All Episodes
Previous Next
May 5, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:38:26
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1157
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters.
This is Monday the 5th of May 2025 and this is episode number 1157.
I'm your host Stelios and I'm joined by Bo and Stephen Wolf.
Hello again, hi, how are you?
Hello, hi Steve and hi Bo.
And today we are going to discuss German-style democracy, Swindon's Iranian terror plot.
And the strategic locations that people are trying to occupy.
And how Labour belittles rape gang victims.
Absolutely.
Which is absolutely abhorrent.
Abhorrent.
Abhorrent.
Exactly.
Right, so should we start with the first segment?
Sure.
Right, so lots of people are getting banned from elections, and it seems that when people are talking about protecting democracy, they seem to protect their democracy.
So let me just give you some examples.
We had Marie Le Pen, who was banned from the presidential elections of 2027.
We had Bolsonaro, who was banned from election in Brazil.
We have Jorgescu, Kalin Jorgescu in Romania, whose election win was cancelled.
And we had a new event, the designation of the AFD as an extremist group.
And all of that, obviously, in the name of protecting democracy and the spirit of democracy.
And we are going to say a lot of things about it.
Now, there is a German federal intelligence agency called the BFV, which is entrusted with protecting the Constitution, and its supervisor is Nancy Facer.
She is the Minister of Interior Affairs and she is a member of the SPD party and there has been a coalition with CDU and CSU and today they signed the coalition agreement.
She's in charge of one of the central intelligence agencies of Germany.
Just saying that.
Is that the equivalent of MI5 coming under the auspices of the Home Office, who's got a political overlord in Parliament?
So you're going to have some sort of party or a political partisan overlord on top of the intelligence agencies.
That's just the way it is.
Could be.
There are similarities.
It looks like this is just for domestic affairs.
Not the equivalent of MI5, I would have thought, because we've got MI5 and Special Branch to look after the security services of our internal, and MI6 is supposed to be external, although we know recently there has been crossovers when there shouldn't be, but hey-ho.
But MI5 comes under the Home Office, right?
Yes, it does.
MI6 comes under the Foreign Office.
That's right, and there is a political view of that, as well as having to report into COBRA.
Right.
So the Prime Minister will also have an understanding of this.
But it is a very interesting point that you raise, that you've got a socialist, because as I'm aware of that woman, hasn't she made it very clear in previous statements that she wants to ban the AFD as a political party?
She has made it crystal clear.
And not only that, but she seems to be unsympathetic to several concerns people have about the consecutive terror.
Attacks in Germany.
I think after the attacks at the Solingen Festival, which was a diversity festival, she went out and said that knives should be banned.
So it's just deflection.
Knives.
Yes.
All knives.
So she's the Lucy Powell of Germany?
Probably.
So the first thing I hear when I think about, when I hear governments announcing...
Any party as extremist or any person's views as extremist is, is there sufficient evidence?
Because that's the way I think about it.
When someone makes the claim, they need to justify the claim, especially when they have political power.
And it looks like many Germans aren't reacting that way.
They are straightforwardly trusting the government.
A lot of them in several polls seem to be saying that, yeah, the AfD should be banned.
So instead of requesting evidence from the German government and from that agency, they seem to be just going along with it.
Isn't there also some sort of parallel there between just those that are AFD partisans and those that aren't?
A bit like Trump, it splits almost 50-50.
You've got the never-Trumpers, TDS crowd.
You've got the MAGA crowd.
And it's just...
So these polls are just showing the opinion of anti-AfD people.
Exactly, yes.
And they are people who just don't demand evidence.
Let us just look at it here.
It says the agency cited a xenophobic, anti-minority, Islamophobic rhetoric among the reasons for the designation.
The label gives authorities more power to investigate the far-right party.
Now, to my mind, if they had evidence...
Hard evidence that suggested any kind of involvement in criminal activity, they would just go forward with it on the headline.
They wouldn't just hide something of that caliber and importance under an asterisk or at the bottom of the page.
Well, this is the same sort of method that they used in Austria when they went against Kirk, who was in charge there.
But prior to that...
The destruction of the leader of his party after that, when they claimed that he was in bed with a Russian business person who was trying to pervert them.
They made the statements.
They said we were going to investigate.
Then they made the claims, but they never actually have approved it after that.
And if you look at this, I think it's very similar to what they're doing with Marie Le Pen in the European Parliament.
They needed a power to investigate them, to find something.
I suspect that's what they're trying to do here.
Exactly.
Classic straight from the playbook, isn't it?
Do you remember when Rachel Maddow and Co tried to say in the first Trump administration that he's just Putin's puppet?
Yeah.
Or even now, some people say, Nigel Farage is friends with Putin.
It's like...
Yeah.
If you scroll back up to the top real quick, where they just say, they use the words xenophobic, anti-minority and Islamophobic, that could mean anything, couldn't it?
Yeah, yeah.
Exactly.
If you're just nativist, then by definition they could say you're xenophobic.
And that's what they said, essentially.
The most specific thing they said is that the AFD has an ancestry-based conception of people, which is incompatible with democracy.
Which, I mean, historically it isn't.
It just isn't.
Yeah, it just isn't.
What crazy commie nonsense, right?
Well, the Chinese wouldn't have that, wouldn't they?
Right, yeah.
According to the DW article, it says that the BFV said in its decision that the ethnicity and ancestry-based conception of the people that predominates within the party is not compatible with a free democratic order.
It cited the xenophobic, anti-minority, Islamophobic and anti-Muslim statements made by leading party officials, and the party aims to exclude certain population groups from equal participation in society to subject them to treatment that violates the constitution and thereby assign them a legally subordinate status, the agency said.
Now, I think that this completely misses the whole point, which is the point that the AFD is raising, is that a lot of people have been given rights and benefits in an unconstitutional manner.
So there's...
There seems to be no contradiction with the Constitution.
If you say people who were given some rights and benefits contrary to the Constitution should be deprived of those very rights and benefits.
I mean, that's a very logical argument to make, and you can see what they're trying to say.
But I would look at the Constitution.
Is the Constitution really that clear that it actually says that you can exclude certain population groups from equal participation in society?
Every government does that.
If you look at asylum applicants, they're not given equal rights across the whole of society because they've not been given the right to remain here.
So that's automatically something that occurs.
So therefore, on that principle alone, all the political parties would fall foul of what they're absolutely saying at this stage.
Also, aren't they denying the AFD members equal participation rights in society?
Just asking.
Yeah, the irony of it.
I mean, the AFD aren't even that based, like reform.
They're not crazy at all.
So if you just say, actually, I don't want my country flooded with unvetted Muslims.
Actually I don't want all my churches burnt down and/or converted to mosques.
Oh, you're xenophobic, anti-minority, Islamophobic.
No, I just don't want my country.
And it's very interesting, if you actually look at the AFD equivalent of MPs and also their members, there are those who, as we see within the Conservative Party, be regarded as very left, almost liberal.
For those who go on, like Van Stork, who's regarded as one of the more outspoken, although she's still in the party, I'm not sure she is anymore.
But she's regarded as more of an outlying right-winger.
So they have a broader spectrum of people within that party.
Much more to the right than we are actually here in the UK, and much more to the right than, say, you would say would reform.
But nonetheless, they have a balanced group of individuals.
Here, they cite examples of some individuals that are in the party, which have made some statements that may seem a bit beyond the pale, definitely according to these people.
But what is interesting is that it's one thing to localize the claim to individuals, quite another to ban the whole party.
And let's not kid ourselves, they're trying to ban the AFD for many years now.
I did an interview with Peter Boringer a year or two ago.
I don't know if anyone remembers that.
It's on the website.
I'm not sure if it's behind the paywall or not.
I don't think it is.
But he's one of, I think, quite a few deputy chair people, or he was back then.
And he's a completely reasonable person.
They had him on GB News as well.
A completely reasonable person.
I was...
I was too based for him.
I asked him a couple of questions that he sort of balked out a bit.
I was like, can we sort of not go there?
It's completely reasonable stuff.
And that's the very interesting point about it.
Marcus Pretzel, who is a fellow MEP with me, one of the few AFD members at the time, and was actually looked upon at that stage as being one of the leading lights, would have been regarded as a completely kind of centrist, Kennedy-style type of politician from the AFD.
And what that shows to me is how...
How left German politics is.
How kind of controlled that they are as a nation.
But more than that, how actually controlled the people of Germany are.
Because despite everything that's occurring all around them, the terrorist acts, the mass movement of people, the poverty that's occurring in areas, the fact that the East is left on its own compared to the West, is that they're not seeing it in the way that...
That Britain didn't see, but it's catching up very quickly, hence the reason and the rise for the AFD, but more importantly, hence the reason you've got this mass divide down the country.
Eastern AFD, Western liberalism, as they call it, but I call it Western weakness.
Exactly, and speaking of how the left has...
In a sense, conquered Germany, at least ideologically.
Here we have the federal minister of the interior and community, Nancy Fazer, who is a member of the SPD, and she was just...
Her party just lost the election, big time, and she was given the leadership of, or the supervision of...
One of the biggest federal intelligence agencies of Germany.
Because it was still just all gerry-rigged and they got to make a coalition.
Yes.
And it gets to stay in government.
Okay.
This comes from three hours ago.
Germany updates Conservative-led coalition signs agreement.
The CDU, CSU and SPD have signed their coalition agreement.
And this is interesting here because we vote for overall agendas.
We don't vote for specific policies.
There has been zero referendums in Germany for mass migration, and this is essentially what the AFD has turned into its flag.
It says lots of people, due to the practice of mass migration and uncontrolled migration, which is unconstitutional, because without borders you have no country, have rights, and this is making the country worse.
It's as simple as that.
So how do you deal with this?
You have to rectify, you have to correct your mistake.
The same way if someone was incarcerated and was guilty and was out of a mistake, was let out, that person would have more liberties when they were out.
You would have to bring them back.
I'm not making an equation.
I'm talking about the issue in principle.
And let's not kid ourselves.
It is for years now that...
The German establishment is trying to ban the AFD.
And you would expect them, for years now, to bring more hard evidence to support their claims, rather than just hiding behind the rhetoric of a critical justice theorist.
And the AFD is rising in popularity.
And here, it's tragic, on the one hand, because it shows that the German government has a very clear dilemma in front of...
Clear dilemma.
On the one hand, they either gain the support of the German people by governing well, or they try to ban the opposition.
And it seems like they're choosing the latter.
By choosing to ban the latter...
We're doing no different than what they do in China, no different than what they do in Putin's government, which we say is anti-democratic.
When you take out Marie Le Pen, when you take out Georgescu, when you take out the AFD, you've ceased to become a democratic nation.
You've actually become a totalitarian nation.
And where you've got 26% of the population, and in some areas of Germany, is way beyond that.
You're actually saying these people don't matter.
We don't care.
You should just get back in your little box, do as we tell you what to do, and when you allow you to work, we'll let you work, and when we allow you to vote, we'll let you vote.
But as long as you're doing as we say, that's okay.
But the moment you complain, I'm sorry, you're now an extremist.
You're a nasty individual.
You should be locked up.
What difference is that to communism and what happened in Germany after the Nazis?
To be honest, it's before and after.
It's the same.
Eastern Germany, and compared to Western Germany, it's the same mentality.
And that mentality is a universal Western ideology that's been created in our universities.
And with all the examples you gave, like Bolsonaro.
Oh, there's just endless examples.
They tried to do it to Trump, didn't they?
They tried to do it to Trump at the biggest scale.
Just all over the world, as you talk about keeping them in their box, I think more of like a pressure cooker, where they've turned off the valve to release any sort of pressure.
They just keep that pressure cooker contained.
So in the broadest sense, that strategy is...
Disastrous.
My question comes to me, then, is you've got these people who are actually employed by our security services.
In our case, MI5, MI6, Special Branch.
What sort of individuals are they?
What sort of people are they?
How undignified and indecent are these individuals to think that they're the only ones that are right, and just because someone has a differential opinion, that they can be regarded as extremists?
What is extremist is their view, their opinions.
They're the extremists.
And they're the ones guarding us.
And I'm really, really worried about these individuals.
I'm also worried because they constantly talk about protecting democracy, and you can have no democracy without a demos.
I don't think they understand what democracy means.
But you can't have democracy without a demos, and they are essentially trying to ban everyone who is saying, our demos is being...
I think it's very simple.
Democracy to them is whoever keeps them in power and enables them to have a nice pension and be able to retire somewhere one day whilst everybody else is living in crap.
We had a comment by Secretary Marco Rubio said Germany just gave its spy agency new powers to surveil the opposition.
That's not democracy, it's tyranny in disguise.
And we had the response by the German Foreign Office, this is democracy.
This decision is the result of a thorough and independent investigation to protect our constitution and the rule of law.
It is independent courts that will have the final say.
We have learned from our history that right-wing extremism needs to be...
Now, I want to say that this reply seems to me to be misleading because the whole question that is left unanswered is, where is the hard evidence?
Unless hard evidence is given for saying that the AFD is essentially tied to criminal activity, all calls to ban it seem to be unconstitutional, undemocratic, and also unjust.
I think what they're looking at is their constitution is not regarding it as criminal activity.
On that particular point, if we go back, I actually put my own tweet on this, which is...
The decision was of a thorough independent investigation.
We've already looked at the woman who's in charge.
She is not independent when you've already said that I want to ban them.
Notwithstanding whatever they do, because I just dislike them, so that's a breach.
The Constitution, second, isn't clear on these particular issues, so therefore, and someone from Germany pointed that out to me, and independent courts that will have the final say.
They're not necessarily independent courts in the way that we see them here.
The constitutional courts that they will go to are actually state-controlled.
We're people who are imposed on those positions, particularly like we have in the European Court of Human Rights.
So three points in their response worries me.
And the very fact that they don't see it as being anti-democratic and tyrannical is more concerning to me when they put that statement out.
It goes again once more to who are the individuals.
And I'm trying to focus now on each individual that makes these decisions.
What makes that person tick?
Why have they become so tyrannical?
Why are they complaining about Putin when they're actually acting like Putin?
And another issue to ask here, especially in Germany, is whether the same coalition governs all the time and it's just CDU-led or SPD-led, because it looks like the Germans voted against the SPD, and the SPD found its way.
Back into the government by being a coalition member.
You can blame the Americans on that.
I'm afraid for my friends in the United States, it was your State Department that decided to help draft the rules for Germany after the Second World War.
It wasn't the Brits and it wasn't Europeans.
And this was created in such a way that you would only ever get the people that they wanted and selected at that time put in power.
West Germany.
Yeah, in West Germany.
Right.
And we have here a tweet by Ralph Schollhammer, a friend of the show.
He says, the same people who demand cultural and ethnic sovereignty for Ukraine and the Ukrainians want to ban the AFD for wanting the same for Germany and the Germans.
Speaking of the hypocrisy that you just pointed out a few minutes ago.
Right.
So there was a poll here, and it said that almost 50% of Germans backed the AFD plan.
Obviously this is a poll, but I would say that this is particularly worrying because it looks like the people here who make these decisions and are entrusted with making these decisions seem to be particularly ignorant of the literature of totalitarianism and authoritarianism in the 20th century.
Never asking the government to justify its calls to ban.
Its opposition isn't exactly the recipe to prevent authoritarianism or totalitarianism from rising.
Just saying.
And also, it seems like there is a very interesting discussion as to why this happens all the time.
Some people are saying that it's a natural tendency in human beings to just trust the government.
Others are saying that it's not necessarily human, but it's sometimes...
Relative to the culture, a friend of mine, Benedict Beckel, has written a very interesting article on this called German is Lingering Hegelianism.
He has appeared on the show several times.
I've interviewed him.
And we've spoken about multiculturalism a few months ago.
And he seems to be saying that for some reason there seems to be something deeply ingrained in German culture that leads them to be almost invariably state worshippers.
That's definitely an article you should read.
I think it's also the way that we've indoctrinated after the Second World War that Germans were such murderous, heinous individuals that they could go away and actually support a political party that committed all the murders that it did against the Jews and others.
That it's your fault.
And therefore you must trust those from now on who don't want to do that.
Exactly.
And so you've been indoctrinated culturally to not actually love your country in the same way, apart from sports and football and all the rest of it, and have a few beers down at the Beer Keller.
But actually, you don't really love yourselves, actually.
Yourself is only being allowed to be loved by what we're telling you you can love.
So if you want to love your culture in the way it was, if you want to love your ancestry and your history, which was generally pretty good.
You know, save for that particular period of time, then there's something wrong with you if you do.
So just love what we tell you you can love.
What an evil and poisonous narrative that is.
It is.
Disgusting.
And quite another thing that it neglects, straightforwardly from the literature that warns against totalitarianism and authoritarianism, is that they...
Forget the principle of reaction.
It looks like that for every action there's an equal reaction.
The more they push this really radical narrative, the more they are creating the conditions of a power de keg.
I don't want this to happen, just to be very clear, but it looks like the more you press, pressure a situation to the extreme, the more the voices that call for the opposite extreme gain prominence.
These don't seem to be actions of a state or an establishment that wants to prevent authoritarianism from rising.
No, I actually think they actually want authoritarianism.
I think there is a structured plan that now is being considered that if you can push the people far enough and hard enough on a particular issue, let's say this in Germany, that if you get a massive rebellious reaction...
violent offences in eastern Germany.
They can turn around and say, see, there's the extremism, ladies and gentlemen.
So we now have to put them down like the ants that they are.
Let's crush them with our hefty boot and then implement more extreme regulations and legislation, which again is what security services love because all they want you to do is get up in the morning, go to work, shut your mouth.
Come back home, go to the mall, watch your TV, which we control.
And as long as they're doing that, they're perfectly happy to be able to go and put their feet up and go and enjoy themselves.
Lazy people that they are.
I nearly said, you know, song title.
And you can see that I have no respect.
For people in our security services at the moment whatsoever because I think they are part and parcel of a way of just ensuring that people in our country are impoverished forever and don't have any respect for themselves.
It's just absolutely that gambit of goading someone.
Absolutely.
Poking them with a stick, poking them in the eye until they go berserk and start throwing punches and kicks and elbows.
Then it's your fault.
And then you're the aggressor.
That's right.
And they love it and they go, poor me, poor me.
We have here the AFD suing the BFV over the extremist label.
And I want to end with, again, talking about evidence.
I think the healthier mentality in this case, at least the mentality that is suited to be against totalitarianism, is the one that says that rights shouldn't be treated as...
Privileges granted at a bureaucrat's discretion.
So when we have governments and establishments that are trying to push forward really radical action against their opponents, the first reaction should be, is there sufficient evidence?
And is there any hard evidence?
Not just disagreements, not just pointing out things that a woke professor just wouldn't find palatable.
That's not enough.
I mean, just on the evidence, again, when I spoke to Peter Boringer, he was so, and I don't mean this as a criticism of the man, but he was quite milquetoast, to be honest.
There was three or four things I asked him about, and he just said, I asked him about, like, the Merkel wave, I asked him about the Ukrainian, or sort of the pipeline getting blown up, I asked him about American bases all over Germany, and all of them, he's like, I just can't.
Comment on it because it's too dangerous.
People, politically, too dangerous.
People in my country will just point at me and say, you're talking extremism.
I just asked for an opinion about American bases and he's like, I'm sorry, I can't.
And that's it.
That's how controlled they are.
That's how dangerous this particular is.
And you say it.
When America, they turn around and say you've lost democracy and freedom of speech.
They're right.
They're absolutely right.
But in Germany, they don't recognise it, because culturally, only those in power are right.
We have the narrative.
We know what we're saying.
You believe what we do.
And to say what you said about that, not being able to express an opinion, is a classic example of totalitarianism.
Right.
We don't have any comment for the rumble chat.
No rumble rents.
No rumble rents.
Alrighty.
It's time to go to the second segment.
Okay, so over the weekend, it seems that there were, well, there was more than one alleged terrorist plot rumbled in the UK.
More than one.
Yeah, seemingly coming from Iran.
So I thought it was just, we need to talk about this a bit.
Yes.
I thought, because, you know, all over the Western world, all over the world, there's terrorist issues.
But these two seem to be coming from, specifically from Iran, sort of state actors in Iran.
If we believe what we're told, there's not that...
Much information coming out just yet.
I've lined up a number of things, like AP, Reuters, Guardian, BBC, Sky.
They've all got the same quotes, the same small number of soundbites that they're going with at the moment.
We'll see if and when these people ever come up for trial, what actually is going on.
So first of all, what was it?
Was it on Saturday, there were two different...
Two different groups of people, eight men in total, seven of which were Iranian nationals, but two different groups, and apparently they're saying they're not connected.
But okay, I mean, that's sort of more worrying in a way.
The fact that they're Iranian.
Yeah.
So I thought I'd read just a little bit just to give you what the mainstream media is sort of telling us.
Five men...
Are continuing to be questioned by police over an alleged terror plot in the UK.
The men including four Iranian nationals are being held over an alleged plan to, quote, target a specific premises, the Metropolitan Police said.
There's been some speculation, and I stress this absolute speculation, whether it's sort of Iranian expat journalists, which often seems to be an Iranian state target, you know.
Other Iranians just in the West, whether it's France, Britain, America, wherever, that are anti-Iranian and say so openly in the West, they get targeted by...
They're going for Maya 2C team.
Maya 2C, God, yeah.
Or whether some say...
He's not particularly liked by them, is he?
No, because he's...
Focal against them, isn't it?
Or whether they were going to target a Jewish or Israeli embassy or something.
We don't know.
That's just pure speculation.
But the line is, target a specific premises.
So God knows really what it is, whether we'll ever find out.
They were arrested in Swindon, in the West Country, where we are, of all places.
West London, Stockport, Rochdale and Manchester.
And we were joking just before we came, just before we went live, that, like, somewhere in the Iranian deep state, they're looking at sort of Westminster, Whitehall, RAF bases and Swindon High Street, apparently.
I'm joking, of course.
Why would...
It's crazy.
A couple of barbers out there that are not under our control.
Take them out.
Right.
Yeah.
We need complete, full-spectrum dominance of barbers in Wiltshire.
Tehran.
This is how we get our boys in.
Get all the barbers in England.
And go on.
The Afghans have got some good.
Take them out.
There's one Iraqi-controlled barber still left in Swindon.
Send in the boys.
Three other Iranian men were arrested in London on Saturday in relation to a separate counter-terrorism investigation, apparently.
On Sunday, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said that the two operations reflect some of the biggest counter-state threat and counter-terrorism operations that we have seen in recent years.
I'm pleased that they could distinguish that they were men.
Oh, right, yeah.
Claiming to be men.
Let's not rule out that they are deep down, in fact, women.
Officers moved.
Obviously under the court case now, they state it out.
There was a clip of Yvette Cooper.
She was in total robot mode.
You know, as you can imagine.
Because all this stuff, as you say, sort of special branch, counter-terrorist police...
MI5.
It's all under the Home Office, in other words, under her, so ultimately the buck stops with her as opposed to.
The BBC article goes on here to say, as part of the investigation into alleged terror plot, police arrested the five men, two aged 29, a 40-year-old, and another aged 46. In the early hours of Saturday morning, the fifth person's nationality and age has not been confirmed.
The Met Police said the affected site allegedly targeting the plot had been made aware and was being supported by police.
Footage showed an Armed officer taking a man from a house in Watchdale.
Sorry.
This looks like something else.
I've just seen the last sentence.
In Swindon.
Yeah.
No, in Swindon.
That's got me.
Well, just quick to say that in Watchdale, another man was dragged through the streets in Swindon with plastic bags over his arms.
It is understood military personnel were involved in the Rochdale Raid.
In Swindon, one eyewitness told the BBC that six men entered a cafe which was actually Costa Coffee.
Costa Coffee, which we've all walked past hundreds of times.
Hundreds of times.
And the suspect had ordered a coffee and donuts.
So they ordered coffee.
The undercover military or police guy ordered coffee and donuts.
A chocolate beer.
Oh, they dumped him.
I'm sorry.
It's a cliche.
It is.
Can I have six coffee and six donuts?
Jump him now.
Yeah.
I'm sorry.
We shouldn't be really making fun about this.
But that sentence alone, it's almost out of a comedy sketch.
Like, we've got a really, really important sort of counter-espionage mission to do, but we could get a yum-yum while we're here, right?
Chocolate twist.
Yeah, we could.
Maybe a reduced price.
There's time for a Danish.
Come on, lads.
Come on.
Well, let's go.
Yeah.
I'll finish now.
Let's jump him.
Yeah.
Wait, he's gone.
Let's go.
Where'd he go?
Before they followed him out and jumped on him.
So, there's a little sort of nine-second clip here, which we'll play.
Is this the Swindon one?
Yeah.
So, it's...
How did they order the doughnuts and coffee with balaclavas on their head?
Was that not the telltale sign that someone's coming for you?
You come in with a balaclava.
Six coffees and doughnuts, please.
Jump in now.
Ignore the balaclava.
It's an anti-Covid measure.
Don't worry about it.
So anyone that knows Swindon can see that there's...
The Iceland.
Like, this is right in the middle of Swindon.
It's really incongruous.
Really, really disturbing, really.
And also this guy, if you can see, they've got like, yeah, they put some sort of plastic bags over it.
I've never seen that before.
No.
I can only imagine it's to do sort of trying to preserve evidence, whether he had gunpowder residue or bomb-making chemicals on his hands or God knows what.
I can only imagine that's...
I love the reaction of some of the people.
They're being dragged by.
Look at that girl on the left.
Absolutely nothing.
Doesn't even notice that six men are dragging a guy with a plastic bag around his head and his arms and she's just carrying on.
Because anyone watching this, the cops or MI5 dudes, whoever they are, whatever they are, they're not in any sort of uniform.
They're plainclothes balaclava guys dragging another dude through the street in the middle of Swindon.
Is that saying it's a normal Saturday night in Swindon?
Just like that and they're used to it.
Yeah.
It's just horrible and worrying.
So anyway, there's just lots of other links just to show even the local Wiltshire.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, this is where it was.
It's pretty cool to wear the kafirs on their heads with cameras.
Yeah.
It's just this is the world we live in now.
I mean, one of the things I want to say, if you remember...
Yeah.
Certainly, Stephen, you're old enough to remember a pre-9-11 world where Islam, let alone Islamic terrorism, was just unknown.
I mean, unknown.
In the West, in Britain.
Well, almost, almost.
There'll be some fedora tippers out there that will say, well, there's this...
It's almost, almost unknown.
I mean, I remember after 9-11, people, lots of people, didn't know the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim.
No.
That's honestly true.
There were some Sikhs that got sort of targeted and harassed or beaten up.
Straight after 9-11 as a knee-jerk reaction thing.
Because people didn't know the difference.
It just wasn't a thing.
And now the West is flooded with an almost endless string of Islamic terrorism.
So just for the younger people who might not be aware, it never used to be like this.
The world of Blair and Bush changed everything for us when they decided that they're going on a geopolitical rant to try and take on Iran.
And also China and Russia in the future by building up wars in Iraq, in Syria, and preparing all of this in Afghanistan.
I can understand that they wanted to kill off communism, but having to do deals with the Taliban that suggested, and what came al-Qaeda, that we will give you your country, just like Israel has got its country with its own religion, you can have your own type of religion there, and then renege on it.
What did they expect?
You're talking about the 1980s Mujahideen effort against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
That's when they first started to deal with it.
The birth of Al-Qaeda.
I've interviewed Dr. Jeffrey Bale.
He is working on counter-terrorism, and you can see the interview on our website.
And he was saying that after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the personnel essentially was the same, and they didn't change the way they approached the terrorists, and they didn't...
Take them as true believers.
They thought they would, deep down, be able to strike a deal with them.
Yeah, that's it.
That's the naivety.
But then they decide to go to war.
And as you keep bombing countries, it gives people a belief to leave.
And then suddenly you're going to get people coming out of those into our countries who are not the genuine refugees and asylum seekers.
They are part of the believers who they were running from.
And that's what we're facing now.
And the more that we do it, the more that we'll have.
You mentioned sort of the Bush and Blair years.
Yeah, I can't stress again for sort of the younger generation that won't remember it, what a different world it was before 9-11.
There's the famous George Bush, one of George Bush's State of the Union speeches where he said Iran, Iraq and North Korea.
Yeah.
There is a Cold War going on between the West and Iran.
Yes.
Absolutely.
So, okay, just before I carry on, I'll just show there's sort of the Guardian talking.
It's all over the news, Sky News.
And there was one that said, claimed there was, yeah, just hours away.
The Standard claimed that an attack was just hours from being launched before being foiled by police.
We won't listen to Yvette Cooper, just read the lines that other people have said for her.
The Standard, another, I thought it was quite interesting.
The Foreign Office has Banned one or two, recently banned one or two Iranian organisations that they're saying are just, you know, out-and-out bad guys.
Isn't it weird that we hear the police and the media saying actively it was a terror plot?
Yeah.
Well, that's the line.
That was the motive.
But that's how it works.
So you'll get a press office now, either within the home office or those in the security services.
They've got a press office team.
They will create their legend.
With their press release.
And the legend will have the lines that the certain selected journalists who are connected to that will be allowed to have.
And all of them will be told that you've got to say the same line.
This is all you're getting from us.
And you're getting this as the lead for your organisation.
So you get this kind of one-on-one relationship with the journalist, but you stay the same.
So this is what Tony Benn used to say.
When you say that we're in a democracy of media, you're not.
You're in a democracy of one line being given to several media.
It's always the same line.
Sorry, just why I'm asking this is because when something does happen, we frequently have the whole establishment and the media saying it's too...
It's too early for us to say it was terror attackers or not.
It looks like it's not too early for them to say now.
I'm not saying it didn't happen and it wasn't.
I'm just saying for next time and all the times that they've said that it was too early to say.
But he also gives them an out.
You see, this is the important part of the line.
they've made a mistake they can say it looks like it was and then it turns out it's no it's just a bunch of guys who were going to wear attack homeland on the weekend or something like that but we needed to go in in this way just to make sure so it does that sort of language allows them to have that flexibility to be able to create the headline after all Iranians are now our current bad boys and we need to ensure that they're constantly in the bad boy line and if they make a mistake it can fade away
You both made some good points.
You used the word legend there.
Absolutely, exactly the right.
That's what the Intelligent Services do, to create a legend around somebody or an organisation that they can then later point back at and say, this is an established fact.
And it may well not be.
It may just be all skullduggery, all sort of espionage, liars, piled-upon liars, who knows?
But anyway, yeah.
And the other thing you said, Ceres, where it's interesting to see when the establishment in cahoots with the mainstream media, when they'll say, oh, it's just...
Mental health, or we don't know yet, it's too early to say nobody knows, or they come out and say, no, this guy was this, immediately.
I remember the LA shooting, sorry, the Las Vegas shooting, how quickly, immediately they came out and they said who it was and what was going on and everything behind it.
And then the other ones, they just sort of feign.
Ignorance.
We're going to Germany.
They love all Muslim terrorists being mentally ill.
Right, yeah.
I don't think anyone's ever done it without terrorist reasons.
They've only done it because they're not well.
Or he's actually a Christian, or he's actually a choir boy, or whatever it is.
I mean, so, okay, but this time they're saying this is Iranian state-backed characters.
Yes.
NBC, obviously American, is saying there may be a link between these two different...
sets of raids but our line is that it isn't but anyway uh ap ap just going with it as well Well, NBC is important because if you want to get the message about being anti-Iranian, then they're the ones to pass it from here back into the U.S. and the U.S. now.
All their newspapers will pick it up from NBC.
So that way it now filters slowly across the United States from regional to local news, mainly regional.
It won't necessarily reach the locals.
But that's a method that they use in terms of pushing it out.
And AP will be the same in Europe.
So one of the things I wanted to say in this segment is to try and put a little bit more meat on the bones for people who might not know because there is a long and storied and tumultuous backstory between Russia, Britain and the United States with Iran or Persia as it used to be.
So I just wanted to maybe run through just a quick list for people on your own time if you want to look any of this stuff up.
I mean, Britain and Iran, again, or as Persia as it used to be, To be absolutely honest, we have screwed with them quite a lot.
To be honest, they call us the Old Fox.
That's their nickname for us.
In a derogatory way.
Like this wily old fox who can't be trusted and will get in your chicken coop and kill all your chickens if it can.
They call America the Great Satan, don't they?
So, OK, just a quick list, quick whirlwind run through.
I mean, going back to the 19th century, there was the great game between Tsarist Russia and the British Empire, sort of a rush to control Central Asia, places like Persia, Mesopotamia, modern-day Iraq, all sorts of what is today the Stans, Turkmenistan, Kurdistan, all that.
A rush for that on the great...
The great chessboard, the devil's chessboard of world affairs.
Nothing has changed.
This is just Herodotus book one.
Who started it?
We'll send Blair into the stands to make sure that they come to our side.
We'll give them some preferential treatment.
Now, if you're a Persian person, you would just obviously resent that.
Who is Russia?
Who's Moscow or London to tell us what we can or can't do and who our leaders are?
Don't blame them.
I don't blame them.
You know, there was some little country on the other side of the world that screwed us over a dozen times over a century.
If Burma kept trying to screw with British politics all the time, you would hate them, wouldn't you?
Resent them, be suspicious of them at the very least.
Yeah.
So in like 1909, we created the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.
Yes.
Where we were just taking their oil.
Yeah.
Basically taking their oil for dirt cheap.
Yep, and giving them nothing back.
Right.
Apart from a few of our selected leaders that we put in there.
Right.
Led on later on.
So in 1921, the British basically orchestrate a coup in Persia to put in the Shah, the old Shah.
Yes.
There's basically two Shahs you need to know about, and this is the older one.
Yes.
But by World War II, like in World War II, in 1941...
We screwed them so badly.
In 1941, Persia was completely not on anyone's side.
And there was an Anglo-Soviet invasion.
We just invaded them in 1941.
And easily steamrolled them with just a few divisions.
Beat their army.
Installed somebody else.
Well, not somebody else, but because the argument they made was that there was an outside possibility that some important railroads or roads might fall into the hands of the Nazis if Hitler did get his panzer divisions all the way down to the Caucasus, and it's not a million miles away, and da-da-da-da.
But of course Russia, or Soviet Russia back then, was basically butting up against Persia.
So anyway...
We just totally screwed them over in World War II.
We was out there by 1946, but nonetheless, once again, if you're an Iranian or a Persian, you would just see, look back at that, and you'd be annoyed, to put it mildly, wouldn't you?
Yeah, you'd see some of your families being killed by these foreigners who've come all the way from a different land, and then they start stealing our assets and telling us what to do for the second time.
Yeah, right.
You'd think warmly of them, wouldn't you?
You'd want to pat them on the back, bring them in and sit them for dinner and say, how kind you are for destroying us and our country.
And stealing our resources.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Welcome to it.
Please have more.
By 1953, a big important year for Iranian history is 1953.
I mean, by 1951, they'd voted in democratically Mossadegh.
And he was looking to nationalise the oil.
all the oil in Iran.
And by this time, it's more the CIA, the dark days of, like, Alan Dulles, where he was ruling the world covertly.
The CIA and the British decided, we're just going to coup Mossadegh out and bring the Shah back.
On the excuse that he was going to join the communists.
Right, yeah, just say whatever you need to say.
Just say whatever you need to say.
That's right.
And so, like, yeah, the great Tehran screwjob of 53. Once again, I mean, well, Ming Dan did a bit of I think probably my top 10 most interesting bits of content.
We did a bit of content there all about on the book called Confessions of an Economic Hitman, where among many other examples of American secret policy going on was the Mossadegh 53 thing.
So we brought the Shah back.
We enforced the Shah back on them so we could keep...
Getting the oil and all sorts of things.
But then by sort of, well, jump ahead to 1979, the Islamic Revolution, where they kicked out the Shah, the same Shah, the son of the old 1921 one we put in.
So it'd be 1979.
It didn't come out of nowhere.
Like, the Islamic faction in Iran didn't take those American people hostage, this is during Jimmy Carter, and hold them hostage for a year for no reason.
It didn't come out of nowhere.
No, you're now looking back at least 79 to 100 years of people saying we've had enough of being controlled by another nation.
Well, you look at this as history.
You can see that through the Roman Empire.
You can see at the end of other cultural empires.
People get tired, eventually, of being subverted, ignored, overruled.
And basically controlled by entities that are not your own or are your puppets.
And in a way, our leaving Brexit was one of those because our puppets at the time installed upon us was the European Union.
Again, not in the same way, and not in the same way of those countries, but I can understand it.
And every time we have something like that, there are losses.
You might get the family of the Shah, who is a pretty nasty man as he was anyway, as we know that, as most dictators were.
But there were hundreds of families that were actually benefiting, doing pretty well, that led them to leave.
And we've talked about individuals who've had to escape because of that, doing very well.
So they are the consequences of the great game continuing.
And we have that great game continuing today.
Right, so this very day.
This very day.
Onto the streets of Swindon.
To the streets of Swindon's Costa Coffee Shop with buns and donuts.
Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of...
The Ayatollah Khomeini or the Bullas in Iran or the 1979 revolution or anything.
I think it was a disaster for Iran, the Persian people.
An absolute disaster.
But by the same token, as you say, the Shah was a dictator.
He wasn't a good guy.
I'm not a fan of either of these.
I'm just saying what's happened.
Because sometimes, in fact recently, people have taken, whenever I describe something in history, they think that's what I think.
No, I'm just telling you what happened.
Michael Foote once said, he who does not know history does not know the future.
And it doesn't mean that we agree or believe in every aspect of history, but you have to understand it to interpret it and apply it to where it applies today.
And most of the time it can be applied today.
Not always.
We know that if you're sensible.
So no way would I think that you're a Shah supporter or a muller too over there.
As soon as you go out of here, you put on your muller kit.
I mean, that doesn't happen.
Cicero said, the great Roman author and philosopher Cicero said, to remain ignorant of the past is to forever remain a child.
You'll be groping around in the dark if you don't have at least some understanding of what happened before.
Because the regime in Tehran is still the same one that...
It was brought about in 1979.
Yeah.
Okay, so it still goes on to say, I mean, I remember during the Ahmadinejad era, do you remember at one point they captured some SAS dude or SBS guy?
Do you remember that?
Yes.
I think it was at the very end of Blair or during the Brown years.
Southampton or Portsmouth or something like that, yeah.
So we're doing some sort of Special Forces stuff, like in Iranian waters.
Yeah.
There's all sorts of stuff behind the scenes going on between us.
Not just us, also America.
I mean, you remember when Trump blew up that Qasem Soleimani dude at an airport, just dropped a munition on his head.
And he's a really, really important guy in the Iranian state.
They had like a whole state funeral for him and stuff.
But going on today, what we will undoubtedly never really be able to be told, but without doubt, they're turning around and going, who can we replace?
Who can we put as our puppet into Iran?
Who do we say will be the democratic leader?
Zelensky of Iran.
And who are we going to find that will do our bidding, whatever we say, and we can promote him and we'll build up a nice marketing package about him.
We'll give him some good credentials.
We'll make him or her look good.
And then we can just try and find the way of manipulating those in power in Iran to say, well, look, come on our side.
And then let's have another coup or we assassinate someone else there.
And we create the gap for them to move in.
That's happening all the time now, as we're trying to do in China, as we're trying to do in Russia.
In any country that is not doing as they're told to us, we're doing that all the time.
And all of this isn't even to mention the Israel angle.
No.
I mean, depending on how belligerent any given Iranian government is, they say things like, we want to just roll Israel into the sea and stuff.
And Israel say, we will not allow that.
Obviously, they say, we will not allow that to happen, whatever happens.
You know, the people that are making decisions in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem or the State Department in the United States.
Yeah, absolutely.
They'll be looking to, how can we manipulate Iran to be not a danger to us anymore?
And if we can get their resources, that's sort of extra gravy.
But yeah, no, all that is absolutely going on.
And once again, if you're just an Iranian patriot...
Or nationalist or whatever.
You would just resent that to the ends of the earth, wouldn't you?
Yeah, all you'd want to say is, why can I not run my own country in the way that we want it to be run?
Leave us alone, for God's sake.
Leave us alone.
At the end of the day, let us run our own assets, our own things, to benefit our nation.
Why do you have to try and take over and control us?
And it's ultimately about a long-term power game.
He who controls all the assets controls the people.
And then they can do what they're doing to us today, what they're doing in Germany.
None of this is to play defence or to be an apologist for what Iran's doing.
Not at all.
Not at all.
I mean, I don't think George Bush was wrong particularly to say that Iran, Iraq and North Korea are an axis of evil.
Not particularly.
I don't look necessarily at the leaders.
What I'm worried about more about is the people.
The people don't have to go to work in any of those countries.
Oh, let's be clear, make a distinction between their governments and the average person, of course, of course.
Always got to do that, because at the end of the day, it's those people who are suffering.
And when I look at what's happened in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, yes, and Syria now, what's going on?
Someone's lost their mum.
Someone's lost their dad.
Someone's lost their whole families.
The anger inside of them, the solitude.
No wonder you want to go off and kill somebody else for what you've done to their family.
So you create terrorists.
On the other side, you also create those who are petrified, who live their lives in fear.
That's what we end up doing.
And so what we're playing on, whether it's banning the AFD for our security services or, look, end result of Iran coming and attacking us, is part of what you're talking about.
It's that long-term feeling of people saying, I've had enough.
Now, I've got a deep well of sympathy for your average North Korean person or Iranian person that's just oppressed.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, so...
One thing, just to finish off on, roughly, is the idea that, well, do you remember when John McCain one time, Deep State shill, the late John McCain, he was once asked something about Iran, and he said, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran.
It's a take on Barbara Ann by the Beach Boys.
But, like, okay, that's what the state, the Deep State...
Would want to do.
Replace Iran's leadership if they could.
Okay, so there's just all sorts of stuff going on with Iran.
And now, just to finish off here, oh look, there's an old article from the BBC, how they call us the old fox.
They don't trust us, nor particularly, probably, should they?
But yeah, just to say, the terrorism coming out of Iran is just the tip of the iceberg.
I mean, in the UK, we've got...
If I keep scrolling down, here's a list.
It says 75% of all terrorist, anti-terrorist work is from Islamists.
And it's just a giant list of Islamic organisations that we fear might do terrorists.
That's not to mention actual lone wolf.
Operators.
Just quite a big list.
And they're just the ones that Wikipedia, notoriously woke, notoriously captured Wikipedia.
I often look at that huge list of the Quaker terrorist attacks.
Just wonder how that compares to them.
Yeah, Quakers.
Yeah, the Catholic terrorist attacks.
We have a little table of them.
Okay, so my time's up, so I have to leave it there.
But just, you know...
That happened over the weekend to completely separate Iranian-backed terrorist plots were foiled.
We're not going for Costa after this then, are we?
Right, so let me quickly go through the comments.
Neon Realist says, just be glad they identified the man in Swindon as an Iranian rather than a Swindon man, as they infamously did with the Welsh man from Cardiff.
Interesting point.
The thing is, with these seven of the eight, they're just out-and-out Iranian nationals.
Yes.
They are, you know, they've got Iranian passports and stuff.
Sigilstone17 says, between this and the foiled terror attack in Brazil, reportedly the FBI is frantically calling both countries to learn the secrets of how to stop an attack before it happens.
Also Sigilstone17 says, thanks for your comments.
I'm sure these men will receive the harsh sentences they deserve when they go before Judge Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Muhammad, Shiam Allah and Muhammad.
Hapsification says, I would have recommended Greg's sausage.
Cheese and beans melt.
Or the pepperoni pizzas, but it's not halal for the IRGC.
Some of these people are on form today.
Yeah, are the steak bakes halal?
That's what we need to know.
Third one from Sigil Stone 17. Technically, we didn't blow up that Iranian general.
We shot a sword missile at him.
Yeah, it was some sort of missile.
Yeah, drone.
Yeah, some sort of.
Shall we go to the third segment?
Right, let's see if we've got it here.
Where are we on?
Gosh, it's moving around really rapidly.
Are we on...
Where were we live?
I think...
Am I right at the beginning?
The first...
Oh, cool.
Oh, fantastic.
You can use the little box thing as well if you just want to flip between.
Yeah, no, I thought there was one before that.
Oh, there it is.
That's it there.
Well, we are.
So, over the weekend on Friday, we have a show that I've been on a couple of times, which is any questions on the BBC.
A reasonably decent programme.
Normally filled with lots of lefties in the audience.
Lucy Powell, MP, MP for Manchester Central, also the leader of the House of Commons, was on it.
Tim Montgomery, who's a kind of very liberally kindish, generally nice guy from the old Conservatives, who's become a reform supporter on there.
And he manages to start talking about a show that was on Channel 4, Groomed, and he asks the question about how we've not got...
The kind of full inquiries, wasn't this a terrible show?
Doesn't it highlight lots of issues?
And when you get on here, I think this is quite clear from here.
It should come up.
I don't know if it plays...
Nobody saw the documentary on Channel 4 about rape gangs over there.
We want to blow that little trumpet now, do we?
There is a real issue where...
Let's get that dog whistle out, shall we?
Where Count...
Look!
Right.
Just to be clear, she's quite a senior leader of the House.
She's leader of the House.
She's quite a senior person.
She's not a backbencher.
She's not a backbencher.
She's very senior and she's been selected from...
Virtually a very young age to become a senior member of the Labour Party, and I'll pick up on that.
So that's what she actually says.
Let that dog whistle out when the topic of rape gangs is brought up.
And for me, as a Mancunian who lived literally a quarter of a mile from her, when I was seven she was born, we probably played in the same park, lots of other different things about it, I find that disgusting.
Utterly horrendous to talk about these two girls and many others who were groomed, brutalised, raped, all sorts of vile things that we've seen in the trials about them.
How their lives have utterly been destroyed, minimised and literally pushed into the dustbin.
By someone like Lucy Powell, who's had a pretty good life of her own, who never had to have that same level of suffering or pain, and she comes around and says it's a dog whistle for anybody to be able to discuss it.
Just to mention it.
Just to mention it.
It's mere mention it's a little dog whistle.
Yeah, hang on.
This is a proper documentary.
Not like Adolescence, which was a TV show.
This should be shown in every school.
Across the country to show what is out there for young girls to be aware of the type of men that are willing to try and do severe harm, not the adolescents, which is a TV show made up by people who want to abuse white young boys.
This is a real-life story, and that should be in schools, and that's my personal view on it.
And I get quite passionate about it because, you know, I'm sick to death of the ignorance of...
The grooming angst.
And I'm glad that I've seen Neil O 'Brien who's come out.
Because the immediate response to it was very clear.
As we've done in here.
The immediate response is exactly what it is.
It is abusive to ignore this.
Girls kept in cages.
Made to act like dogs.
Given heroin.
Raped.
Injected by abusers.
Aborted fetuses.
Dog whistles when you raise that as an issue.
What human being?
What human being even thinks like that to make that sentence?
What is the character of that individual to even think that that could come out of her mouth in response of this?
It's morally reprehensible.
It's amoral.
Matthew Torbett, nice guy actually, very left.
I've spoken many times with him and he's come on and he says he's normally lenient and he says it smacks of snobbery and someone who doesn't get it.
Well, I think there is an element of snobbery in our elites anyway.
I think certainly snobbery in the Labour Party at the top of the tree when there are all the Oxbridge types that have made it along the way.
But for having someone of the left come out and say this.
So we've had someone of the right, someone of the left.
And I'll give you another example here.
Andrew Neil.
I think this is a really pertinent way he said it.
Andrew Neil often gets it.
He was pretty balanced.
He is recognised now, being of the right now, that he's independent.
But he was very clearly independent when a journalist.
Look, we get it.
No need to explain.
Vulnerable white working class girls don't matter.
And anybody who raises their enslavement and horrific abuse by Asian rape gangs is a dog-whistling racist.
Lucy Powell...
Of course, he's being sarcastic.
Yeah, he is.
Lucy Powell...
Don't take that at face value.
No, she should walk.
She should be so ashamed at what she said that she should walk.
So she tried to double down on it, and Conor Tomlinson got this, and she said to turn around and defend the dismissing of this scandal as a dog whistle, but she deleted her tweets.
Then...
Surprise, surprise, she comes out and says she wants her apology.
I want everyone to look at this as an apology.
Look at the way it was drafted.
In the heat of the discussion, I would like to clarify the regard to issues of child exploitation and grooming with the utmost seriousness.
Child exploitation and grooming.
Not child exploitation and grooming by Asians as shown in the film or the documentary Groomed.
The general child exploitation and grooming for everybody.
Also, just sorry, I just don't care.
If you're a decent person, you don't say things like that, even during the heat of a discussion.
Just don't do it.
Classic example of a non-apology.
That's right.
It's sort of like, I'm sorry you noticed.
I was challenging the political point scoring, not the issue itself.
Well, I don't think, from what we've just heard in the question raised by...
I've forgotten his name all of a sudden.
It's just the reformed chap there, Monty.
So, by Monty.
It was ever a heated discussion.
It didn't sound heated.
She made it heated by the way that she responded.
He was being pretty decent.
Interesting to see the first response there on Twitter.
Yeah.
Handsome chap.
I don't know who that is.
That's pretty...
Shall I play that?
It's just a tiny little gif of...
Achilles, because famously, anyone who doesn't know, Achilles refused to accept any sort of apology.
No, I'm not...
That's pretty good.
I didn't choose that because you were in there, by the way, but that was actually pretty cool.
It's like, no, my anger isn't sated, actually.
No, it's not good enough, actually.
And it's not good enough.
So, she tries to apologise, then Rupert Lowe comes out, and as many of us, why is Lucy Powell still in the cabinet?
Because I want to say one thing.
I constantly hear leftists talk about humanism and humane governance and humane societies.
The people I've met who are more disgusted of other human beings on an interpersonal level were almost invariably leftists.
They hate actual flesh and blood human beings.
They love the idea of human beings.
They love the idea of rhetoric and propaganda and during the Me Too movement they did use that rhetoric because they wanted to co-opt the movement and say only leftists care about women who have been abused.
But now they seem to be thinking that we live in a different world and they've calculated they don't think they're going to win any votes this way.
They literally show all their vile.
That's right.
It is a classic thing for leftists to be quite callow, quite callous when it comes to human life.
Two quick examples.
One famously Stalin said, you know, something like, I'm paraphrasing, but like, one death is a tragedy, but a million is just a statistic.
Or when Mao said, when Mao was told during the Great Leap Forward that millions of people are starving to death, he said, well, we only lost one finger, we've still got nine left.
Yes.
Whoa!
Magnus.
It's the same...
It is that ideology.
It's that lack of care.
The indecency of these as human beings.
Yeah, it is indecent.
And I think she's showing herself as being utterly indecent.
And I think what happens is Rupert Lowe picks up a very...
Different point.
Obviously, every time we saw anything that was done by the Conservatives, the Labour Party were out saying, resign, resign, resign.
Boris should sack them.
You know, Rishi should sack them.
So the same question applies to them when you've got something as serious as this.
But of course not.
You know, out they sent.
Wes Street Inc.
And I do want to play this because I know I'm playing too much.
But I just try and see, you know, One or two points about it.
Let's also move on to your colleague Lucy Powell.
Doesn't this sum up the problem for Labour?
And that's the fact that Lucy Powell, a government minister, the leader of the Commons, believes that if somebody points out the grooming gang scandal in which thousands of teenage girls were raped and tortured, somebody in Labour points a finger and says you're a bigot and a racist.
I don't think that's what Lucy thinks and feels.
That's exactly what happened.
It's a dog whistle issue.
She's rightly apologised for what she said on Radio 4 on Friday night and said, you know, she's made a genuine mistake.
She's genuinely sorry.
What did she make a mistake about?
Sorry, I'm confused.
I've been in those sorts of debate programmes before where people...
What mistake did she make?
Well, I've been in those debate programmes.
Well, she shouldn't have said what she said to Tim Montgomery.
Why did she say it?
That wasn't the right response to fair and reasonable points he was making.
Well, because she's human and we make mistakes and I've been in those...
There we go.
That she can be so callous and nasty and awful and abusive is because she's human and made a mistake.
Isn't that the same sort of exact human political mistake that leads to people falling on their own sword in politics and resigning?
But notice how victims are denied humanity in this case.
Aren't they human too?
They are very human, but not human enough.
There's a classic thing, there's a difference between, we all know this because we speak for a living essentially, there's a classic difference between misspeaking, and that definitely happens.
Yes.
A number of times I've meant to say Queen Elizabeth and I've said Queen Victoria or the other way around.
That sort of thing where you literally say the wrong thing.
There's that.
Yes.
Okay.
Or there's getting something factually wrong.
Okay, we'll do it.
Yeah.
And then there's having a whole take, a whole worldview which you allow out there.
And that's not by accident.
No.
And sometimes...
Do you believe that?
Do you think that?
Or not?
It's not like you accidentally said the wrong word and you meant a different word.
It's not that.
That's like an American psycho moment where he's sat with his friends and at some point he says something really off the...
really crazy and everyone goes...
It's not a joke, mate.
And I think what you see with politicians looking at this is that they're absolutely very clear that sometimes their outward look slips to who they really are.
And what this is showing is who she really is.
Her true colours.
Her true colours are out.
But of course, no surprise there.
We've got incomes number 10. We back her.
She's made a decent non-apology and made it so bland that it doesn't really matter to the people that have been abused.
And, you know, we've got others now who start to attack her.
We turn around and say, look, this is perfectly acceptable language, but no, it's not.
We show what it really is now.
It's part of denialism, and I like this, Nick Dixon.
This is part of Labour's denialism and the less denialism when it comes down to the fact there are far worse things than being called racists, such as the rape and torture of children.
Absolutely true.
Yeah, Nick Dixon, friend of the show, not mincing his words there.
Nope.
Good on him.
Not at all, and nor should any of us mince our words with this, because this is bringing the issue up.
And yet, look at what she did.
Lucy Powell once said herself, horrific details of systematic abuse in Oxford resonates with cases.
Issues need wider inquiry.
But that was 12 years ago.
Yeah, 12 years ago, when she wasn't really in power and the influence that she has, but she was saying it to show the kind of person she is.
I'll lie then, and I'll lie now.
But here is something I think is what some of the reasons I come down on and try to go cross on here.
What are the reasons why they don't do it?
First of all, sorry, I'm not yet learning your system is.
Actually, she doubled down.
First of all, why are they doing it?
First, there's denialism.
So Labour has that denialism in their core.
They want to deny the issue and just hide it because they're political reasons that we need to have people vote for us.
The second is...
The denialism comes because you've seen them argue that we've got to have these cases pre-accepted.
The third area Icom is asymmetric multiculturalism that we've got here.
The sneering dismissal, as Mary Harrington puts out, clearly points to a paper about the way they look at the scandal of Pakistani majority rape gangs.
And for the grievance which power is contemptuously dismissed as a dog whistle actually about, it's what Eric Kaufman...
Asymmetric multiculturalism, in which an ethnic majority is held to a different standard to that of the minorities.
That answers it all for Labour, to be honest.
For them.
That's what woke is.
Yes.
Because multiculturalism says we have many groups practicing their culture.
Asymmetric means that the state is going to intervene and treat one group as...
or the...
It's going to be a higher group, let's say, because there needs to be an addressing of the historical injustices, and in fact this means there's a two-tier society being established.
Yeah, and they will ignore the fact here that there were racially aggravated crimes, and we haven't seen any of that.
And of course, you come to that and you say this distinguishment, look at her here.
She's here at an iftar.
Saying community of chariots, a chance for us all to come together.
I don't see it in the same way doing this as community events.
As I said, we made jokes about going up to Christians or Catholics or anything like that.
It's because they are now so towards their own ideological groups of voters.
That their human being, their characters are coming out by ignoring the white working class rape.
We'll ignore it, but I'll go to a community if so.
I mean, it's treasonous.
The word treason isn't even strong enough, I don't think.
I mean, I think that if we do end up in a war like the Balkans, like Yugoslavia had in the 90s, if that ends up happening here, decades and centuries after that, when historians look back at the origins of why that happened, They'll look back at people like her.
They'll look back at something like the Runnymede Trust.
Yeah.
And they'll say, these were the seeds.
This is what allowed a situation like that to even be possible.
Yeah.
These are the people that held their snobbery on their own social differences and their genuine inhuman beliefs that people can be raped and believed for diversity reasons.
This is what caused it.
Here's a clip of Angela Rayner pandering.
To Muslims.
Yeah.
Or whatever.
It's just not only that.
And there is a fourth reason why she is being protected.
And that is because if you look at her Wikipedia, which unfortunately, last night was quite good fun.
I had it on the phone and I tried to transfer it.
Someone actually completely changed her name to Lucy Powell Mohammed Jadudun and completely abused her.
Changed it all.
Supporting her.
She's born in 1974.
She's leader of the House of Commons, Lord President of the Council, and also a Privy Councillor.
You know, this is coming across on to that.
It's quite shocking how she's managed to achieve so much.
So a very important pillar of the political establishment.
There's no two ways about that.
Yeah, absolutely.
But the Labour political establishment.
And I've got to hear it comes in here.
Lucy was born in Moss Side.
She attended Beaver Road Primary School.
And it goes on then to say she went to Password School, which was up the road from me, Severian College, which wasn't a bad college.
And she began her career as a parliamentary assistant for Beverly Hughes when she was 21. Sorry, that would have made her 23. Straight out of university, she went into Millbout Tower.
To work in the 1997 election.
So an apparatchik a whole life.
Yes.
Straight from there, she went to work for Beverley Hughes, who was a Labour MP, who also, oddly enough, became a Privy Councillor too, in terms of that.
And I know Labour at Beverley Hughes, and she is a particularly sharp and aggressive, nasty person when I was there.
To make sure she was a good EU person, she joined Patton, Kinnock, Clegg and Danny Alexander.
And she ended up running, at a very early age, now 29, running the BIE for the referendum in 2005.
And then, in 2010, she ran Ed Miliband's successful campaign for the Labour Party leadership.
All in a very, very early age.
How did she manage to get to that?
It comes down to that she did have one loss.
She was trying to be put into a seat in Manchester Withington, which is my seat where I grew up.
That would have been the seat I would have stood for.
But she was defeated in 10, so she was handed the 2012 elected seat in Manchester Central.
Now, if we come along here, Beverly Hughes, that we've just talked about, also a member of that Manchester clan.
In Manchester, we call it like the Chicago of Labour.
It's the mafia of the north.
You cannot get anything done.
Unless you're a member of the Labour Party or a member of one of the unions working within them.
And literally, that's from housing to business contracts.
It is enshrined up there.
Simon Danzok had this pretty interesting about Lucy Power was parachuted into Tony Lloyd's Manchester seat when he became Greater Manchester Police Commissioner.
I went up and stood against Tony.
Nice guy in many ways.
But exactly that type of Labour person from the North as a GM commissioner, I didn't achieve anything.
Because Manchester's going to return anything.
If you put a dog with a rosette on in Manchester, and it's Labour, they'll put that in.
They don't care.
It will always be Labour.
Never will be anything else.
And everybody else along with that, every job connected with that.
And I've got a here...
Oh, I don't know why that's come up.
She comes down here, an article I found quite interesting about her when she got the job in Manchester Central.
She talks here about it's a really dream job.
She was tipped for roles in there.
And she goes on to talk about her family background in this particular article.
One of the key things I found in there is that she said, I work for Beverly Hills.
I work for all these people.
But my dad was...
Was a kind of Labour, top Labour trade unionist.
And my mum was a headmistress at one of the schools that she went to on that.
So that's just setting out where she was in terms of that.
And I think I'm coming down to the next part about it.
She, again here, emphasises the fact she's a Moss side.
She went...
She got to Oxford, but I didn't like Oxford for a year, so I carried on and went to university for two years.
And my dad, again, was always a labour person, always involved in the heart of labour in Manchester.
And my aunts and uncles were also headmistresses.
So died in the wool pinko?
Yeah, died in the wool pinko.
Living in a nice area, but claiming to be from Moss Side.
Now, the reason I'm going to say this here is I'm going to put this map on here.
Fog Lane Park there, that is literally where I lived, just above there.
This area here is a massive council estate, and I live there.
This is where she lived.
On the other side, this little triangle here was regarded as where all the people who were wealthy, the doctors, the business people, the headmistresses, all the houses that we would walk past with mouths dropped and only wish we could live in, that sort of thing.
That is nowhere near in Mossside.
Her school, Beaver School, was literally here, down here in the middle of it.
Over here, St Bernard's Orsi was my school.
Down here...
Around this area is where she went to her grammar school, Parswood School.
That was always getting the capture area of the middle class, of Cheadle and some of the nice areas.
So she's lived in a comfortable life, a comfortable area, with all the kind of trappings of a kind of nice middle class area.
Nothing wrong with that, I would say, on principle.
Her dad was a well-endowed and well-connected labour person.
She has teachers, has parents, so she got to Oxford.
She's on the route.
She is part of the effectual royal family of the North West's Labour movement, and that is why she's being protected.
And she's nowhere near being able to claim herself as being born in Mossside.
No one was born in Mossside.
You were born in the hospital, in Withington Hospital, which isn't there, and she didn't grow up in that area either.
So she comes along, that great tranche of Labour MPs says, I was a solicitor.
Actually, no, I wasn't.
Oh, I worked in the Bank of England as an economist.
Actually, no, I didn't.
I lived in Moss Side.
Actually, no, I didn't.
But they put these down to bolster their CVs to say, I'm down with the man and woman of the people.
I'm down with the working class when there's nothing working class about her.
But what she doesn't have is any class whatsoever with a statement that she's made that it's dog whistling about grooming gangs.
What she's got seems to be a streak of contempt.
For those victims, if anything.
Totally.
Absolutely, totally.
Reprehensible.
And so that's my little piece.
I'm a little bit short on it, obviously, on there.
But I think, really, when you're looking at this whole picture, it's damaging to the Labour Party in a huge way.
Because, actually, what I didn't show on the other side of that graph is where Angela Rayner was.
So it's literally, I was in the middle of Angela Rayner and her.
And I was seven when she was born.
So it's not too different in an age group.
It's not too different in knowing the area of what Manchester was like.
In lots of places, it was really deeply impoverished.
It was, you know, a cold time.
We went through the miners' strikes.
We went through lights being switched out.
And where Angela Rayner lived, she did live in a really horrid part of Stockport.
Not a nice place to grow up with.
A plot of impoverishment there.
So she would have really known it.
So to be able to turn around and say...
That Angela, Lucy Powell, lived in the same way that others did at that time.
I find that, for me, pretty annoying and it angers me a lot to have those claims.
She's had huge amounts of benefits given to her, advantages that many people would not have the opportunity of.
How many people think they would have been able to simply walk into Labour Party's head office in 1997 under Blair Mandelson?
And all the rest and get a job in there.
When you're 23?
When you're 23. Not without the right connections.
Not without the right connections.
So she was selected...
Actual privilege.
She's been privileged.
She is a privileged person and she's abusing people who have no privilege.
So I think I can rant on about her and her ilk, but what it is really, really showing to me...
Is the Labour Party coming out of actually who they are at the top end?
The Fabianists, those people who might be part of the co-operative movement who shouldn't be there.
And that's the type of individual we really need to challenge.
In Road to Wigan Pier, George Orwell very eloquently talks about that sort of middle-class, academic, socialist type.
Yeah.
They're just, they're horrid.
They're horrid people.
Right, so let's go to the comments.
And Samson, before we play the videos, we have more time today.
It's a Monday, yeah?
Right, okay.
So, sigil stone 17. Does Britain have an equivalent on the 19th Amendment?
Should we repeal that too?
No.
Okay, let's scroll up, Samson, please.
J6681819.
Labour politicians are terrified of alienating Muslims.
Because they know they will at some point have to rely on their votes to stay in power.
I think that at some point, if a critical mass of the population has been reached, they'll start forming their own parties.
It's already happening, isn't it?
It's already happening.
That dynamic is already playing out.
We saw that in the local councils in Burnley, where an 18-year-old girl has just been elected when she said there should be segregation of men and women.
Yes, and there's another comment by Threadnought that I don't think I can read out loud.
Who's the...
Jess Phillips will lose her seat next time, almost certainly, because of the Islamic vote.
Because they're not slavishly voting Labour anymore.
No, they're not.
She will lose.
Right.
Irrespective of what she says.
Let's go to the video comments and then your comments on the website.
The Bonsor Bomber.
Pretty cool.
Oh, that is cool.
I love that.
That's a proper...
A proper comet.
A proper piston.
Yeah, proper sleep engine.
Yeah.
Oh, I need to notice.
There's his comment.
I don't think I can say much more to emphasise that.
Just to say, on Sunday, the last epochs that just went up on our website last Sunday was me talking to Alex, that steam guy, Masters, all about the history of the steam engine.
Right.
And he does all stuff like this in his spare time.
I love that type of thing.
Yeah, yeah, me too.
I just go to old English parts of our history to remind ourselves what we once were.
Great.
So, Samson, do we have any other video?
No.
Okay, great.
So, let's go to the comments.
Kaleem Sloan.
Banning a party only does three things.
Makes it more attractive, makes it more likely that the most fringe elements will be willing to turn to violence to achieve the party's ends, and makes people trust the political process less.
I think that's in line with what we said before about the action and reaction principle as a description.
Stephen said putting them in a box.
You said powder keg.
I said pressure cooker.
It's all the same thing.
Yeah.
If you keep that...
It will explode in it.
It's bad news.
It will explode in it.
Just don't do it.
Right.
Metaphorically.
I'm talking about metaphorically.
Hope not hate.
I'm not talking about actual explosions.
For 10 years since reading and watching politics, I've been more convinced democracy at this point is really two wolves deciding which sheep to eat and the sheep electing which of them should be eaten.
A lot of people claim to protect democracy or protecting their democracy and they don't care about people.
Thayne Scotty of Swindon.
Germany learned, within quotation marks, from their past but not in the way they claim.
They learned that people will tolerate a lot in the name of progressivism or justice and that people will not accept claims of authoritarianism.
To give the devil his due, they have learned how to rebrand their authoritarianism as democratic and rebranded their opponents legitimate.
Democratic concerns as extremism.
It's horrifyingly efficient.
I think that's a really good comment.
That's actually a really, really efficient way of actually explaining what's happening out there in some ways.
The thing that sprung to my mind was the Enabling Act.
If anyone remembers Mr. Hitler's Enabling Act.
Basically saying you're not allowed to have opposition.
There is no more opposition now.
I mean, obviously what they're doing...
Today against the FD is much less explicit than that.
But nonetheless, it's a slippery slope.
It's going down that avenue.
I once had a very interesting conversation with some senior Russians about why is it Britain and the rest don't like us?
What have we got against Putin?
And I said to them, look, you know...
Putin's a dictator.
We've got dictators.
We've got very wealthy people and businesses and corporations running our back end.
All you need to do is learn how we do it.
If you copied our BBC and copied the way that the German security services do at AFD, everyone will call you a democracy, but you'd still keep all the people you don't like in control.
Just take a leaf out of our books.
Putin's Medvedev musical chairs is just a little less sophisticated than our red and blue rosettes.
That's right, yeah.
Aaron Von Warhawk says the European governments are terrified of the Nazis getting power and so take action to block any right-wing party from gaining power willingly ignorant to the fact Of the fact it was the failure of the Weimar Republic to address issues such as economic freefall, moral degeneracy and communist terror that caused the Nazis to come to power in the first place.
Banning parties won't fix the social pressures tearing Europe apart and will only make people more extreme going forward.
I absolutely think when you look at the history that the Nazi party was a reaction to Bolshevism.
Yes.
I think that's true.
It's my reading of history, sorry.
Okay.
Alpha of the Betas, and then we go to your segment, Beau.
Okay.
AFDR, Nazis who want less government regulation, less taxation, limits on mass migration, you know, classic Nazi stuff.
Right.
Okay.
Do you want me to read?
Yeah, if you don't mind.
Okay, of course.
I prefer that.
Ben Shaprio, overdosing on fentanyl.
I don't know if it's the same.
Ben Shapiro overdosing on fentanyl.
That's the name of the account, by the way.
That's the name of the account.
I don't know if this is the same subscriber, but if it is, it's a subscriber who constantly changes the name and is talking about stuff.
He had me doing something to an olive oil thing at some point.
Okay, so it says, terror plot in Swindon foil the day after Josh leaves Lotus Eaters.
Coincidence?
I hope that's not Josh being pulled away there with his last bun.
Have we heard from him since?
I was going to say, is there any independent verification that it's not Josh?
I don't think Josh counts as an Iranian, to be honest.
No, no, no.
I was going to say.
Thanks, Scotty of Swindon.
As the Thane of this proud bro, I would like to wholeheartedly take credit for foiling the Iranian terrorist plots.
People of Wessex, rest assured, I'm always watching over you.
I'm glad we've got people with good senses of humour on a Monday.
Someone did make a joke in the office, that exact same joke we just made about Josh, but with AA, with Academic Agent.
It's obviously bent.
Obviously just a joke mucking about.
Has anyone seen Dr. Parvini since he's been accounted for?
Since the arrest.
Right, okay.
George Happ says, it took Josh one on the ground mission in Swindon to convince him to leave.
Please stay in the office where the most dangerous person is Stelios.
Well, you've actually got a black belt and you've done military service.
You might be the most dangerous person in the office.
I'm off now.
I'm going to hobble off quickly.
I'm deactivated.
Right, okay.
Brian Tomlinson.
If the Iranian government is helping dangerous people enter the UK, the obvious answer is to stop all immigration from Iran.
Sure.
Omar Awad.
And deport the ones that are already here back to the country of their home, of their forefathers.
Omar Awad says Balaklava.
Slap an Uber Eats logo on him and he'd be indistinguishable from the other rabble.
That's a sort of cryptic Heraclitian comment.
I was going to say, I'm trying to work that one out.
Alex Ogle says, the only hope with the educational establishment...
Pardon me.
The only hope with the educational establishments trying to inculcate the next generation is that the teachers are the product of the last.
My generation, Gen X going into millennial, knew not to argue back against the boomers because they were skilled in sophistry.
Gen X and millennials are a lot less skilled and so it is much easier for Zoomers to argue back.
Perhaps a fair point.
Perhaps a fair point, yeah.
I like how boomers get the Sith and become the Sith.
Well, they're basically, I mean, we use that as quite a broad term rather than purely the baby boomers of 1946 and 7. We mean it's a bit broader, don't we usually?
Yeah, I mean, they're sort of basically the oldest generation now.
There are a few people that are the generation before left, but not many.
And so basically we live in a completely dominated post-World War II paradigm.
Yeah.
And we're only now beginning to break out of it, it seems, hopefully.
Yeah.
Fingers crossed.
I mean, I don't know if this narrative, the anti-Boomer narrative, it's a bit too generalizing.
But there are some people of the category of that age bracket who are a bit selfish.
And I remember when I was at economics school, university, I remember a very old professor who said, I care about three things, money, money, and money.
And he seems to...
Fall under the category of the only GDP caring about.
It's a cliche for a reason that the boomers are so selfish because it does ring true loads.
However, having said that, there are some boomers who are crazily based and it must be so frustrating for them to be tarred with the same brush.
And those that didn't make as much money in the same period as well.
I do like to stick up for the base boomers.
Yeah.
Although they're in a minority, I do think.
Sounds like a great pop band.
I do think.
Right.
Do you want me to read the comments for yours?
I'll give it a go.
I can see some here.
So the first one is Jan Hevy.
Is that S or 5?
S. Jan V. Jan V. So what's telling is that that was her gut reaction to the question on grooming gangs.
It gave the vibe of...
Are we talking about this again?
Or let's get over with it.
And her apology to me did not seem sincere, just trying to make excuses.
And I think that's what we're saying.
We can't really excuse what she's saying.
It is genuinely part of her and she's trying to hide it now.
It's her true colours.
And that apology was more like, I'm sorry that you noticed.
I'm sorry your butt hurt about it.
Yeah.
Like, what a douchebag.
I just do hope she gets the morality to actually resign.
And Thane Scoti of Swindon, he said, Remember, these people only have this attitude because they've never encountered this or they believe that they and no one they care about will ever be affected by these issues.
Very true.
Compel these people to have to confront the problem they deny.
Remember the Lib Dems won seats in the recent local elections on the platform I Hate Headphone Dodgers.
When things change for them, they start addressing the issue, whether or not they acknowledge it, to be honest.
Again, that's past.
Part of what we're seeing with just the elites in general.
I mean, we're comfortable.
We're okay.
Look at my house, look at my car, look at the money, look at the pension that you've given to me.
I don't need to really care about you too much, but oh gosh, isn't that bad when it happens?
As long as I can go back home later.
It's crazy how often that plays out, that until it personally affects them, I think perhaps, just one anecdote, for example, Anna Kasparian.
When she was, I think, mild sexual assault, some sort of harassment in a street or a park, then it was a problem.
Then you're allowed to notice it because it happened to her.
But just that as one example plays out so many times.
That's very true.
That people are these sort of crazy lefty liberals, turkeys voting for Christmas, and then something horrible happens to them and suddenly they become a bit more realistic.
Great.
Let's be able to learn from the mistakes and the tragedies of other people's lives.
I think then we've got the Unbreakable Litany says that the funny thing about dog whistles is that one has to be a dog to hear it.
You want to explain how you've made that connection in yourself, madam.
Are you a racist?
And I think that's actually a good point.
Mind you, the Labour Party like to use the word dog whistle all the time.
Almost any issue if they can.
And we have Kevin Fox here.
The Korean spa shooting the media and authorities rushed to post images of the shooter and call him white and intimate it was a white supremacist shooting until it turned out he was Syrian.
Then they all shut up pretty damn quick and stopped reporting on the event.
I think that's going back really to your point when we're talking about Swindon.
To be honest, how everyone's already said it's Iranian nationals before anyone else.
And a last comment from Russian Garbage Human.
Hi from Litchfield Cathedral.
A bunch of us Lotus Eaters fans are currently on a day out in Litchfield.
Incredibly pretty city.
England lives on.
Have a lovely time, Russian.
Yeah, that's lovely.
I hope you will have a wonderful time.
Litchfield is lovely and the cathedral is gorgeous.
Right, so we have run out of time.
Thank you very much for your segments today.
I had a really good time and I hope you appreciated them and see you tomorrow at 1pm.
▲
Export Selection