This is London calling, London Calling. I've got a phone call a couple
of months ago to say we are closing your accounts. I asked why.
No reason was given. I was told a letter would come which would explain
everything. I complained. I emailed the chairman. A Lackey phoned me to
say that it was a commercial decision, which I have to say I don't
believe it was a single moment. So I thought, well, there we
are. I'd have to go and find a different bank. I've been to
six Welcome to London calling with me, James, Denny part and my very
good friend mister Toby Young. I've been a flat week for me, what
about you? Very busy week, lots of parties last week and a but
a fairly uneventful weekend. I haven't done anything very exciting, just tried to
not drink, spend time with my family, cooks and meals, get decent
nights, sleep to recoup. Yeah, I bet I bet your partying was.
I bet they were all parties I'd absolutely have loathed with with kind of
your normally freako friends, you would have you would you would have liked the
policy Exchange party. James the guest speaker. The surprise guest speaker at the
Poloxy Exchange summer Party, David, I guess Richie Sooner, No, I
hate policy exchange. It's absolutely it's I mean, those of us who are
down the rabbit hole recognize that the think tanks are one of the main conduits
of control for the powers that be. I mean, obviously, policy exchange
is a kind of lesser think tank. I mean, the big ones are
things like the Council on Foreign Relations and build a Burg and so on.
But nevertheless, policy exchange it masquerades as this concern otive thing. I don't
think it's ever generated the genuinely conservative policy in its life. All right,
exaggerated slightly, but it's but it's just so much part of the problem.
Well, I knew we'd part company on policy exchange, but I did.
One example of the many conservative policies they've promoted, come up with the free
schools policy. I think they claim credit for. I mean, you know
it has it's it's a successful policy, so it has many fathers. But
I think back in the mid to late two thousands it did promote free schools,
and the policy was taken up by Michael Gove, who was one of
the co founders of Policy Exchange. So it's the country now awash with with
free schools, genuinely free schools, just just free to teach what they like,
and it's kind of been liberating on British education that it's no longer a
kind of marketing system designed to inculcate um sort of communitarian values in the brainwash
populace. I mean, these these schools are really this has made a difference.
Well, that's sort of two questions there, Um, there are there
are I mean the free schools policy I think has been pretty successful, but
there aren't that many of them. So the Conservatives no longer seem to be
promoting free schools or budgeting for them with the enthusiasm that they doesn't tell you
a lot. Doesn't that tell you a lot? That I mean, this
is this would be my point. So you say the Policy Exchange is not
is not just a kind of um, a deception if you like, That
would be in my line. It's it's designed to give the illusion that there
is conservatism happening, and it comes up with this idea, which you and
I might agree was probably a good thing. But then when it comes down
to it. It just it's barely scratches the its because ultimately the Conservatives don't
give a choss about it. Yeah, well, I think I don't know.
I think I think the I think one of the reasons the free school
policy has kind of stalled. I think there are probably two big reasons,
maybe three. Maybe the well maybe the third reason. We'll get to the
other two foot in a second is that there were some public embarrassments, you
know, some free schools that blew up and embarrassed the Department for Education and
various education. They became quite wary of that policy. I suppose there was
a sort of political wariness when you know, when when founders of free schools
got kind of accused of fraud and so forth. Didn't happen very often,
but it was enough to enable the left to say, this is what happens
if you deregulate the establishment of schools. But I think more importantly, back
in twenty ten, when Michael was the Education Secretary and the policy was being
promoted and the Coalition was four square behind it, there was a real need
for additional school places. But that need has now dissipated, so there's less
need for any more new schools there might be if the Labor Party introduces its
disastrous policy of imposing VAT on school fees. It's estimated that something like twenty
five percent of children currently being educated in the private sector will lose what we
will leave and try to go to state schools because their parents will just no
longer be able to afford it, in which case will need more state schools,
in which goes the free schools policy could conceivably be revived. I think
the third reason is that, as with any successful political policy, it has
an author, a political author who gets most of the credit. And the
author of the free schools policy was Michael Gove. He then moved on in
twenty fourteen, and none of his successors have taken the policy up with enthusiasm
as him, because they feel like it's his policy. He gets the credit.
Doesn't benefit me promote this policy. Yeah, I wonder about that.
I wonder whether this this was in the stage where go was was not evil.
Well, I wonder what happened between or maybe it maybe obviously one thing
is that he was always evil and he just masked it quite well earlier on
But twenty ten I quite like the twenty ten go, and maybe it was
because my politics were different in those days. I don't think he's evil,
it's just a just a m but but it's weird, isn't it, the
way he's he's sort of flipped into the dark, into the really dark side.
I don't share that view. I think if you never do terms,
you know, difference of opinion, we have a difference of opinion, never
did any politition. But I don't think he's become I don't regard those who
who don't agree with me as evil. No, no, no, that
that's that wasn't my definition. It really wasn't my definition. I'm saying it
seems to be your kind of working by the genuine definition, like as opposed
to good, he's serving the forces of darkness. I think he's trying to
pursue the good in his own way. It just isn't our way. Well,
a bit like Satan is. He's just trying to just, you know,
secure a nice place in the underworld and just look after his peeps.
Anyway, Look, we've so nothing, nothing very exciting set him to you
in the past. Yes, yes, it has. Actually I was I
wanted to keep the second because because I wanted to talk to you about it.
I've the reason I'm sort of feeling quite maybe I'm even looking quite rapiant
moment is I've started experimenting with a keyto diet, ketogenic diet, and I
was going to I was going to go full Carnival because Carnival does appeal,
and I know Carnival works where basically you're just eaten. In fact, do
you know about the Carnival dart? Uh? Well, I've sort of followed
some of Jordan Peterson's conversation. He's not he's not necessarily good advert I wouldn't
say not necessarily the best advert I think Sean wats his face, um um
is the better better advocate for it. But basically, um, you used
to used to eat steak every day, every day, steak, steak,
steak, steak, steak. Um. And I was the Americans specified grass
fed, but actually I've discovered over here the term is meaningless because it's all
grass fed. We don't we don't keep our cattle in in sheds and feed
them rains. I don't think so we said all stuff is grass fed.
Um. Yeah, and you and you're meant to beat really fatty grass fed
beef. But even though it works, I'm sure I believe. I believe
everything they say. Um, can you imagine what it would be like trying
to be a carnivore in in a normal sort of marriage where your wife doesn't
buy into all these kind of fads. You know what you're gonna say.
Do you think she's going to say? This is great? I'm really looking
forward to watching you share our family meals eating a steak while and not bothering
to cook any of the delicious recipes you used to cook when we used to
share that share that it just doesn't work, does it. Well, it
really wouldn't work in my household because my wife and daughter are both vegetarians.
That is a perversion that is free. But I think I think I think
one one one reservation I have about vegetarianism is just how boring it would be
never to eat meat again. But I think I have the I'd have the
same reservation about a carnival diet. I think, never eating vegetables again,
just having steak twice a day for the rest of my life. It's a
pretty depressing prospect. Yeah, I was thinking about this because carnivores and I'm
not just you can eat other meat. Presum you can eat pork and yeah,
you can, you can eat chicken. Yeah, but the carnivory carnivores
get really kind of purist about it. Can you eat fish if you if
you're on that, yeah, but you're supposed to be oily fish, right,
and not not fish that has got mercury in it. So that rules
out quite a lot of oiler fish. So tuna is a no. No.
You can probably eat salmon as long as it's wild salmon, not farmed
salmon and stuff like that. This is the problem. So so yeah,
you've got this. You think you've got the range of meats at your disposal,
and you can eggs count as well, by the way, but actually
you haven't. And it's quite so. So I don't know. So what
is the keto? Is the theory is okay, um that you and I
at the moment or I'll be in the transitional stage now between the two.
Our body is very reliant on the sugars caused by carbohydrates and sugar indeed,
so it feeds on that and the idea of like that, I mean,
I'm expressing it very simply and probably ineptly. The idea of the if of
the keto jet diet is to enter a state of ketosis, and that is
when your body transitions from feeling off the glucose and the ship is produced by
carbohydrates two um, living off fat. And you go through this phase where
you feel really really rotten called keto flu. And and also you get you
get the squids and all sort, and you get headaches and you get terrible
leg cramps and stuff. But this is all the sign that that you're you're
apparently getting rid of the toxins in your body. And this is why I'm
doing but I'm not doing. It really annoys me, you know. You
get you go up, you go on the internet and look up keto for
beginners and stuff, and it will say and this is a really good way
of losing weight. I'm thinking, I don't want to lose weight. Stop
stop trying to impress me with its weight weight losing potential. I don't want
to lose weight. Shut up, shut up, shut up. You know
I'm not a fat person, but actually you kind of have to lose weight
even if you don't want to, which I don't, because the toxins are
all contained in the in the wrong sort of fat in your body, which
you have to eliminate first before you then produced this brown fat which is good
apparently. So it's a fat. It's a tremendous fat. It sounds like
a fair And are you losing weight as a result of being on the diet?
Well, you know, I'm just in the sort of earlier stages of
it. But I'm learning some lessons. For example, you'd think that you
would be able to stuff yourself with bacon and eggs and all the all the
fatty man things that you might like to gorge yourself on, But actually I'm
learning too much. Protein is a bad thing, protein poisoning. It's the
fat. Fifty percent of your your total calorie intake has to be fat.
So oil, oil butter, oil fat butter or clotted cream. I mean,
I love clotted cream, I really do. But I love I love
cloted cream too. What Americans called clotted There was an American term for clotted
cream, isn't there? They don't call it clotted cream? Yeah, you're
right. It just the Americans are just a lawrence themselves. Are these stupid
invented things they? I mean, it's not as though the settlers that when
when the pilgrim Fathers went over to wherever they landed, surely clotted cream was
a known thing. Then why did they have to change the name? Yeah,
I don't know. We should stop there for a second, James,
just to hear from one of our sponsors, everybody, James Lilacs, you're
for the Ricochet podcast, the Flagship Podcast. It's July. That means it's
hard better to do than sit inside with the air conditioning going full blast while
he listened to the heated, sparkly, prickly fireworks like opinions of Peter Robinson,
rob Long and myself as we talked to Well, you'll just have to
tune in and find out, won't you. That's ricochet dot com where the
Flagship Podcast can be found. Don't miss it every week. So we should
probably talk about some of the stories in the news that there's been quite a
few stories. Did he see that, some of which the Free Speech Union
has been involved with. There was a story you may have noticed. So
a former colonel, a medic in the Army Reserve he served for fourteen years
in Afghanistan, felt he had to resign, was forced to resign by the
Army Reserve when he on his personal Facebook account posted a quote from the gender
critical feminist Helen Joyce saying, and I'm paraphrasing, if if if women can't
say in the public square trans women aren't women, then we've got a problem
with women's rights in this country. He didn't embellish it. He just reposted
this quote from Helen Joyce, who's by no means a kind of pariah or
an outline, outline or an extremist. She's a sort of mainstream. Why
are you explaining that types just just just take it as red. You don't
need to defend every every person, every single point. I mean, like,
what if she wasn't extremely So what comes next is he was Someone complained
and an investigation was opened by the Army Reserve because he quoted this fairly mainstream
women needs to be the Britain and editor of The Economist read a best selling
book last year and he felt he had no choice to defend his name and
defend his honor than to resign. So he resigned. And now he's gone
public with the story. And it's absolutely shocking that a hero, someone who
risked his life to save others lives and the service of his country should have
been treated so shoddily by the army, and I think reflects the extent to
which the British Army has been captured by woke warriors. But it's a shocking
story. And he's a member of the Free Speech Union, and we're helping
him and we're talking to him about what the next steps are and what the
legal remor his art. But it's been it's been all consuming kind of dealing
with this story in the past sort of a few days, So that's been.
It's shocking. But you misunderstood the point of my interjection, and you
often do this. Why do you always sort of back into these stories and
tread on eggshells to in order to demonstrate that the guy was acting in good
faith and the person he was quoted was not in the extremists. It wouldn't
matter if Helen Joyce was a Nazi with a kind of enormous swastiker on her
head. Even even then, if she said that that trans women were not
women, she'd be right. I don't know why you play the enemy's game
by constantly sort of being being ever so careful about who you represented. The
free speech is free speech is free speech. It doesn't really matter whether people
were were editors of the Economist or not, or it just it just gives
it gives territory to the enemy when you do that. Well, if he
if he'd quoted Hitler, yeah, saying something through, Um, I imagine
you know, there'd be much less public sympathy for his case. Well that's
but that's just silly, isn't it, Because most women would think, well,
actually, actually, perhaps he should have been placed under investigation for quoting
Hitler. I mean that's stupid, that's really that's exactly where we disagree so
violently. It's pathetic too. Well, the problem is, James, not
not everyone is as purist as you about these things. If you talk for
the free speech Union terms and you're and you're some gatekeeping where where you say,
actually, free speech is only free if if somebody socially approved says it,
then I think we're on very shaky territory. Well that's not my position,
but we and we might have defended him even if he'd quoted someone who
wasn't who was sort of I mean, Helen George isn't exactly socially approved,
but um, she's got into she remember she tried to speak some Gonbalan Keys
earlier this year, and the Master of Gonbaland Keys said, whilst we don't
want to in any way stop it from speaking, we do find her views
reprehensible and we can understand why members of our community are so deeply upset,
and we'll be providing therapy for them if they get upset. On the day
she comes to our college, and there was of course done a very rowdy
demonstration when she did try and speak, and it was you know, she
the talk went ahead. But so she's not she's not kind of you know,
she's in the same sort of camp as JK. Rowlings. So no
one you or I would consider kind of remotely beyond the pale. But within
the kind of woke community she is considered almost almost indistinguishable from you know anyway
anyway. But I guess my point, James is I just want to stress
that, you know, even if you're in a kind of more wishy washy
camp than us, and you're less purest about free speech, you should still
take the side of this former British Army or Army Reserve colonel, because all
he did was quote something that you know, is it's contentious, but it's
not something that should be should should rule you as as as beyond the pale
in the British army. But I guess it's what people who do challenge the
transgender agenda are now regarded as beyond the pale within institutions that the day before
yesterday were conservative with a small seat and the same thing, the same thing
crops up with the other thing. I think we're going to talk about I
want to talk about, which is the ded banking phenomenon. So, Nigel
Farage, Oh, I think I first met James at your book party about
fifteen years ago. He announced on I think it was Thursday evening, possibly
Friday morning, that he'd been banking with the same bank since nineteen eighty so
for forty three years, and had recently been notified by that they're closing his
account. They no longer want his business, and they advised him to open
another account with another bank so he could transfer all the money in his account,
his savings account whatever with them to this new bank. And he tried
to open a new bank account with seven other banks and they all declined to
take his custom, and so he went. He's gone public with this story.
I was on his show on Friday to talk about it. But in
his case, I don't think it was because he said something that upset transactivists.
But many people we know and we've helped at the Free Speech Union have
been debanked because they've they've challenged the trans rights activists agenda, which is in
itself quite shocking. But in Nigel's case it may be because I don't know
if you followed all of this, but Chris Bryant, who was a Labor
MP, said in the House of Commons, where what he said is protected
by parliamentary privilege so he can't be sued for defamation, he said that Nigel
Forage had been paid over half a million pounds I think in was it something
like twenty twenty one by RT formerly Russia today so and a state broadcaster in
Russia, so effectively paid over a half a million pounds by the Russian state.
He was sort of arguing that Nigel Farage should be sanctioned when he said
this, and it was, as far as we know, completely untrue.
He was conflating all Nigel Farage's earnings from his media appearances on every platform,
including LBC, which employed him as well as Fox News conflating all those earnings
with the earnings from a single source. And according to Nigel, he didn't
earn any money at all from our tea in that second suppose so what if
he had earned all his money from Ussia? Well, I think the well
then then then well, so this um an EU regulation made it easy.
It makes it easier for banks to de bank people who are regarded as politically
exposed persons. And the sort of rash now for that is that politically exposed
persons are more likely to receive dark money, more prone to corruption, and
therefore banks can hold them to a higher standard and therefore get away with anyways,
he's a politely exposed person by definition, regardless of whether or not he
Well, that's true, but he hasn't. But this, I think this
EU rule came in like a while ago, but he hasn't been d banks
until now. So it looks like it might be connected with this allegation made
by Chris Bryant. It might be. It might just be because someone at
his bank disapproves of his view on Brexit or his opinions on immigration. We
don't know, And the reason we don't know is because his bank hasn't given
him any kind of adequate explanation. It's just said we've taken this decision for
commercial reasons. And one of the sinister things about this new form of cancel
culture, something I discovered when I was de banked by PayPal last year,
is that you never get a proper explanation. They never give you the reason,
so you really don't know what the reason is, so you can't really
appeal it, you can't contest it, You're left in the dark about it.
It's got this kind of horrible Kafka esque dimension, but it's becoming a
more and more widespread phenomenon and it's something the Free Speech Union has been lobbying
the government to do something about since not only did PayPal close my account,
as you know, it also closed the account of the Free Speech Union and
the Daily Skeptic, and we managed to get them restored when we kicked up
an almighty fuss. But lots and lots of people increasingly are finding themselves de
banked, and it's basically what we're seeing is the kind of emergence of a
Chinese style social credit system in the UK, and not just in the UK,
but across the world. We saw it in Canada with the closure of
the bank accounts of some of the people involved in the Freedom Convoy as well,
so it's really important that we do something about It's a grotesque interference in
our freedom of expression, often you know, carried out by California based companies
and you know, and it's it's it's they're out of control. In our
case, we believe that PayPal didn't even observe the existing regulations. Under the
existing regulations, you're supposed to give someone whose account you close, if you're
a registered payment services provider in the UK, as PayPal are, you're supposed
to give the the account holder at least sixty days notice and you are required
to give them some kind of explanation. So in our case, we don't
think PayPal even observed those minimal requirements before closing our accounts. Well, they
definitely didn't, because we were given no notice at all. They just told
us they were closing our accounts. And we've we've we put in a complaint
to the Financial Conduct Authority, but we've also been lobbying the government to try
and do something about this. We've submitted reams of evidence to the Treasury that
this is an ongoing problem and it's getting worse, and we hope so Jeremy
Hunt the Child announced this morning that the government is going to do something about
this. It intends to protect free speech rain in banks and payments services providers
like paypals, so they at least can't do this quite as easily as they
are at the moment, so we think that lobbying efforts going to be quite
as easily. I don't like all these concessions too. I've been I've been
like sitting here going I'm tearing my hair out. I mean, I'm always
going to be as bad as you if you kind of like this. Look,
the thing is um implicit in what you what you what you were saying
was that, for example, had Nigel Pharage been making all his money from
RT as a result of r T, then it would have been legitimate for
the banks to do it. And then you sort of referred to these banking
regulations about PEPs, Well why why why give them that territory? Well,
why why are you are you saying to me that there are certain circumstances in
which you think it would be acceptable forgive pable for banks to close the count
of somebody because I can't see it. Well, I suppose if you are
a politically active person, if you've been involved in politics, if you've led
political parties, and if you're a British citizen, if if if a bank
discovers that you've received half a million pounds from a hostile foreign power, I
can see that might be a reason for closing their account. Why is it
the bank's business, Well, I suppose because the bank would be concerned about
being sanctioned by the British state for allowing a foreign power with whom we're engaged
in, um, you know, a war by proxy to fund a politically
prominent person. I mean in the Second World War, if if, if,
if Barclays are discovered, would we at war with Russia? I didn't
know this, well, I thought you'd I thought you. I thought you
did believe that you were at war by all right, I'd be very I'd
be very surprised if you thought if you're going to tell me that we are
in a state of war with Russia, I think we are not, and
we shouldn't be. Well, that's why I use the phrase by proxy,
right, But but it sounds like by proxy in terms of banking seems to
carry their weight by proxy is to be exactly the same as at war with
that's what you're saying. Well, the sanctions regime, we are still sanctioning
parts part of our as part of our diplomatic effort and to avoid getting into
a fully fledged war with Russia. We have imposed sanctions on Russia because of
its invasion of Ukraine. Um and with Russia right, well, okay,
well okay, and what about what about people like Tommy Robinson and Katie Katie
Hopkins, who of course would d banked? Have you? Have you represented
either of them? No? And should you have done? Well? They
haven't appealed to us for help over any d banking issue, and we're not
representing Niger Faraj. The reason we lobbied the government about trying to tighten up
the regulations is because I was de banked and the two companies I run a
dbank. By the way, James, have you ever been d banked?
I worry about it all the time. I got chucked out the City Bank,
did you Yeah? For no reason that they just suddenly sent me a
message. And you know, I'd be in a model customer in that I'd
always had a reason, might of money in my account, never done anything
weird? Yeah, a city bank dbank me right, okay on Kennye Hopkins.
We we are trying to help her in another area of her life.
But as she has ask for help about being de bank, I didn't know
assually have BINDI bank, you know, years ago. Same with the same
with Tommy Robinson. I was just wondering whether whether you felt there were categories
of people who it was legitimate to d bank. Well, I mean,
I think in in Tommy Robinson's case, Um, the rationale I suppose might
be that he's got a criminal conviction for fraud, as I understand it.
But what well you can you can phrase it like that. But but you
say you're saying, okay, so even I mean, let's mean if some
if someone has convicted frauds, wouldn't that be legitimate reason not to not to
give them a bank account. I mean, you can understand why bank would
be concerned about giving A bit a bit sneaky there terms, I think you're
being a bit welsh. I mean, I'm familiar with it. With the
story about God. I've interviewed him a few times, and I know that
the story behind it. It was it was a he didn't fill a mortgage
application forming correctly or something like that. We're we're not talking the sort of
fraud where you end up going to the costa del crime and being extradited.
We're not talking about that. So, I mean, I agree, maybe
they maybe the system invented this excuse whereby they could describe him as a fraudster,
but I don't think that's really the reason to you that he was not
given a bank account. And anyway, even even that said, do you
think that the convicted fraudsters who have paid their price, done their time should
be debanked? Is that your position? No, it's not my position.
I think I think the I think I think that there ought to be some
banks willing to take their custom and I think I think I think. I
don't think Tommy Robinson is without a bank account. He I think he has
been. I think he's outside the system altogether. I'm pretty sure. I'm
pretty sure he has been. I don't think he's got any banks in the
UK. I thought he I thought he does still have. Say I said,
well, I mean, what what could I say that would make me
deserve to be can't we agree, can't we just agree instead? If you
trying to get crossed. It's quite important, I think to establish what you
think the parameters are of free speech. I mean, yeah, you're the
expert on free speech. For goodness, say you've got a union, So
what are your parameters? I mean, what what can I say where you
wouldn't represent me out of interest? Well, we have that. We have
kind of two rules at the Free Speech Union, so um, we won't
in ordinary circumstances come to the defense of people who've said something out with the
law. That doesn't mean to say that we endorse all the current legal restrictions
on free speech, but we think the sensible way to get those restrictions changed
is to lobby and care pain. And we don't want to encourage people to
break the law by saying we will help you if you get into trouble for
saying something unlawful, because then that might encourage people to say unlawful things and
they end up in prison when it's unlawful. Because when I don't know what
the law currently prohibits speech was, I thought the country which where you can
say what you don't I suppose the kind of big areas are if you say
something which is m likely to stir up hatred against people for religious, racial
or reasons of their sexual orientation, then that's that's unlawful. But I think
the threshold for prosecutions quite high. There are very few prosecutions that's under the
Public Order Act. This is only in England and Wales. It's different.
I mean, I mean it's like Bernard Manning set Old Bernard Manning set would
probably render him ineligible for free speech union defense. Well does he? Would
you say that? What would could you describe jokes as stirring up patriots?
Said? I mean, lawyers probably could imagine It's possible, definitely, but
um that that and then that, then that then some some some things are
a breach of Section one to seven of the Communications Act, and some things
are a breach of the Malicious Communications Act. So we are in fact there's
a guy, there's a Scotsman James, who, when Captain Tom died said
on Twitter the only good British soldier is a dead British soldier And it was
pointed out to him by his friends that this was a distasteful thing to say.
Immediately after this Chap had died and he deleted it within fifteen minutes,
but Police Scotland decided to prosecute him and he was convicted. I don't think
he was jailed, was given a community service order, but we're helping him
appeal that conviction and we think it's going to end up in the European Court
of Human Rights. And we think that he was convicted under section one two
seven of the Communications Act, which is if you can be convicted of a
crime if you say something that's quote unquote grossly offensive, and we don't we
think that that may be a breach of Article ten of the European Conventional Human
Rights. We want to challenge it in Strasbourg. So in some cases where
someone is convicted, I'll give you another example. So there was a case
earlier this year of a Christian street preacher called David McConnell, and he'd been
convicted when in Leeds City Center he was preaching and a transwoman tried to heckle
him, essentially started barracking him, and he repeatedly quote unquote misgendered this transwoman.
A police officer was summoned. Yeah, a police officer was summoned.
The police officer asked him to stop quote unquote misgendering the transwoman, and he
repeated he did so. So the police officer arrested him for a public order
offense, which was I think doing something likely to cause harassment, alarm or
distress. And incredibly he was convicted by a magistrates court, but the Christian
Legal Center appealed that in Leads County Court. I think it was and I
was. I'd agreed to be an expert witness in that case in my capacity
at General Secret of the Free Speech Union, and in the end I wasn't
called, and the judge upheld the appeal, so he was released without charge
and his conviction was overturned. So there are some instances in which the Free
Speech Union will come to the defensive people. But I would you draw Tommy
Robinson wouldn't well if he was convicted of contempt of court, he wouldn't help
him. Feed was, you know, accused of being in contempt of court?
If it was just a canjury of court, what what if the whole
thing was just writ against him and you and you saw it, the whole
thing stank. Well. I think that the problem is change. It's sort
of it's a moral hazard. Isn't it if you if you, if you
say in all circumstances, will defend people whatever they say, even if they're
in contempt of court. Yeah, then you're effectively you're effectively encouraging people to
break the law. And if they then end up in prison, they could
sue you for for you know, for for falsely giving them the impression that
you had their back and would be able to defend them. And I'd like
to run lawyer if that. If that's your reason, that you can't well
offend. But it's also we don't want to encourage people. We we in
some cases, of course, we do want to encourage people to help us
lobby the government to change the law, certainly to stop the law getting any
worse, as in the case of the Online Safety Bill other bills. A
ban on conversion therapy hasn't been published yet, but we think it's imminent.
But that doesn't mean that doesn't mean I think that you know, it would
be sensible to to to say will defend lawbreakers in all circumstances, because I
think it would then encourage people to break define sensible. I mean, obviously
I don't you've got you've got this job and I haven't, and it's I'm
sure it's a tough job, but it seems to me like you're you're conceding
the territory. You're you're conceding the argument. You're basically saying there are some
forms of free speech which shouldn't. Yeah, and I think there are.
I think, but well, there are the problem with being The problem with
describing yourself as a free speech absolutist and saying you will defend people who get
into trouble however they exercise their free speech is that would mean defending people who
betray state secrets, even though the act of doing so endangers agents in the
field. It would mean you'd have to defend child pornography. It would mean,
you know, um, defending clearly incitements to imminent violence. Even the
Supreme Court, I don't think, defends people who incite others to imminent violence.
So well, So okay, So so the point is, the point
is you can never be an absolutist about this. They are always going to
say you circumstance as well. I mean, you wouldn't defend child porn would
you. Well, no, I wouldn't offend child pornography. But if but
if if a child pornographer said, I think I think child pornographer is a
great I mean, I don't think it would be a threat, but that
that's not what but that that's no, that's the softcast. The hard case.
If you're a free speech absolutist is, m would you defend someone's,
you know, consumption of child porn or even with the consent of the speech
element in this is he's committed a well, it's it's a crime. I
suppose it's you know that they're they're there. It's a sort of it's a
I guess it's a form of freedom of expression or something. No, I
don't I'm not sure that that. I think you're stretching it there. I
mean, and even you know your your your What about betraying states states?
Yeah, I don't think there should be any state secrets. I think I
think problem there are there are some circumstances in which a state has to act
in secret, you know, I mean, yeah, in war, the
truth is so important there has to be kept by bodyguard. Even George who
was a George or was a pretty a pretty staunch defender of free speech.
But when he worked for the BBC, in during the Second World War,
he acknowledged that there were some some secrets that ought to be kept, and
in some circumstances some propaganda during wartime was acceptable. Yeah, maybe maybe he
got that one just about it, or maybe he was maybe he was he
was working for the intelligence services. You know, you don't know. I
don't. I think he's had a lot of really good things. But I
wouldn't. I wouldn't use him as the touchstone for everything. No, I
don't believe in secrecy. I really don't. I think it's I think it's
part of the in fact, it's almost the whole problem. Well, I
think that's running the world as a result of secrecy, I think. I
think. I'm not I'm not saying that in every case we have an obligation
a duty not to portray state secrets. I think, of course there are
some state state secrets we have a duty to reveal if we come across them,
and in some cases, you know, employees of the Ministry of Defense
might have a moral duty to break the Official Secret Tact. But I don't
think that there are no circumstances in which the Official Secrets Act should be upheld,
or that state secrets should be kept. I can think of plenty of
circumstances which it would be very difficult for you know, given that we are
in an imperfect world, surrounded by hostile powers, some of them you know,
determined to destroy us in our way of life. It does, it
does, it's it's not it's reasonable, I think to want to keep something
secret from them, basically how we go about defending ourselves from them. I
think if if there were no secrets like that, if if all the secrecy
was removed, I think what we discover is the opposite of what you claim,
that the world is not swimming with hostile powers bent on destroying Britain,
that actually Britain is probably instigating most of the crap that you deplore. So
and the same with the US. That's the problem. That's why they keep
this stuff from us, because we'd be pulled about just how how utterly immoral
the actions of the secret actions of our countries are and the people. It's
one thing. It's one thing to make, but it's one thing to make
that claim and then to make a slightly different claim, which is you cannot
envisage any circumstances in which states should be able to keep things secret from their
enemies, cannot well if it seemed surprising to be well, of course it
does, because you're stuck in the old paradigm tabes, You're you're stuck in
the paradigm where you trust authority. You think that these about what about?
What about? What about if some people in the Chinese military or the Chinese
equivalent of the Foreign Office are actually British agents who are passing on Chinese state
secrets to Britain. Do you think it would be perfectly acceptable to betray their
identity to the Chinese authorities that when you when you sign China there, you're
sort of setting it up as this pantomime baddy, a bit like Putler and
Russia are set up as pantomime baddies. I see the whole China as the
enemy. What about Taiwan and Russia? They're going to invade the rest of
the world if we don't stop them now in Ukraine. I see these as
part of the Western the Western deep state sit up. And I'm not I'm
not saying that both those countries aren't engaged in all manner of nefarious activities.
What I am saying, as a plague on all all our houses. I
mean, you know, both theirs and ours, they're just you're so,
you're, you're, you're, you're, you're so. That attitude, as
far as you're concerned, would justify you if you worked for an intelligent a
British intelligence service handing over the name of our agents to the Chinese authorities,
our Chinese agents of the child, I feel very sorry for anyone who works
for any intelligence services, and I'd feel I'd feel really sorry for people who
got exposed. I am saying absolutely, I think the world would be if
we removed all state secrecy, every single level of it. We'd all live
happily ever after after the blood show that would ever to be followed, when
people realize how much they've been called it might then fall into the category of
an incitement to imminent violence, which, even as a fairly staunch defender of
for his speech, I wouldn't defend anyway. Let's hear from our sponsor this
week, James. One of our sponsors this week Live in Care. Are
you worried about parents or a loved one who are finding it more and more
difficult to take care of themselves, or who may be living with a condition
such as dementia or Parkinson's. Are you starting to think about a residential care
home? But the very thought doesn't sit right at the Live in Care Company,
we truly believe that home is the best place to receive care from an
expert care of your choice, and on a one to one basis, home
is always a karma, more healthy and a happier place to be. For
more information about live in care, please go to the Live in Care Company
dot co dot uk. That's the Live in Care Company or one word dot
co dot uk. Or you can ring the Live in Care Company for a
no obligation conversation on zero one one eight nine one four five three double zero.
That's zero one one eight nine one four five three double zero. They'll
be happy to help. So are we do? Is a culture cornew?
Well? How long have we been chatting? I mean, you didn't to
discuss the Supreme Court judgments, which I thought were for the most part pretty
good and and a reason to celebrate a bit of good news in the previous
weeks so or previous ten days whatever it is. So the was its students
for fair at mission versus presidents and fellows of Harvard College and Creative versus Elenis
UM. In the latter decision reaffirmed the court's commitment to the First Amendment,
which I thought was great. Um. And the former decision effectively ended affirmative
action policies. Which which which which is? You know, which is pretty
good too. UM. But I suppose perhaps we're not going to argue about
those jams, so we will just will just just decide to mutually celebrate those
victories and move on. Yeah, okay, um, culture corner, what
I have. I did see episodes one and two of Hijack, which I'm
glad you did. I'm glad you did. Yeah, what do you think?
I really quite liked it. I mean, it's a little bit cheesy.
M the script is a bit clunky in places, and initially I thought
this is pretty woke, and uh, you know, it'll be easy to
spot the hijackers because they're going to be middle aged white men, probably with
British accents. And for the most part they were, but not exclusively.
There was a kind of attractive young woman and a Muslim amongst the hijackers.
But but I thought it was I think, I mean, I quite like
Idris Elbert, I quite like the fact that I mean spoiler alert, he
initially seems to be taking the side of the hijackers and betraying the passengers,
but clearly, you know, not not taking him by that. He's clearly
a devilishly intelligent Macchiavellian man and is ultimately going to prevail over the hijackers and
save all the passengers. But for the most part, but for the time
being, they all hate him and see him as one of the enemy.
But now I thought it was reasonably well done, it's reasonably exciting. I'm
sort of intrigued as to what the hijackers agenda is, and they've sort of
they seem to be going to great lengths to keep the fact that the plane
has been hijacked from the authorities, but at some point, yeah, if
that's going to have to be disclosed, And they also seem to want to
kind of keep the plane on course. It's going from Dubai to London heath
Throw, and they don't seem to want it to deviate from that path.
And you're like, well, if a plane that sho's been hijack lands at
Heathrow, what are the hijacker is going to do? Anyway? So there,
they've got some fiendishly clever agenda, but we don't know what it is
yet, but it's I mean, I'm sufficiently intrigued to carry on watching.
I think, what about you? So um as you know, Idris Elba
is very myth that he hasn't been asked to play James Bond, despite some
suggestions that he would. Yeah, I thought he'd sort of turned it down.
Maybe, well, he keeps changing his story, doesn't He said he
said there was a sort of a torrent or a barrage or something of racism
when he was when he was mooted, and this was disgraceful and blah blah
blah. And I was thinking, actually, Idris Elba would be the perfect
next James Bond in terms of New James Bond, in that, like Daniel
Craig, like the franchise, he's portentous, humulous, po faced, dreary,
just just I mean, so depressing, no fun whatsoever. And I
thought that hijack really was was was kind of typecasting him in that role that
he is so uber capable. I mean, do you remember the scene where
he's walking towards the aircraft to Tom what's it called Final boarding, and unlike
most of us, when final boarding approaches and we realise its last call,
we panicked, don't we We've we've probably nipped into the shop to get an
extra bottle of water or something, and we're being shouted up by the wife
and we're panicking and we're running. But Idris Elba he's just like, yeah,
I'm Idris Elba, and I'm just going to walk at my own pace
to check it. And he gets He gets there exactly the millisecond before the
departure gate is going to close. That's how cool he is, and that's
how how perfect his judgment is. And you're thinking, I don't I hate
this guy already. He's just a smug He's a smug toss up and he's
so uber capable. If I were edrissel was an agent, I was saying,
mate, you really don't want to be this person. You're just a
climb of cardboard cut out. You don't want to be like Daniel Craig in
Bond Now. You want to be like Daniel Craig when he was in Our
Friends in the North, when he could act. You don't want to limit
yourself in this way. I find that the it's like, what's a notch
up above McDonald's. What what would give me a food chain where it's like,
really GBK um Great Burger Kitchen, Burger Kitchen. I don't know.
It's not even that level. I'd say it's just like below GBK Burger King.
I suppose there's a notch above McDonald's, isn't it. Yeah, okay,
maybe it is Roger Burger Kitchen, but it's it's not it's not refined.
I definitely put it in the gorm. I mean, I hear your
reservations about Interest being being a slightly kind of one dimensional, kind of heroic
character, but um, I do find him quite cool and quite authoritative.
Not no, it doesn't have the same natural authority as Denzel Washington. But
it's not a million to share a prison cell with him. You're saying,
your daddy, I think my wife wouldn't mind Joe a prison result with either
of them. But I think, but I mean to defend the program makers,
James, yes, he is portrayed has been kind of effortlessly cool and
having impeccable time in Great Judgment in the lead up to the hijacking. But
at the same time that that creates a kind of that that creates a kind
of delicious kind of anticipation. You think they've hijacked the plane with the wrong
man on it, because this guy isn't like an ordinary mortal, he is
like super cool. He's virtually James Brown. He is going to take the
plane back from you, whether you want, whether you agree with that,
he's got it. He's got a very particular set of skills to coin a
phrase. And that's fine, and I understand the genre. But I get
that, I get what purpose he is serving. But I was I was
using him as a kind of My criticism of him extends to the whole thing
that it is kind of mechanical, laborious, nasty. It's got I mean,
without giving away too many spoilers, that the execution of that man,
that nice man in the second episode, it was just unnecessary. The hijackers
are unnecessary, unnecessarily thuggish. That it's just clunky. It's not the reason
I say this. I don't know whether whether you've you've watched this, I
so recommend it. If you haven't. Did you ever watch White Lotus?
Oh? Yeah, and White Lotus too? Yeah? Okay, so I've
just been watching Whiteloatus too. And if you've been watching Whiteloatus too, and
you've seen Tom Hollander acting the gay expatriate, the lush gay expatri who lives
in Palermo and this magnificent Palazo, and every performance in that in that show
is nuans to the scripts things and it's it's it's catty, it's funny,
it's socially insightful, it's satirical. And then you get to this this it's
not even meat and potatoes, is it. It's grizzle. And I don't
know, but I agree it's it's obviously not in the same class as White
Loadus, which is the pinnacle of television drama at the moment. I mean,
it's it's up there with Succession and in the same kind of category as
Breaking Bad and The Sopranos. It is unbelievably good. Um, of course,
it's not as good as that. I mean, but I think I
think it's a notch up from Burger King. Um. I think. I
think. I mean, if food bar is McDonald's, I think it's fairer
to describe this as gourmet burger kitchen. Okay, well that's fine. Um,
yeah, I sort of you know what I want to do. I
want to watch it on really fast forward, maybe about times three, just
to see if I can work out what the motivation of the hijacker. Yes,
that means interestingly, you know, there's kind of two modes, aren't
there that these streaming platforms kind of distribute by they either kind of put everything
up there all at once, so you can just binge it if you want
to, or you know, they give you a couple of episodes and then
you have to wait each week for the next episode, and generally with the
latter you do I think hold the programs to a slightly higher standard because you
you know, with something you can just binge. You can binge on it,
just as you binge on junk food. It doesn't matter if it's quite
kind of if it's empty calories, you're less concerned about that, whereas it
has to be quite nutritious if you're going to make an appointment and remember to
kind of watch it when the new episode drops. So I think I think
they probably made a mistake there. I agree they should have just dumped every
episode so we could have just binged it, and I my interest may begin
to falter you know by episode five, slow Horses, it ain't horses.
Do you ever bother with black Mirror? No? Never did. No.
I think it's for the kids. Um, yeah, my kids love it.
It's their dystopian future revealed predictive programming. But I watched the first episode
and it's just like, ah, um, it's got It's got Selma Hiak
in it. And the main, the main excitement of the episode is it
should have been titled Wow, isn't it amazing? We got we got got
Selma Hiak in our series? Finally lucky old us And yeah, I'm thinking,
oh no, I mean that the whole meta thing I think has been
done. Do you obviously Being John Malkovic, Yes, yeah, yeah,
I thought it's very good. Nineteen gros that was made in nineteen ninety nine.
I looked it up. That's a long time ago. That it is
a long time ago. Yeah, that's before nine eleven. I once interviewed
the you know, the the the guy who made the guy who wrote Being
John Malko, which Charlie Kaufman. So I want to interviewed him on stage
as part of the National Film Festival, and so it was it was a
big set piece event. It was a packed audituring them, more than five
hundred people there. And I was a big fan. I am a big
fan, and I've watched all his movies and he was there to promote a
particular movie. I think I can't remember which one now, um and um.
And he was the most uncooperative, difficult interview subject I've ever had to,
never had to deal with this. I mean, he was just every
question I answered, he would either he would either he'd give me a hostile
glare and then either a monosyllabic answer, or he'd say, that's a stupid
question. And it was just he was just unbelievably aggressive and unpleasant and charmless.
And I was trying to kind of, you know, explore some of
his ideas in Dearth, and you know, I'd read various theoretical essays by
you know, phil academics about his movies, and his movies inspire a lot
of those, but he was just so willing to engage about any of it.
He clearly didn't want to be there. It was just a nightmare.
It is horrible when they do that. When you get one of those,
I've suddenly remembered you were going to tell us tell my fourth anecdotes. Yeah,
so um, yeah, so um. When I went to America to
live there for five years. It turned out in ninety five when I was
summoned by Grayden Carter to go work for Vanity Fair. I flew into New
York on July fourth, and it was the plane was coming in at dusk,
and you could see all these fireworks exploding as the plane came into land,
and uh, and I said, Oh, it looks like they knew
I was coming. They seemed to have laid out the red carpet, the
fireworks. They're so I said this to my seat mate, who was who
was a sort of you know, a red state American, and he looked
at me like I was an absolute idiot and said, what are you talking
about. We're celebrating the fact we got rid of you guys. And I
was like, yeah, I was being ironic, for heaven's sake. It
was It's like, are you just pretending you didn't get that? Or did
you genuinely not get it? And there was a terrible kind of harbinger of
how all my jokes were just full flat in the United States. Not all
of them did, in fact, but I did often get into trouble,
particularly Vanity Fair for making inappropriate jokes which people completely misunderstood. Anyway, And
my second July fourth anecdote is I used to rent a summer house when I
lived in New York same period on Shelter Island, which is which sort of
resembles It resembles kind of the sort of a Southwest kind of one of those
pretty Southwest coastal villages, a lovely seaside village, you know, someone like
Bricksom, you know, um and uh and so it was. It was.
It was a much beloved holiday destination, summer home destination for you know,
the Brits in New York, and so many of us ended up renting
houses on Shelter Island. That at this this restaurant we all used to go
to on Friday and Saturday night's called Sunset Beach, which we remember it was
July fourth. Firework started going off and I got a chant going of enger
learning, learning to learn, and the whole restaurant joined in. Almost everyone
in the restaurant was English. It was we colonized Shelter Island. So I
remember being very proud of that. Man. I was thinking that that your
experience on that inbound flight was Taylor, I imagine it was the opening paragraph
of your How to Live Friends, and it was yeah, I mean it
wasn't the opening, but it was certainly in check to one. I think
it's well, it is great when real life just just gives you these these
geats. Absolutely, But when you're when when you when you when you're when
your writers like us kind of churning out columns, you immediately think when something
like that happens, that's great fodder. And it's sort of like you live
life at one remove, kind of constantly kind of keeping your eyes peeled the
stuff that you can kind of regurgitate in a column or a brook. Yeah,
it's true. Um, well, okay, I'm going to go and
drink some water before I go off to my bloods class. Um, okay,
I'm in my keytosis and I'm going to go. Okay, good good
luck with your diet, and yeah, don't use any weight and yeah,
yeah we're talking this week. Okay, this is London. Bully Ricochet joined the conversation