?
	There's another one here.
	A Caribbean woman staying in the UK illegally claims she can't be deported to Granada as her Latvian husband won't be able to cope with the spicy food.
	Boo-hoo!
	I don't care.
	We can deport them both.
	Why not?
	Don't break up families.
	It's just an important point.
	I think when somebody comes into the United Kingdom, if we give them the right to remain here, leave to remain here, under whatever, whether they're a student or whether they're...
	Whoever they are.
	Anyone who is allowed in because of their association with that person, spouses, children, whatever, they are there on the basis that the principal immigrant is here.
	If that principal immigrant, and I think they should be required to sign a document to this effect, if that principal immigrant commits An offence.
	Something that carries a six-month or longer sentence.
	Not necessarily that is awarded six months, because in this country you can commit all sorts of crimes and you should be sentenced to incarceration, but you're not.
	But anyway, so potentially carries a six-month or more prison sentence.
	Then, not only do they become deportable...
	Is that a word?
	Deportable.
	But so does anyone who is here on their ticket.
	It is not you can stay because they're here.
	So if you've come in with your wife and two kids, and now you do something and we can't deport you, well, you know, at the moment we can't deport you because one of your children likes chicken nuggets or something stupid like this, or you don't like spicy food.
	Well, forget that.
	They go with you because...
	You've got no right to be here, so nor have they by association.
	They go too.
	And if your wife and kids don't like that, best they have a word with you then.
	You've got them into this mess.
	That's a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
	And yes, it's to the point now where reading the news is like reading the satire of 20 years ago, and it's in a very unfortunate place.
	But I'm going to have to leave it there.
	But we've got a bunch of comments through.
	I'm going to read a couple of those.
	Josh, please look into Lillian Sinoy Barr, asylum seeker in Northern Ireland, first black mayor.
	Her asylum case is very fishy.
	She fled the UK from Kenya despite having family members in the government.
	That sounds very familiar.
	That sounds like the Rudakabana family, doesn't it?
	So UK government sees...
	Iqbal...
	I'm trying to read these before I actually read them out.
	If you want to keep yourself safe, you need to look beyond the state.
	I can't agree with that one, I'm afraid.
	Can I bring up one of these?
	Of course.
	I won't say the name of the person on it.
	Anyway, Mr Bolton seems to think that everyone with a British passport is British and will get to stay once we take back our country.
	Passports are handed out to every...
	Child rapist that demands one.
	Anyway, the point is, we give out our passports far, far too easily.
	We give leave to remain in the United Kingdom far, far too easily.
	If you are here for five, six years or so, and you want to stay here, then the chances are nobody's going to ask you to leave.
	Maybe you came here with a job.
	You've got a job.
	You've been working.
	You lose the job.
	Well, you lose the right to remain because your right to remain was based on that job.
	So, no, that's not what I think at all.
	Once you get a British passport, then there are privileges that come with that passport.
	My concern is that we give out British passports far too easily.
	We give out the right to remain far too easily, and we never withdraw it.
	That's the point.
	If you come here as a student, you finish your course as a student, then your reason for being here has ended.
	You leave.
	You came here to do a job.
	You're no longer doing that job.
	Your reason for being here has ended.
	You leave.
	And your family leaves.
	Anybody you brought with you, they leave.
	And if you've got married in the meantime, let's say you're a Nigerian and you've got married to somebody who's, you know...
	50th generation born and bred in the UK. Fine.
	You've married that person.
	You still leave.
	I don't give a damn whether you've married somebody here or not.
	Because you were here on the basis...
	You can leave and then reapply on the basis that you've got, you know, go through whatever procedure.
	But no, I mean, the point here is not that everybody with a British passport, I think that's the wrong approach, is British and so on.
	That should be the way.
	We just give out all of these things as though they're confetti, and we shouldn't be.
	Some countries in the world, it's very, very, very, very difficult to become a citizen legally.
	That should be us.
	And I believe the Home Office or whatever department deals with it should be revoking people's citizenship on a mass scale.
	Do you remember how hard it was with the Shamina Begum case?
	The mainstream media was in uproar that we stripped her of our citizenship.
	No, that should be completely normal.
	It should be completely normal.
	Someone comes here, gets citizenship, and then commits a terrible crime.
	Well, back to your country of origin, and you're stripped of your citizenship.
	Yeah, if they've got foreign citizenship as well.
	The thing is that perhaps we shouldn't be giving them citizenship so easily.
	If you give somebody citizenship, you give them a passport, then you're giving them that protection of the Crown.
	And I still believe in the meaning of that.
	But...
	When you give them out like confetti, that's a slight exaggeration, but you get the meaning, then I think you bear some responsibility.
	The British government that has been doing this, whether it's Labour or Conservative, bears the responsibility for this.
	And I think if you've got a passport and it can be just taken off you if you don't have dual nationality...
	Then, if you do, then yes, absolutely agree with you.
	They're still a foreign national offender, like Begum.
	But if they've only got British nationality now, they've revoked their previous nationality, you have given them, rightly or wrongly, you have given them that protection.
	You have said you're now British.
	And if that passport is really going to mean something, in future, not now, because it doesn't mean a great deal now, but in future, if it's going to mean something...
	We need to give it to those who are truly deserving of it, rather than give it out to any Tom Dick and Harry who's been here for five or six years.
	And then we get rid of that problem.
	So, I think we may as well go on to the identity of Jack the Ripper.
	Okay.
	Alright.
	Seamless segue then.
	So there's been a big...
	We didn't get a passport.
	There's been a big breakthrough in the Whitechapel murders.
	Oh yeah, of course.
	They happened in Whitechapel, didn't they?
	I'm happy to say, ladies and gentlemen, we got him.
	Probably, almost certainly, it seems.
	I hope this is up your alley, Henry, being an ex-policeman.
	I've always been fascinated by the Ripper murders, ever since I was a small child, in fact.
	There's just a bunch of headlines there in the mainstream media, so you can see that it's been in the news cycle recently.
	I've always been fascinated ever since I was a child.
	I mentioned before one time, I got a book when I was a small child just called Mysteries.
	A small kiddies book, a double page spread on things like the Mary Celeste and the JFK killing.
	And one was on the Ripper murders.
	And so ever since then I've read half a dozen books, a couple of novels, loads and loads of documentaries.
	And so I've always been absolutely fascinated by it.
	It's not that far from where I was born and raised.
	I grew up in London Borough of Havering, which is only 15, 20 odd miles from Whitechapel.
	So just east of East London.
	Whitechapel is in East London, if anyone doesn't know.
	So, OK, it was one of the most famous serial killers, one of the most famous cold cases of all time.
	And it looks like now DNA evidence has shown who it was.
	And it turns out it was one of the main killers, one of the main suspects.
	And in fact, I'm pretty sure I've mentioned that I thought it was him somewhere in the past.
	I tried to, for the life of me, I can't remember, but maybe on a Mr. H review stream or maybe one of my conversations with the great Devon Tracy, atheism is unstoppable.
	At some point, somewhere or other, I've mentioned this guy that I thought it was him.
	And you can find lots of videos and documentaries where they say it's probably this guy.
	It's like the Zodiac Killer, if anyone knows that case.
	They kind of know who the Zodiac Killer was, but they only ever got circumstantial evidence, really.
	They never had enough to get it to court, let alone a conviction.
	But they sort of know who the Zodiac Killer was.
	It's the same with Jack the Ripper.
	There's a fair few documentaries where they say, it's almost certainly this guy.
	Okay, but now it looks like there has been a real breakthrough with DNA and we know really who it was.
	So, if I could just scroll down on my document.
	Samson, can you scroll down on my document on my screen, please?
	Oh, there you go.
	There you go.
	Okay.
	So, I always think that because it was a mystery, because we didn't know, it's much more scary, much more mysterious and interesting than it really is.
	Like, oh, there's a picture from that childhood book I had.
	And it terrified me.
	I remember having nightmares, literally, about that when I was like eight or whatever.
	I'm not surprised.
	It's horrible, isn't it?
	Because it's much more scary when you don't know.
	That's the thing with fear, isn't it?
	The way to...
	The mind killer.
	The way you maximise fear, and I'm pretty sure the COVID response unit in the government knows this one, is you appeal to people's anxiety and uncertainty about the future, and uncertainty is the way to maximise fear.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	As Frank Herbert says, fear is the mind killer.
	But the real reality is it's just a bloke.
	So, for example, that's the Green River Killer, one of the most terrible serial killers of all time.
	It's just that dude.
	With a moustache, right?
	And a pair of glasses on.
	Next one, BTK, again, one of the most disgusting serial killers of all time.
	It's just him.
	Starting to recognise a theme, if they wear glasses and have a moustache.
	Well...
	Dr. Shipman.
	Oh.
	Again, there is a bit of a physiognomy thing going on.
	Not all serial killers look like that.
	I think it's just the era that you're pulling them from, right?
	A moustache was fashionable.
	Dr. Death's Harold Shipman there.
	OK, so a little bit about the Whitechapel killings.
	If anyone doesn't know, I'll assume people don't know.
	It was back in the late 19th century, in the late Victorian period, 1888, in Whitechapel in East London, there was five murders.
	They sort of call them the canonical five.
	He may have killed more.
	Some say that there's a few other killings around that time which may have been Jack the Ripper, but there's five that we're certain.
	Now, there's lots and lots of...
	There's been so much written about this over the years.
	There's even sort of the...
	Ripperology.
	It's almost like their whole career is based around...
	What a terrible name for it.
	Right, yeah.
	And there were loads and loads of suspects.
	I mean, loads.
	At the time, the police had three main suspects.
	One is the guy I'm going to reveal shortly.
	Another one was a guy called...
	What was his name?
	Cutbush was his name.
	Yeah, sorry, Thomas Cutbush.
	And he found himself in Broadmoor Asylum.
	So he was sort of clinically insane.
	One of the main ones was Montague Druitt, or MJ Druitt, and there's a picture of him.
	One of the lead investigators at the time was convinced until his death that it was this guy.
	It seems now it almost certainly wasn't.
	But there's been a bunch of names over the years.
	I'll run through a few.
	Suing Koloski.
	Michael Ostrog, John Piazza, James Thomas Sadler, Francis Tumblety.
	He was one that is actually, if you look at the details, it's like it could have been him.
	It just wasn't.
	Because they, well, the evidence at that time was different.
	There was obviously no CCTV and no DNA. So I often think that in the sort of 19th century or earlier, it would have been quite easy to commit crimes if you weren't sort of caught red-handed.
	It would have been a lot easier to get away with it.
	William Henry Burry, Thomas Neil Cream, Frederick Deeming, Cole Fingenbaum, Robert Stevenson, James Maybrick.
	A lot of people thought it was James Maybrick.
	The evidence did seem to point to him in some ways, like the circumstantial evidence.
	Walter Sickett, George Chapman, some people even thought it was Lewis Carroll.
	The author.
	He wrote Alice in Wonderland and Alice through the looking glass.
	It wasn't.
	That's nonsense.
	Are they reading some sort of veiled confession in that book somehow?
	Yeah.
	What people are like.
	Some said it was...
	Prince Albert Victor, the Duke of Clarence, who was the oldest son of Dirty Bertie, went on to be Edward VII, the King.
	He would have been the Prince of Wales and King himself.
	He died before that ever happened, almost certainly of syphilis.
	But some said it was him.
	Again, nonsense.
	He wasn't even in the country for some of the killings.
	But anyway, the point is that there's been many, many, many names put forward over the years and all sorts of crazy, or perhaps even not that crazy, theories about who it was.
	Turns out it was a guy called Aaron Kosminski.
	Well, there's a picture, a drawing of one of the murders.
	In fact, that is the murder where he's being caught with DNA. That was the poor Catherine Eddowes.
	So the five, the canonical five, are Mary Jane Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Jane Kelly.
	Now, one of the things that makes it interesting is that he seems to have, a bit like that ghost-type apparition picture we saw earlier, that phantom, he seemed to have been able to sort of disappear into the streets and back alleys of Whitechapel.
	Now, even today, it's like a rabbit warren.
	It's like a little labyrinth.
	If you know where you're going, all the little alleys and muses and courtyards that lead on to each other, back in the late 19th century, it's even more of a rabbit warren.
	So if you knew it like the back of your hand, it would be a perfect place to do some sort of violent crime and disappear.
	But some of the early ones, for example, happened just below someone's window, and they claim they never heard anything.
	So it seems like he's like this master of crime in some way.
	But he was called the Ripper because he ripped these women.
	They're all prostitutes.
	Ripped these women to ribbons.
	Now, Catherine Eddowes, there was a shawl.
	She was wearing a shawl at the time.
	Well, there you go.
	That's a picture of Kosminski.
	That's a picture taken when he was about 16, when he first came over from Poland.
	He was a Polish-Jewish immigrant who came to London.
	And he did the murders when he was about 23, 24. So there's a picture of him when he was about 16. So again, that's the face of evil.
	That is the face of Jack the Ripper.
	He's just sort of a normal person, right?
	On the surface.
	You wouldn't think twice looking at him, would you?
	Did you find that during your time in the police?
	That quite often you've got this monster that's out there and it turns out it's just a guy.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, very definitely.
	There's one particular case that I was involved with on the periphery of it, and a guy had cut his mother's heart out, and I was just on cell watch.
	The guy clearly had issues, but when you looked at him, you wouldn't think that there was anything different in him at all.
	If you passed him walking down the street, you wouldn't go, looks like a dodgy character.
	There wouldn't be anything of that sort.
	You know, interesting.
	The banality of evil.
	Yeah, I mean, it's an interesting psychology, isn't it?
	What leads people to do these things and how does it work?
	I mean, I guess that's something that's always puzzled minds ever since I'm a memorial, really.
	There are two main things.
	The main predictor is childhood abuse, shortly followed up by what has now been coined the dark triad, which is encompassing lots of traits, but it's basically the notion of someone being a psychopath, in that they don't actually have the ability to feel any empathy or sympathy for their victims.
	I think that's where, yes, that I'd agree with, but you can't tell that from looking at someone.
	Of course you can't, no.
	So who was this Eric Smith?
	Well, he was clinically insane.
	He was a schizophrenic, not that all schizophrenics are violent or anything, but he was sort of clinically insane.
	And we know this because shortly after the Ripper murders, he was committed to an asylum where he stayed for the next 30 years until he died of natural causes in his mid-50s.
	But to be fair, Beau, I mean, you know, again, society moves on, medical advances and so on.
	You know, what now, what then was classified as insane...
	You know, now might be something entirely different.
	It might be, you know, far better diagnosed and so on, and treatable.
	In those days, of course, they had far less understatement.
	With your background, you'll know about this.
	But now, of course, so, yes, clinically insane, but we don't, again, maybe we should, I don't know, but I don't think we should.
	We don't refer to people now as clinically insane, do we?
	We're a little bit more...
	I do.
	I'm happy to sometimes.
	Maybe there's three of us in the dream.
	When you're a serial killer like this, ripping women to shreds.
	True, true.
	But now we wouldn't call it clinically insane.
	We'd call it, you know, there's something else.
	Mental health condition.
	Sanity impaired.
	No, no.
	Don't misunderstand me.
	I'm not trying to say that he's a normal, ordinary guy and we should be sympathetic.
	I'm not saying that at all.
	But it's just interesting how, you know, then it was clinically saying now it would be something else.
	Well, now the times have changed a little bit.
	A lot of the people that would have been in asylums...
	In past times are now seen as best served being in the community.
	There are very, very few people actually sectioned anymore.
	And you've got to do something particularly egregious or be seen as particularly violent to get to that position.
	And I think my professional opinion is that quite often the standard is a little bit too narrow.
	And I think that there are lots of people out on the streets that have obvious mental health problems that perhaps shouldn't be.
	You know, not only for the safety of the population at large, but also their own safety as well.
	So Kuzminski, regardless of the Whitechapel killings, was institutionalised for the rest of his life.
	There's things like he wouldn't accept food from anyone.
	If anyone else had touched the food in any way, he wouldn't accept it from.
	But he'd eat bread out of a gutter.
	There's accounts of things like that.
	So, one time he threatened to kill his own sister with a knife, because the pathology of it, people have looked very closely at this Aaron Kominsky over the years, and the pathology is all there.
	There was just no proper, very, very strong evidence that he actually did these killings.
	But the police said at the time that he was prone to solitary vices and experienced auditory hallucinations.
	That's one of the main symptoms of schizophrenia.
	The police also described him at the time as a Polish Jew and resident in Whitechapel.
	This man became insane owing to many years of indulgence in solitary vices.
	Which is a veiled way of saying something else.
	He had a great hatred of women, especially of the prostitute class, and had strong homicidal tendencies.
	He was removed to a lunatic asylum in March 1889. And the killing stopped.
	Because that's one of the things that a lot of, you know, modern day sort of FBI profilers or even Scotland Yard profilers, they say when you get a killer like the Ripper, you've got increasingly more violent, like the last murder, the very last murder of Mary Jane Kelly is unbelievable.
	He dismembered her.
	Ripped off her face, put bits of her in a fire, maybe ate them, just as mad and depraved as it gets.
	Usually that person won't stop, cannot stop.
	So the idea that they did just stop means that either he died or he was put in prison or a mental asylum or something.
	Usually the pathology of these people is that when they get that far down the line, you don't just suddenly think, oh, that's enough.
	I've filled my boots, I'm happy now.
	I'll go back to being normal.
	It doesn't...
	It doesn't really work like that.
	It speaks of a worsening condition, doesn't it?
	Right.
	It's on a slippery slope into hell, isn't it?
	So what's the new evidence?
	Okay, sorry.
	So her shawl.
	There we are.
	There's a drawing of him in later life.
	So there was this shawl and it was said that it belonged to her, to Eccles, Eddowes, sorry, Catherine Eddowes.
	It said that it belonged to her.
	And through DNA of their descendants, It was shown that it had his DNA on it.
	But what cast doubt on it was the provenance of it.
	Was it certainly her shawl?
	And so very recently, through surviving members of her family, they were able to show that it was her shawl, certainly.
	So it came up for auction in 2007 or something.
	It was said that it was her shawl, and it was said that it was found at the scene of the...
	Murder.
	But, you know, the chain of custody.
	Can we be sure of that or not?
	Turns out DNA shows it was.
	So it links him to the scene as sort of a slam dunk at that point, right?
	Is that fair to say?
	Probably.
	I mean, you know, just on that, I mean, now you would ask the question, was that shown to him in interview, for example?
	Did he have an opportunity to touch it?
	Was the police officer who took custody of, or who interviewed or had any contact with this individual, also, did that police officer have contact with this piece of evidence, in which case was the contamination of the evidence?
	I mean, you would look at that sort of thing now.
	But nonetheless, you know, it's a...
	It's an interesting piece of evidence.
	Nowadays, you wouldn't say that was conclusive, and a court wouldn't, without understanding whether or not contamination could have taken place or not, a court wouldn't necessarily.
	It would be weaker than it...
	Back then, it would...
	Yeah.
	That's why it's great to have you on.
	That was really the question I wanted to ask you.
	I feel that, for me, I'm happy to say now that it was...
	Aaron Kosminski.
	But I feel like if he'd somehow lived to be 180 years old and was still alive and could be put on trial, I suspect it would be a difficult trial because a clever defending barrister would say, you know, the chain of custody of the shawl, of the evidence, has been broken and all the things you just said, like did the police officers do X, Y, Z, I suspect a very, very clever barrister might be able to cast doubt.
	Nevertheless, it was almost certainly him.
	That said, these are the sort of things that now police will consider and there are very strict protocols with regards to the handling of evidence and the potential for cross-contamination because some very serious cases have been lost because not necessarily that cross-contamination has taken place but because there was a possibility that it may have done.
	And so this shawl hasn't been kept in a police evidence room ever since 1888. So, it could be a very, very clever and sort of cynical attempt by someone along the line to mix DNA. It almost certainly isn't.
	I don't think that is the case.
	But it's possible, isn't it?
	It's also what that DNA comes from as well.
	Was there injury?
	Was it his blood?
	Was it semen?
	Was it?
	Or whatever.
	Because that also would be indicative because the chances of, for example, without getting too graphic, a semen cross-contamination would be unlikely in a police interview room.
	You know, for example.
	One would hope.
	It makes the point.
	No, absolutely.
	So, I mean, I think now it is sort of kind of case closed.
	It was Kuzminski.
	And he was, you know, massively suspected at the time.
	Massively.
	Well, the guy sitting down there is his brother.
	There's no real photographs of him in sort of later or middle age, but he apparently looks very much like his brother there, Isaac, the guy sitting down.
	So, again, that's very close to the face of Jack the Ripper there.
	There are all sorts of other elements that we can mention, but I just think it's very interesting because it's been in the news recently and we've got an ex-policeman on and I'm fascinated by it.
	I thought it was interesting to mention that it's probably case closed at this point.
	One of the interesting things, just as a slight aside to this, is Thames Valley Police have a museum at Sol Hampstead.
	And there's some of the evidence from some of the crimes that were committed in the 1880s or whatever it might be.
	And some of these older...
	Most police forces...
	I think it was the Berkshire Constabulary in those days or something.
	But a lot of these police forces maintained museums.
	They're restricted opening hours and so on.
	They're not sort of open every day.
	But if you can get access to them, some of the things that you find in there, it's a real sort of grisly kind of display that's on there.
	But very, very interesting to think about how...
	Medical science and so on, but how policing has moved on so much, and the sophistication of it.
	Because as you alluded to, you know, the gathering of evidence, you didn't have the forensics, you didn't have the police databases, you didn't have the same access to documentary records.
	If you committed a crime in London, the chances of cross-referencing something to do with that, with what happened, I don't know, in North Wales, would have been almost impossible.
	So it's very interesting how that...
	The very basic approach to policing.
	It was just people scratching their heads, basically, and just trying to figure it out.
	Of course, they had the Met Police by the late 19th century, but the idea of a London police force, a standing London police force, wasn't all that old.
	I mean, it goes back to Robert Peel, the Peelers, in the early 19th century.
	I mean, that's not that long ago, is it, really?
	No, and the detective, sort of, you know, specialist detectives were...
	It really came from the Met, from Scotland Yard, and often would be sort of seconded out to help with cases if there was a request from a provincial force.
	But there is this idea that the Met is sort of all singing, all dancing and so on.
	Well, as a former provincial police officer, I would say, although one of the busiest divisions in the United Kingdom at the time, I'd say that's a little bit false.
	You know, sometimes...
	Specialists come in small groups, you know, and the Met has its strengths, but sometimes it's overblown.
	A lot of the expertise is out in the provincial areas.
	But, you know, the point is it's moved on.
	Everything's moved on a great deal.
	And it's fascinating with modern eyes to look back at these sort of cases, as it is, you know, with politics.
	You can think, you know, Howard Disraeli or Gladstone or whoever have dealt with...
	I wonder how Palmerston would have dealt with Putin.
	We never know the answers to these things, but if you've got idle moments, then some sad people like myself think about them.
	One last angle I'll just talk about briefly before we move on is the idea that it's not right or it's unfair to pick on A Polish or Polish-Jewish immigrant.
	But there's people on Twitter saying, of course, you know, they're picking on immigrants.
	I think that's such an insane take.
	It's like, no, the evidence, no, I'm not interested in any of that nonsense.
	I'm interested in fact and the truth.
	If the guy happens to be a Polish immigrant, then so be it.
	It's got nothing to do with anything.
	No, I agree.
	In this case, no.
	But I would go back to my earlier comment that it is a reality of criminality and policing, the rule of law, that certain communities have a propensity towards certain types of crime.
	Give you some idea as to what's going on.
	So if you have a car theft in the east of Reading, the east end of Reading, in the mid-1990s, the chances are that it's a young Pakistani lad.
	Now that's not, you know, that's not saying it is.
	It is just that that...
	Community at that time had a propensity towards that sort of crime.
	Likewise, Albanians in the UK. You know, we know what sort of organised crime the Albanians are involved with.
	We know what sort of organised crime Kurds are involved with.
	And that's not saying that all Albanians, all Kurds are involved in it.
	But there's a propensity in those communities towards certain types of crimes where other communities in the UK won't have that.
	So there is that element, if you like, of profiling.
	And if we rule that out...
	Of our discussion.
	Then A, we absolve those communities of responsibility for dealing with it.
	And B, we ourselves are denying ourselves the opportunity to address it in a bespoke manner.
	And therefore, we're neglecting our duty to keep the public safe.
	Okay, there's a million and one other things.
	I could say about the Ripper murders, but I'll leave it up to other people if they're interested in that, if they've not heard of it before.
	I can't imagine there'll be many people, but there's lots and lots of documentaries and books.
	There's so many bits of evidence and interesting threads to pull on there, but it looks like case closed.
	We've got a few comments to fire away with, but we're a bit pressed for time, so I'm just going to read them out.
	Will they make Jack the Ripper black in the Netflix documentary?
	And a woman.
	Maybe, yeah.
	They do like doing that.
	Beau, I know you like space science.
	Have you looked at the magnetic pole reversal in progress?
	Follow at Sun Weatherman on X. So there you go.
	That is a very interesting phenomenon.
	I still think it was the butler in the billiard room with the knife.
	Nice Cluedo reference there.
	If diversity built Britain, why were none of Jack's victims women of colour?
	Well, there we go.
	Jack was seen praying five times a day.
	Well, I don't get it.
	But anyway, I wanted to talk a little bit about a new phrase that has been coined to describe a new identity for modern Britain, and that is that of the UK, with why and...
	Two O's.
	And it's a sort of play, to my mind at least, to my understanding, of the sort of multi-ethnic lingua...
	I don't know what they call it necessarily.
	The name escapes me.
	But it's that sort of multicultural London English, isn't it?
	I think that's the acronym that they use.
	And it's...
	A good phrase that I think people have already started adopting, because it makes a distinction between historic Britain, of course.
	You think of Britain, you think of the British Empire, you think of our long and storied history, something to be proud of.
	And then you think of the UK, which has become...
	Sort of synonymous in many right-wing circles as being simply referred to as an economic zone a place whereby its citizenry are interchangeable and they're only valued in so much as they contribute to the economy and this sort of I think that much of the imagery of modern Britain suggests that we are something very different than
	the Britain that we once knew, and I personally would like to see more of once more.
	To summarise this very long post explaining it from the person who I believe coined the term they're basically describing it as a transformation of Britain due to mass migration and this has got cultural demographic and linguistic transformations and this creates something entirely distinct from historic Britain and it first started appearing in major cities and then spread out from them and then over time these new cultural identities become established facts rather than Contested changes and then the idea of reversing such changes
	is presented as increasingly unlikely over time and they make the analogy of how pre-Saxon Britonic identity is now largely historic as it has been entirely subsumed into the Anglo-Saxon or English identity as a sort of historic president for this.
	And you can see this and lots of people have been sharing just images from modern Britain that encapsulate this without Any commentary, because the pictures speak for themselves about the state of the country.
	This is a good one, because I like the juxtaposition between 200 nationalities and a national health service.
	Of course, you can't have a national health service if it serves 200 nationalities.
	It becomes an international health service.
	And so not only is it a strange bit of multicultural fetishism, it's also...
	An impossibility.
	You can't have a National Health Service that serves pretty much the whole world.
	It's interesting, isn't it?
	And there's another reason I quite like that.
	I think one of the problems that we've got, and you introduced me to this term today, so I'm new to it, so I'll have to get my head around it a little bit.
	But the idea, the reason I quite like that picture, or not like it, but why it's relevant.
	Is because we don't have one multicultural society here.
	We have a population that is divided into different cultures.
	And the only time...
	And you could say that for Britain throughout the history, it's the East Saxons, the West Saxons, whoever, the Mercians, I don't know, divided.
	But actually, you're the historian, Bo, but King Alfred and all the rest of it, and bringing the country together, you can be different.
	Prashami regiments.
	There's competition.
	There's a healthy competition between them and rivalry.
	But you share something in common.
	And that's the interesting thing about 200 nationalities, one NHS. The only way that you can have different cultures working alongside each other to mutual benefit is if you share a common cause, a common vision, a common thought.
	Identity.
	And that's not the case here.
	Multiculturalism is more about highlighting the differences between cultures rather than what we have in common.
	And ever since, you know, for the last probably 30, 40 years...
	We have been living in a country where it has been unfashionable to fly the Union flag, condemned in certain cases.
	The English flag, the St George's flag, certainly condemned in many cases.
	We've been instead flying from public buildings, the LGBT......plus, plus, plus, God knows what flag, which is not everyone's flag.
	It is the flag of a particular group in society.
	We've been highlighting the differences rather than the things we have in common, that common identity.
	Now, so we've got that problem.
	Regarding the NHS, there's no unity.
	We don't have a multicultural Britain.
	We have a Britain that is comprised of a patchwork of often very disparate cultures and communities and societies.
	And that's not a good thing.
	That's not healthy.
	And there are people who make their political careers, and I say political, even at a very, very local, parochial level, who sort of gain local status in their street or in their local council or whatever, by feeding off this and, again, highlighting the differences.
	And we're being treated badly.
	They're not thinking about the broader.
	Real community.
	And the thing about the NHS is the other aspect of all of this is that we are overwhelmed.
	And the NHS is a good example.
	There are too many people living in this country and we have not...
	A, we haven't got the space, I believe, without concreting over this green and pleasant land.
	But secondly, we have not, and we cannot afford, to invest...
	In all of the infrastructure, in the NHS, in policing, in schools, in hospitals, in roads, in sewerage, we can't sustain it.
	And that, again, builds tension between those communities because, you know, we blame the influx, we blame the foreigners, we blame the immigrants.
	Now, that's not our fault.
	It is pressure, and we all suffer as a result.
	It is the fault.
	Back again to our politicians who don't want to listen to people.
	And we have, I don't know whether we're going to talk about tyranny, but on that, I think the biggest threat in terms of tyrannical power in the United Kingdom is the failure, the refusal of politicians, those in power, at the moment the Labour government particularly.
	To show the slightest bit of respect for democratic expression of views.
	They don't care.
	In fact, they lie to you to win you over before the election.
	And then when they're in power, they do something totally different.
	That shows total disrespect for the British people.
	And I don't care whether you're a Labour supporter or a Conservative supporter or a Reform supporter.
	I don't care.
	It shows total disregard for you, your views, and a total disrespect for you.
	If they were listening...
	They've been doing things very differently.
	And I think the NHS is an example of that overwhelming, you know, we have been overwhelmed.
	It's also very badly run.
	I mean, it's not, you know, but so are the police and so are the schools and so is everything.
	Again, it's been neglected.
	And we brought in people who bring in cultural values from elsewhere.
	And J.D. Vance was absolutely on the money with this.
	We have abandoned our...
	Our fundamental principles of expression of idea and views and therefore democracy.
	And if you can't have these discussions, you will never improve.
	If you only are speaking to people whose views you want to hear, then you will never address these problems.
	And so we've got to break that model.
	Now, how we do that is really through conversations like this, I think.
	And people actually getting out of the pubs and out of the cafes and out of their living rooms.
	Are you all listening out there?
	And actually saying, no, I want the detail.
	I don't want just the headline pledges.
	I don't want the promises.
	I don't want all these soundbites.
	I want to know how you're going to do this, what it's going to cost, and when it's going to be delivered, who by, what are you going to reorganise, and how are you going to do it?
	Because otherwise, you're just like the Conservatives.
	You promise to stop things, you promise to do things, and you never do because you've never figured out how to do it.
	And that's the difference here.
	And I think we as people need to...
	I mean, you get the French, and they'll get really upset.
	They'll be dropping manure everywhere and all the rest of it.
	But here in the UK, we're kind of...
	We're quietly British.
	I like that, but sometimes we need to get passionate.
	I'd say one step further than that the government ignores the people.
	In fact, they demonise them and try to prosecute them.
	Absolutely right.
	So we've got...
	In fact, sorry, sorry, Beau, but yes, you're absolutely right.
	Well, we've gone through the stage that I just talked about.
	We are at that stage.
	But now, because there are those of us who are standing up and saying these things, calling them out, now the government, the authorities, the elite in Whitehall, whatever, they are pushing back.
	And this is where the authoritarianism is coming in.
	And again, J.D. Vance, thank you very much, Mr. Vice President, for saying what needs to be said.
	But why on earth does it take the Vice President of the United States to say these things and to be listened to?
	Keir Starmer, all of you sitting in the House of Commons, you need to be listening to what the British public are concerned about.
	Yeah, I know you've got a bunch of these, but I'll just say this particular image speaks a thousand words, doesn't it?
	It's almost, it's sort of double think, isn't it?
	It's sort of obviously nonsense and a liar right in your face.
	It could be straight from the Ministry of Truth.
	It could be straight from MiniTrue.
	Because everybody knows the NHS, the budgets are insane and completely unsustainable.
	Can I just, sorry, you're right.
	I'm sorry, forgive me for sort of jumping in.
	But something that I think is important and is left out.
	You know, do we want, being a little bit STP here, It's one of the attractions for me of that party, is do we want positive, democratically driven government regulation of the NHS? Do we think it's inefficient?
	Does it require more and more delegation of power to local NHS, or does it need the government to actually grip it and drive efficiency, rather like we're seeing Elon Musk being tasked to do in the US? I think that's...
	It requires government involvement.
	Do we think that the government, an efficient, effective government, would actually drive an improvement in education, in policing, in public transport?
	What I'm trying to say here is the government has surely got a role in ensuring that things like the NHS, policing, public transport, the energy companies and the infrastructure, the strategic infrastructure of the country, is delivering as an empowerment.
	Delivering an empowerment to society and, if you like, the capitalist element of the economy.
	Do we think that having EDF, a French state-owned company, running part of our energy infrastructure, is appropriate?
	Why have the French do it and not us?
	It's run by the French state.
	EDF is a French state company.
	I think, to reassert our influence as a state over that infrastructure.
	Not because it's a socialist program, but because if your railways don't work, if your buses don't work, if your doctor surgeries don't work, if your policing doesn't work, if your power doesn't work, if your sewerage is overwhelmed, then society is struggling.
	And it's becoming more and more difficult for the economy, the small businessmen, to actually make money, to get traction, make money, and provide services to the local community.
	And I think it's crucial.
	But what we've been doing is selling it all off.
	And we have been.
	We're, you know, we've got a company, just as an example, very briefly, I'll finish on this point because I can see, but we've got a company that was the world's leader, as I understand, in hypersonic engines.
	Okay, this is something that takes something more than 3.5 times to speed us out.
	Small company, I think it was in the West Midlands, okay, waiting for a contract from British Aerospace, but was...
	You know, needed a loan of 20 million to tie itself over until that contract.
	Well, the government refused to give them that loan.
	So we've got the world-leading technological advantage here.
	You know, the Americans are interested.
	Everybody's interested.
	But they're not quite there yet to put the contracts in place.
	And the government refused to give them that 20 million loan.
	And so the thing went into administration.
	Well, why?
	What about our steel industry?
	Now, are we saying, no, the market decides everything?
	No, these are strategic assets, strategic advantages, and they are strategic infrastructure off which everything else hangs in the economy and society.
	And we're neglecting it.
	It's a very broad point, I'll just quickly say.
	It's a very broad, interesting point about the very nature of government.
	Everything you said, I'm sure there's lots of libertarians out there screaming about statism and things.
	But it's a very good point because, I mean, I don't like a large state.
	However, when you're faced with the decision of either the British state controls it, or the Chinese are going to buy it, or a French corporation is going to buy it then, well, suddenly...
	I abandon some of my libertarian leanings.
	And it's not because I'm a socialist.
	Everyone knows I'm the furthest thing from a socialist.
	It's not because I want a big government or a big state.
	But you've got a binary choice between our state comes in and controls something or some sort of foreign entity buys it.
	But we've got to create the framework that engenders, encourages and facilitates the growth of small businesses in the way that they want to grow.
	You've got to create that infrastructure.
	They're rather like the skeleton and blood vessels and so on of the body.
	It empowers everything else.
	And then everything else can build off that.
	And that's how I feel about it.
	You can go too far, though.
	Yeah, I can see that...
	I am, yeah.
	My personal opinion is that the state should only be involved unless it's a case of civic service in terms of the justice system and policing, or a matter of national defence, and so I also would lump in energy and food security into that.
	And I think that anything beyond that, and usually the government tends to interfere and interrupt that, but that's sort of my Austrian economics leanings there.
	But you say that.
	Yeah, Austrian, but who owns the railways in Austria?
	Österreichs Bundesbahn, the state owns it.
	They accept a massive loss on the railways.
	Because they understand that the railways empower rural communities, so you get small businesses, small factories and so on, growing up in villages, out in the mountains, out in the hills, that don't have to relocate to the cities and overwhelm the infrastructure of the cities.
	They can stay there, they can employ local people out there, they keep local communities alive, and they make a loss.
	But we make a loss on our railways here as well, because we're subsidising the shareholders.
	Which do you prefer?
	So if it empowers local economy and business and that kind of thing, and a vibrant society, then it's a good thing.
	If you look at steel, for example, the state steps back increasingly to the point where an Indian corporation buys it all and runs it into the ground.
	It's like, well, was that the best thing to do then?
	You need steel to make...
	Arms, don't you?
	So it's one of those industries that I would classify as...
	But anyway, we've barely got started.
	Another thing here, sort of...
	Dystopian messaging.
	England doesn't win without immigration.
	Subversion.
	Yeah, a board at the back of a bar.
	Don't know why you need political messaging or going for a drink.
	Surely that should be an escape.
	This is my personal favourite one here.
	You know, lend your vote to Gaza with the dilapidated building in the background.
	This has got to be Birmingham, hasn't it?
	Oh yeah, West Midlands.
	I think it's clever, but the main message for me there...
	And we haven't touched on this, and we haven't got time to, but is the rise of sectarian, religiously sectarian politics.
	The balkanisation of Britain.
	Well, it is, but it's worse.
	It is the movement towards politics driven by religious ideology.
	Well, that's part of this new...
	And that is exclusive.
	Yeah, it is, it is.
	And it is, I think, incredibly dangerous.
	Here's another one here.
	So I didn't know what pan was until I looked it up.
	I don't know.
	And apparently it is an Indian...
	That's what that's called.
	Chewing thing.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Apparently it's to refresh the mouth.
	But there's another sign here.
	This is a different council saying no to this.
	This is, of course, not a problem in Britain before multiculturalism.
	Another problem here that we've got to have our signs in Urdu, of course, the language of Pakistan.
	Here's another...
	Is that not a Photoshop?
	No, it's not.
	This is, of course...
	A man walking his pet dog.
	Oh, wait, no, it's not.
	It's, of course, a man leading a goat past a British roundabout, which we didn't do until recently.
	Here we have the average Welsh woman.
	This is apparently what Welsh people look like.
	Another one here is a partnership between Somaliland and Wales, because, of course, everyone knows people in Somaliland can point to Wales on a map.
	And here's another one.
	University of Bradford has now become dry.
	And as you can imagine, as I'm going to show you, there is a specific reason for this.
	If I can find Bradford on a map.
	I'm from Devon, so this is surprisingly more difficult.
	Oh, thanks for accepting the cookies there, Samson.
	Now we're going to get tracked by the government.
	But here it is.
	I've got the darker blue, the more British-Asian there are.
	Look at that, Bradford, 70%, 86%.
	Okay, so it's because there's a very large number of Muslims who don't believe in drinking alcohol.
	That's why that's happened.
	What we're seeing here is not multiculturalism, but monoculturalism, and it excludes.
	Our culture.
	It is, yes.
	It's replacing our culture.
	It is.
	It is.
	It's cultural displacement.
	A foreign enclave.
	It is, yeah, exactly.
	Here we're seeing someone advertising their services for protection against magic, the evil eye, and jinn, which of course it means a genie.
	I've covered the growth of...
	Government funding to investigate Islamic witchcraft before.
	It's not a joke, by the way.
	We actually put money in the NHS towards dealing with beliefs in genies.
	This is a real thing.
	And here we have a hadith of the day, along with a bunch of trains that are late, ironically, along the side there.
	I think you had a personal experience of that today.
	I did.
	I've certainly had that as well.
	I haven't had hadiths read out to me recently, thankfully.
	Here's another one.
	Here is the Queen herself, along with lots of Islamic women, presumably saying, end the patriarchy, say no to gender discrimination and empowering women and empowering humanity, which is a bit of a juxtaposition.
	Between both their dress and the messages, obviously they've been put up to this, but this is, of course, the ideology of the British state these days.
	Again, double-think, isn't it?
	It is, yeah.
	There's a real juxtaposition, isn't there?
	Here's another one.
	We did not come to Britain, Britain came to us.
	And this is obviously trying to push the notion that because we had a colonial empire, we must have multiculturalism, which, of course, is a non-sequitur.
	The Cape Colony exists, therefore, Infinite Somalis.
	Yes, apparently so.
	In England now.
	Now this is something I've seen myself in Swindon.
	An interesting cultural practice.
	It's not funny, I shouldn't laugh.
	I mean, it is pretty useful, I imagine, to be able to go hands-free.
	I mean, she's able to look at her phone carrier bag and something on her head.
	I couldn't do that.
	I couldn't either.
	But it's just a sign that the times are changing, as Bob Dylan sang in 1962, I think it was.
	London Park, named after four-time Prime Minister William Gladstone, could be renamed after the political titan that is Diane Abbott.
	I don't understand how this has come to be, that we're renaming famous Victorian politicians.
	He's Victorian, right?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Four-time PM. And then you're seeing adverts, send money to Nigeria instantly.
	Why would British people want to do that?
	By 2022 figures, I think, World Bank, we send £23.6 billion to other countries through remittances.
	So people who are foreign people who are working in this country and sending money back.
	So that's £23.6 billion.
	A billion?
	That goes out every year in the country.
	But of course we need them here to grow the economy, don't we?
	That's true.
	Here's another one here.
	Japa apparently means like a middle class person who's left for work in Nigeria.
	It's actually a slang term.
	Thanks for translating that advert.
	Of course this is targeted advertising to Nigerians in Britain for some reason.
	Send as much money home.
	Yes.
	Here's another one.
	It's saying basically don't forget your relatives.
	And then here's another one.
	This is for people to send money to India, apparently, for whatever reason.
	That's on the entrance to a train, I think.
	Oh, it's the tube, isn't it?
	Here's another one.
	I don't even understand this one.
	When good times mean Golgapas and Gupshup.
	This is just another targeted advert towards, I presume, people from the Indian subcontinent.
	I don't even know what this means, but it's again sending money.
	It's just open.
	Here's the way to extract wealth from Britain.
	This is now being openly advertised.
	There are signs on toilets saying, please do not wash your feet in the sink.
	I don't think British people necessarily need to be told this.
	I sort of knew this, even as a very young child, not to do that.
	What could I reach?
	Again, we go back to those cultural practices which are normal in other countries.
	So if you're practicing Muslim in other countries, often you will go to a communal washing area outside the mosque before you pray.
	And before you pray, you're supposed to wash certain parts of your body.
	And if it's that time of day, you need to wash before you pray.
	That's the practice.
	Now, you've got this cultural...
	Now, the point for us...
	If you like, as Indigenous Brits, if I can use that phrase, but to differentiate.
	But who's going to be using that sink next?
	I know.
	It's a public...
	It is gross, by our standards.
	Now, they will say, well, now you're being...
	But no, this is where we have...
	Cultural norms that are in conflict with each other.
	If they want to practice their culture as they wish, they have a home to return to.
	We only have one Britain and say we should live by our own terms.
	If you don't walk around barefoot or in flip-flops, you shouldn't need to wash your feet in the middle of the day anyway.
	An Englishman wears socks and shoes, thank you very much.
	It's about the procedure of praying.
	So we need to understand why they do it, but that doesn't make it acceptable.
	Another example here, Offensive Weapons Act being just advertised in front of a cutlery set.
	I don't remember that ever happening before, but now apparently in multicultural Britain that is the case.
	This one is not so much related to multiculturalism as just, well, I suppose it is actually.
	I thought this was a Covid one, but it's not.
	It's actually to do with the tube, isn't it?
	It's to do with people staring at people.
	From the crime reports, we know the kinds of people that are doing this, and they're not necessarily your average London commuter of 100 years ago, say.
	And this problem of staring is actually a problem pretty much centred of those from the Middle East and North Africa, normally staring at young women.
	It's not something that we had a problem with previously, and it didn't need to be said.
	Staring at people is rude.
	We have commuted for 20-plus years from Essex through London, through East London.
	The number of times there's even a remotely pretty woman on the train going through places like Whitechapel, actually, and Bow and the East End, essentially.
	The amount of leering and staring is unbelievable.
	It's unbelievable.
	You wouldn't understand it until you've seen it.
	It's mad.
	We end up with a certain sort of centre of gravity, if you like, beyond which it's very difficult to turn it back.
	Because, you know, if you go back, I'm 61, coming on for 62. You go back 40 years, OK? You know, there was a bit of banter and a bit of leeriness.
	And, of course, there always has been.
	And I don't necessarily excuse it.
	But if somebody stepped out of line...
	Then, you know, let's say they didn't wash properly, or they were washing their feet in the sink, or they were rude to somebody, or they were...
	Then you'd call it out.
	You'd say, don't be rude, you know, whatever.
	You know, somebody would do that.
	But now, because they were the minority, that was one in 50 people who would behave in that way, or would litter, or would do graffiti.
	Now, the majority of people in some of these communities, this is normal behaviour.
	Well, we don't have the critical mass to enforce our cultural standards.
	That's what I mean.
	And so unless government steps in, some of these communities are lost.
	I mean, to the values, and again, J.D. Vance was right, the fundamental principles and values that we stand for.
	And actually, that made the UK, its society, and its economy and so on, attractive to all of these people in the first place.
	It is that we're not levelling up the world, as I said.
	Lowering our own level by this, because we're refusing to enforce those standards.
	Absolutely.
	So here's another one, just some...
	Pretty woke road names.
	I imagine this is probably in London and overseen by Sadiq Khan, but I don't know.
	But it seems like the kind of thing he would like.
	His renaming of the overground lines sort of indicated this sort of thing.
	Here's another one, Somali Road.
	That's in Camden in London.
	And what kind of shops might you find on these sorts of streets?
	Well, these are all shops that are in service not to the British people.
	They're clearly oriented towards...
	Foreign enclaves.
	You know, I don't know what a Goksan is or an Izzy Barber.
	I don't know what they are.
	Just another observation.
	Of course.
	When I was referred to Kosovo before, after the war in Kosovo, most of the Serbs had left because it was a very hostile environment.
	But there were Serbs who remained a very small minority in Kosovo after the war.
	And it was a United Nations...
	Governed province for a year.
	I was a district governor there.
	And there was this process by which the Albanians would move into an area, occupy empty flats.
	This was all orchestrated by what was the Kosovo Liberation Army.
	It was all organized.
	It was all planned and started to happen even before the United Nations really and NATO deployed.
	They would move into town centres and so on, and they would establish themselves, cafes and so on.
	Now the Serbs would not want to venture into those areas, because it was a different culture, different language, different forms of behaviour.
	And the Serbs who'd remained had nothing to do with the fighting, though mostly elderly people, and they'd got nowhere else to go.
	But there was this process.
	That we recognised, that NATO recognised, that the United Nations recognised, that the European Union recognised, and something called the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe recognised, those people who were, if you like, governing Kosovo at the time.
	And it was called, officially, it was called passive ethnic cleansing.
	Now, it sounds appalling to say that...
	That's what's happening here, but it is.
	And I'm going to give you, if I may, a quick example.
	Sure.
	Well, in the district where I was governor, there was this small enclave of Serbs remaining.
	They had nowhere else to go.
	They were all very passive, quiet, kept to themselves Serbs.
	They weren't the sort of nationalists that you think of, if you think back to those times.
	And they had remained because they had no...
	Concern.
	They thought they'd got no concern.
	And they'd stayed around the area of a 12th century Orthodox church, which had a graveyard around it.
	And I, one day, came back, ironically, from chairing the regional security meeting with NATO and everybody else, came back to my office to find that I'd got a whole bunch of the Muslim clergy.
	In my office.
	My secretary said, well, you know, they want to talk to you.
	I've given them all tea.
	Fine.
	They've got all these maps.
	What they wanted was to build a mosque in the town, in this particular town.
	And I, in principle, I had no problem with it because there wasn't one and 63% of the pre-war population was Albanian Muslim.
	Fine.
	And thankfully, I'd already identified a site.
	For such an eventuality.
	But when I, you know, I said, look, you've got the maps here, the cadastro maps, the local planning maps.
	You know, it looks like you've got an idea of where you want to build it.
	Where do you want to build this mosque?
	Here.
	In the graveyard of the 12th century Orthodox Church in the middle of the Serbian enclave.
	The Serbs are the baddies.
	Yeah.
	And I said, why do you want to build it there?
	Well, we want to demonstrate that we can live in peace and harmony with our Serbian brothers.
	And I said, well, do you think that they might have a different view?
	If they do, it proves that they don't want to live with us.
	And I said, but you want to build it on their graveyard.
	Not just next to the church, but on the graveyard.
	And they said, well, yeah.
	Now, bear in mind, you've got prayers five times a day.
	So you've got Muslims going through, then, that Serbian enclave.
	Demonstrable, or in a demonstration of a different culture, demonstrating, if you like, that that culture is not only in the ascendancy, but is dominant now.
	And they were very clever, and they put me, they thought, in a situation whereby if I said no, then I was siding with Serbs.
	And the Albanian media would put it that way.
	If I said yes, then the United Nations governor is siding with the Albanians, putting more pressure on the Serbs.
	Luckily, as I said, I'd identified a separate area in the district or in the town, which was in the Albanian area, public land.
	I was able to, with the authority vested in me by the Security Council, I was able to give them a 999-year lease, which I did.
	That mosque, the first stone, was laid 17 years later.
	It wasn't about a mosque.
	It was about that passive ethnic cleansing.
	And when you see that, people say, well, what's wrong?
	It's that church is empty.
	Yes, that church is empty, but it's a church and it's symbolic of a culture.
	Even if it's a culture that's on the wane or whatever.
	Even for me, it's a very difficult situation.
	You've got an empty church, you want to use it, but you know you can't use it as a mosque.
	You're being put in a situation quite deliberately of creating a conflict.
	Now, our politicians at local level and national level will not have that conflict.
	They will not enter that discussion.
	They will not prepare for it.
	They will not plan for it.
	They allow...
	It's like having the Trocadero in Leicester Square.
	It's actually a great example of this.
	Here, where there's a foreign vape shop in a nice Tudor building here, which, if the local council had been doing its job, would not have been allowed because it undermines the preservation of the historic buildings here in a significant way.
	In fact, it's an eyesore.
	It's just a symptom of that ethnic replacement that you're on about.
	It is.
	Ethnic cleansing.
	Passive, passive ethnic cleansing.
	In your example, if the Serbs dare to object, not even fight back, if they dare to object, then they're the evil ones.
	They're the baddies in this narrative.
	Yeah, well...
	We could talk about that particular sort of the series of incidents that occurred, which provide context to what I've said.
	But this was a district in which six farmers just down the road, Serbian farmers, had been collecting the crop and a bunch of Albanians had turned up and shot them all dead in the field.
	They're just collecting their crops.
	They're trying to, you know, subsistence farming.
	That NATO was having to build new roads between Serbian communities because the Albanians were putting landmines between them.
	Now, this is after the war.
	And this is not because they wanted to kill people, but because they wanted to make life so difficult for Serbs that they would leave.
	So it was not, you know, so, and, yeah.
	It's funny.
	I thought only Serbians committed war crimes.
	Well, that's what I said at the beginning.
	I suppose that's not the case.
	There's two sides to every story.
	We focused on one, and we're still appeasing this attempt at cultural dominance.
	And when you've got the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, sitting in that position of power and authority, and those people who may have seen some of the mayor's question and answer sessions with the assembly members, it is shocking that a democratically elected politician chooses not to be held democratically accountable.
	Which he very, if you watch those question and answer sessions, he very clearly refuses.
	He just doesn't see why he should.
	And that again is cultural.
	It's again cultural.
	We've got to bring things to a close now.
	We've already overrun a fair amount, but thankfully we can.
	But the wonderful irony here is that this term that's been coined is also being used by shops flying things like Bangladeshi and Palestinian flags here in London, obviously a symptom of the decline here.
	And obviously...
	The replacement of the British people has created this new aesthetic.
	It's becoming this multicultural UK rather than the Britain of old, and you can see the skeleton of what was once Britain, but if this is allowed to continue, we will see more of this.
	There will be a new culture to replace British culture, and I don't think that that should happen.
	The only way of dealing with it, I think I've always said, is every day that goes past when this is not addressed makes the ultimate sort of policy sort of reply to it more and more necessarily more and more dramatic.
	And I actually think that we really need to put a virtually a moratorium on on immigration at the moment.
	We've got to get ahead of this.
	We've got to rebuild our infrastructure.
	We've got to start integrating communities.
	And we've got to start deporting foreign national offenders.
	No ifs, no buts.
	We've got to leave the ECHR. And get rid of the Human Rights Act to do that.
	And, you know, it's not that I am anti any of these people, because I've lived all over the world in various countries, and I mean properly lived, you know.
	And I'm not, you know, they live the way that they want over there.
	I have no problem with that.
	Go ahead.
	Crack on.
	I might not agree with it, but I don't have to live there.
	It's not my country.
	You do it as you wish.
	But don't bring that here.
	I very much agree with that.
	I think that this is the view that most people have adopted here.
	So I'm going to fire through some comments.
	We've already overran by 15 minutes.
	I'm going to be very quick.
	I'm just going to read them.
	And so apparently the historian Leo Lukassen says migration will lead to 100 years of violence, but it's okay because we'll have a fusion of culture.
	He ignores the two often don't come to fuse, but to inflict violence.
	Someone says, good morning from Minnesota, USA, where it is a balmy negative 18 degrees this morning or negative 25 for you Brits.
	Thank you very much.
	and uh If the reason you were here is because Britain came to you, then why are you in Ireland, Switzerland, Austria, Finland, etc.?
	That's a fair point.
	And there are some positive comments here for saying Annie Moss says, Henry Bolton is a wonderful guest.
	I hope loads of you just have him on more often.
	And that gentleman whose name you didn't want to read out because it sounds incriminating also said, best guest in a long time.
	Please have him back on.
	So well received.
	There you go.
	I'm going to read just a single comment from each section because we have overran quite a bit.
	Omar Awad says...
	For the first segment, message received, their kids being harmed is enough for them to stay, our kids being harmed isn't enough for them to go, which is very succinctly put as always.
	Do you want me to read yours for...
	Hey dear, please.
	Federal agent, I don't think they're actually a federal agent, says, did Jack the Ripper get his knife from Amazon?
	It's entirely possible.
	Maybe Yvette Cooper will tell us.
	So for the segment just gone...
	Luzak Brozek says, the eye from Do Not Stare looks exactly like the one from my copy of 1984. Funny coincidence.
	I thought that exact same thing, actually.
	I have that copy of 1984 as well.
	Looks like the all-seeing eye of Imber.
	Definitely not a Masonic reference.
	And finally, what shall I end on?
	Oh, they're quite long comments.
	Never mind.
	Thank you very much for coming in.
	Thank you for having me.
	I'm sorry I talk so much.
	That's all right.
	It's better than not talking at all.
	That's possibly true.
	And it's been a lot of fun, and I hope you enjoyed it at home as well.
	And make sure to tune in, same time, one o'clock, for our podcast tomorrow.

▲