Ezra Levant’s show examines PayPal’s 2022 Thanksgiving "misinformation" policy—$2,500 fines for dissent—sparking a 6% stock drop and mass exodus despite its later retraction, exposing corporate hypocrisy in enforcing woke censorship. David Menzies also dissects Canada’s ArriveCan app, a $53.7M taxpayer-funded project with eight contractors earning over $1M each, despite expert estimates of under $250K, amid pandemic-era cronyism and technical failures like Montreal Trudeau airport malfunctions. The episode ties these cases to broader distrust in institutions, including Gabby Burnett’s ongoing legal battle after police allegedly forced entry into her home in January 2021, now delayed until 2023, where public crowdfunding at standwithgabby.co.uk remains critical—highlighting how unchecked power and selective enforcement risk silencing dissent worldwide. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, PayPal tried to reinvent itself as PayPirate last weekend, and now they are paying a price.
It's Wednesday, October 12th, 2022.
I'm David Menzies, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
The other day, I was thinking about the superb British TV series Black Mirror.
Black Mirror ran for five seasons beginning in 2011.
Most episodes are set in the near future, and it's typically a dystopian future.
Black Mirror is akin to a new age twilight zone, the difference being that many of the episodes focus on new technology and the often detrimental effect that technology has on the human condition.
Black Mirror is supposed to be speculative fiction, but a decade after first airing, this TV series is coming across as eerily prescient.
Consider this brief analysis of the chilling episode Nosedive, courtesy of BrainPilot.
The society that Lacey lives in is one where a rating system has become what people lead their lives by.
If they have a high rating, then they're welcomed by many.
However, if people have a low rating, then it prevents you from doing general things like living in certain neighborhoods and being casted away by certain people due to the fact that they don't want to be associated with you.
This is something that affects Lacey and is what the main story follows.
PayPal's Misinformation Policy00:08:31
After Lacey has a downfall and she gives her speech at the wedding for her apparent friend, she then gets taken away and put in her cell.
From here on, Now, those ratings have repercussions, of course.
For example, when Lacey wants to rent a car, her rating has declined to such a point that it's now too low for her to rent the best cars that are available.
Thus, she must accept a subpar beater, which, of course, breaks down.
And she dares not vent about that to the rental company because that will undoubtedly lower her rating even further.
As the episode proceeds, a continuing series of unfortunate incidents, most of which are completely beyond Lacey's control, causes her rating to further plummet.
By the episode's ending, her rating is so low that she's deemed to be a detriment to polite society and is taken away and incarcerated.
She is, in effect, cancelled outright.
Now, I was thinking of Nosedive during the Thanksgiving Day weekend when news broke about a new PayPal policy that was due to go into effect on November the 3rd.
PayPal is an online payment system that allows users to pay for transactions and accept payments when selling items or services.
But apparently it also fancies itself to be Big Brother these days as well.
You see, PayPal recently decided to update its terms of use.
You know, those impossibly long legalese disclaimers that the vast majority of us never read.
We simply press accept and carry on with our busy days.
Ah, but some keen-eyed observer actually did take the time and trouble to go through those seemingly endless terms and conditions.
And a good thing too, because starting on November 3rd, PayPal was going to reimagine itself as a free speech gatekeeper.
Weird.
You see, if any of PayPal's 429 million consumers and merchants expressed, quote, misinformation, end quote, they would be fined a whopping $2,500.
U.S. funds, by the way.
How utterly astonishing is that?
The idea of a financial services conduit devolving into a bunch of censorious corporate thugs that would take it upon themselves to one think that they are the moral authorities when it comes to what is and isn't so-called misinformation.
And two, would be so full of unearned entitlement that they would consider themselves to be members of law enforcement or government, i.e., the typical entities that actually do have the ability to issue fines.
And finally, three, that this could actually take root in the United States of America, you know, land of the free and home of the brave, and unless we forget the home of the First Amendment, too.
When the shite hit the fan, PayPal quickly went into damage control mode.
The company eventually crafted a statement that reads as follows: quote, an AUP, aka acceptable use policy notice recently went out in error that included incorrect information.
PayPal is not fining people for misinformation, and this language was never intended to be inserted in our policy.
Our teams are working to correct our policy pages.
We're sorry for the confusion this has caused, end quote.
Fascinating.
PayPal issued a statement that was meant to clear up confusion, but actually the statement causes more confusion.
Well, at least it does for me, folks.
For starters, PayPal states that its so-called acceptable use policy went out in error, and furthermore, that the policy included incorrect information.
Does anyone believe that?
Because if you do, I have a bridge for sale in a certain New York borough.
That's because when terms of use policies are crafted, the corporate legal team goes through such documentation with the proverbial fine-tooth comb.
Lawyers actually fret over all the nitty-gritty details when it comes to terms and conditions, right down to whether a particular sentence needs a comma as opposed to a semicolon.
So the idea that some loosey, goosey, and presumably unapproved verbiage got into the acceptable use policy, it's completely preposterous.
This simply does not happen.
Regardless, such verbiage is not computer generated.
Somebody at PayPal, who remains unidentified, by the way, thought this was a jolly good idea.
You know, that PayPal would act as a regulator or law enforcement officer complete with fining powers to send a financial penalty to those users the company deemed to be guilty of wrongthink.
And another thing that further diminishes PayPal's credibility on this issue, those terms and conditions that PayPal would like you to think were just some random error or whatever, well, they were precisely defined, weren't they?
Consider that $2,500 penalty.
The fine is not $2,400, nor is it $2,600, but precisely $2,500.
Contrary to what PayPal is claiming today, everything about those terms and conditions were thought out completely.
PayPal is not currently in mea culpa mode for its attempt to boost its bottom line as an unofficial censor.
Rather, it is showing contrition because, well, it got caught red-handed.
To add fuel to the fire, PayPal is actually in cover-up mode right now because nobody I know is buying that copious quantity of bullshite that its new and unimproved policy was an error.
Rather, I think PayPal thought that given the current draconian climate that is now governed by the unholy trinity of wokeism, political correctness, and cancel culture, I think PayPal thought they could get away with such a fascist policy without creating any shockwaves whatsoever.
And dare I say it, they likely thought they'd be applauded for its censorship stance, you know, by the usual suspects, everyone from the Joe Biden Democrats and the Justin Trudeau liberals to all of those moronic Marxists on campus, all of whom have a problem with free speech and none of whom have a problem with limiting free speech, even in the USA.
You know, you know, folks, in a way, I kind of regret that this policy is not taking effect on November 3rd, because I would have loved to know what the corporate masters at PayPal would deem to be so-called misinformation.
We'll never know for sure, but I do have a hunch based on the political landscape of Silicon Valley, which is to say, here's betting that a PayPal user questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 U.S. federal election would indeed be slapped with a $2,500 misinformation fine.
Whereas a user questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election, oh, they'd be free to do so.
They might even be rewarded.
I'm also going to speculate that anyone disagreeing with the policies of head medical necromancer Dr. Anthony Fauci would also find his or herself $2,500 light in the pocket.
As well, I would have also loved to witness the drama of a fined PayPal customer fighting such a grotesque penalty in court.
Maybe PayPal deems itself to be above and beyond the law, but maybe a court of law might render a different opinion.
Royal Bank's Mortgage Blockade00:10:05
In the bigger picture, what is it about providers of financial services reinventing themselves as the guardians of society in the first place?
I understand that if you go to a bank for a car loan or a mortgage and you lack a sufficient income and your credit score is in the sewer, well, yeah, a bank is under no obligation to pony up the funds.
That's the free market economy at work.
But what we are seeing now, increasingly, has very little to do with the free market economy, folks.
Indeed, capitalism is an economic system which recognizes individual rights.
But what we are witnessing now is corporatism, which is an alternative form of socialism that intends to achieve social justice, whatever that is.
Case in point, remember Ezra Levant's monologue last December when he outed the Royal Bank for declining our mortgage application?
Incredibly, RBC's decision had absolutely nothing to do with Rebel's financial wherewithal.
Here, check out this excerpt.
I'm embarrassed.
I was turned down for a mortgage last week by the Royal Bank.
That's pretty embarrassing.
I'm almost 50 years old.
I've been a Royal Bank customer for 22 years.
What's wrong with me?
Except I wasn't rejected because I'm a failure.
In fact, the Royal Bank Mortgage Officer, who reviewed my application in detail, said it was very strong.
But he's just a regional banker in Calgary.
He said the decision to kill it was made at the Royal Bank's Toronto head office.
He told me my mortgage application was canceled because Rebel News has the wrong opinions.
See, Rebel News and I were applying for a commercial mortgage to buy an office building, our own place from which we could never be canceled or deplatformed.
I agreed to put my life savings in as a down payment and to get my personal guarantee on the mortgage.
The banker was impressed and said he approved of the deal, but the Toronto head office overruled him because of our conservative views.
I'm still embarrassed.
Being rejected makes you feel powerless, and being rejected for inappropriate reasons feels deeply unfair.
I don't think people would believe me.
They'd probably think I was just making excuses, except for one thing.
I have proof from that Calgary banker.
He's told me what the bank was doing to me and why.
So please give me a few moments.
I want to show you how cancel culture has come to Canadian banks.
If Justin Trudeau's liberals don't like you, one day you might have your banking cut off too.
But also stick around because I want to tell you how I intend to get that office building, even though Trudeau and the Royal Bank are trying to kill it.
I have an idea that I think could work.
I think you'll love it actually.
But first, here's my proof that it was political.
Here's the mortgage officer I dealt with at the Royal Bank's Calgary branch.
I asked him if there was any financial weakness in the Rebel News mortgage application or my personal guarantee.
And here's what he told me.
So if you had your way, this thing would be a green light, but you're just really on the political guy.
Yep, if I had my way, yeah, definitely.
We should be fine.
It's very comfortable given the financials.
If you have strong cash flows, no debt, basically, and the fact that you're willing to put your skin on the game kind of.
But even though our application was strong, we're debt-free thanks to our viewers.
This Calgary banker said the head office in Toronto wanted to review it for politics.
And because of our strong opinions about Trudeau, the Royal Bank decided to block us.
Yeah, it's just about the nature of the business altogether.
Because the bank has been, I'll be blunt with you, the bank has been, you know, trying to pry away from certain clients where they're kind of out there in the media and very strong opinionated, you know, which is your business in a way.
So we're just clearing some internal hurdles to make sure that the bank is okay to that kind of onboard you as a client internally.
Spoiler alert, we did not clear those hurdles, even though I've done all of my personal banking at that same Royal Bank branch for decades.
So how do you like them, bitter apples?
If you're a conservative or hold right-of-center opinions, the Royal Bank of Canada wants nothing to do with you anymore?
Gross.
Oh, and you may recall my interview with Gary Duke of Grand Prairie, Alberta back in August.
Scotiabank actually fired Gary as a client.
Good golly, Miss Molly.
What did Gary do?
Did he default on a loan payment?
Did he steal one of those chained-down bank pens?
Oh, no.
Gary was deemed customer non-grata for daring to ask an impolite question.
Check it out.
What pray tell did you do that made your local Scotiabank determine that they no longer want to do business with you any longer?
Well, I just tried to get online with an app to do some banking online.
And basically, there is a Rainbow app.
So I said, is there any way to get this Rainbow app off my phone?
And he responded in quite a shocking way that kind of surprised me.
And when you say he, are we speaking now of we talked off air, you had dealings with Mitchell Toft.
He's the assistant manager at the branch.
Right.
Yeah.
So it was through an email discussion that I asked him, like, if there's any way to get the app off.
And he, yeah, he responded.
He did not respond for a couple of days.
And then when he did, he basically hunted me from my bank.
Okay.
So, and I mean, I don't know.
I don't know whatever happened to can we agree to disagree, but you sent along the text that Mr. Toft sent to you.
I'm going to read it verbatim.
Gary, Scotiabank strives to provide an inclusive environment for all members of the LGBTQ plus community.
And during Pride Month, like every other financial institution, we have chosen to show our support in a variety of ways, including visual signs such as rainbows on our app.
Your request slash complaint will not be entertained as it does not align with our principles.
Your comments are not appreciated, nor will they be tolerated, which is why we have chosen to terminate our relationship with you.
You may gather the funds from your account and a termination notice will be mailed to you advising the date you have until to retrieve any funds.
Any funds in the account upon the date of closure will be put into a bank draft and mailed to the address we have on file.
You know, I love that statement by the bank manager when he says that the bank is all about inclusivity and tolerance, only to be intolerant of Gary Duke's question.
And then the bank embraces exclusivity by firing Gary as a customer.
Oh, the irony.
But in the final analysis, there is a silver lining to the now aborted PayPal policy.
First, their proposed perverse policy of fining people a hefty $2,500 for wrong thought is now deader than disco.
Secondly, the company's shares are now down almost 6%.
Good.
And thirdly, customers are abandoning PayPal en masse.
Indeed, just consider this USA Today story from two days ago entitled, quote, how to delete your PayPal account permanently and what to keep in mind before you do, end quote.
Ouch.
Folks, do you think PayPal is now suffering from buyers' remorse these days thanks to its desire to rebrand itself, you know, from PayPal to PayPirate?
And that's the crux of the matter.
When it comes to political correctness and wokeism and cancel culture, the moral of this sordid story is this.
Don't play ball.
Don't bend the knee.
Stand up to these despicable censors and these malicious Marxists.
That's what happened to PayPal over the weekend.
And it has been rightfully punished.
Indeed, how's this for jaw-dropping irony?
PayPal was planning to financially discipline its customers for shockers, espousing a contrarian opinion to leftist narrative nonsense.
And now it is PayPal itself being financially disciplined due to users closing their PayPal accounts.
And given that PayPal stock is now in free fall, loving it.
You know, if they ever get around to making more Black Mirror episodes, I'd love to see a tale based on the PayPal censorship fiasco.
And unlike Nosedive and so many other episodes of Black Mirror, the PayPal story will indeed have a happy ending.
$54M App Mystery00:10:57
There are so many reasons to loathe the Arrive Can app.
And now a new reason has emerged.
Namely, what if I told you that it appears that the federal government overpaid for this app to the tune of $53,750,000?
You see, the off-the-lot price of this app was $54 million, but many observers in the tech field say that given the utter simplicity of the app, it shouldn't have cost any more than $250,000.
So what's the deal?
How does a $250,000 app balloon into a $54 million app?
Do the impartial tech gurus have it wrong somehow?
Or is this yet again another example of the taxpayer being gouged?
And joining me now to discuss this issue further is the federal director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
And that would be Franco Terrazano.
Thanks so much for joining me on the Ezra Event Show, Franco.
Well, thanks so much for having me on tonight.
Always a pleasure.
So, Franco, holy sticker shock, even if that $250,000 guesstimate is on the low side, one thing we all know for certain is this.
There's no way in heck this should have cost $54 million.
So my friend, what's going on here?
Yeah, that's the $54 million question, isn't it?
What is going on here?
I mean, it certainly smells like another taxpayer boondoggle coming from Ottawa to me, doesn't it?
Now, $54 million, that is double the previously disclosed price tag.
So why are we seeing higher costs than what was originally disclosed to the public?
Now, wouldn't it just be so nice to wake up one day, just one day out of the year, and see a news story about a government program actually costing less than what was originally budgeted?
But of course, again, taxpayers across Canada are waking up to a story of another government program that is costing us more and more.
You know, Franco, if you ever do wake up to that story, forget about reaching out to us here at Rebel News.
Call right away, Ripley's Believe It or Not, because they might have to fact check.
You know, I mean, our headquarters is not that far away from the Eglinton Cross Town LRT project.
That was started in 2011.
And you can barely tell in certain sections that any work has been done in more than a decade.
And of course, it's delayed and it's over budget.
And people would argue it was ever thus.
But getting back on topic here, this was developed by a Toronto-based tech company called Laser Technologies.
What do they have to say about this, Franco?
Well, you know, if we ever did wake up to that story where the government actually saved us some money, it must be April Fool's Day.
But of course, the joke is always on taxpayers.
So let me jump to what might be the most bizarre part of this whole story.
You know, we all just celebrated Thanksgiving weekend.
Well, there was one techie, a single techie who managed at the beginning of the Thanksgiving weekend, who managed to develop a replica of the app.
It took the individual two days.
So they started at the beginning of Thanksgiving weekend.
They were still able to make Thanksgiving dinner.
So if it's taking a single techie two days to develop an app, I think taxpayers have every right to be shaking our heads, scratching our heads, and wondering how in the world did the federal government manage to spend $54 million on the app?
And as you mentioned, there was some people in the tech industry who are estimating that the raw development of the app could have cost even under $250,000.
Now, maybe more things go into the app than just its raw development, but I think every single Canadian right now deserves answers from the federal government as to why the tab ballooned to $54 million.
And Franco, we are not getting answers from the federal government.
On Friday, Conservative MP Michael Barrett, he asked, how in the world does this thing end up costing $54 million?
And the response he got, and I'll call it our non-response, in fact, I'll call it rubbish.
Liberal MP Anthony Horsefather replied, I will make no apology for an app that saved the lives of tens of thousands of Canadians.
Madam Speaker, I will make no apology for an app that saved the lives of tens of thousands of Canadians.
This was part of a global health strategy in order to protect Canadians.
And this app was put in place in April of 2020, one month after a global pandemic.
I'm sorry, I have my speakers on and I still can't hear the answer.
And I don't think that the honorable member who asked the question is also able to hear the answer.
So I would just ask members to please hold off.
The honorable member for the Unparliamentary Secretary can start from the top.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
So this app was put in place one month after a global pandemic was declared.
And in return for answering that question where the honorable member has insinuated that the price is entirely related to developing the app, that price related to development, accessibility, and support, maintenance, and multiple different contracts.
It was not related just to the development of the app.
This is unbelievable.
How does he come up?
Forget the $54 million figure.
At this point, I want to know how this Liberal MP thinks that tens of thousands of Canadian lives have been saved by this app.
What gives?
Well, what the government should be apologizing for is a complete lack of transparency.
Right.
And this is a lack of transparency when it comes to corporate contracts.
Like that is a huge deal for taxpayers.
You know, the company that received the most amount of federal dollars for this, now they hired a bunch of subcontractors.
Look, I'm not a business guru.
I don't know if that is the best way to produce this.
But what I do know is that taxpayers are the ones who are paying the bill.
We deserve to know who those subcontractors are.
But for whatever reason, the government has been unwilling to show taxpayers just who those subcontractors are who worked on this app.
And now we see the tab ballooning to $54 million.
Again, that is double than what was previously disclosed to the public.
So we need full transparency on this.
We paid the bills.
We need to see who was working on it and why the tab ballooned the way it did.
And Franco, we are not getting any transparency on this.
In fact, they're doing virtue signaling by saying this app saved tens of thousands of lives, which of course they cannot prove.
My question is, do you suspect somebody is getting greased along the way from when this came up as an idea on a piece of paper to the final product that, you know, there's, I don't know, some payola going on behind the scenes.
Some liberal crony friends are getting enriched because I'm sorry.
We look at the numbers once again.
And listen, I don't understand these things.
I'm a dinosaur.
I think the iPhone is akin to magic.
But when I see so many people in the Canadian tech sphere say this is outrageous, there's no way this should cost 54 million.
Is somebody behind the scenes getting greased?
Well, I don't know.
And that's why it's so important that we have full transparency, a full disclosure of exactly who these subcontractors were.
Now, one thing I think we have to point out to, now I saw this in a National Post article.
I was just reading, you know, scrolling through Twitter.
I saw this National Post article about the techies who were able to make this app or reproduce the app in two days.
And one thing that really stuck out to me is that the government managed to outsource the development of the app to about 23 companies.
Eight of eight companies had commissions of $1 million or more.
Now, when I saw that, I couldn't believe it.
But maybe that explains why the TAP ballooned the way it did.
But Franco, why would they do that?
I mean, again, I don't know the nuts and bolts of developing an app, but why would you go out to 23 different companies?
I mean, I can't connect the dots here, my friend.
Well, neither can I.
And look, I am not a business guru when it comes to the IT industry.
But here's the thing.
We advocate on behalf of taxpayers, and it's not just the dollars and cents.
Of course, this is a huge sum of money, $54 million.
But another key issue here is the transparency.
It's the accountability, or should I say, lack thereof.
Now, we haven't heard any reasonable explanation from this government as to why there's a lack of transparency and as to why it cost us so much.
And look, it's not like the app was flawless.
I mean, I think we all remember hearing stories about some of the hiccups here.
I remember hearing reports back in July of thousands of travelers who were forced into mandatory quarantine, even though they had all of their ducks in a row, so to speak.
No, you're so right.
This adds insult to injury, I think, Franco, because that ArriveCan app, I used to call it Arrive Can't because it wasn't just a dead dog.
It was a dead dog with fleas.
I had a friend who was at Montreal Trudeau Airport, and nobody's ArriveCan was working.
So the border agents were just hustling everyone through.
So far from it from saving the lives of tens of thousands of Canadians, this thing was very temperamental in terms of when it would work.
I guess the last question is, we're not going to get a transparent answer, Franco, from the Trudeau liberals.
So does this mean we're going to have to, I don't know, file an FOI and force them to cough up the nitty-gritty costing behind this thing?
Well, isn't that unfortunate that we actually are the ones who are going to have to be able to file the ATIPs to get an answer from this government?
Rather, they should be completely transparent with the public.
But you know what?
I think a lot of people are mad about this and rightfully so because, you know, it's sometimes it could be fun to poke at government waste, but we have to remember right now, Canadians are paying too much tax because the government is wasting too much money.
And unfortunately, this is not the first example, far from it, where we have seen the Trudeau government, the federal government, waste our tax dollars.
And the reason we're all paying way too much tax is because the government in Ottawa is wasting too much of her money.
And it seems it was ever thus.
I mean, as the old line goes, Franco, the two most oft-repeated lies in history, number two being the check is in the mail, and number one being, hi, I'm from the government.
Hi, I'm From the Government00:10:40
I'm here to help you.
Unbelievable.
Well, let's see if we can shake some answers out of this tree.
This is despicable.
I mean, the sad thing is in the big picture, some people might be saying, What's 54 million?
But that's not the point here.
There's no way something that was a quarter of a million dollars should balloon to that.
And when we get those answers, Franco, I'd love to have you back on the show and we'll go through that.
So thank you so much for bringing this to our attention, my friend.
Well, thanks so much for having me on tonight.
Thank you.
And that was Franco Terrazano, a director with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
Keep it here.
More of the Ezra Levent Show to come right after this.
Well, folks, as usual, lots of feedback regarding last night's edition of the Ezra Levent Show, hosted by the big boss man himself, Ezra.
On the news that Dina Henshaw was fired, GGFD writes, looking forward to hearing Henshaw has been fired and a whole lot of other AHS, useless, top-end deadwood.
Oh, I share your celebration.
The G-Head on the unvaccinated, the war against those businesses that had the temerity to, you know, open up like Costco and Walmart.
This was thanks to Henshaw policies.
And I would love to see the purge continue right up to the chief health medical necromancer.
That would be Dr. Teresa Tam.
And on Ezra's interview with Celine on the news that Arthur's trespass charges were dropped, Rand user Rumble writes: Persecution, prosecution fails again.
Yay for Pastor Art.
I mean, you know, can you believe it, folks?
Not that you would have known about Pastor Art's plight if you relied on the mainstream media.
Here was someone that wanted to conduct religious services.
Here was someone who wanted to feed the homeless.
And what did they do?
They made an example out of him as though he was a murderer.
It was absolutely shameful for this great man to be treated the way he has.
And he will, he's continuing to have his day in court, in fact.
So far, he's batting a thousand.
And Perseus 09 writes: We can sum this up this way: the police, quotation marks, the prosecutors, the Karens, the government, the mainstream media, all of these groups are on a power trip.
They are all trying to play king of the hill, and each of them is getting knocked off one by one.
The worst part is that they are all using public funds, taxes, to attack not just Arthur, but the rest of us.
I'm guessing they are hoping that some people will just throw their hands up and surrender from emotional exhaustion.
You know, I think you're right.
I think some people did surrender, but there was a whole bunch of other people that refused to bend the knee.
And on the subject of those who took glee in eclipsing our rights and freedoms, you know, folks, I think there were those in law enforcement that wanted absolutely nothing to do with this.
This was not what they signed up for.
This was not fulfilling their duties as a police officer.
I think there was another contingent, you know, the losers, the bullies with a badge that thrived on the COVID enforcement days, and they should all be ashamed of themselves.
What's more, they should find another job.
You are not a good cop when you go after law-abiding citizens and arrest them for what?
Not wearing a mask, not social distancing, not closing down their livelihood.
Absolutely despicable.
Well, folks, that wraps up another edition of the Ezra Levant Show.
Thanks so much for tuning in.
I think either Ezra or Sheila Gunread will be here tomorrow.
We'll wait and see.
In the meantime, as always, stay sane.
Just stop having to stop in my house.
I do not think so.
What's wrong with you?
Mom, no, please.
My mom's not.
My no!
Please stop it!
My f- How do you feel with law enforcement going forward in this country?
Do you trust them?
No, I definitely can't trust anyone in the law enforcement anymore.
Not that I really could before it anyway.
I mean, if it wasn't for us getting help from, you know, people online today, then we wouldn't have been...
We had no idea what would have happened today, you know, if we didn't have this fun page and everything.
We've no idea how this could have came out.
This is Call Smiles for Evil News outside of Aberdeen District Court, where shortly the court case of Gabby Burnett is set to begin.
Gabby has been accused of assaulting a police officer after they forced their way into their home back in January 2021.
Through crowdfunding at standwithgaby.co.uk, we've arranged a top lawyer to get this ridiculous case thrown out of court.
And we can't do it without your help.
Because this case is so important because it could happen to any one of us.
So please, head over to standwithgabby.co.uk to help fund the good fight.
So I'm here with Julie and Gabby Burnett just outside of Aberdeen District Court as legal proceedings are about to begin after they are being accused of assaulting a police officer after they forced their way into their home back in January 2021.
We set up a crowdfunder at standwithgabby.co.uk to help fund a top lawyer to get this ridiculous case thrown out of court.
But Julie, now that the day has now come, how do you feel?
I feel that it's been put off so long because I think they're trying to make it disappear.
I think they want it to go away.
And are you confident?
Not at all.
I don't think it's going to go in our favour at all.
I think they're just trying to paint us as the bad ones because they've messed up so badly that they have to try and make us look like we've actually done something when we haven't.
And Gabby, regardless of the outcome today, how do you feel with law enforcement going forward in this country?
Do you trust them?
No, I definitely can't trust anyone in the law enforcement anymore.
Not that I really could before it anyway, I mean if it wasn't for us getting help from people online today then we wouldn't have been, we had no idea what would have happened today if we didn't have this fun page and everything.
I've no idea how this could have came out.
And what sort of effect has the past two years had on your family?
It's been a long time and it's now finally coming to pass today.
But how have you all coped?
It's just been really stressful having it hanging over our heads all this time, especially me getting a new job and everything like that.
It's not the sort of thing.
You know, it's hard to, if someone wasn't aware of the story, it's hard for me to try and explain my side without looking, you know, because people tend, if they don't know, they would tend to go with the officials.
So it's hard trying to defend myself even in situations like that, like getting employment and things like that.
So it's been a big stress.
So that's Julie and Gabby Burnett just before their day in court.
If you want to help fund the good fight, head over to standwithgabby.co.uk.
After a quick in and out, how do you think it went today?
Not too great.
I'd rather have just got it over and done with.
The fact that it's going to be hanging over our heads into another year is really quite stressful.
Having had this adjourned dragging this into a second year, do you feel more or less confident about next time you're in court?
Less confident, definitely, by what's just happened there, which was not much at all.
I think we're in there for about three minutes.
I don't feel like anything's on our side right now, especially with the law.
So you've heard from Gabby and Julie Burnett there.
They're not too confident, but with your support at Stan With Gabby, we can get one of Scotland's top law firms to hopefully get this ridiculous case thrown out of court.
So please, head over to standwithgabby.co.uk and help fund the good fight.
Thank you.
Just stop it with your microphone in my hands.
I do not think so.
What's wrong?
What the f*** are you, mate?
Right, no, no.
Mum, no, please, my mum, no, no, no!
Please stop it, my name is f***ing, my name is f***ing, my name is f***ing.
And we were in Aberdeen District Court this morning, but the case was quickly adjourned and the can of overzealous policing was kicked down the road until January next year.
Now Rebel have to be here because the mainstream media are not.
This overzealous policing should be a mainstream media story because this is an example of the Coronavirus Act being abused and it could be abused again.
Through your crowdfunding at standwithgabby.co.uk, we've managed to get cheap flights, rented a car, an affordable accommodation, but most importantly, we've hired one of the top law firms in Scotland.
A law firm that usually represents the likes of celebrities and politicians, but today is standing with the common man.
But we can't do it without you.
Your support is so, so important.
So please, head over to standwithgabby.co.uk because you never know.
One day we could be in your hometown reporting on your story of overzealous policing.