Dan Wootton Outspoken - KATIE HOPKINS REVEALS SHOCK ENDORSEMENT OF REFORM & NIGEL FARAGE AS SHE CALLS HIM A SNAKE

Episode Date: April 25, 2025

Go to https://ground.news/outspoken to see through media bias and stay fully informed. Subscribe through my link for 40% off unlimited access this month. Reform UK storms ahead in the polls for two mayoralties, including in Lincolnshire where there has been a hard left campaign of lawfare to see Andrea Jenkyns removed from the ballot. That comes as Katie Hopkins makes a surprise endorsement of Nigel Farage’s party. We’ll cover all of this extraordinary day in British politics, just one week before we find out those potentially historic results with Peter Whittle, the founder and director of the New Culture Forum. PLUS: Douglas Murray brutally exposes the truth about the British Bashing Corporation’s Newsnight. AND: JK Rowling is plunged into another Hollywood row as The Last Of Us star Pedro Pascal slams her as a “heinous loser”, despite their shows both airing on HBO. THEN IN THE UNCANCELLED AFTERSHOW: Meghan Markle reignites her feud with Piers Morgan by backing his Good Morning Britain enemy. We’ll show you his response and then get analysis from our Royal Mastermind Angela Levin. Sign up to watch at www.outspoken.live. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

No spent, no bias, no censorship. I'm Dan Wooten. This is Outspoken Live episode number 213. Happy Friday. And breaking right now, Reform UK storms ahead in the polls for two mayoralties, including in Lincolnshire, where there has been a hard-left campaign of lawfare to see Andrea Jenkins removed from the ballot. Good luck with that one. That comes, these polls come, as Katie Hopkins makes a surprise endorsement of Nigel Farage's party. He's a snake. He'll go back, he'll flip-flop. He's let me down before. I was a candidate and he just disappeared. He'll probably disappear to America again. He'll disappear when he gets a better offer.

He'll sell us out. All of those things can be true at the same time as you vote reform. But for Sly News, this is all just one big game. To hell with the country. Time will prove that. At the minute, I'm sceptical. Look, we're all allowed, as we get older, to change our positions on things. Of course we are. But his current policy positioning just seems so far removed from everything he's ever stood for. I mean, I think that's what we call an obstacle drive-by. bye bye we'll cover all of this extraordinary day in british politics just one week before we find

out those potentially historic results with peter whistle the founder and director of the brilliant new culture forum also coming up on the show today a massive massive U-turn as Lady Victoria Stummer, who was missing up until a couple of days ago, will now attend the Pope's funeral, just like I predicted. Civil warfares grow as the Met police do riot training against a fake criminal proudly wearing a Union Jack, and a black woman throws food all over a white woman in London because she is of the inferior race and she has zero shame about it. Douglas Murray brutally exposes the truth about the British bashing corporation's Newsnight and J.K. Rowling plunged into another Hollywood row as The Last of Us star Pedro Pascal slams her as a heinous loser despite their shows both airing on HBO. Then in

the uncancelled after show on Substack, sign up right now, www.outspoken.live. Meghan Markle reignites her feud with Piers Morgan by backing his Good Morning Britain enemy. We're going to show you his response and have analysis from our royal mastermind, Angela Levin. Sign up www.outspoken.live. Now, of course, it is Friday, which means rather than doing Greatest Britain and Union Jackass today, we put your Union Jackass choices from throughout the week in one mega poll to find out who is the worst Britain this week. Now, this is incredible, guys. Already 41,000 votes. 41,000 votes. You are amazing. But you've still got over an hour to vote. You can do so in the posts tab on YouTube. But your nominees are from Monday, India Willoughby,

from Tuesday, Slippery Starmer, from Wednesday, James O'Brien, and from Thursday, Ed Miliband. Get voting. The worst Britain in the world will be revealed at the end of the show. But now, let's go. The Uniparty must be destroyed. The UK's two-party system props up an evil establishment. Evil, hear that? Because they use a deep state and a corrupt and crooked MSM to push through policies for which the British are actually overwhelmingly opposed.

And next week, as we broadcast our outspoken election results show, I think we are going to be seeing a significant moment in its destruction. The final polls show Reform UK and the Greens taking control of Merriltes, meaning the levers of power will be wrenched from Labour and the Tories and not before time. So no wonder the hard left have been attempting serious lawfare to force the brilliant Andrea Jenkins out of the Lincolnshire race. Good luck with that. Meanwhile, Nigel is playing the Trump card, posting even negative MSM coverage with pride and bigging up his chances. Maybe a good omen for next week because overnight we've won a district council by-election in Arran in West Sussex. We've won it against a fierce Liberal Democrat campaign.

We're even scoring well and winning in areas that aren't necessarily our best. A good omen. And while regular viewers will know I have significant and well-documented issues with the current leftward direction of reform under its Tory chairman, Zia Youssef, that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for the party next week if I had the option, as I have made clear despite a whole load of senior attacks from the reform mafia coming for me. It's too early. That's the point. It's too early. But to be very clear, by the way, to all of the people who think I'm somehow turning on reform, if I was voting in the local elections next week, I would be voting for Reform UK. That doesn't mean

that there shouldn't be scrutiny on where this party is going because we don't want Tory 2.0. Didn't work first time around and so we need something better in order to save the country. And on a similar note, too much chagrin, Katie Hopkins has overnight endorsed reform at the local elections too, praising Nigel Farage's, quote, serious and not flippant change in tone and style as he U-turned on declaring mass deportations as impossible yesterday. She posted on X, you need to choose your monsters and a line behind one.

This is our monster. Vote reform on the 1st of May. She then released this video, which included praise for Ben Habib and Rupert Lowe, two men who are without doubt keeping the heat on reform to the right. I'm a minister for deportation and we'll roll back on net zero and all of that nonsense. the right. Despite a flurry of furious responses from her supporters who are disgusted, and I understand this, disgusted by Reform's decision to report Lowe to the police and expel members of the party for stating obvious things like, you know, Tommy Robinson is a political prisoner. Despite that, Katie was holding firm. Do I think that the problems of this country are going to be solved at the ballot box? No. And without wishing to overstate this, do I think that what needs to happen in

our country is going to be polite or peaceful? No. And do I think you can only push good men so far before they have nothing to lose and they're willing to do more than just tick a box because their grandchildren or their children depend on them? Yes, I do. But for now, the message that I would love to be able to give to you is all the things that you think, I'm sure all these things that you're telling me, he's a snake, he'll go back, he'll flip-flop, he's let me siwr, yr holl bethau rydych chi'n ei ddweud wrth mi, mae'n sneic, bydd yn mynd yn ôl, bydd yn flip-flop, mae wedi letu i mi o'r blaen. Roeddwn i'n canddeit, ac mae wedi gwthio. Byddai'n dechrau gwthio i America eto. Byddai'n dechrau pan fydd yn cael offer gwell. Bydd yn gwerthu'n gwybod. Mae'r holl bethau hynny

yn gallu bod yn wir ar yr un pryd rydych chi'n rhagweithio i reforma. Er mwyn rhagweithio i reforma, By voting reform, you are not placing a vote that says, I like Nigel Farage and I trust him. You're saying, I know the direction this country needs to take. For now, I'll give this guy a tick. All you're doing is gaming the system. The system means we never truly have a voice. It's like being at a casino. You're going in to game the system to get the result we need in order that we can course correct later. And look, it's partly for that reason that when folk have criticised me for holding reform to account, and I have held it to account, over its slide to the left on issues like

moving away from mass deportations, I say look at Nigel's U-turn yesterday. As Rob Esk posted on X, Rupert has done his job. I don't think he was ever serious about leading reform, but his outspoken rhetoric on X has forced reform to echo his sentiments in policy. And that's why I promise to keep the pressure up. Because we need a party brave enough to save the country with policies bolder than has ever been seen before. And I make no apology for the fact that unlike so many other so-called independent commentators, and you know who I mean, I am not a propagandist or a shill for any party. I simply want to achieve the change that is required. And so while there may be some union on the right in this week before the local elections,

that's unlikely to last. I mean, the MSM is finally getting interested in this new Ben Habib vehicle, the Integrity Party, although the Eye newspaper has already declared his relaxed attitude to the possibility of Tommy Robinson joining leaves his new venture dead on arrival. God, they just still don't get it, do they? Habib himself posted, the new party I've yet to launch has gone from no members last week to over 700 today. We have raised nearly £20,000. We are inundated with offers of support and we haven't even launched. Thank you very much, everyone that has donated and joined. Watch this space. And of course, I understand why so many of you still have questions about the future of Reform

UK. Like on mass deportations, let me just remind you that Nigel has gone from saying this on GB News a few months ago. It's a political impossibility to deport hundreds of thousands of people. We simply can't do it. To this new position just ahead of the polls. It is our intention, ultimately, that if you've come illegally, you should not be able to stay. You should not be able to make a spurious claim that somehow your right to a family life means you should stay here. We will, in three to four weeks' time, announce more detailed policy

on how we will actually carry out those deportations. We'll do that after the election, but I make the intention very, very clear. Even his employees, employers, sorry, at GB News, suggested he was the Lib Dems in disguise. Now, just looking at your policies, Nigel Farage, you want to nationalise British steel, you support the unions, you want to lift tax-free allowances, you criticise net zero. Are you the Liberal Democrats in disguise? Because you're trying to appeal to different parts of the country

with different policies. No, it is common sense. You're doing different things for different audiences. And they suggested that reform is moving to the left. But you're confusing politically. You're going left and right, tacking this way and that, aren't you? No, no, there is something called the national interest.

So look, I know Farage noticeably avoided both questions, but I have a problem, and I'm not afraid to say it. I have a problem with the fact that this is now a party that welcomes with open arms candidates or branch chairs who believe that the UK should pay reparations for historic slavery while booting anyone out who said the F word or the C word or, as I say, has praised Tommy Robinson. Meanwhile, this is all just a game to those cretins at Sly News. Time will prove that. At the minute, I'm sceptical. Look, we're all allowed, as we get older,

to change our positions on things. Of course we are. But his current policy positioning just seems so far removed from everything he's ever stood for. I mean, I think that's what you call the political drive-by. I mean, I'm not sure tonight Robert Jenrick will feel particularly at home in Reform UK. I'm not sure Robert Jenrick feels particularly at home in Kenny Badenoch's version of the Conservative Party. So spare a thought for Robert Jennerick tonight.

That is pretty difficult. Sam, thank you very much indeed. Sam Coates there speaking to Robert. He's not the leader of the party yet. Speaking about Robert Jennerick. It's all just a game to them. It's all just a laugh to them because they really have no idea what's at stake. Now, someone who does. Peter Whistle, founder and director of the brilliant New Culture Forum is here.

Peter, so great to have you today. Do you understand why Katie Hopkins is saying, look, it doesn't matter that Nigel Farage is a snake, if that is indeed what you think. It doesn't matter that Rupert Lowe was reported to the police because next week we've got to send a message. And the only way at this point to send a message is via Reform UK. Well, I think actually, Dan, she was, Keiji was articulating a kind of conundrum that

many people sort of feel about this in the sense that they've got reservations about reform, for all the reasons that you've just gone through in your digest. They don't think that they are radical enough. I've certainly been critical of aspects of that myself. But on the other hand, you sort of then think, ah, yes, but maybe this is the kind of one chance we have to basically forever change this terrible status, this logjam we have of the two major parties. And I think where she's kind of right is that, you know,

whatever you think about reform at the moment, the fact is that it will open up, if you like, a new kind of avenue, possibly. Because she doesn't say it, but is sort of hinting at maybe there'll be something else, you know, that there'll be a chance of something else. And I think that that is something that I know I discuss an awful lot with people, myself, that essentially, you know, reform, if you like, is a battering ram to to kind of go in to this situation we have in parliament where parliament now is probably i think nigel farage has even said this himself probably the most unrepresentative that it's ever been actually the makeup of it um and so that it

does have an extremely important role to play in that way. But against that, you mentioned there, for example, the announcement this week about deportations. I'm not completely clear about that, Dan. I don't know whether I'm missing something, but I remember what Nigel originally said to Steve Edgerton in that interview. He was very, very clear about it. It was sort of like it wasn't even hedging about. No, impossible. He used the word impossible.

Impossible. It was also quite a, I thought, spontaneous response, actually, which is kind of useful to know. This time around, he was saying, this is what we want to do. I think the crucial thing is this, and this is what people will be wanting to know, and I still want to know and i still

want to know you it's kind of fancy use of language in a way so you can say this is what we want to do and you can say fine but what we're talking about surely what people really want to know is what about the 1.2 million people illegal migrants already here. And that's a very, very conservative estimate, I would suggest. Yeah. I'd say very easily we can say 2 million, right? Yes, I'd say 2, actually. You know what? These figures always come out later, don't they? I mean, you know, we go along with these figures and then suddenly, you know, oh, actually, it's a bit more than that. It's a bit more than that. What's the situation there with reform?

This is what I'm still not quite clear about. Look, deporting people who come to the country now illegally, you know, it's just all you're doing is enforcing the law as it stands. You know, you immediately have a criminal record by virtue of coming in illegally. You know, so I think it's a question really of how are you going to kind of deal with what is reform going to do? Is he going to commit to basically deporting people who maybe have been here for a long time? Not unlike what Donald Trump is doing. That I think is very important. So in fact, there's still, for me, some vagueness

about it. There's vagueness about the general immigration policy, for example, with reform. I think they're still going with their net zero migration policy, which is essentially a kind of one in, one out thing. I think it's deeply flawed and deeply unsatisfactory myself. You know, it actually doesn't change very much at all. It's not far enough. And then we have on the other side, Rupert Lowe, until recently the star Reform UK MP. Now he lays it out very clearly, I believe, Peter, but let me read out his plan to you, and then I'll get you to respond. So this is how he

explains it, Peter. He says, we're told that deporting hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants is impossible. Why? Total defeatist rot. Britain has the capabilities. What's missing is the political will and a backbone. Here's how it can be done. Day one. The Great Repeal Act. Sweep away decades of malign and obstructive legislation, including our departure from the ECHR. The law doesn't allow mass deportations.

Change the law. We must reinforce ministerial powers to do what needs to be done. No woke activist judge can then stand in the way. Stop the flow. The deterrent would soon speak for itself, but in the meantime, deploy the Royal Navy to intercept the boats and send them back to France. Those who do arrive, they do not remain on mainland. Detained offshore, processed for transfer, sent home or to a third-party country such

as Rwanda if their origin cannot be determined. Whatever happens, they do not stay in the UK. Remove the incentives. Scrap the entire asylum system it has been abused and exploited for too long. Operation return, detain, deport. One million plus are here illegally. They must all go. Significantly expand detention infrastructure using former military sites, modular units and offshore facilities. Deport by sea and air. Use cruise ships for relevant destinations. Construct a number of specialised runways if required near large detention centres. On day one, start hiring and training the staff. It will cost billions to do it properly, but every penny will be worth it.

Leverage. Countries refuse to accept their deportees. Cancel foreign aid. Suspend visa applications. Sanctions on remittances. Enforce tariffs. Do it all with like-minded countries and deportation NATO. Redlist. Implement an immigration redlist whereby countries with high levels of visa abuse, security concerns, links to extremism, serious crime, sexual offences, welfare access, culture concerns and more face significantly higher barriers for entry and cooperation with deportations. They go on the list. Be ruthless. Public confidence. Publish a live removals dashboard and require ministers to report monthly progress to Parliament. Show the British people what is happening, why it's happening, and how much money it will save in the long term. Here's a clue. A lot. Will this happen overnight? No. But this is only required

because decades of inaction has allowed the problem to grow so wildly out of control. So what? Because the issue is now too great, we can't even begin to tackle it? Ludicrous. I say send them home. The mass deportation of illegal migrants is not only possible, it's absolutely necessary. So Peter Whistle, there's Rupert Lowe's plan. What do you think? I agree with every word. I agree with every word.

I imagine that a lot of people who are basically getting ready to vote for reform next week, as you say, would also agree with every word. I imagine that a lot of people who are basically getting ready to vote for reform next week, as you say, Dan, would also agree with every word. It has been a question of a total lack of political will. Look, you know, when this, you know, I've discussed this so many times, as indeed have you, Dan. I mean, the fact is, is that there's very little that governments cannot do if they want to. Anyone, and that's all of us, who lived through the pandemic and the lockdown know that, right? It was amazing what they could actually do because that's what they decided to do. And we found ourselves in a situation we'd never been in before, and rights taken away from us that we never thought should be or would ever be taken away.

And it happened. It can happen. When various wars come up, there's always money for those wars, you know, same thing. So I think it is a matter of the will. And I think that he's, you know, Ruperpert's gone out there and basically you know pretty much uh being quite detailed actually in that plan and i think that is there anyone who will say no to any of that is there anyone i mean the problem is just the people that you are dealing with and you're arguing with which is basically our political and cultural establishment when it comes to immigration generally but also of course in the case of the boats in this case um they essentially not only lack the will they have what i would call anti-will you know they they actually don't mind this situation they don't see a problem you know

um and they are they currently have their kind of um I would say, their expression in the Labour Party mostly. That is what you are up against. Years of inertia, but also people who actively think we should take everybody that comes to Britain and also take them on their own word. You mentioned, or rather Rupert did mention, their crime. You know, it's a very good thing that actually we are finally going to hear about crime statistics and migration. You know, that's basically going to be by the end of the year or something. We shouldn't have to kind of sort of get blood out of a stone

with this sort of thing, you know it's it's so difficult to get hold of this information unlike in europe but for example quite recently the new culture forum did a documentary heresies with alex phillips whom i know you've had on and great documentary yes it was about basically this extraordinary rise in sexual crime, rape, sexual assault. And, you know, this 300% rise that various different nationalities being overrepresented in those in those statistics. So we definitely need that country. These things were absolutely untouchable for a long time and they're gradually becoming, you know, public. So therefore, it's no surprise that people are getting angrier and angrier with every minute. That's the one, yes, immigration and the rise in rape. It's a very important, not just plugging it because we made it, but I mean, it's extremely important because women in many respects are on the front line of this change in our society. You know, we're seeing demographic changes now whether it is the men

on the boats coming over indeed more broadly who have very you know i would call anti-diluvian attitudes to women and what they can do to women and what um the place of women and uh essentially you know that will take a long time for the penny to drop in the wider public but it will happen i think breaking right now another twist in the ongoing mystery with lady victoria starman now you know this is a story that the mainstream media is not wanting to touch but earlier this week when i reported on these growing concerns about the Starmer's marriage in regards to the secret shape of Starmer's family and the fact that there had been a clear deterioration in the, how do I put it, the emotional state of Lady Victoria, which can be summed up by these pictures. At that point, Downing Street quite clearly briefed that Lady Victoria Starmer would not be attending Pope Francis's funeral tomorrow. Now, that was a surprising announcement, a surprising piece of briefing, especially given

that the expectation from the US was that Melania Trump would be attending alongside Donald Trump. Now, just yesterday, senior political figures told me that they were now describing what Lady Victoria Starmer was doing was a Michelle Obama, when Michelle, you might remember, chose to skip the funeral of the Democratic former president, Jimmy Carter, and then the inauguration of Trump. However, this afternoon, in briefing to GB News, a significant U-turn from Downing Street, Lady Victoria Starmer will now be at Vatican City tomorrow morning with her husband. Watch. And Keir Starmer and his wife, Lady Starmer, are also going to be going. tomorrow morning with her husband. Watch. Now that's significant because the briefing earlier in the week was very much that she would not be there. And as I have been taking you through this week, what you've seen

is that every time there is social media pressure in regards to Starmer's family, in regards to what's really going on, in regards to the marriage, Lady Victoria Starmer is forced to appear in public. And of course, there is a significant debate around this story. Lots of people don't even think I should be talking about it. I mean, there's Starmer, by the way, with all of his journalist mates laughing and guffawing on the plane. And when that picture went viral, the decision was not, oh, maybe we should look into exactly why Starmer maintains these very close relationships with the journalists who cover him. Instead, the decision was just made, oh, we're going to ban photographers from taking pictures of Starmer speaking to journalists on

the plane. So this is about information control. And I will have the honest discussions with you that the mainstream media will not. Why did Downing Street brief earlier this week that Lady Victoria Starmer would not be attending Pope Francis's funeral, only to U-turn the day before. Something is going on here. We know something is going on. You know, I know something has been going on for months. And I've been trying to get to the truth as much as possible. You'll remember, for example, my interview with Paul Staines,

the former boss of Guido Fawkes, also ignored by the mainstream media watch. We've both been in the game a long time. You know the rules. If you can't stand it up completely, you can't run the story. So we have a name, as do the Mail and the Telegraph. We have a birth certificate. And people have been looking into it. Journalists have contacted the family.

So it's in play and a lot of people do know it, but we have not been able to substantiate it to the degree that you need to publish. Okay, so to clarify, would you say that this story is about the shape of Keir Starmer's family? Yes. Yeah, that's a very good way of phrasing it. So Peter Wiesel, founder and director of the New Culture Forum, look, I don't expect you to know,

and I don't want you to talk about the intimate details of what's going on in the Stalmers' marriage. But for me, this is a story about transparency from the mainstream media, or mainstream media that, by the way, were prepared, and you will remember this, to report on every twist and turn in Boris and Carrie Johnson's marriage. Every time that they had fights, there were front page splashes in even the right wing newspapers. Yet when it comes to Starmer, there is total radio silence. Now, let's start with the Pope Francis funeral, right? That is quite significant that earlier in the week, there was very, very clear briefing to all of the journalists that Lady Victoria Starmer would

not be attending. There's been this pressure over the course of the week, over the fact that she was missing. And now all of a sudden, we hear from GB News that she will be going, but there's no information given to us about, okay, well, what changed? Because our briefings, unlike in the US, where this would all take place, you know in in the white house briefing room our briefings are all done in a clandestine manner where it's like this the westminster journalist speaks secretly to the downing street staff and so there's no transparency around this story like why is victoria starmer going now surely at least we should be able to ask that question. Yes. I think there's a complete difference in the way that the media treats the two. But, you know, look no further than America. I mean, you know, the press there, which is the mainstream media in New York,

broadcast and print, is pretty solidly pro-Democrat. And they kept from the public, I mean, although, frankly, anyone with any sense could see it anyway, the sheer state of mental decline of the president. So that when it became very obvious during that debate that he had, that, you know, something was very, very wrong, it suddenly became very clear that they had actually kind of covered for him for a long time. Now, in this country, of course, because we don't have a sort of our royal family, as you know, kind of takes that role.

You know, but but in this country, when it comes to the wives or husbands or whatever of prime ministers, I seem to remember that even with David Cameron, Samantha Cameron, you know, there was a lot of kind of, I wouldn't say gossip, but a lot of coverage about them. But I would say that there's no getting away from it that Starmer is one of their guys, you know. He's one of the media's guys it's as simple as that he he's kind of you know they all swim in the same water and so they are going to be a lot more kind of careful about reporting on anything i actually don't know anything about what he has or hasn't

you know been doing or whatever you know um But I do I do tell one thing. It kind of makes me slightly nostalgic for the days of the 1970s and Harold Wilson and James Cameron. They had kind of wives. I don't think anyone can remember their names. I don't think everyone knew their names at the time. You know, it was a much more kind of, it wasn't even a role. But our Prime Minister's role has become more and more presidential. And as a result, you know, I suppose, you know, there's more, certainly more, you know, exposure for the, you know, for the spouse.

Yes, but it's interesting though because actually what star is trying to do peter is take it back to that error that you refer to but i think he's a hypocrite when it comes to this because let me give you the example of the children so so he believes that we don't have a right to know the names of his children now i'm someone that verges virtually always on on the side of of free speech so i think it's ludicrous that we don always on the side of free speech. So I think it's ludicrous that we don't know the names of the children of the prime minister of this country, given that, by the way, they will be receiving protection, security protection paid for by taxpayers. But Starmer picks and chooses when he decides to deploy his children. So let me give you two examples where he has deployed them

for political reasons. Very recently over the Netflix series Adolescence, which I just believe, by the way, I liked the show. I thought it was very good drama, but it then became a psy-op, which was all designed to convince us that there was, you know, the big problem in society are young boys. I mean, it was basically an anti-white racism psyop essentially but in this case peter starmer kept on talking about his kids raised them and pmq spoke about watching the show with the family the fact that that teenager so he was talking

about them all the time then the other example was you know when the big lord ali scandal broke and it's like why is lord ali buying his wife these designer clothes why is lord ali buying your designer glasses i mean weird but do you remember when the second part of the scandal was the fact that starmer had had access to lord ali's penthouse apartment and the rumor was that it was because of the fact that there was trouble in the marriage and instead starmer decided to throw his teenage son under the bus then and say oh no no it was because my son needed this penthouse apartment in mayfair to study for his gcse so i don't think you can pick and choose like if you want to deploy your children into the political debate over adolescence or over Lord Ali, then surely we have a right to know their names.

Absolutely. And also, why shouldn't we, as you say, know their names? For goodness sake. I mean, these are not states or shouldn't be state secrets. I'm slightly minded of, you know, Harry and Meghan actually in this way. Still, no one can even, would ever recognise these kids, you know, if they came up on the street. Exactly. Do they even exist? Exactly. Do they even actually exist? Yes. I mean, but I suppose the one thing you could say for them, actually, they have been quite consistent in this way,

in the way that Starmer hasn't. I seem to remember as well that with Blair's family, there were certain problems at one point with the daughter. And in fact, the press actually showed great restraint there. I mean, I don't know if you remember that, Dan, but it was going back a good 10 years or whatever. But I think really, of course, politicians use their families when they want to.

I think he spoke, did he not, about watching adolescence with his whole family. Yes. And all of this. I think it's a bit cringe making, sick making, actually. I mean, I watched the show, too, for what it's worth. And as you say, I think it was it's like the dead cat thing. You know, you've got problems in society and they say, that's true. No, but look over here. That's a dead cat.

This is so much easier to blame all of our issues on young, white, working class teenage kids who come from nuclear families because that's not going to offend anyone. And look, so often and you know what happens in these cases peter so often they just try and convince us that that what we're saying is racist when in fact the only reason that i realized that that actually based this series on that shocking case in london of a black teenager who stabbed a 15 year old young girl to death over a teddy bear it It was in South London in Croydon. The only reason I knew that the show had at least in part been based on that case was because I read an interview from Stephen Graham, who is the writer and main star in the Radio

Times, in a mainstream media publication. And they're trying to convince us that we're racist for suggesting it's like hang on a moment you're the one that put it out there uh but by the way peter let me just uh play you what just a little bit more from paul stains when he was talking about the whole lord ali apartment situation because i think it is worth just reminding people marked change you referred to it in the podcast with the bombshells that all of a sudden as soon as the daily mail and the daily telegraph started to suggest where's vicky the disappearing wife i made a video about that all of a sudden she was out with a huge amount of force and it was very

public i mean it all started you, with that picture on Instagram, loved-up picture on Instagram during the Taylor Swift concert, and from there, there was a marked change. So it was very clear they wanted to shut down the rumours, but I guess it hasn't worked. Well, what the lobby suspects about Lord Ali's property, they don't really buy into, I don't think any of us really buy into,

it was for the son to do his revision for his GCSEs. Was he in the doghouse? Was he kicked out? Was he using the bedrooms at the penthouse? That's what they're suspicious of.

Was he not under the same roof as Victoria? Yes, indeed. And I had learned that there were... Look, I'm going to keep on this story. Don't worry, I'll keep telling you the truth because I just don't believe, and I fundamentally mean this, I do not believe that we should live in a society

where all of the chattering classes, all of the Westminster journalists, all of the politicians are talking about a story. And trust me, they're all talking about Lady Victoria Starmer at the moment. They are all talking about her. I don't believe that's right if they don't think that we should be able to speak to you about it. That's all I'm saying. And I have huge sympathy for this woman. It's not about that. It's just about the fact that I don't believe in covering stories up. There are growing concerns, though, that the UK police are preparing for a civil war in this country, which they want to pin on patriots. Let me take you through this. This is an official Met Police training video from London preparing for how they would deal with rioters.

But look at their so-called rioter, an actor in this case, wearing clothing with a union jack on. Now, the Metropolitan Police have tried to poo-poo all of the speculation around this, saying, oh, a video of officers doing public order training has been widely shared with inaccurate commentary claiming it shows us preparing for disorder with right-wing groups. We've set out some of the facts below, and one of the facts is that the t-shirt has a union flag on it entirely coincidentally. Well, yeah, right, I say. Yeah, right. I do not believe you for a single second. Connor Tomlinson posted on this, the state are training the police to see the native Christian population as their enemy and the targets of their complaints, imported tribal minorities as clients that they must protect. This does not bode well for talk of civil war.

And of course, Conor Tomlinson hosts an amazing podcast deprogrammed on the New Culture Forum platform. And I'm delighted to be joined now by Peter Whittle, who is the founder and director of the New Culture Forum. Peter, I actually saw this video yesterday before I'd seen any posts on X about it or anything. And I was speaking to one of my team members who just said, oh my goodness, can you believe they've posted this? To try and say that it was coincidental that the one rioter they were chasing,

that they were targeting, was wearing Union Jack clothing is a joke. There was nothing coincidental about this scenario, was there? No, no. It doesn't surprise me, actually, Dan. I think if they were, you know, with this particular video you're talking about, one thing they would never do is have that actor,

whoever it is that they are going up against, with, say, for example, an Islamic symbol or something. Yeah, or waving a Palestinian flag. Or a Palestinian flag. They would consider that to be incendiary. And this is the whole kind of modus operandi of the Met now. I think this was the Met. Was it the Met Police?

Yes, it was. It was the Met Police, yeah. And they posted it on their own account. I mean, to me, it feels like another PSYOP. It really does. I think this is the thing. We've got used to this now. It's sort of gone past two-tier policing in a way. I mean, during those terrible Gaza protests and demonstrations, you know, people climbing over statues and chanting, you know, people climbing over statues and chanting,

you know, those extremist slogans and what have you. During that period, it sort of became quite clear that the police saw themselves as basically not exactly enablers, but they were, it's almost like they had been told just, you know, keep a safe distance, you know, with a soft touch. You can go in for the others if you want, you know, but just leave this. It's born of a kind of fear, I think, of sort of fundamentalist Islamic fundamentalist violence, all of these things. So basically what you can do best in that situation is to basically sort of suppress the people who might actually be going against them. So we saw that obviously famously in the aftermath of Southport,

you know, where there was this kind of real iron fist put on people who went out and demonstrated. Absolutely. Which, by the way peter sorry to interrupt but but just to say we didn't see it at all from the met police over the weekend when we had trans extremists literally inciting violence against turfs who i love by the way i mean i'm proud to be a turf uh so i I don't say that at all as a negative term. But, you know, these signs were saying things like, you know, kill JK Rowling.

No outrage. You know, no mainstream media obsession. It's just like, oh, move on, folks. I think, you see, it's not, it's hard quite to grasp how the police have become politicised in recent years. I mean, when I was on the London Assembly, you know, for five years, I was on the Police and Crime Committee. And what we do, the whole point of that committee is just to scrutinise

the commissioner and the top brass. And it became quite clear then, this was during the period of COVID and BLM, it became quite clear that there were some courses that were considered to be sort of, shall we say, that they could be more sympathetic towards. They would never dream of admitting this. And others you could maybe be a bit harsher with. I think that the problem with the video we're discussing now

is that it is sort of is as you said when you introduced it it's kind of looking like they're getting ready for something you know they're getting ready for civil disorder of some form and on the uh and new culture forum recently i interviewed someone i really would recommend to you dan called, called Professor David Betts. He's been doing the rounds a bit lately. Now, he does predict civil war, doesn't he? He does. He's very, very clear about it. He's very unemotional about it.

The one thing he says, he's an American guy, the one thing he says is that when he looks at what the government, the Labour government, has been doing over the past year, he says it's almost like, you know, those are the things you do if you want to bring something on. You know, I mean, actually, if you want... Because they are so in your face, you know, this sort of incredibly different way in which people were treated and sentencing or whatever,

saying things on social media. We all know this now, you know, compared to other sections of society. And so this talk is very much in the air. By the way, it shouldn't have to be said, but I mean, no one, absolutely nobody wants in any way for this to happen. But the fact is, is that by talking about about it you're not trying to provoke it or anything but the fact is it's a sort of thing has got to be talked about because essentially

you know you have a situation now where of such boiling frustration that you know there must be a reason why the police are doing this indeed and it's interesting that he he said to you britain civil war will be ethnic because I want to show you this video that has gone viral. Really shocking, I thought. It's a black woman in London. Now, we believe her to be a corporate receptionist. She's been named by David Atherton, although I haven't been able to independently verify, although I did note that a LinkedIn page has now been taken down. So he says this is believed to be Elizabeth Bada Yemi. She allegedly threw food at a white woman and added white people are in ferry. The incident happened in Camden. She was arrested. And that sounds almost hard to believe, Peter, but the whole thing was captured.

And let's assume that this is a genuine video there's no reason to believe that it's not looks genuine to me so let's assume this is a genuine video uh and it seemed to happen watch this what was that about? White people are inferior. White people are inferior? I did that because I wanted to. Call the police. You phoned through that my girlfriend is white because white people are inferior? Yeah, I don't have anything else to say to you. Call the police, it's fine.

Are you going to keep following me? Yeah, I'm going to keep following you. We'll find out where you work. Yeah, I will. It's going to go viral. Now this is the horror of the woke mind virus, isn't it, Peter Whittle? Because this seems to be an intelligent woman. She's working as a corporate receptionist, yet she believes in society it's acceptable to throw food at a white woman because white people are inferior yes i mean it's uh in some ways it's quite sort of believable you know because if you think of the kind of general traducing that there has been

of white people now for what the past five years at least, of white, you know, of our history, of, you know, actually outright sort of what I would call, you know, racism. I mean, anti-white racism, where, you know, we're seeing it in the titles of books like White Fragility and all of these kind of things, all these books that came along with Woke. There are going to be people around who basically have taken it all on board but what the most important point about this downright is that you know it really goes against the whole idea that somehow white which is a very much a critical race theory idea is that

somehow or other only white people can be racist you know that in fact no other it's white people against all other non-white people well i don't know how much these people who claim that and the believers in critical race theory believe that have been around the world, because I can tell you there are many parts of the world which just leave us standing in terms of racism. You know, if you go to the the Far East, if you go to certain other places, you know, essentially the idea that somehow it is entirely a white thing. Racism can only be practiced by white people against other non-white people is, of course, absurd. And so, you know, this is a good example of that. But I think that she I don't know anything about this woman i just seen the video like you have you know she would have basically kind of grown up or whatever in a situation in an environment which essentially blames white people for almost everything or should i say white straight men and of course i just want to show you what's going on in the streets of London right now, Peter. Pakistanis and Indians clashing.

And this is after that terror attack in Kashmir. And this is the problem, isn't it? With importing the world, you end up with the world's problems. Importing sectarian violence, sectarian disputes. We saw it, did we not, in Leicester last year and indeed in London. It's kind of going to increase. I mean, it gives the lie, for those who still cling to it, to the whole idea that multiculturalism and mass immigration will automatically, over a period of of time sort of right itself.

You know, that people will kind of adapt to the society they're in. They'll lose kind of more of a cultural edges around. It doesn't happen that way. We are seeing that it doesn't happen that way. You know, and, you know, we are importing. We have imported so many people who basically don't need in any way to integrate and adapt i get very impatient i'm afraid down now when people talk about well of course we've got to integrate i almost feel the days are gone you know i mean

there was maybe a time and certainly when i was growing up in this country where that was very much a feasible thing and indeed it did happen but the scale of immigration that we've had means it's utterly impossible and there's no need for people to um i think that the what is important maybe and where it gets even tougher is that where those second and third generation migrants also take on these disputes, you know, even though they've never been to the places, never been near them. And I think that that is in fact what we're facing now. Douglas Murray has spoken out about the dishonesty,

the corruption and the dodgy practices being used behind the scenes at the British bashing corporation's flagship news show, Newsnight. This is after an interview with him went viral, not so much what he said, but because of the way that the BBC decided to respond to the interview with a hysterical, completely imbalanced panel. In The Spectator this week, though, Douglas writes, they say that deaths and taxes are the only certain things in life. I would add BBC bias into that mix. As the years went by, Newsnight, like so many other shows, went from needn't watch to impossible to watch to no one watched. Neither

friend nor foe tuned in, and guests were left wondering about the tree falling in a forest fire. And that may well be true, but it's not to say that the way they dealt with Douglas' appearance was at all professional or at all shows that this is an impartial news organisation. So I'll tell you more about what he said in just a moment, then we'll get reaction from Peter Whittle of the New Cultural Forum. But first, a reminder of what actually happened during this interview between Douglas Murray, who had been booked on to promote his new book, and the Newsnight political editor who was hosting that night,

Nicholas Watt. Watch. We should have less Islam in this country. Was that a wise phrase, talking about less Islam? Well, I think it's a perfectly wise phrase, perfectly open to misrepresentation. I think I said it at the encouragement of the BBC. It was on the BBC, yes. It was on the BBC, that's why. I'm quoting what you said in The Sun, less Islam. Surely less Islam means less people of the Muslim faith.

That means less Sajid Javids, less Sadiq Khans. Well, that depends. It means anyone who's a Muslim. That's what it means, isn't it? Isn't that provocative? I mean, it would also mean less people like the Abedi family, wouldn't it? Yes, less extremists. Yeah, exactly.

But the point is you're talking about less Islam. That is Muslim people. No, no, no. Just bear with me because I know better than you what I think. But then the shocking thing is not only had they edited the hell out of that interview to remove a whole load of criticisms that Douglas Murray made about the BBC, they then lined up two of, let me be honest with you, two of the most deranged people on the left in the United Kingdom to come on and condemn him,

not have any type of balanced argument, just condemn the fact that the BBC even allowed Douglas Murray a platform to express his clearly very important views. First up, the former Lib Dem leader, Jo Swinson. Do you remember? She was the one that sorry, I laugh because she was the one that told us she was going to become prime minister and then didn't even win her seat. But what did you think of what he had to say about less Islam? Well, I think you were charitable in saying that he was talking to you earlier. I mean, he was sneering in a very self-satisfied way with extreme arrogance. I think, frankly, his contribution there was actually about sowing division, about trying

to pit groups of people against each other. And then it gets even more nuts. They put on a guy called Matthew Stadlin. Now, Matthew Stadlin is so desperate that he is unable to get work anywhere apart from GB News, which is so interesting to me because he actually despises GB News with every hard left bone in his body. And what was so hilarious, he was so delighted to be on Newsnight, but then so torn because he was like, I'm so disgusted that I'm on a show that has even allowed Douglas Murray to speak at all. Douglas Murray is a man who has said of Hamza Yousaf,

who was the first minister of Scotland, that he had infiltrated the British political system. Hamza Yousaf is someone who was born in Britain, born in Scotland. This man is an extremist, in my view. And the Overton window, which we talked about earlier, has shifted so significantly that, and I don't criticise Newsnight for doing it, that he has been given an eight minute interview on prime BBC television. And that is concerning because more and more people, it seems to me, share his repulsive views. Imagine just for a moment, Nick, being one of the millions of British Muslims, law abiding British Muslims, watching him say those things. We did question him. We did question him. Now, let's take a... Well, Douglas Murray has now responded

and revealed exactly what went on in a brilliant feature in this week's Spectator magazine. He wrote, what did that thing that BBC interviewers still think they can do, which is to treat the guest as though you were in the dock, accused of a criminal act, and they are the prosecuting barrister to whom you must answer. Personally speaking, I do not feel this pressure. This is the stage when a BBC interviewer has an author on and asks them how

they had the temerity to say certain things in the past. The certain thing on this occasion was a quote from eight years ago in which I observed that since Islamic terrorism comes from Islam, countries that have less Islam have less Islamic terrorism than countries that have an awful lot of the stuff. Anyhow, the 20-minute interview wound down with some good verbal jousting and no small criticism of the BBC from my side. As it happens, I know one person who still watches Newsnight, and he messaged me afterwards to let me know what had then transpired. The BBC had edited the interview down to significantly less than half the length, which is in its right to do, and had of course left out most of the book stuff, which is what I was there to discuss. It had also cut out anything that made the BBC

look bad. It had then pulled its masterstroke, which was to bring out three completely unknown people, one of them possibly a former Liberal Democrat leader, to talk about the interview that had just aired. I tend to favour balance in discussions. I especially favour it when the subject under discussion is me. On this occasion, the BBC didn't even try to pretend that it would be balanced. Instead, it brought on three people who all agreed it was really quite terrible to interview me at all, and that the Newsnight team should be jolly ashamed of themselves. Defenders of your present columnist, there were none. Since none

of the people in question had any influence, had any livelihood to speak of, I suppose I should be glad that I can provide some kind of cottage industry. Someone in this country has to be in the business of job creation. So Peter Whittle of the New Culture Forum, hilarious from Douglas Murray, by the way, but actually hasn't he just exposed the truth of how Newsnight operates? And this actually really matters to me. So what they do is when there's a figure who they know might be controversial, who they know might say things that are not palatable to BBC News or palatable to their organisation, they pre-record the interview. They then edit out all of the portions of the interview

that dare to criticise the BBC, the British bashing corporation, in any way. Then they run their edited version of the interview and bring on a whole load of people to slam the guy who they've just had on. Now, this to me reeks of the scandal that happened in America quite recently, for example, where the credibility of 60 Minutes has come under question because of their editing, their selective editing of the Kamala Harris interview, where they tried to make her look better before the last election.

But with Newsnight, it's the opposite. It's let's do anything to stop us looking bad. They clearly didn't trust Douglas Murray to be on live and they didn't want his criticism of the BBC to be broadcast. I actually think it's a scandal. I really do. Yes, it is.

I think that the, and I think as Douglas himself says in the article, basically, as a golden rule, don't do pre-recorded pieces if you know, if you if you can really help it, because there is a danger, you know, I mean, particularly when it comes to interviews and political news, you know, that there's a danger they're just simply going to play around with it. I think he said that himself. I think the thing about this, though, is what it showed was why programmes like Newsnight are not watched anymore. They're terrible, right?

They're terrible. They learn nothing. I mean, you know, Douglas, you know, frankly, you know, I think they were lucky to have him actually on the program. And when they got these three people, Matthew Stadlin, who might have been up against a number of times, and Joe Swinson, or whatever her name is, I don't know who the other person was. But these are non-entities. These are political non-entities. I mean, and, you know, of no consequence whatsoever. And to see them kind of trying to maul him, you know, you know, in the safety of this bubble was quite, quite pathetic.

I mean, I think that despite, you know, what we saw there, I mean, Douglas gets his points across very, very well. And I think there'll be a lot of people nodding along with it. But I mean, the fact is, this is the BBC all over. Not just, I have to say, the BBC now, as you know well, that essentially BBC might be the leader of the pack, but you've got Sky, which is pretty much the same now, ITV. You know, they've got, all of them have got agendas. So they sort of think they've got you

know they're looking for a gotcha moment in that case with douglas there nick watt he was saying you said we need less islam point the ducks was making and has made before and is i would agree with entirely is look you know the more is Islamic demographic you have, the greater the chance of extremism, the greater the chance of terrorist attacks, the greater the chance. It's just simple fact. It's common sense. But what surprised me about not just the line

of the way it was framed by Newsnight, but also by these people who came on afterwards, was it's as though we have not moved anywhere, or at least they haven't, since about 2005. You know, they're still saying the same thing. There's still, it's not washing anymore. It must be the reason why that shows like Newsnight, which is very reduced anyway, as you probably know,

just like Question Time is also very reduced compared to like when I was growing up, everyone watched Question Time and you had really big beasts on it. When it comes to Newsnight, it's now essentially a panel discussion program with none of the authority that it had before. No, as you say, with non-entities, with non-entities. And Douglas Murray is very honest about the fact, look, he's got a book to sell, and I do understand that. Yes, exactly. But, Peter, there was a woman. Look, the problem is the BBC is full of activist journalists.

So in response to this interview, there's a former BBC producer, so she's not there anymore, but she's a woman called Karishma Patel, this woman. Now, she actually came out publicly and attacked the BBC for booking Douglas Murray and said, the more people hear from racists on BBC shows without all necessary context or pushback, the more reasonable and respectable they will come. This has created fertile ground for the rise of the far right. The BBC should challenge the lack of evidence behind their claims. Now, the point is, she's not a BBC journalist anymore, but she was. And we know that people like her are working with presenters like Lewis Goodall, Emily Maitlis and John Sopel.

I mean, this is a completely morally corrupted organisation and the fact that they even claim to be impartial anymore is a joke. Yes, I think that the difference of what's happened in recent years is that people, a wider general public, are now more aware of this, not just in the news programmes of the BBC, but also, and I say far more insidiously, in the kind of drama and the comedy and the non-news output where all the time this kind of agenda is being put forward.

She's essentially left, woke if you want to call it that, but it's not just that. Pro-multiculturalism pro-mass migration certainly pro-eu all of that you know and and pro-climate change um and so you get these people like the journalists you've just mentioned there i mean essentially they don't want any they want they don't want anyone who does not agree with them on it's as simple as that um but what i found interesting and i returned to my point here is that the people that they met that they got on to kind of have a go at douglas murray were of such low caliber i mean i think joe swinson she must have been truly a low point

mustn't she in terms of party leaders uh you know, not exactly in a golden era anyway, but terrible. And, you know, those are the only people they could kind of get on to come on on a Friday night. Whereas once upon a time, people would probably, you know, fought to get on New Year's night, actually. I think as Douglas, again, makes that point. The BBC, now, you know, frankly, I grew up on it. I had a residual fondness for it for quite a long time.

That's long gone. Oh, totally, totally. I'm sorry, Peter. I just, I'm so sick of this idea that as British people, we should be proud of the BBC. I'm actually ashamed of this organisation for so many reasons. I mean, I think they embarrass us on an international stage. But actually, can we just consider the fact that if this were a private organisation that had harboured the most prolific paedophile

in British history in Jimmy Savile, who wasn't operating on his own, by the way, there was a full paedophile ring operating for decades at the bbc some people will be listening to this thinking dan you can't be telling the truth i promise you this is all true then jill dando who was the host of crime watch was shot to death on her doorstep just at a time that she was looking to cover or uncover i should say say, this paedophile ring at the BBC, that case remains unsolved. Then decades later, they have another prolific paedophile, Hugh Edwards, who they allow to read the death or announce to the world, sorry, the news of the death of the late Queen Elizabeth II. That's before you get to the fact that Martin Bashir's shoddy interview,

or that's probably an understatement actually, you know, completely morally insufficient in terms of how it was obtained, interview with Princess Diana in the view of Prince William. How do I put this? Put Diana on the road to her death. So I would just argue, Peter, that if this was a private company, it would have been shut down many times over, right? I mean, you mentioned there the Diana interview.

In fact, there's a story in the papers today that there are more details about that interview to come out. There's a new book coming out later this year. And in it, you know, the lengths they went to and the various details which are enumerated in that about how they got that Diana interview. As you say, it's appalling. And frankly, it was all obviously hushed up because what are we 2025 now aren't we

you're talking 1997 that oh no the interview was 30 years ago 1995 yeah 95 95 but it obviously that interview directly led to the late queen elizabeth i II feeling like she had to intervene and say that the divorce had to take place. And that divorce resulted in Diana refusing her security, which then obviously resulted in the fact that when she was in Paris that night with Dodi Al-Fayed, she was allowed to get into the car with the very drunk driver but look I guess the point being the overall point being here is that the BBC are a crooked and corrupted organization and what Douglas Murray has exposed sure it's one example and look the great thing with Douglas Murray is that even though they edited his interview he still came out of it looking

brilliant and they look terrible but it's not the. How much of this do they do on a constant basis behind the scenes to pump out propaganda rather than news? But look, do stand by Peter Whittle of the New Culture Forum, the director and founder of the brilliant New Culture Forum, because in just one minute, a shocking new Hollywood row between J.K. Rowling. She is just under so much attack at the moment. This is now a major star, describing her as heinous and a whole load of other things. And what's most shocking is that this is a star of the same channel that is about to air the Harry Potter TV series. So we'll reveal all in just one minute on that. Don't go anywhere. But first, the reason you're watching this show is that it's becoming increasingly difficult to

trust mainstream media or the so-called fact checkers who claim to determine which facts are true. And for good reason, given the ongoing debates over free speech, the controversy surrounding Brexit and how Trump and other anti-establishment politicians are portrayed. But I have the solution. It's called Ground News, and it's the best way to stay informed and cut through media bias and manipulative narratives so you can get the facts for yourself. It has been a game changer for a news junkie like me, and you can see it all for yourself right now. Ground.news.outspoken. But I want to show you this incredible website and app in action. So let's take a story that I've been very passionate about, the Supreme Court ruling in the United Kingdom that made the point that women can only be biological adult human females. You can see

clearly in one place that over 350 sources around the world covered this story. Ground news instantly shows how it's being covered by the media, broken down by whether they lean to the left or the right. Now, this is called the illustration bias distribution chart. If you scroll down, you can see every headline about the story, along with the political bias and ownership of the publication. So you can see quite clearly for yourselves that on the right, The Daily Wire covered the case totally soundly with the headline, UK Supreme Court rules trans-identifying men are not women, spiked online, very forthright, declaring women exist, get over it, while the Daily Telegraph looked in depth at the disgraced famous faces who declared trans women are women. By stark contrast, the left-wing National said

the result was only a victory for gender-critical feminists, and the Canary ran with a clearly ridiculous headline, Victory for the far-right, as Supreme Court rolls back trans women's rights by two decades. Now, I would absolutely love the Canary to tell J.K. Rowling to her face that she is far right. Anyway, my favorite feature is the Blindspot feed. That services upwards of 20 stories daily that receive the majority of coverage from one side of the political spectrum. So if you like the news like I do, the Blindspot feed is the best way to get a balanced perspective on what's happening. So go to ground.news slash outspoken, or if you're watching on YouTube or Rumble, just scan the QR code on screen to subscribe today. Use that address and you will get 40% off the same Vantage plan that I use for unlimited access. So let me repeat the address, ground.news.com. But now, back to the show. so is HBO the major US broadcaster going to protect JK Rowling for what is becoming the most deranged campaign against her by woke Hollywood A-listers who are totally ridiculous

when it comes to the fact that all she has ever done is stand up for the rights of biological women and now being proven to be right by the UK Supreme Court. So you'll know that we've already seen those sniveling little weasels, the Harry Potter stars, turn on the woman who made them famous and made them multi-millionaires. I'm talking Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, and even Eddie Redmayne of the more recent franchise. But now HBO is in big trouble because this broadcaster, this major US broadcaster, is producing a mega TV version of Harry Potter. This is going to be the biggest TV show of the decade. Trust me, a full series for each edition, each version of the book. However, the problem is HBO stars want to attack J.K. Rowling in the most vicious manner. The most recent example is Pedro Pascal, the actor from the major series at the moment commented on a video by the writer and activist tarik rayouf who refers to rolling's efforts to help the uk supreme court

define women in a way that works against trans women as voldemort villain shit, awful, disgusting shit is exactly right. And Pascal added, keenness, loser behavior. Now, The Last of Us actor obviously has a right to his free speech. He can say whatever he wants. But the issue is that The Post was encouraging a fan boycott of the HBO reboot of Harry Potter. So this is a very different thing. It's not about the fact that he's attacking J.K. Rowling in vile terms. I think that's terrible. It's the fact that he is now telling millions of people not to watch his employer's major new show.

I'm going to get reaction from Peter Whittle of the New Culture Forum in just one moment. But first, here's how Hollywood Reporter reported the story. The last of a star was responding to an Instagram post which criticized the author for celebrating the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom's landmark ruling last week that trans women should not be recognized as women and that sex should legally mean biological sex. Rowling had posted, I love it when a plan comes together, along with noting to a critic, I get the same royalties whether you read my books or burn them. Enjoy your marshmallows. Pascal wrote

in the comment section of the Instagram post, awful disgusting is exactly right. Heinous loser behavior. The post also called for a boycott of HBO's Harry Potter TV reboot, urging his followers to make sure that every single thing that's Harry Potter related fails. That means posting in every single Harry Potter TV show update that comes out, in every single article, posting in the comments that trans rights are human rights, that trans women are women. As the Emmy-nominated co-lead of what is arguably HBO's biggest series, Pascal is being seen as co-signing the anti-Harry Potter series sentiment by leaving a comment agreeing with the post, but the actor did not mention harry potter

himself hbo's upcoming harry potter reboot series will adapt all seven potter novels into separate tv seasons so look peter whittle i'm a free speech absolutist pedro pascal can say whatever he wants about jk rowling i disagree with it i think it's vile i think he's a really gross revolting man for attacking her in that way. But he can say it. That isn't my issue. What my issue is, is what are HBO going to do here? Because are they going to allow their other stars to encourage a boycott of their most important TV series for over a decade? It's a commercial thing.

Yes, yes. I would have thought so. It brings to mind what happened with Disney and Snow White. Yes. I think maybe they'll have a word with him. I mean, I would have thought that the Harry Potter series vastly, you know, outweighs The Last of Us in terms of its commercial importance. And it will come down to that in the end. But what he said said actually uh heinous loser behavior i mean you know if jk rowling is a loser then i i just don't know what a success

would look like because you know to me she's one of the most admirable people not just because of what she does this what she's done with books and children's literature. And this is entirely of a piece, Dan, with Hollywood, you know, entirely, whether it's trans, whether it's climate change, whether it's Palestine, whatever it is, they are always, you can set your watch by them, these people. They always come out with the same causes, you know, and they ignore other ones and um i think that um apparently he's got a sister who's trans or something or i don't know

yes and and look obviously sometimes there is that personal connection but i just what you just know for a fact if this was the other side of the argument there would be absolutely no way that you know if if there was a star in hollywood who was arguing some type of right wing or anti-woke point against their employer there was no way that they wouldn't be cancelled for it now i actually think jk rowling is very thick-skinned on the whole although certainly she has been very very upset about the criticism from the Potter stars because I guess the difference in their cases right is that they knew her like really well really really well because she was so involved in the movie production and they went for her at the peak time of woke insanity, Peter.

And we both know about this time because we were covering it, weren't we? 2020, you know, peak trans extremism, peak George Floyd madness, peak COVID madness. But it was like they wanted to put the boot in. They were not even prepared to say nothing because, do you remember around that time it was that whole era of silence is violence too so it was like they they felt like they had to say something well graham linehan the father ted creator discovered the other day that daniel radcliffe seems to have taken down his negative post about jkling, not from his own social media.

He doesn't have it, but from the site that was hosting it, but it's a bit like, that's not good enough, isn't it? Shouldn't they actually, if they have changed their mind, shouldn't they be apologizing to JK Rowling or have the balls to actually

admit we got this wrong? Well, I mean, you know, you can, you know, don't hold your breath for that. Of course they won't because they think that they're basically, you know,

currying favour with the right people. You know, they want to be in the groove. They want to be, you know, trendy or whatever it is, particularly with younger people. I think what they said was disgraceful. I mean, you know, really, I wouldn't want their apology if I were her. I mean, I wouldn't care two hoots about it, you know.

I just think she's been remarkable. She didn't need to do any of this stuff on the trans issue. She didn't need to stand up for women's rights. You know, everything that she's done is big enough as it is and yet she's she did it and really to be kind of criticized or mauled by these pygmies as you say i think i think she's actually got uh you know a pretty tough height um you know you must do to be as successful as she has but it's this predictability of it I mean it's a predict you know in particularly in Hollywood in Los Angeles when I lived there

myself and you know I think I do you know what I think I met one proud Republican during that time seriously and he was an agent so he sort of didn't even kind of counter no way but they also a lot of it is not sincere no they're going along with they do what they know they have to do don't they and if you want to survive and thrive in hollywood you have to feel this way whether you believe it or not it's so funny by the, you know, you made that point about JK Rowling failing. Well, she's made exactly the same point earlier today. One of these trolls wrote to her, you have failed. And JK Rowling retweeted and said, if this is failing, I can't wait for rock bottom, which is a very good point.

But we get into all of these moral conundrums these days about what is offensive or not. And you know, Peter, I'm usually on the side of let's not be offended. Let's have a laugh. Let's have a joke. But what's interesting is sometimes when people on the right of politics get offended. And the most recent example of this involves the UK's Conservative Party leader, Kemi Badenoch, and an MP called called michael fabricant now michael fabricant look i know the guy he's very very kind guy but how would you describe him peter i mean he's

flamboyant isn't he he wears a wig but he says he's not wearing a wig and you know he hid his sexuality for a long time but he's quite recently been on celebrityity Big Brother over here and said that he's bisexual and not gay. And so Kemi Badenoch, in a local BBC radio interview, was asked about why Michael Fabricant was supporting Robert Jenrick over her. And he has ended up very offended, or maybe not very offended, slightly offended by her response. So I'll take you through this, Peter. This is firstly what Kemi Badenoch said. Right. Leader Kemi Badenoch says she's not surprised that former Tory MP

Sir Michael Fabricant doesn't support her. Well, speaking to BBC Radio West Midlands, the two former colleagues were discussing Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick's potential leadership ambitions. I'm not in love with Kemi. I feel that others are doing all the heavy lifting, in particular Rob Jenrick, who's a friend of mine.

I would say that I'm building a great team. Rob is doing his job. He's working hard hard i'm not the shadow justice secretary but of course michael is is friends with him and uh you know i'm not surprised that he's not in love with me he is a gay man and um and i'm a woman so i think that it's always nice to get everyone's feedback but at the end of the day that was a bit low come on no no no but that's but it's you asked the question, you know, I like Michael Fabricant a lot. He's on the right of the party.

Peter, look, firstly, as a gay man, I'm not at all offended. That's the first thing I say. Not even slightly offended, right? Yeah, yeah. But what, I just can't work out is what is she getting at? Like, does she mean that like michael fabricant has some sort of crush on on robert jenner yes absolutely yes she took it rather literally i mean i think um because he said i'm not in love with kemmy yeah it's sort of it's quite ridiculous

but how anyone could be offended by it well i'd say he's moderately offended. But anyway, it got him a spot on GB News because they wanted to hear his response. And this was his response. Accusation there. Yes. Well, first of all, anybody who really knows me knows I'm not gay. I'm bi, which is very different, though I do love camping it up at times. So perhaps that's why she got under that impression. But I thought, what a very odd thing to say on a radio interview

when you're trying to get people to vote Conservative in the local elections. Not a clever one, I think. Well, you clearly meant that she's not your first choice of leader or you're lukewarm towards her leadership, whereas she took it to mean a romantic intention, whether or not you love her. Well, I think that's what must have happened. I mean, you weren't able to play the whole clip, but it was pretty clear I was talking about other things generally. And I was asked whether, you know, I'm a big supporter and being an honest sort of guy, I thought I'm not going to say,

yeah, I'm a big supporter because, you know, one of the things, Miriam, that you know is a fantastic thing is when you're no longer an MP, you can be a bit more honest about things. And I just said, you know, that others are doing the heavy lifting, Rob Jenrick, Mel Stride, and really she needs to get her act together. I was trying to be helpful. But yet, but yet you said I'm not in love with her. And do you think she really took it as a as a romantic proclamation or was she just having a bit of a joke? Well, I don't know quite what goes on in her head, to be honest with you. I just think the viewers or other, I should say,' reaction on Radio WM was unusually universally on my side. They thought that it was a very bizarre thing for her to say.

I think she sort of single-handedly managed to alienate bisexuals, heterosexuals and the homosexual community, of which is quite large, I might add. I mean, I can't get worked up, but I thought it was very funny. I thought it was very funny. It's kind of funny. I think looking at it now, I think what I said before is kind of right, that she's not known for her sense of humour.

Do you know what I mean? I think she might just have been rather literal in the way she was sort of taken. It was a very gauche response to something that she should have been i mean if you could imagine whatever you think of him boris johnson probably would have been quite funny about that in in some way but she's just she's rather heavy she is she is but i think what's really important isn't it is that we can't encourage sort of politicians to be anti-woke.

And then the moment that she throws in a little line about a gay man, everyone is horrified. Do you know what I mean? I just sort of think, yeah. She didn't even say anything bad. She didn't even say anything bad. I mean, she just said, it was just rather kind of, you know, as I say, a bit literal and not in the right spirit.

Yes, exactly. But look, we're both not offended. So if we're not offended, Peter, who gives a damn? Now, look, I really recommend everyone subscribe to the New Culture Forum. This is a look at their brilliant YouTube channel at New Culture Forum. The most amazing mix of content brilliant interviews you do such

incredible work peter got an amazing team of course people we really love philip and rafe and emma and connor and harrison a whole load of them and uh keep up the brilliant work and i love having you guys thank you so much. Sorry, we lost him at the end, but I think he was saying he had a lovely time and we had a lovely time with him. Now, Friday. So let me say thank you so much to Sandy Muggler

and Nicola Payne who have joined Outspoken Plus. And of course, we're about to reveal the worst Britain in the world this week. This is when we take your Union Jackass winners from Monday to Thursday, put them head to head in a mega YouTube poll. And it really has been mega this week, already 40,000 votes, which is just incredible. The nominees from Monday, India Willoughby. From Tuesday, Keir Starmer. From Thursday, James O'Brien.

And from Friday, Ed Miliband. Your comments are very funny. Jazz Decorating Ah wrote, must be Starmer for Twisting St. George's Day. Who advised him to make it a Southport far right lying fest about reclaiming the flag? And obviously you would have heard me earlier in the week be really angry about that. Simon Davies wrote, James, I pretend to not see what is happening right in front of my eyes every day to fit my narrative. O'Brien. Anthony Moore, 3498, wrote, Starmer is the worst politician in the Labour Party since Tony Blair with Iraq. How the Labour MPs and voters tolerate him is unbelievable. The decline in the standard of politicians is appalling. How can it be improved? improved. I have no idea. So really great, really great contributions all week. Thank you so much.

But now the results are in. In fourth place with 4% of the vote, India Willoughby, joint runner-up with 11% of the vote, James O'Brien and Ed Miliband. But look at that. God, it wasn't even close. This is why I'm sorry, guys. We just can't put them up every week because it's just overwhelming. 73% of you say Kea Starmer, Slippery Starmer, is the worst Britain in the world this week. Thank you so much for your company all week long here on Outspoken. Remember, next Friday we'll have our big election results edition of the show. But do stand by because I'm teaming up with Angela Levin next in the uncancelled after show www.outspoken.live. There's a huge escalation in this war between Piers Morgan and Meghan Markle. We're going to be revealing it all plus the rest of the week's royal drama.

And there has been a lot of drama. So please sign up www.outspoken.live. Have an amazing weekend. I'm back Monday, 5 p.m. time midday eastern 9 a.m pacific hit subscribe if you're watching on youtube or rumble and most importantly i promise to keep fighting