The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1289

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 5, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:20

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1289

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast The Lotus Eaters for Wednesday, the 5th of November, 2025.
	I'm joined by Stellius and William Clauston from the Social Democrat Party, the leader of the Social Democrat Party.
	And today we're going to be talking about what the recent acquittal of Tommy Robinson has revealed to us about the nature of the police and the state itself.
	How the BBC have been...
	Is it fabricating stories or is it just twisting stories?
	No, fabricating.
	Actually, they have been caught red-handed.
	Really, fabricating stories.
	Really, this time.
	And then we're going to end on a lighter note, which is the red pilling of Tom Swarbrick, an LBC presenter, which has been very fun to watch.
	But before we begin, a $300 super chat came in on Rumble yesterday from Blood for the Blood God.
	And because it was just after the podcast had finished, obviously we couldn't say thank you, but we wanted to say thank you because that's a hell of a generous donation, man.
	He says, here, money for ink stamp and mailing costs along with the cost to move my coffin out of Dracula's Castle.
	Well, thank you very much, man.
	I really appreciate that.
	It's very, very generous and very kind of you.
	Anyway, right, let's begin.
	So, you may remember back in July 2024 that Tommy Robinson was detained by the police using powers afforded to them under the Terrorist Act 2000.
	The issue was apparently that Tommy Robinson would not give them the PIN to his phone because he had journalistic materials on there and he was worried about the integrity of these materials.
	And this made them arrest him and detain him on these charges.
	Now, this has come through now as he's been cleared of not committing a terror offence by refusing to give the police his PIN number.
	And we're going to go through the court document on this because this is actually really interesting.
	The nature of the police and their opinion of him, which led to his detention and then charge under the Terrorist Act.
	Because it shows, I think, that the police are basically at war with Tommy Robinson.
	And this is essentially what they have to admit and what the judge concludes through the actual thing.
	Because there's just no particular reason that they should have done this.
	In fact, let's go straight into it, shall we?
	So this is, of course, written by the judge.
	And I'm not going to scroll through it just because otherwise I'll find myself losing my position.
	But I'm just going to read through it at length.
	So he was charged on the 28th of July at the Channel Tunnel because he was going on holiday to Benedorm.
	And you can drive there apparently.
	Because he failed to provide the PIN access code to his mobile.
	And so they give us the unchallenged series of events, which is not that interesting.
	But what they did is detained him, arrested him, and then held him for a period of time while they were trying to find something on his background.
	So he was engaging with the interview, but refused to provide his PIN number.
	And so they say, you know, it's explained how you failed to comply.
	If you failed to comply, you'd be committing an offence.
	And this was what they used to then charge him under this legislation.
	And this is what has led to this judgment from the judge.
	Now, what's interesting about this is that fundamentally, they seem to have actively discriminated against Tommy as far as the judge is concerned.
	The 2010 Equality Act provides legal protection against protected characteristics.
	And one of those is philosophical beliefs.
	And so the judge says, quote, protected characteristics include political beliefs.
	As was identified in a previous example, there is a critical difference between legitimate political beliefs or activities and terrorism.
	The former is a protected characteristic and is fundamentally important.
	And of course, terrorism is the use of serious violence aimed at influencing government for a political cause.
	And so it follows if the purpose of the stop was simply to ask questions about a person's legitimate political beliefs or activities, anything rather than anything related to terrorism, the issue of unlawful discrimination should be at the forefront of the court's concerns because it seems that actually the Equality Act 2010 protects Tommy here.
	I think that basically the process was the punishment and they wanted to make an example out of him.
	You know what?
	I don't think it was that.
	I'll explain to you why.
	I mean, that's normally what we would think, right?
	But actually, this doesn't seem to be a case of that because that would be applying far too much forward thinking to the police themselves.
	You're overestimating, I think, their personal capacity.
	Why didn't they know that?
	I mean, because I have sympathy with that process of the punishment thing, and I think I can see it in other cases that I'm not going to talk about.
	But I think that is it.
	And you look at, I mean, Pete North and other people being you get arrested and then you get let off.
	But the curious thing, and I haven't gone through this in massive detail, but the curious thing is it seems very clear decision.
	Why didn't the police know this?
	Well, we'll get into it, right?
	So the question is, why did they even arrest him?
	Because he had his passport.
	He's going through the channel tunnel.
	He's going on holiday to Benedorm.
	Why would he be stopped?
	Well, the answer is that the police recognized Tommy.
	It was P.C. Thorgood is accredited.
	He's an accredited counter-terrorism officer.
	Again, just quoting from this.
	He gave general evidence how he identifies if someone should be stopped under Schedule 7, checking documents, identifying where they're traveling to and from, blah, blah, blah.
	Right.
	And so he observed a Bentley, which is a lovely car, a high-powered vehicle, unusual with a lone driver.
	Is that unusual?
	No.
	Not really.
	Why would that be unusual?
	Oh my God, there's a man.
	Because I see lone drivers on the motorway.
	All the time.
	This is not an unusual thing, right?
	But it says here, quote, he recognized the driver as Stephen Lennon.
	He had a belief that it was Stephen Lennon before he stopped him.
	He spoke to Stephen Lennon.
	He had concerns over his travel arrangements, traveling long distance in a vehicle not registered him.
	He had borrowed his friend's car.
	Okay.
	His answers were vague and short, and it was last-minute booking to Benedorm in Spain.
	Suspicious as a long distance in a car, which was not his, he pulled Stephen Lennon over for the checks.
	But why it's literally because he recognized him as Tommy Robinson.
	It's literally the only reason he stops him.
	He used this power under Schedule 7, which is from the Terrorism Act.
	That's pretty extreme.
	Oh, I've seen Tommy Robinson.
	I'm going to invoke the Terrorism Act now.
	He's never been charged with any terrorism or has conducted any terrorism, as far as I'm aware.
	But this, just to be clear, this isn't really about Tommy Robinson either.
	This is really about these police.
	He took him to the examination suite, and Tommy took out his phone and tried to send a message and video the officers.
	He was given a leaflet explaining Schedule 7 and public information.
	He was read out his rights.
	When asked to search the phone, Tommy refused to provide the pins, citing journalistic material.
	And the rest of the officers' evidence dealt with Lennon's arrest and interviews.
	So we are a literal papers-please society, if the police just feel like it.
	Oh, I recognize you from the TV.
	I've seen a negative write-up of you on the BBC.
	Oh, okay, papers, please.
	Yeah, there has to be a reason.
	But it's interesting to look at what actually happened as well, because it's almost sort of farcical.
	Oh, yeah.
	So you get arrested and then to defeat it, you invoke equality and human rights legislation.
	Which should basically everything is a protected.
	You know, actually, that's not what defeats this, although I think it probably does give Tommy a legal recourse against these police officers.
	I mean, I'm not a legal expert or anything, but I would definitely be speaking to a solicitor on this and saying, look, they discriminated against me.
	Can I sue them?
	Am I entitled to something?
	Which he may well be.
	But that again, it is ridiculous.
	The world we now live in.
	So the idea of people making allowances and rubbing along without, you know, state arbitration constantly.
	And the state tries to arbitrate, and then its own legislation is used to, yeah, it's...
	Yeah, it's...
	It is kind of preposterous.
	So the question is then, well, when did PC...
	Sorry, go on.
	Did you want to...
	Yeah, yeah, no, I just wanted to say that you can say on the one hand that everything is a protected characteristic.
	On the other hand, you can twist this and say that everything can be a threat to protected characteristics.
	I think that essentially he has been signalled.
	No, he has been branded as public enemy from the top down.
	And he crossed the borders.
	So probably they say if he crossed the borders, just try to catch him off guard.
	It seems that way.
	It seems that PC Thurogood literally just recognized him as Tommy Robinson for enemy.
	It's fairly weak.
	And I have to now intercede under terrorism legislation.
	PC Thurogood accepted that once you started asking questions to decide if someone was a terrorist, that starts the Schedule 7 examination.
	However, in relation to Mr. Lennon, the officer could not remember when he started the examination under Schedule 7.
	So he didn't, oh no, he's got a bomb or something.
	So I'm going to inquire.
	No, he just, that's Tommy Robinson.
	I'm going to start interviewing him.
	Well, when did the terrorism interview start?
	Well, I don't know.
	I just saw Tommy Robinson, and therefore I acted because I felt like I had to act in defense of the current regime.
	He was aware of Stephen Lennon, and the officer accepted that he directed Stephen Lennon to Parker's car behind him for 22 minutes when he was asked about various things.
	But when asked what power he was using to detain Tommy, the officer said he did not know at that stage.
	You almost feel sorry for the police sometimes, don't you?
	But I mean, I know not many people watching this.
	Yeah, I don't particularly know.
	But you see the immediate confusion here, right?
	And this deep ideological confusion.
	The officer's like, oh, there is a person who has been marked as an enemy of their regime.
	It's Tommy Robinson, the bad man.
	Oh, I've seen him.
	I should do something about that.
	Okay, under what power?
	I don't know.
	Are you doing a terrorist?
	I don't know yet.
	I just haven't.
	Let's find out later.
	Exactly.
	But the problem is, we actually are not a tyrannical dictatorship yet.
	We are at the point where he still has legal rights.
	And so the officer's like, I don't know what I'm doing here, actually.
	It was put to PC Thurogood that it appears from the CCTV footage that it took him 34 seconds to decide this.
	And it's like, right, so that was really, really quick, wasn't it?
	Oh, it's Tommy.
	Right.
	Yeah, no, definitely.
	34 seconds.
	How much actual conversation do you get done in 34 seconds?
	So it was instant.
	I saw Tommy and I realized enemy and therefore I had to take some action.
	What action did you take?
	I don't know.
	I don't know what I was doing.
	I just knew I had to act.
	This priming and triggering of it.
	If you think the police officers are somehow immune to propaganda or somehow very rational people, this is showing us that they are just not.
	This person acted on instinct because he saw Tommy.
	Or may I say another thing?
	Maybe right now they are trying to blame this specific officer and try not just this private.
	Yeah, but it's not just an issue of officers.
	No, I agree.
	I agree.
	I think that the leadership will try to allocate blame or deflect blame.
	I don't disagree that the fish has rotted from the head here, obviously.
	But the issue is all of the officers were basically of one mind on this.
	It was just PC Thorgood who began the thing.
	So the officer said that checks needed to be made, but could not specify under what power he was detaining Stephen Lennon at this stage.
	Again, he just recognized Tommy was an enemy.
	So Tommy was detained for over an hour while these checks were made.
	And the officers themselves seemed to be unaware that he was just detained for this amount of time.
	He accepted that after about 22 minutes, he had decided to detain him, but wasn't exactly sure what the criteria was.
	And so he performed a series of checks, and he felt that certain criteria had been met, but he had learned nothing from the checks and the partner agencies who they used to do these checks.
	But he made the decision to detain, as it would take more than an hour, seemingly unaware that he had been detained for about 40 minutes at this point already.
	And then when asked about this, PC Thorgood seems to have no memory of these events, as if these are genuine NPCs operating on autopilot, right?
	As the judge says, the officer was shown video of Stephen Lennon's vehicle next to the booth, and Stephen Lennon being handed a piece of paper.
	The officer was asked if this was the public information leaflet that they're supposed to give them, but he could not recall.
	PC Thorgood was asked about his comment that Stephen Lennon was giving short, vague answers.
	The officer accepted that the only question he can remember asking is where Stephen Lennon was going.
	He could not recall what other questions he had asked Stephen Lennon.
	When challenged on the officers' concerns over Stephen Lennon's travel to Benedom, he did not know how often he traveled to Bendorm, but then accepted the checks were made on his passage through the border and accepted that he goes to Benedom a lot, but just not through the channel tunnel.
	The officer knew that the EDL was no longer prominent.
	The officer was asked what questions he asked Stephen Lennon that were not just relating to his political views.
	He could not recall.
	He interviewed him to the best of his abilities, but accepted before his examination that he was unaware if Lennon had ever been linked to terrorism.
	So, what are you doing?
	There's nothing here.
	It sounds like the officer's walking through a foggy mist in his own mind.
	So, oh, yeah, no, I must have asked him something.
	I don't really remember just where he's going.
	I'm just a babe in the woods.
	And what are you doing?
	I know.
	And then complaining about the quality of the answers or the shortness of them.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Presumably, you're not obliged to say anything anyway.
	Absolutely not.
	But apparently, he did answer, presumably, because he wasn't actually doing anything wrong, especially not terrorism.
	The other officers don't seem to have any idea either.
	There was one PC Stride there who also recognized Tommy Robinson and his affiliation to the EDL.
	In cross-examination, he accepted that he knew Tommy Robinson from the media.
	So the police officer was like, yeah, I've seen him in the papers.
	I've seen him being represented as an enemy to me repeatedly.
	He stated his memory was vague in terms of recalling why Stephen Lennon had been stopped, other than that he had bought a ticket on arrival and it was not his vehicle.
	Okay, but is that illegal?
	Is that a crime?
	When challenged about the statement, I'm aware he moves in this.
	He made the statement.
	I'm aware he moves in the spheres of and has links to organizations that have been labeled far right or extreme far right.
	But when challenged on this, he stated that he could not remember.
	But that's a protected characteristic, isn't it?
	Exactly.
	Just because someone is far right.
	Yeah.
	It's inexplicable.
	It's supposed to be.
	It's strange.
	And it shows us that this is an expressly political move.
	So what is effectively the police acting as a Gestapo here on behalf of the Liberal Order who has denoted that Tommy Robinson is far right?
	Oh, far right means enemy.
	And oh, I saw the enemy driving past.
	Well, we better arrest him under what power?
	I don't know.
	I don't know what my legal case is here, but I've been told by the powers that be that far right is bad and therefore I should go and get him because he's been labeled as far right.
	When asked of what questions were asked of Stephen Lennon about terrorist activity, PC Stride said he could not recall or remember.
	Oh, right.
	So you don't remember either.
	Just you're in a brain fog too.
	Just wandering around with no information about what you're personally doing, enforcing the tyranny of the state.
	And then you have P.S. Farmer, who was also involved in this.
	He knew Stephen, actually Lennon, from his notoriety.
	He was responsible for supervising PC Thorgood.
	So you have a supervisor there who's also like, yeah, no, of course that's the bad man.
	That's the enemy of the state.
	He was advised the reason for the stop was due to Lennon's behavior.
	But what behavior has he done?
	He was driving along, you spotted him.
	He was told that he had concerns about Stephen Lennon's links to far-right.
	Right, so it's an expressly political concern.
	Oh, there's a far-right person there, but they're not committing a crime.
	And as we pointed out that the Equality Act, that's actually a legally protected characteristic.
	He accepted the EDL was disbanded in 2014, but the ideology was still present.
	Right.
	So the police are now experts on ideology, are they?
	Well, you can't.
	I mean, we're in enough trouble, aren't we?
	Without this, I don't think you can say fine ideology.
	So, yeah, I mean, there's things you can say and there's things you can't.
	But literally, it's just, oh, the ideology is still present, therefore, we had to want the ideology to be illegal, really.
	Oh, that's precisely.
	That's precisely what it is.
	And they're acting as if the ideology itself is illegal.
	And yet, so when they arrive, they've arrested him.
	What for?
	I don't know, actually.
	I still think it's an issue of making an example out of him because when people like Tommy are talking about things, it's sort of contagious.
	Sure.
	Many other people start doing it as well.
	And when this happens, most probably their background is going to tell them, we don't want this to happen to you.
	We don't want this to happen in the family or something.
	Don't do it.
	So they are trying to sort of make an example.
	Make an example, but also lower the speed, decrease the speed in which this rhetoric is catching.
	And I would agree with you if they were responding to something Tommy had posted on Twitter and they went to his house and then arrested him and then took him down to the station or something like that.
	But that's not what happened.
	What happened is they spotted him going past.
	I'm like, oh, right, that's the bad person.
	We have to grab him, even though we've got literally no reason to grab him.
	They kicked him, though.
	It's not that they cat caught him and released him because they said I'm not saying that they aren't taking action against him or anything like that.
	The point is this was spontaneous for them.
	This wasn't them.
	It does seem very odd.
	Because they usually would, there's a breach of the law in some way.
	Then we act on it.
	We have something specific to say.
	It's very alarming, though, when you get to, if we're headed to a and it is totalitarian.
	Politically, polarized police.
	Yeah, and if you, but it's one stage saying, well, you have opinions that I don't like.
	The next stage is I'll turn up to your house and look at your bookshelves and say, what are you reading?
	And that's basically it.
	Yeah, and that's happened.
	And that's happened.
	That's actually happening.
	Because what this shows us is the police are politically polarized.
	They are the political arm of a particular kind of philosophy that controls the state.
	And so there's no question of neutrality or objectivity here.
	This is expressly political.
	He carries on.
	He says he knew who the P.S. Pharma knew who Stephen Lennon was because of his notoriety.
	He was questioned about knowing about Islamophobia and the continuing ideology, apparently.
	And he explained that this was all public knowledge.
	So it's like, right, so you've been told he is a bad person because he's Islamophobic and therefore somehow he's a threat to what I guess is an Islamic regime that we run in this country.
	And so he was asked to explain the delay in the stop of detention and PS Farmer was unable to give any clear evidence about how long he was held at the booths before being moved to the holding bail.
	How long the checks took.
	We don't know.
	We just took him, held him, and then it carried on.
	So the summary from the judge here, it's just really remarkable, really remarkable.
	It's such a damning indictment of the political nature of our state right.
	So the judge says, in summary, Mr. William Casey submitted on behalf of Stephen Lennon that the exercise of the Schedule 7 powers of the examination were not in accordance with the statutory purpose and therefore unlawful.
	No questions asked by the police officers were exercised for the purposes of determining whether Stephen Lennon appeared to be a terrorist.
	The reasons advanced for selection and for examination do not stand up to scrutiny.
	Secondly, the examination and detention were exercised in respect of a protected characteristic and therefore unlawful.
	It was submitted that Stephen Lennon's political beliefs and activities had a significant influence on the decision to exercise Schedule 7 powers.
	The test is whether the prosecution have proved to the criminal standard that his political beliefs did not have a significant influence on the decision to exercise Schedule 7 powers.
	Thirdly, the exercise of the powers were not necessary or proportionate.
	And finally, the ongoing detention was not being conducted in accordance with the statutory framework, albeit these submissions strictly do not arise consideration.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	So the judge is like, this shouldn't have happened.
	What you did was unlawful.
	It's actually discriminatory against him.
	And you have made no case as to why you should have done this.
	And yet you did this anyway.
	And so he says, I find it concerning that the officers have no real recollection of questions asked of you.
	I found this unhelpful, and it did not assist me in being able to make any proper determination of what was in the mind of PC Thoroughgood at the time when he made the initial decision to stop you, especially after such a short period of time, and therefore the unexplained delays while you were stopped at the booth.
	His evidence does not assist me in making a finding that the true and dominant purpose for stopping you was in accordance with Schedule 7 and the appropriate selection criteria.
	So again, the judge is like, yeah, they just saw the political enemy.
	I'm like, oh, we need to, like, like they are Soviet commissars.
	Do something.
	Yeah, do something about the political enemy.
	The regime needs you to protect it.
	Other than the security background checks, which revealed nothing, according to the officers, I find that all three officers seemed fundamentally unclear about what was happening during that period of time.
	I think that's a real concern, isn't it?
	But it does, the whole, the statement that you're reading, another thing that it, apart from the actual detail, another thing that it reveals is just another part of the state being completely incompetent.
	And we shouldn't be surprised.
	This is a state that releases people by mistake.
	Yes.
	Can't do some of the basics of border controls.
	It's everywhere.
	Are we surprised it's in the police as well?
	No.
	If this was one police officer, you might be like, yeah, okay, that guy's incompetent.
	But it's him, his partner, and his supervisor.
	Yes.
	Who are all there at the same time?
	I'm like, oh, yeah, that is Tommy Robinson.
	And what I think about this is that I think this is basically ideological programming, right?
	They've been primed ideologically to feel that they have to be in confrontation with someone who gets denoted as far.
	So we see this in other domains all the time.
	We've seen it for a long time.
	So I'm going to do a sharp turn.
	News night over the last 10 years.
	Most of the people interviewing people, most of the people are liberal progressives.
	And any, when Rod Liddell's on us, I mean, they have, they feel it necessary to show their allegiance to their tribe by interjecting, by being rude, by being unfair.
	And they've done that.
	It's nothing to do with journalism.
	We're finding anything out.
	This happens question time.
	It happens all the time.
	It happened the other day.
	And Matt Goodwin had it.
	And it's a way of them patrolling the frontier.
	Patrolling it.
	And so it's the same thing, isn't it?
	Exactly.
	But the point is it's ideological, right?
	So it's entirely drawing a distance between the two things.
	So these three officers were like, oh, right, that's Tommy Robinson.
	We know we have an obligation, a moral obligation to do something about the far right.
	It's a bad one.
	And now they've arrested him.
	And they're like, okay, why have we arrested him?
	Are we in trouble now?
	Like, what are we doing?
	Like, and the whole thing just evaporates into air.
	It's like, what are you doing?
	That's a great question.
	And so, again, the fact that the officers are fundamentally unclear about what's happening is one of those things where it's like they have the moral impulse.
	It's like the bad person.
	We are crusaders against the bad people.
	And now you've got him.
	It's like, okay, what are we doing?
	Can anyone explain our behavior from now in the last hour?
	And they're like, no, I don't know what I was saying.
	You can see it's kind of like this illusion or this mist that descends over them.
	And so suddenly they're not really in control of their own actions.
	And it feels very much like, again, something out of the 20th century.
	It's the Soviet.
	It's the Soviets.
	That's the best analogy.
	Anyone that's familiar with that.
	Yeah, yeah.
	He carries on and explains, you know, the judge finds it troubling that PC Thurogood had already identified you as the driver as you approached and he knew who you were.
	This gave the impression of an arbitrary stop for who you are and your beliefs rather than the selection criteria.
	Yeah, it's because that's exactly what it was.
	I saw the bad man and so I arrested the bad man.
	What else was I supposed to do?
	I've been primed by the political indoctrination that I've had from probably his entire career that the bad man is bad.
	That's so unsound.
	So yeah, I'll give you a throw in another thing.
	So on the basis of your beliefs, okay?
	But people change their beliefs.
	Yeah.
	So if you'd done a particular thing that the police arrest you for, that's you can understand this.
	If you arrest people for driving around and saying, I think what Tommy Robinson could have said actually said, hi, I'm actually a Liberal Democrat now and I've joined the Liberal Democrats.
	I've totally changed my beliefs.
	I've read a book and so it's totally unstable.
	Absolutely, but it's also about political designation.
	And essentially what they're accusing him of is a thought crime.
	Because of course, British crime is based on action.
	It's about what you've done, not about having beliefs that fly in the face of state orthodoxy.
	But that's what these police are doing.
	And this is insane.
	This is absolutely insane.
	P.S. Farmer gave evidence that he was told by PC Thorogood there are concerns about your links to the far right.
	Okay, but what does that mean?
	What does that mean?
	That means there's literally ideological problems that you're not allowed to actually, you're actually legally prevented from discriminating against them.
	So anyway, apparently these observations the judge thinks applies to all of these police.
	He found that PC Farmer's reviews of your detention lack rigor in terms of maintaining confidence that your continued detention was necessarily proportionate.
	That he never sought representations from you about your continued detention and more concerning, he never explored with the examining officers what questions and topics were being covered during the examination.
	And he had no recollection of what those questions or topics were.
	So it's just the misty, oh, he's Tommy Robinson.
	That's it.
	That's all they need.
	I cannot put it out of my mind that it was actually what you stood for and your beliefs that acted as the principal reason for the stop and acted as a significant influence on PC Thorogood's thinking and decision making.
	Obviously true.
	But this is a real problem.
	This speaks to a much deeper rot in the institution itself that has been thoroughly politically polarized to the point where these three officers can together agree, oh, that is the bad man.
	We have to arrest this political criminal.
	I think in many states around the world, authoritarian states and totalitarian states, that is sufficient.
	That will take all the time.
	You're just you, I'll just, I'll just pick you up.
	But in this state, if you're treating citizens on a par and on the rule of law, it can't happen.
	So that, you know, which shows you that though the laws themselves are formally the sort of neutral laws that we came to expect, the police, the people enforcing them are as ideologically partisan as any Soviet commissar or stop officer.
	Well, I think two-tier policing of demonstrations and large groups screws it, and everyone knows it.
	At least it's a good thing that the judge builded the verdict.
	Absolutely.
	We have to say this.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	At least this judge is like, well, look, I just can't see what he had done wrong.
	And this seems to be expressly political.
	There's no allegation of terrorism in this against Tommy Robinson.
	And he says, you know, none of this is born out of the evidence from the officers because they don't have any.
	And so he says, I must address two questions: namely, what was the purpose of the stop?
	And what was the statutory purpose set out in the Terrorism Act?
	And the answer to the first question is, based on the officer's evidence, I can't be sure.
	And the answer to the second question is, based on the evidence, that the protected characteristic appears to have been a significant influence on their thinking.
	So this is in British law, this is no different saying, I arrested him because he was black.
	That's no difference whatsoever.
	And so they literally discriminated against Tommy Robinson because he was Tommy Robinson.
	That's what the judge has come to the conclusion of.
	And so obviously the judge is like, well, in light of these findings, the prosecution has therefore failed to satisfy me.
	So I'm sure there was no failed to satisfy that I can be sure that there was no unlawful discrimination.
	So the judge is basically saying this was unlawful discrimination.
	And based on that, if the decision to stop and examine you is not in accordance with the statutory purpose, it is not lawful.
	And so I can't convict you and therefore I find you not guilty.
	Which is good for Tommy.
	I mean, obviously, but.
	It'd be interesting to see what happens now because if you missed his ferry, then he's got to claim no idea, but I would definitely inquire with a lawyer, a solicitor, do I have a case here that I was discriminated against arbitrarily by these police?
	Because it seems that he was.
	And yet, look how the BBC published this.
	Far-right activist Tommy Robinson found not guilty of terror offense.
	That's the kind of reporting that made these police politically primed to see him as just an evil enemy.
	The designation far-right is what they've used to see, oh, right, I see the far-right person, right?
	We'll get him.
	It's like, okay, but what has he done?
	And the answer is nothing.
	Like a normal reporting would be like the terrorists, the Telegraph.
	Tommy Robinson's found not guilty of a terror offense.
	Yeah, okay, that's perfectly normal.
	And sorry, I've gone on a bit long on this one, but I asked Tommy for a response to this.
	And so he sent me a quick response that we'll play.
	So, how do I feel after today?
	Should I feel happy?
	I should feel happy tonight.
	I don't feel happy.
	I feel angry.
	I feel angry at the mainstream media because they sat on my trial, they watched it for two days, and everything that the judge just put in his verdict, they saw.
	But they didn't repeat, they didn't report one part of it.
	They made it all about the car.
	He was driving, they made it sound like there's this big criminal thing.
	He's driving this expensive car.
	They know whose car it was.
	The police knew from the start whose car it was.
	The receipt for the car, the logbook for the car, the owner's written statement for the car, everything was in the car.
	I was delivering it.
	They knew that.
	Then they made a deal out of the money.
	They didn't investigate me over the money because they knew where the money came from.
	There was no suspicion.
	There was nothing.
	But the media made it all about that.
	When in reality, the police had admitted in evidence that they had unlawfully detained me due to my political beliefs.
	But the media ignored that.
	They ignored the fact that I was targeted by counter-terrorism police because of my beliefs.
	They ignored all that.
	And it frustrates me because if it wasn't for Ezra Levant, it wasn't for the alternative media, the public would never have got that.
	I'm very grateful to the judge giving such a strong judgment.
	Let me just see.
	Hold on.
	No.
	Just checking because I want to see what Michelle Jewsbury says because she's one of the only people I actually trust to give a fair representation of what happens on GB News.
	So that's how I feel.
	It's gone over one minute.
	Sorry, Carl.
	Frustrated, I feel.
	Still frustrated.
	Frustrated with what they've been allowed to do time and time again.
	Frustrated that in October 2026, I face another trial.
	And that next trial, I face 10 years in prison.
	And it's more of this nonsense.
	And it's continued.
	And the process is the punishment.
	I should be happy.
	I'm happy and I'm grateful to Elon Musk for helping me be in the position to fight and we fight on.
	My mum's going to get some salmon.
	So that's his response.
	And I don't blame him for not actually being overjoyed by this because obviously this is incredibly frustrating from his point of view.
	But what this shows us is just the police themselves are just as receptive to this kind of propagandizing as anyone else.
	And they will act on it.
	And they are the people with the powers.
	So anyway, we'll leave that there.
	We will have a lot to say about the BBC.
	Yeah.
	Tommy takes your view on the process being the punishment.
	And I think there's a lot in that.
	I think that assumes a kind of self-awareness that these police didn't demonstrate.
	That's the thing.
	I think these people acted.
	In fact, they reacted rather than had a conscious plan.
	Yeah, no, no, quick thing.
	Samson, the AC's gone off again.
	Could you mind turning it on for us, please?
	I think you're correct about this.
	I'm not saying you're not.
	What I'm referring to mostly is him not being released for so long.
	That's what I think constitutes the process of punishment.
	I agree this looks spontaneous, but in general there's a lot of...
	I'm not denying that there is a lot of understanding from the bureaucrats who themselves, again, are politically polarised.
	DP Olet says he's back.
	The lads have held the fort.
	I'm glad to hear that.
	How often are people traveling to and from Muslim countries detained and interrogated for links to terrorism?
	I have my suspicions.
	I don't know.
	PC, not so thoroughgate, forgot to think this through.
	Well, that's the thing, isn't it?
	Like, the whole thing was just clearly impulsive from these three officers.
	Oh, God, there's Tommy.
	I've heard of him.
	You know, I've seen him on the BBC.
	Quick, we've got to do something.
	What are you doing?
	Russian says, breaking another foreign prisoner on the run since the 29th of October has been mistakenly released.
	I posted this on Twitter the other day.
	It's like, look, once is a mistake, twice is a coincidence, three times is enemy action.
	Okay.
	Cranky Texan says, I can't help but wonder if he would have gotten off on a technicality if not for his recent visit to the Mystery of Love.
	Who knows?
	Anyway, let's move on.
	Right.
	So I'll wait for Samson to turn this on.
	Great.
	Right.
	So the BBC is lying to us.
	If you're watching us for some time, you know this.
	But some people really want some hard evidence to be shaken from their confidence to the institution.
	And right now we do have evidence of the BBC lying to us.
	We have evidence of the fabrication of a video of Trump speaking to his supporters, which was purposefully altered by the BBC Panorama program and was re-aired a few days before the previous US elections, which tries to make Trump, which makes Trump appear as if he was inciting the Capitol Riot Hill,
	whereas in fact he didn't say anything of the sort.
	And we will have a lot to say about this and about what has happened with a whistleblower report from within the BBC and people who spoke about its general culture.
	And I will say this because this isn't just the BBC.
	The whole way that the BBC is run is very similar to the whole way the country is run.
	I think that many people are not saying it, but if we see what is implied in all the discourse about this scandal, we will see that essentially they are showing how Labour governs the country and how to a very large extent the Tories governed the country for many years before Labour got elected.
	But the point is that the BBC doesn't care about truth, as is evident.
	They care about marketing for their own cause.
	And even in that respect, they were wrong.
	Because number one rule in marketing is don't over-promise and underdeliver.
	And they did just that.
	Let us see the promise that they made.
	This information, you think you're winning.
	There is no climate change.
	The more you try to drown out reality, the harder we'll work to verify the facts.
	We'll be watching.
	We'll be ready.
	Because it's the pursuit of truth that gives us our calling.
	The fight for truth is on.
	Right.
	It's very persuasive.
	That was the promise.
	And we are going to talk about the under delivery.
	Right.
	So let us see what happened here.
	I'm going to give you a very quick summary and then show you this.
	So in the BBC, there was someone who was an independent advisor to the BBC's editorial standards and guidelines committee.
	Michael Prescott.
	And he was a member of that committee for three years.
	And he wasn't happy at all with the way things were run in the BBC.
	And when he saw the clip I'm about to show you, he was a bit perplexed.
	And he asked for a further investigation from people within the BBC to file that report.
	And what he found was basically confirming everyone who says that the BBC is lying.
	And also there's the other bit that the kind of whistleblower problem that they seem to have within the institution shows a very poor culture, a culture of distrust and generalized dissatisfaction with the direction of the organization.
	Karl, I see you want to...
	Well, I can't believe an organization that makes its bones online to people would have a culture of distrust in it.
	But don't you agree that they really care about the truth?
	I've been told that by people who lie a lot.
	Right.
	So let us see here what Trump, what they portrayed as Trump as saying and what Trump actually said.
	We're going to walk down to the Capitol and I'll be there with you.
	And we fight.
	We fight like hell.
	We're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.
	Right, so you do see the difference.
	Oh, yeah.
	And there has been an investigation into it.
	Here we have Reigns talking about this.
	And they're basically, and he's saying that the bit that they took was 54 minutes after the first sentence.
	So there are two sentences in the fabricated video.
	The second part is 54 minutes after the first sentence.
	They literally stitched together two completely unrelated things.
	Yes, let us listen to the associated clips by telling you that.
	We're going to walk down to the Capitol and I'll be there with you.
	And we fight.
	We fight like hell.
	But Trump didn't, in fact, say this at all.
	The BBC spliced together two clips that took place 54 minutes apart.
	So let's go through it again.
	So it's what I showed you before.
	But this is definitely fabrication.
	And also, I don't see how this can be seen as foreign intervention because you have a major broadcasting network that is purposefully trying to lie in order to create the image of Trump as being worse than having said something that he didn't say.
	And the thing is, if Trump had incited an insurrection, you'd have heard the clip all the time.
	You'd be very familiar with it because they'd play it non-stop.
	But the fact that they say it but never back it up shows you that there's nothing there.
	Right.
	And here we have, again, Gordon Raynor talking on GB News about it.
	And basically, he summarizes and he says that the report was written by Michael Prescott.
	He was a member of that committee for three years.
	BBC managers refused to do anything about it.
	Senior management was told and then they refused to do anything about it as well.
	So he's talking about a generalized cultural failure within the BBC.
	So, well, we shouldn't be surprised.
	There are bits of the BBC that are quite good.
	Farming today, I quite like.
	I'm sure that's great.
	But the news output of the BBC is biased.
	And it's why public trust then is collapsing.
	It's very interesting that they'd be so incredibly stupid to do this because you can check this and prove it.
	Very easily.
	And it's not actually, the BBC's bias doesn't really consist in this, in my view.
	It's not really this.
	I mean, this has happened and it's disgraceful.
	But that's not what does happen generally.
	What does happen generally, because there's no viewpoint diversity in the BBC, and because many of them are just propagandists, what happens generally is coverage bias, just coverage bias, and also commenting and putting out output which just completely ignores important facts.
	They do that all the time, and you don't really notice it because you start saying, you're not saying anything wrong.
	You're just blocking out an important matter.
	Yeah.
	And essentially, the BBC's primary crime is a lie by a mission.
	It's a lie by a mission.
	Can I give you a really good couple of examples?
	Of course.
	So we're keen in the SCP on housing.
	And we think the state should get back into business.
	And I don't think you can, Bird has to have two wings.
	Private sector to do some.
	I want the state to do some as well.
	That's the supply side, which is very important.
	But the demand side is also important.
	And the key driver to housing demand in the UK is mass immigration.
	That is on the figures.
	Vast majority, 80% of the new housing need is just that.
	And how you can have migration rates above a million gross and not think that it affects the housing market is lunacy.
	And yet, the BBC did a two-hour special on housing two years ago, talking about the housing product and the housing crisis and various tensions.
	They mentioned, because I timed it, because I was writing a piece about it, they mentioned immigration for 43 seconds.
	In the height of the Boris wave.
	The whole thing, yeah.
	when the Boris wave was happening it was like no there's nothing to see here and it's like you're what are you what are you thinking of There are two components, demand and supply.
	Demand, no, nothing, no.
	And actually, it's not just the BBC, because Shelter won't talk about it either.
	Of course they can't.
	So they blame other things as the principal challenges for London's housing crisis and so on.
	And this is the world we live in.
	I've heard Nick Robinson on the Today, and you can bear listening to it, he interviewed the Greens for a quarter of an hour on housing.
	They never mention it, for it is.
	They can't bring themselves to mention it.
	No.
	Because it actually, immigration and minority status is one of the core pillars of their political platform.
	If they were to mention it, they'd have to accept that there's a flaw with it.
	It's cretinous, not even journalism.
	It's not even journalism.
	It's disgraceful.
	There are loads of other examples.
	One great example is that do you remember Panodrama?
	Which is in 2019, John Sweeney for Panorama was investigating Tommy Robinson to establish his links.
	He's excitable, that man.
	He very.
	To establish his links to the far right.
	And Tommy managed to get some secret recordings of him in the process, which the fallout was actually hilarious.
	The BBC issued an apology for Sweeney.
	Sweeney got fired.
	And the Panorama episode never aired because Tommy had actually got in there first.
	But you can see that.
	So the entire plan was to create a giant stitch-up out of lies, and they had it blow up in the face.
	And then I had a personal thing of this a little while ago with the BBC Verify, where they had done an episode about the far right, I suppose, which is why I was in it.
	And they had claimed that I'd gone on my MEP campaign, I'd gone to Totness and it was a lively debate that I'd have with the people in Totness.
	And for some reason, a green councillor in Totness told the BBC that like six months later, I'd gone back there and I'd radicalized half the town.
	I've never been back to Tottenham.
	That's an achievement.
	Well, I mean, yeah, exactly.
	If I had gone, there'd be social media posts of it all over the place.
	Yes, half of Tottenham is now my followers.
	But I'd never been back there.
	And so I complained and they said nothing.
	They said, no, we've taken it on good authority that you did go back there.
	There's no evidence when you go there.
	What is the BBC for?
	I mean, we had a South Yorkshire mayoral election a couple of years ago.
	Dave Bentley was our candidate.
	And the BBC don't really talk to us very much.
	And they'd found something that David shared, just a joke about something.
	And it was a little bit, probably a little bit on PC, but he didn't even originate it.
	It was no big deal.
	But you should get in touch with us.
	So would you like to comment?
	And what they wanted me to do as a party leader was say, oh, it's terrible.
	Yeah, really awful.
	Collapse.
	Yeah, it's terrible.
	No, I said, listen, we've put out detailed policies and green papers on industrialization in South Yorkshire.
	You've never asked me about them once.
	Come back when you want to talk about serious journalism, get lost, basically.
	And that's the right approach.
	But they've employed people to go through people's fees to try and catch them out.
	That's just risible.
	Absolutely.
	What's the name of the lady that is the verifier, the fact checker?
	Mariana Spring?
	That's correct, yeah.
	Yes, is it true?
	She blocked me after I challenged her on the lie she told about me.
	But is it, well, that's a separate thing.
	But is it true that she lied on her CV to get this right?
	Apparently so.
	Yes.
	I mean, it's a story.
	I mean, the BBC, they're not even trying, are they?
	You can have a fact checker.
	But again, it's kind of like this Sovietization of British politics.
	We were talking about the previous one.
	But no, this is Pravda.
	This is Pravda.
	It's just Pravda for the liberal order in this country.
	And they will tell any lie.
	that they will use all sorts of slimy smear tactics to try and discredit people.
	And they have never, they don't show any remorse.
	What does Robert Aitken's book, what's the book called?
	And The Noble Liar.
	That's what he calls it.
	Yeah, I've got it.
	He's an ex BBC.
	Yeah, I mean, it's a noble liar.
	They think they're doing God's work.
	Absolutely.
	And the less care they have for truth, the more they focus on the propaganda machine aspect of it.
	And propaganda machines can propagandize in all sorts of ways.
	They cannot lie by omission.
	You mentioned before they spoke about immigration during the Boris Wave for 43 seconds.
	They could also lie.
	They could just fabricate.
	Or they could just completely fabricate and divert people's attention from what happened in order to purposefully portray their enemies as basically demons.
	And there's a big question now whether Trump is going to be litigious and whether he's going to sue them.
	He has done.
	Historically, Trump has been litigious.
	Yes.
	And also, I am of the firm opinion that his opposition to mainstream media is an integral part of his image, I think.
	And they're saying here that this happened with CBS.
	He won a 16 million payout from CBS News after accusing it of deceptively editing an interview with Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.
	And we do have the video, but yeah, it's just a word salad by Kamala Harris here.
	There is no sound for some reason, but you can see that he's going to need to watch it.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	So there is also the question of whether there is going to be pressure to Ofcom to launch an independent investigation about this.
	You know, sorry to bring back to the incident that I had.
	I appealed to Ofcom on this thing, and they basically sided with the BBC and said, well, no, a credible source.
	They said you did go back there.
	I was like, okay, well, tell me the date on which I'm alleged to have gone back there because I'm such a public personality.
	I doubtless can account for every minute of my day on that date.
	I would have been posting things on social media or they that would have been able to verify my location, but they had no interest.
	And basically, I would have had to have made a legal case out of it.
	And it wasn't really that big a deal.
	You know, it's like, what am I going to say?
	If anything, if I'd gone to a court, they'd be like, well, it makes you sound powerful and important.
	Doesn't it?
	Incredible propaganda.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I couldn't say whole town.
	I couldn't say it hurt my reputation because actually it made me sound amazing.
	It just wasn't true.
	And so I just let it drop.
	But Ofcom just said, no, well, the Green Party counselor has said this, so we don't care.
	Right.
	And Michael Prescott isn't the only person who speaks against this.
	And we have here media executive Danny Cohen slamming the BBC for structural bias.
	And he's basically saying that what Prescott is describing is a systemic failure.
	We're not talking about one mistake.
	We're talking about a series of mistakes.
	We're talking about a culture that determines what lies are going to be said and what lies are going to be told, what is not going to be discussed at all.
	And also we see regularly speaking on the BBC panels an attempt to completely divert attention from things that many people find interesting.
	Like for instance, I was watching Matthew Goodwin a few weeks ago.
	He mentioned the grooming gangs and everyone started making noises there.
	So no, you shouldn't mention them.
	You shouldn't mention them or whatever.
	The chair interjected.
	At that point, you watched the video.
	I watched it twice.
	No, Matt was batting quite strongly there and they just don't want that.
	I don't know what they do about question time.
	I mean, no one watches it now.
	Well, I watch it, see the bias.
	I watched it if there's someone.
	If there's someone I like, if there's a good batter on it, I watch it.
	A lot of the time it'll be four left-wingers and a left-winger.
	Okay, well, I'm not really interested in watching that.
	But you notice how it's never proportionate.
	It's always one person and then four people who oppose them.
	I saw that in Brexit.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	On the data, on the report that was published on it.
	And these four people are almost certain.
	It's almost certain that they don't represent the majority of the people.
	Right.
	And he also says about the general failure of government, which also has had problems that are evident in BBC Arabic.
	BBC Arabic is very neutral.
	It's not exactly.
	And we have here Gordon Rayner again talking about leaked dossier says corporation Arabic service boosted terror groups claims and minimized Israeli suffering.
	He also said that it was very worrying that it was described as good as Al Jazeera.
	So, yeah.
	Not very flattering.
	That wasn't very flattering, but the people there found it flattering.
	And basically says here that it's entirely partisan.
	And all sorts of, as they say here, allegations made against Israel were raised to air without adequate checks.
	The memo says suggesting either carelessness or a desire always to believe the worst about Israel.
	And generally speaking, they're so self-evident.
	Yeah, and they were also platforming people who were basically enthusiasts of the mid-century German Austrian painter.
	Yeah, one man who said here.
	Sorry, can they get Nick Fuentes on BBC Arabic is what you're saying.
	Most probably they'll call him many.
	Right.
	And basically they were saying, you know, things you'd expect people of this ilk to say.
	And dehumanizing rhetoric against Jews who appeared hundreds of times in a period of 18 months.
	But I want to say just one thing to remind people of this.
	This generalized failure isn't just failure after October 7th.
	We also have all these extremely bad accusations about the culture of BBC and the kind of front and minimization that they were running for some people who are definitely among Britain's worst.
	Yep, that's happened.
	Pretty uncontroversial to say, actually, at this point.
	Yes.
	And yeah, that's why I had this video.
	I wanted to address the issue of these panels who are completely non-balanced and they are just designed to make people angry.
	What's particularly interesting about this one is the way that Fiona Bruce became a commentator on the panel rather than an impartial host.
	Oh, no, yes.
	She was very, you know, no, no, no, no, Matt, Matt, Matt, Matt.
	And it's like, say, that.
	He's answering the question.
	You know, she was completely on his case.
	And there is a further agenda.
	We also, we know this, but let's repeat this.
	BBC bosses were dismissive and defensive when Oxford and Cambridge professors accused the corporation of rewriting history to promote a war agenda, a licked internal memo set, which is absolutely not surprising to us, but it shows that basically they're entirely in it for propaganda and they're the exact opposite of what they have promised themselves to be, which is independent fact-checkers.
	And people are not stupid because BBC viewership is in steady decline.
	Oh, yeah.
	Still, many more people are watching the BBC than they should.
	But yeah, there is still noticeable decline.
	I mean, that's pretty crazy, actually.
	I mean, a lot of that is going to have gone online, but still, that's a huge, huge drop.
	And that's only in the last 10 years as well.
	But what I wanted to say is that I think that this, the way that the BBC is run, shows us the way that the country is run.
	There may be people in institutions who are good and are very unhappy with the way things are going and the sort of sectarianism and temporary alliances with this or that group at the expense of the common good.
	But they are ignored in the same way that the BBC senior management ignored people.
	It's the way it's the sad thing about all of this, it's just another institution that people used to have trust in.
	Trust collapses because it does this and then it becomes delegitimized.
	In the end, it's a bit like politics itself and the other institutions and people just don't think I can trust any of you.
	Because at some point, some ideologues are biting more than they can chew.
	And then there are consequences.
	And when we're talking about a propaganda machine that is so rotten, it's difficult to hide it.
	They couldn't find a single person in the BBC newsroom who voted for Brexit on Brexit night.
	They struggled or admitted to it.
	There will have been.
	There will have been.
	Robert says, I was annoyed with the BBC's website summary of Reeves' announcement yesterday.
	The way it was phrased, you would think that we were only 20 billion short in that department, not the 141 billion in deficit.
	Well, that's the thing.
	It's about protecting the liberal regime.
	In fact, if we go on to the next one, we'll see what happens when it comes to the collapse of trust in the media.
	And Tom Ratt says, if Tommy doesn't see the plot and get a conviction, that is de facto papers, police state.
	Better to have the danger of terrorism and question it from being stopped through remigration than the longhouse.
	Well, long, long conversation to be had on that, isn't it?
	Anyway, right.
	So let's talk about the collapsing propaganda networks that are the mainstream media in Britain.
	Tom Swarbrik is a fairly regular chap.
	He has had a pretty normal career going through the British media.
	As you can see, he joined the BBC in 2009 as a producer and presenter on local radio.
	He joined LBC in 2012.
	He presented his own show and then he left LBC in 2016, became a part of the senior broadcast team in Downing Street.
	He was an advisor to Prime Minister Theresa May and then Donald Trump during the election of Donald Trump.
	Then he returned to LBC in 2018, presented a weekend breakfast show and he's just been doing his drivetime show and he's doing various things.
	He's just covering things in a very, shall we say, centrist way.
	So a very normal, regime-approved kind of commentator.
	He's not a radical lefty or anything.
	But when you're in this kind of environment, you have to believe the rhetoric.
	You have to parrot the rhetoric all the time.
	And this is one of the reasons that people like Margin Nawaz and Nigel Farage got kicked off of LBC.
	They were like, well, hang on a second.
	And Tom has been having a few encounters with reality through the course of his job.
	So this, during, this was about six months ago, I think it was.
	Yeah, six months ago.
	He went to Birmingham to investigate the bin strike.
	And you could tell that his experience in Birmingham made him think.
	Welcome to England's second city.
	This is the site that greets you as you enter Birmingham these days.
	A bin strike that is now entering its second month with emergency talks happening at the union today to try and get an agreement between them and the council to end the nightmare that a lot of residents have been having with, as you can see, mountains of rubbish.
	I mean, this is taller than me, this thing.
	This is going to be over six foot's worth of rubbish.
	Everywhere we've driven past since coming into the city from the train station has been filled on most street corners with this kind of arrangement.
	The smell, the place stinks.
	And of course, there's the issue of rats.
	I don't know if you can see in here, but you can get a pretty good example of what I mean.
	That's a hole in a bingbag created by a rat.
	There's holes all over the place.
	The rubbish has spilt out everywhere, and no one's been doing anything about it for the best part of two months.
	This is what six weeks of bin strike looks like, at least on this road.
	The smell is, I'm going to go with fruity.
	It certainly hits the back of your throat pretty quick.
	And as you can see, this has been here for an age because you've got at least eight deep, six high, what have you.
	And look, they've clearly been ripped open.
	I've got my trusty litterpick here.
	That's just eggs just knocking around, glass bottles and everything.
	There's holes in the bin bags where the rats have been.
	Here you are.
	That's classic.
	Come down here.
	My colleague was here a few days ago and pointed out that in one of the areas, you'll find a bin bag that has been ripped open by something or other with used nappies in it.
	And I can tell you that's used because I can smell it from here.
	He's more decal than he should be.
	Yes.
	Right.
	There's a kind of level of disgust.
	You can see that he's modulating his rhetoric, but this is clearly repugnant to him.
	And so he goes around to try and ask some people about this.
	That's what.
	Trying to do business despite the bin situation.
	You can see the fruit and veg that is outside the shop being sold.
	One wonders whether that's a good idea, given all the rats.
	Just come to talk about the bins.
	How is it going?
	Not well.
	Not very well.
	Too much rubbish.
	Last week was a fire here.
	It was a fire?
	What?
	In the bin bag?
	No, no, because the people, all people, they put the rubbish there in.
	Oh, I see.
	They set it on fire.
	Okay, it was big fire.
	How long has it been like this?
	Like, nearly one month.
	Two weeks.
	Three weeks, two weeks?
	And the smell, man, it absolutely stinks.
	Sorry.
	Kids.
	Yeah, terrible for kids.
	Yeah, so much, so much.
	I'm scared about my children.
	You're scared about your children because of the health implications.
	I'm scared to leave the door open.
	The kids is gone inside.
	How old are your children?
	Seven, six, and four, and they have my small daughter.
	Oh.
	Yes.
	So, as you can see, the sort of people around, this particular clip I've really enjoyed because he just wants to talk to the locals.
	And I don't know whether you've noticed there's a kind of ethnic profile on the locals.
	They're all foreign.
	He's coming to the butcher's with me.
	Door open.
	Rubbish heavy.
	Oh, hello, sir.
	You work in the butchers, obviously, or are you just carrying around?
	God.
	A sheep?
	Looks like a goat.
	So people are trying to do their job and go about with their businesses.
	You've got a greengrocer's over there that's selling fresh fruit and vegetables outside.
	One wonders about whether the rats have had a good go at that.
	There's a butcher's next door, which has got the door open, and obviously there's produce being brought in all the time past the stinking foul tip of rubbish that rats have been in clearly, where there's discarded nappies everywhere.
	It's not, it's definitely not hygienic.
	So this is a very English response to this problem.
	He's very much understating what you can tell are his own levels of disgust.
	And he's noticed that it's a bunch of foreigners, probably don't speak English, some of them, and they have no concern for health and safety standards or hygiene or decency.
	And they're prepared to just throw their rubbish out in the streets.
	And he's like, right, okay, that's interesting.
	And so recently he's like, you know what?
	I'm not sure diversity is our strength, actually.
	And one can't help but connect these two things.
	Diversity is our strength is a propaganda phrase.
	What do we mean by our?
	Who do we mean by our?
	Diversity of what?
	Diversity of thought?
	Diversity of background?
	Of education.
	What kind of diversity are we talking about here?
	Diversity is our strength.
	Strength shown how.
	A diverse investment plan might make you more resilient, but it also might not make you any money.
	A diverse football team needs, ideally, some taller players, some quicker players, some left-footed, some right-footed, but they've all got to be good enough to get in the team.
	Yet we've arrived at a situation where our differences alone are somehow enough to unite us.
	We are united through difference, apparently.
	So this is so great, right?
	So basically, he's a regime man, and he has been his whole life, right?
	But you can see that even, where is it?
	This is a propaganda phrase, right?
	Yeah, exactly.
	This is a propaganda phrase.
	And you've parroted it your whole political career, your whole media career.
	And now you've gone and experienced it firsthand.
	You're like, has he ever said it?
	I mean, he may be a telepathic.
	Yeah, the point is, if you're in these environments, you consent to this, you know.
	But it's got to the point now where he's even on air, being critical.
	You know what, I have questions about the entire underlying premise of modern Britain.
	Yeah, but they, because it is a, it's just a slogan, not a very intelligent one.
	Yes.
	And it has low correspondence to reality.
	Yes.
	And people are saying this.
	I've said it for some time.
	It's certainly a challenge.
	I mean, I wouldn't certainly call it a strength.
	But it's a bit like, it's a bit like the old Soviet Union, isn't it?
	We talk about that earlier on.
	But it's a bit like they're in there.
	I don't know who does Kia Starma's tweets.
	It can't be Kia Starma because it looks like AI or something.
	But it just comes out with this slop all the time and they'll just constantly say it.
	And the tactic is just to assert these things.
	They'll continue to assert it.
	And then people will continue to notice and say, well, actually, not really.
	But it's got to the point where even like, you know, reliable stalwarts at the LBC are like, you know what, guys, I'm not sure about this.
	Do you think Emily Maitlis is ever going to say?
	Well, that's the question.
	Tom is just a fairly regular person, it seems, working his way through the system.
	Emily Maitlis is a foot soldier.
	Yes.
	She's a true believer.
	Friends in academia, this system is embedded.
	And I always say, when's it going to change?
	And the consensus we've come to is that it goes on until, if and until, there are any consequences borne by those.
	And what he's seen is consequences.
	And the problem is that the people spout this fluff don't really come into contact.
	They have no connection with reality.
	Most British people are living, in cities are living with these challenges.
	They don't touch, doesn't touch them.
	Half the country doesn't believe diversity is a strength.
	No.
	And, you know, you've got people like Heseltine turning up.
	He's got an 80-acre estate.
	He's got no purchase to anything.
	So for anyone wondering, Michael Hesseltine had a nice puff piece right up in the Times the other day where he complained that Nigel Farage was a fascist because his politics is of them and us.
	And he did this from his palatial estate in a 98% English area where he's tending his trees that are his greatest legacy.
	Billy Bragg's the same.
	It's incredible.
	You know, Billy Bragg was from a particular part of London.
	He doesn't live there now.
	He lives over here, doesn't he?
	Somewhere.
	I don't know.
	I think so, yeah.
	But anyway, that's the point.
	It's the hypocrisy.
	We've seen it somewhere.
	As though diversity is our strength, is not us and them against those who don't want diversity.
	But the thing about this, what I love about this, he's like, yeah, no, diversity is our strength.
	It's a propaganda term.
	It's like, yes, that's correct.
	From who, Tom?
	For what purpose, Tom?
	Who is making you, you know, you're sat in this institution that is proudly diversity is our strength.
	The whole raison d'etre is diversity our strength.
	And now you're like, okay, I think that's a propaganda phrase.
	I'm not sure I agree with that.
	Carl, give us a prediction.
	What do you think will happen to Tom?
	Well, it depends.
	What's going to happen to Tom?
	The thing is, right, Tom is married with kids, right?
	So now, there are basically two directions he can go.
	He can say, you know what?
	He'll get a quick mention from his producer.
	You sound a bit far right there, Tom.
	Because you are, actually.
	And the question is, Tom, do you keep questioning and end up going down the rap and going, yeah, no, I think this is actually being used as a weapon against us.
	Why are we part of an organization that's propagandizing the BBC, the British public, to think that diversity is a strength?
	When I know that's obviously not true, to what end is that being done?
	Or you can go, you know what, I've got a mortgage to pay for.
	I've got kids who are in school.
	I'm not going to send them to a normal crappy school.
	I'm an LBC host.
	I send them to a private school.
	I don't know if he sends them to a private school.
	I'm just going to assume.
	But the point being, he's got bills to pay.
	He's got people relying on him.
	So they say, well, you know what?
	I'm actually going to just keep my mouth shut.
	Maybe diversity is our strength.
	Actually.
	It depends partly who's listening to this, isn't it?
	I mean, occasionally I tune into James O'Brien for comic uplift, you know, just to listen to it for a few minutes.
	And I've got friends that do that.
	It's the best comedy I ever get listening to that.
	But maybe the channel should have some breadth, you know.
	But Nick Fry.
	It does have some, but you can see that that's been narrowing in over the years.
	I mean, there was, what's her name?
	Sanjita Musco.
	Yes.
	Yeah, she was fired for questioning Israel, basically.
	Yes.
	And then you had Majid Noaz and Nigel Farage, who were fired for being Frash pro-Brexit and just being skeptical of the predominant narratives.
	Ian Dale's still there.
	Well, Ian Dale.
	Yeah, I know.
	Bloody hell.
	Ian Dale, like, his sensible interventions are long in the rearview mirror at this point, aren't they?
	You know, he's become exactly the kind of woke Tory that we've seen for quite a long while.
	But the point is, Tom has hit on what is essentially the foundation stone of the prevailing liberal ideology.
	Is diversity our strength?
	And if diversity is not our strength, then maybe something else is our strength, actually.
	And it's this, excuse me, it's this particular question that actually leads you down the path of becoming far right, becoming someone who's against the regime in total.
	And so basically, you are right.
	Which one does Tom go for?
	He's got a question that he has to answer.
	Well, maybe they'll answer it for him.
	That was the point I was getting at.
	Well, I don't think he's going to get Mike Grahamed yet.
	I don't see him getting hacked after a few beers on a Friday evening or whatever and being like, why is this happening?
	But he's began asking the right question.
	He has phrased it in a way, though, that is open to lots of interpretation because he's just asking questions.
	He's not stupid.
	He's not stupid.
	So, yeah, he could always turn it around and say, no, it is this particular kind of diversity the regime wants that is our strength as supporters when he says diversity of what and the answer is of course race that's the the the the kind of and culture or practices mostly cultural practices sure yeah uh it is our strength that tell us what our strength is exactly it's a strength but
	he's who's we that's a great question tom you know is we the british public well probably not it's probably not a strength to have a bunch of foreigners dumping their rubbish in the streets with all the rats around uh but then you've got to ask yourself well who is the we and am i a part of the we because i'm not sure you are tom actually you know you're a normal english bloke with a family do you feel like you're included in that we're not sure you are i don't think he was included in that area well no
	the the the we of uh diversity is our strength yeah yeah yeah yeah like it's i i don't think i think he's coming to the conclusion that maybe that's not me and my family actually maybe that's someone else and their families um so anyway like i said it's fun fun little bit for me because i always like watching uh the glimmer of light reality bites
	yeah exactly the reality biting people who themselves are ensconced in the ivory tower and don't really have to deal with any of these problems without you know it's am i being lied to am i being propagandized so yes you are for anyone who's curious about the birmingham strike bill it's still going on it's this this was uh from october uh they're thinking about just making a bunch of the bin workers redundant because why would you need them
	and uh the issue is of course perennial uh it's disgusting um it's just everywhere gross it's really foul and uh apparently the question of the finance of the council is on the table now i haven't looked into this in any great depth but the the council claimed that they had been made bankrupt and therefore they can't pay the bin men what they're supposed to what the bin men are asking for
	and the council have said no we can't do that and various finance experts have come and gone no this is just mismanagement what are you talking about and okay i can believe that but uh i'm not going to make a big deal of that here but um but it used to be you know under joe chamberlain people used to come from around the world to see how the civic uh organization management was undertaken what changed in birmingham quite a lot
	well that's the point isn't it um anyway um we'll skip the video comments Today, Samson.
	Let's go on to normal comments.
	So, Hector says, Glad to see William back.
	Very nice.
	Hi, by the way.
	And lots of other people have been saying, Very nice to see William back, so that's good.
	Ed Miliband, harnessing Enoch's Spilling Grave, says the Terrorism Act 2000 was brought in so that police can detain suspects without having to wait for warrants.
	When questioned under it, you are not allowed to remain silent.
	It was only meant to be used when there are grounded fears of an imminent terror attack.
	It also makes an offence to collect or record, to collect or make a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism or possessing a document or a record containing information of that kind, which is obviously insanely broad.
	A bus timetable could constitute that.
	Fair point.
	But that's the problem, isn't it?
	We're trapped with these very, very silly laws.
	But like you were saying earlier, the state is just at war with itself at this point.
	And we see this in Kier Starmer, actually.
	There are a bunch of things that Kierstama wants to do that he is finding pushback from the Blairite institutions themselves.
	His basic conflict is just with reality.
	That's the truth of it.
	No, it is.
	Average.
	His conflict.
	No, he's in there, hold up in the world, it doesn't correspond to his ideas.
	And he struggles with reality.
	And it's like it's sort of procrastinating.
	What does he do?
	He has to double down on these meaningless slogans.
	And that's why it's like Tchaszewski.
	That's why it's like a regime that the public's gone somewhere else because they have to live in the real world.
	And that's why you can see at the moment, if you look at the polling, the uniparty only makes up about 30%, 35% of the actual electorate now.
	It completely cut.
	The center has collapsed.
	They're over.
	On that note, let's talk about the SDP for a minute then.
	So how's the SDP doing?
	And sort of, you know, what would your general pitch be to the average voter?
	I think we occupy the hidden majority.
	Most British people want a state strong enough to do some housing, to run the railways, to get energy transmission and production going and own the water companies, not flog them off to foreigners.
	That's what they want.
	But that's what we've got.
	Sorry.
	Yeah, no, but that's what we've got, I'm afraid.
	That's what they've actually done.
	Social side, know what the family is.
	The us part of us is very important.
	That is the social side.
	It's not about, I think we've had far too much crazy individualism and selfishness, basically.
	And us is a reality.
	That's why our slogan is family, community, nation.
	It's quite close to reforms because they stole it, but it's still meaningful.
	At least we know what it means.
	It's where we come together and sort of look after each other.
	We've got each other's backs.
	So check us out, scp.org.
	Just have a look at the policies.
	Sorry, just on that.
	I think that's really important, though, because it is very clear from repeated polls over time that the British public are not radical open market extremists.
	No, no.
	Free market extremists.
	And I mean, it's a drum I'm banging all the time: is that we're being exploited by state railways in Europe because they own a huge amount of our national rail.
	And so what would be the point of that?
	This is why our trains are just the worst in Europe.
	It's crazy.
	It's insane.
	It's crazy.
	And that's what we've got.
	But on trade as well, the biggest thing of all, I mean, our political parties are way behind.
	I was saying earlier, they're about 20 years behind the paradigm shift.
	You've got a paradigm shift.
	You can't have free trade with China.
	You will just get decimated, destroyed.
	And some of these things matter here.
	It assumes an equality of rules that they're playing under, right?
	Yeah, they're Chinese are not playing under the same rules as us.
	No, look at the tariffs.
	Look at the non-tariff barriers.
	So, no, you're a mug.
	If you think it's free trade, sorry, I've described this stuff, and Aaron Cass has described this stuff as pathetic.
	You know, the thinking on this is pathetically naïve.
	Get real.
	So that's it.
	That's all important stuff.
	Energy is very important.
	We put out a new energy green paper.
	It's online, energy abundance.
	We diagnose properly.
	The team has looked at what caused this problem, combination of net zero and abandoning planning and full privatization.
	And we have proper intelligent responses to it.
	It is our job to do this on these things.
	So how do you get out of it?
	How do you solve it?
	Build some new gas-fired power plants and coal, and then have a pathway to a full fleet of British nuclear power.
	That's what we need.
	So these, the serious things, we've usually got an intelligent response to.
	The Conservatives refused this back in 2011, didn't they?
	yeah it was under there's a particular quote from clegg yeah where he said something like it'll take 10 years It's like, but you were still in power while Cleg wasn't.
	They've just fried your future on that.
	And the Tories in 2010 closed down British nuclear fuels.
	And then a few years later, they're having a pint with Xi and saying, actually, can you build it?
	They were so unpatriotic.
	They thought, let's give this capacity to the Chinese.
	And until I, it wasn't me, but a few people said, you know, 5G, is it very intelligent?
	Is it a good idea to give 5G to the Chinese Communist Party effectively?
	And I always said it was like a Sergeant Wilson question.
	Is that terribly wise?
	No.
	It came so close as well.
	That could have happened.
	Boris was so close to allowing.
	Followed out thinking.
	So, you know, national capitalism is a real thing.
	The Americans, Vance and Bannon, understand it.
	And I think, you know, if you're still a sort of zombie thatcherite and you think it's free trade's fine, it's hello birds, hello sky.
	Sorry, you need to just wake up, look at the way the world actually is and talk about it and promote it.
	This is approaching things from the interests of Britain as a nation rather than an ideology that needs to be fulfilled.
	And it's the same with social issues as well.
	Because, I mean, like you said, I think you do actually represent a surprisingly large demographic of the country, which is not only quite economically nationalist, but also quite socially conservative.
	Yeah.
	And doesn't want a massive welfare state.
	No, I don't want a big state.
	I mean, we've got a vastly too big state now.
	And the combination, we have some terrible policy combinations, as I say, you know, mass immigration and no state housing.
	The worst you can have.
	The worst of all.
	Stop the immigration, build some houses in my sword.
	That's a red and blue combination.
	But on the labour market, yeah, it's the worst combination.
	We have 20% of young adults out of the labour force because of mental health issues, and nothing is done to try and...
	The first thing that you should say to them is to go to church.
	50 years ago, if you had a spiritual issue, even if you don't believe, go to church.
	It's part of the belonging, not the belief.
	But you can't say that now.
	And then the sticking plaster to this labour market crisis is to import vast amounts of people from Nigeria and Ghana, which is unfair to those states and fiscally negative and crazy for us.
	So Labour and the Tories dream up these dreadful combinations.
	And the solution usually is a little bit of red and blue, actually.
	That usually will do the trick.
	Look, I think what you won't get from me is lack of conviction.
	I think we're right about this.
	And I'm going to continue to argue the case and we're growing.
	And I will, I mean, it is difficult with reform at the moment.
	They're sucking a lot of oxygen out.
	And in a way, I wish them well because I think the two parties deserve to be if he does nothing else.
	If he does nothing else, it's a wrecking ball.
	I agree with it.
	But if you're looking for policy stuff and you're taking a what happens after reform, I think the country is going to need the SDP.
	Great question.
	Gabriel says, well, actually, I'll skip them, sorry.
	Mathurin points out that the police are operating under the principle that Stephen Yaxley Lerinen is a terrorist because his words hurt my feelings, which is basically what this all boils down to.
	He is far right and therefore.
	Zesty says, speaking of the BBC, in a recent podcast, Bob Villan, when speaking about his Glastonbury performance, where he had chanted death to the IDF and you're not getting your country back, said once he's finished, BBC staff members congratulated him on his performance.
	Yeah, they did.
	Disgrace.
	Louis Theroux interview.
	Disgraceful.
	It's insane.
	These are the people who staff the institutions.
	And by implication, they sort of like the message, you're not getting your country back.
	Of course, why else would they cheer for it?
	I mean, again, the BBC has had diversity hiring quotas and initiatives for a long time.
	So the thing is, we are very quick to assume that we know the kind of people that we're talking about.
	But again, the hour and the we are actually very important there.
	We can give an answer to Tom Swabrik, though, because if diversity is a strength and you're not getting your country back, then we is those who don't want who want the country to not lose its character.
	And the consequence you get there is Birmingham.
	It's a remarkable cultural turn.
	I was in the pub the other day, and we've gone from the First War was the principal recent, no, it's not a recent, but it was just an absolute catastrophe for the country and led to the second war.
	But you've gone from a situation 100 years where people, British people, were prepared to stand up and fight and die for their country to now a significant amount of liberals are totally indifferent to the country even existing culturally in the future at all.
	They don't feel strongly about this at all.
	They're not interested.
	I think that's inhumane.
	It's insane.
	But the thing is, I think the issue is that even going back to the year 2000 or so, it felt that the country was being run in the interests of the British people.
	So all through the last hundred years, people went, well, this is our country and it works for us.
	So of course we're going to fight in our millions to defend it.
	But if you look now, the country is not being run in the interests of the British people.
	It's being run in the interests of global ideology, liberal ideology, and the foreign client groups that that ideology has brought here.
	Yeah, well, I say that, I mean, my criticism of the economic liberalism, the Tories and people that think like them is they think the country's a shop.
	It's not a shop, it's a home.
	And my view of the Liberals, the Labour Party, is the thing is a charity.
	They think the country is an NGO, and that's what they want it to be.
	And that's what they spend.
	I want to ask you something on this because I think that it's an interesting point I'm asking.
	Because it seems to me that the more welfarism rises and the more people outsource what was traditionally considered to be responsibility to consider the neighborhood, the worse people get because they think that I paid my taxes, I did my share, so I'm not going to care about my neighborhood, not going to care about my neighbours, and I'm not going to engage in charity because I've already done my fair bit.
	There is that, but there's also the way welfare is, again, to take a very long sweep, on the parish used to be the way it was done in this country.
	If you were poor, you'd have a list of people that were desperate.
	But the important thing about that was that the parish knew them, of course.
	So there was a moral and there's a proximity to what was going on.
	The reason this person needs help is that, the reason this other person...
	But what has happened, and actually in the sort of three red and blue entities in the UK, you know, Red Tory and Blue Labour and us, you know, Philip Blond's look at welfare, the harm welfare can do, you know, it can start off as a safety net and then being a hammock, is probably the most acute.
	And he is right about a lot of that stuff.
	But just on the numbers, we can't afford the welfare state we have if you've knackered the tax base and de-industrialised.
	So you need to get real and a welfare system really ought to be keeping people fed.
	But you've got to encourage people to get back to work.
	Really do the problem is the expat when it comes from the state, there's no expectation on the people claiming the money, right?
	Claiming the benefits, totally detached, yeah.
	It's complete, yeah, exactly.
	It's completely detached, and it becomes something that is of a scale that seems almost irrelevant, almost universal.
	Whereas if it was the local parish church taking donations from people in the local area, they would say, Look, we've only had £2,000 in donations, so we, and that has to go between 12 people or something.
	So, you have to find a way of supporting yourself.
	So, this can't, you know, it's not just an infinite pot of money that can just use to dispense to an infinite number of people.
	And so, there's a real sort of pragmatic and grounded element to it.
	So, yeah, people will but the family.
	I mean, it was also just on the data, it's true that the family is the first social service and the first place we share.
	So, and if you are too large a wealth, I mean, people will look back, I've said before, people look back on where we are now and see, you know, putting up a site, you know, people have broken into your country and in hotels and all the costs of that.
	And the PIPS scheme, which is giving people some, you know, very, very good cars, BMs, and works and so on.
	Motability thing, which is 10% of all UK car sales, Carl.
	So, it's off the scale, and people look back and saying, How grotesque could it have been to go who was deciding this?
	And this is what politicians can't answer.
	None of them have been in control.
	I mean, I used to have a drink with the guy that ran the welfare because he was RMP, and I don't think he was in control of it.
	No, no, and the thing is, it's going to be understood to be deeply exploitative of the normal people who actually are net tax paying people.
	This whole system, it's just built on there's a kind of viciousness to it that is a moral blackmail that underpins it.
	So, I said, What?
	You want that disabled person to go without a car?
	It's like, no, but I don't think poor people should just be given cars either.
	But a disabled, but this is the problem with it.
	This is why it's in it's it is the edge cases that demonstrate the wrongness of it.
	But if you have a mental health challenge or you have anxiety and you're in your 20s, it does not follow that the state should buy you an Audi.
	Sorry, I agree.
	And this is where I'm sorry.
	It's just funny when you're saying, How can we have got here?
	Yeah.
	You know, and they don't, and the PSBR is over 100 billion.
	This is just crazy.
	It's the moral blackmail that underpins it.
	Oh, you're saying that person with anxiety deserves to suffer?
	It's like, you know, in a way, I kind of am actually.
	Yeah, but you're creating a you've just uh committed a rights violation to that person.
	Oh, there we go.
	Because you have a right to have an Audi.
	Well, I'm not a liberal.
	I don't know.
	No, there you go.
	Me neither.
	But that's the but that's the point, though.
	The moral blackmail of the state, exploiting the vast majority of the people.
	That surely can't continue for very long.
	Like, there's, like I said, there's a certain viciousness in that.
	There's a total lack of virtue.
	And when you saw the woman on question time the other day, so sorry, you're anxious, but you're perfectly happy to get it.
	National TV?
	Not many people could do that.
	And Smirk is your, you know, that the institutions are there to protect and ensconce you.
	Whereas Matt Goodwin, obviously, going to be a net taxpayer, hard-working dad, and he's the villain of the piece.
	And it's funny, that's ridiculous.
	It's a bit like Swarbrick and the proximity thing we talked about earlier.
	What happens is, because we have lots of counselors and members in some pretty tough areas, and you speak to the people that are working all the time, the strivers, to Farage's point, the people get up at six o'clock, get in the van, and actually make the country work.
	Their tolerance of this stuff is very low.
	You don't, you know, it is unfair.
	I'm those people.
	Yeah, yeah, very low tolerance.
	But the people that are most likely to defend are just totally detached from it and insulated from it.
	It's like consequences again.
	If you could see what was happening, maybe you'd have a different view.
	Yeah.
	Honestly, another, sorry, I know I'm going on about this, but another thing that really bothers me is the liberal activists themselves who just see the government as this divine instrument to solve problems.
	It's like, no, look, what I would do is I would literally be like, look, we're going to set up a national charity, a government-controlled charity, and the government will fund the actual infrastructure of it, but you will have to pay and get involved and actually do the thing that you want done.
	Or it doesn't get done.
	But it distorts what the government.
	This is from my point of view, what irritates me about it is that it distorts what the government should do.
	I wouldn't mind the country having a border.
	I wouldn't mind it doing some housing, railways, utilities.
	That's what it should do.
	And it should leave the market to do the rest of it and deregulate and let them get on with it.
	Because most goods and services are better produced by the private sector.
	That's history's favourite child if you get it right.
	But if you get it wrong, it's another combination.
	I completely agree.
	Public spending is too high.
	You're spending on the wrong things.
	Yeah, I know.
	I completely agree.
	Dirty Belter asks a provocative question.
	What are your thoughts on Islam?
	Well, I'm not a Mohammedan, so I don't follow it.
	It's a challenge for the West because Christendom has basically the sort of liberalism that we've had post-war has made us think it's rather like diversity is our strength, it doesn't matter.
	You can import very large numbers of people from the Islamic world and it'll have no consequences.
	It obviously does on our culture and it's very serious.
	But it's, you know, if you do nothing else, eventually this country will become an Islamic country, I believe.
	Just on the not in 50 years, but beyond.
	And also, I don't think it's the thing that culturally concerns me about Islam is that you've imported at the time when Christendom, Europe, Western Europe, is shedding its principal belief system.
	It's getting rid of Christianity.
	It's basically collapsing.
	The only thing that is keeping numbers up in the UK is immigration, actually, largely.
	So at the same time that you're shedding yourself your principal foundational belief, and you're with all the doubt that that entails, you're importing people that don't have any doubts at all.
	No.
	No doubts at all and are sure of it, sure of what they believe.
	And that is a problem we need to face up to, I think.
	And there's also a distinct mismatch between the liberal state being a rational materialist philosophical construct and Islam being a religion.
	Well, it's not, yeah, I mean, it doesn't.
	Well, the democratic tradition is not.
	But what I mean is, it's not even that.
	It's a giant blind spot that the liberal just can't understand what the Muslim is saying.
	The Muslim is saying that God has ordained and therefore.
	And the liberal being an atheist, intransigent atheist their whole lives, and they're completely utilitarian.
	This goes straight above their head.
	What is the significance of God has ordained to a liberal?
	Nothing. It means nothing to them.
	And so the sorry, go on.
	Now, can I ask a question on this?
	Because I think it's very important.
	So I think that the discourse in leftist philosophy in the 20th century, to a very large extent, argues against individualism, saying that no man is an island into himself and that we are influenced by our surrounding environment.
	So how did the left move from that belief and that criticism to culture and environment doesn't matter?
	It's a form of pretense, isn't it?
	They're pretending that the world is like this when it's really like this.
	I mean, that's the problem.
	I mean, people, the issue with Islam is as a belief system, it is very, very different from the one we, that is our foundational one.
	And Tom Holland said recently, he said he considered, I think I've got it right, uniquely indigestible.
	He describes it as.
	Perhaps he's right.
	I mean, but it's not something that it's a bit like I would, I don't think the people that govern us have taken any of this seriously at all for years.
	And the strategy is to pretend there's no conflict and pretend it's all fine.
	But certainly I've argued for a long time there's a very good economic case for ending mass migration, but there's a very good cultural case as well.
	Both actually are important if you care about your culture.
	I hate to say it, but we're out of time there.
	Where can people go to find more from the SDP?
	Well, I'm William Clusten on X, so you can have a look at us there.
	And we're on YouTube, if you, Social Democratic Party, you'll find us.
	And stp.org.uk is the main website with all the serious work on it, policies and green papers and the rest of it.
	Well, thanks so much for coming on.
	Very kind.

▲