Dan Wootton Outspoken - KATIE HOPKINS REVEALS SHOCK TRUTH OF STARMER'S PRISONER RELEASE AS CHARLIE KIRK SLAMS UK

Episode Date: May 22, 2025

MANSCAPED - Grab The Chairman™ Pro for 15% OFF with code OUTSPOKEN at https://Manscaped.com The UK imported a city the size of Bristol into the country in just 12 months, not including the illegal terrorists and rapists arriving illegally via the Channel invasion, as violent prisoners are set to be released while Lucy Connolly remains locked up. Charlie Kirk is worried about the destruction of our once great United Kingdom, as Katie Hopkins reveals the truth about this prisoner release scheme. So can the UK be saved? Dan will examine next in the Digest and then is joined by The Hamilton's – media personality Christine, and former Tory Minister and UKIP leader Neil Hamilton. PLUS: Labour’s civil war explodes with Angela Rayner launching her leadership bid to unseat Keir Starmer as Prime Minister. AND: Adil Ray axed from Good Morning Britain as the Loose Women launch a mega tirade as ITV’s brutal daytime bloodbath continues. I’ll have the latest. THEN IN THE UNCANCELLED AFTERSHOW: A breakthrough moment as the Daily Mail decides to cover Meghan Markle’s moonbump for the first time. We’ll analyse with royal YouTube sensation According2Taz. Sign up to watch at www.outspoken.live. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It won't take long to tell you Neutral's ingredients. Vodka, soda, natural flavors. So, what should we talk about? No sugar added? Neutral. Refreshingly simple. No sugar added. Neutral. Refreshingly simple. What's better than a well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue? A well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue that was carefully selected by an Instacart shopper and delivered to your door.

A well-marbled ribeye you ordered without even leaving the kiddie pool. Whatever groceries your summer calls for, Instacart has you covered. Download the Instacart app and enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart. Groceries that over-deliver. No spin, no bias, no censorship. I'm Dan Witt and this is Outspoken Live, episode number 232. And breaking right now, the UK imported a city the size of Bristol into the country in the past 12 months, not including, by the way, the illegal terrorists and rapists arriving

illegally via the Channel invasion. That, as the government announces violent prisoners are set to be set free on the streets while Lucy Connolly remains locked up. So no wonder Charlie Kirk is worried about the destruction of our once great United Kingdom. Societies tend to decay against the roots that created them. For example, as a side note, here in this country, you guys invented the idea of free speech. For example, as a side note, here in this country, you guys invented the idea of free speech. You brought it to the world. You guys do not have free speech in this country anymore.

30 people a day are arrested in the UK for inflammatory social media posts. He's right. We don't have free speech in the United Kingdom anymore. And Katie Hopkins knows the truth about the reason behind this prisoner release scheme. It is no coincidence that prisoners are being released early in order to create spaces. Because there is only so long that you can keep doing this to people before that they see the system that is being used to control them is all a lie. So I'm going to be examining this very shocking decision to release violent criminals so that people like Lucy Connolly can stay behind bars in my digest next. Then two of my all-time favourites are here and I

haven't seen them for a while, so I'm very excited. It's the Hamiltons. Media personality, Christine, and former Tory minister and UKIP leader, Neil. They are, of course, a husband and wife dream duo. Also coming up on the show today, Labour's civil war explodes with Angela Rayner launching her leadership bid to unseat Keir Starmer as Prime Minister and BFI folks, because I'm going to tell you why I'm convinced she will end up in number 10. The shameless BBC has defended its biased Prince Harry Talol interview despite doing no basic journalistic due diligence. And Adil Ray axed from Good Morning Britain as the Loose Women launch a mega tirade. Yes, ITV's brutal daytime bloodbath continues and I will have all

of the latest. Then in the uncancelled after show on Substack, a breakthrough moment actually, if you've been following this story with us, the daily mail decides to cover megan markle's moon bump for the first time we're going to analyze that with royal youtube sensation according to tads and you can sign up to watch on substack at www.outspoken.live of course get voting too because at the end of the show i'm going to reveal today's Greatest Britain and Union jackass. If you're watching live, you can take part in our vote for UJ in the YouTube live chat. Here are your nominees. Shabna Mahmood, nominated by It's Only Me 44 for her BS piloting chemical castration in prisons for sex offenders. Liam Ohana from NECAP, nominated

by the Grift Report for being charged on terror offences for jumping around with a Hezbollah flag. He's also the guy, by the way, or at least the band who called on Tory MPs to be shot dead. And Sadiq Khan, nominated by Brit First for saying London is now a sanctuary city. Well, we have been for some time, but yes, I saw that interview. It was horrifying stuff. So get your votes in, get your comments, and I'll read out the best at the end of the show. But now, let's go. So can you believe it? Our political class and deep state are actually patting themselves on the back today for reducing net migration into the UK to 431,000 a year. Who the hell are they kidding? That is a size, a city, sorry, the size of Bristol being exported here, mainly from the third world,

in one year, while our prisons are so overcrowded that Sipri Stammer's socialist government is about to let thousands of violent offenders loose on the streets. And by the way, none of those numbers, none of those numbers take into account the terrorists, the rapists, the drug dealers, the murderers invading our country every single day via our unprotected channel southern border. There were 800 yesterday alone. That's just on boats, by the way. And we don't know the numbers arriving in lorries.

There's a lot, including Iranian terrorists. So this has been a national emergency for years. It is unforgivable, unforgivable. So forgive me if I'm doing anything other than popping the champagne today, about 948,000 people being allowed to come to our crippled country in just a year. I mean, we're not even building enough homes at the moment to house those we already have here, for God's sake. And trust me, and I actually thank God for this, trust me, the world is waking up to the imminent destruction of our once great United Kingdom because of our open borders policy, with Charlie Kirk posting on X after his visit here, if you want to renew your love of America, spend three days in the UK. You will kiss the

ground when you get back home. That was a point he hammered home at Cambridge University. I agree that stable monogamous relationships often produce the best outcomes for society, but if that structure really works for everyone, why do we consistently see societies, once they become safer and more prosperous, move away from traditional monogamy? Okay, so the first one, the second law of thermodynamics answers your question, is that it's the law of decay. Societies tend to decay against the roots that created them. For example, as a side note, here in this country, you guys invented the idea of free speech. You brought it to the world. You guys do not have free speech in this country anymore. 30 people a day are arrested in the UK for inflammatory social media posts. It is normal,

unfortunately, for civilizations to get away from how they once operated and how they once were. Prosperity leads to degeneracy, for sure. And so once you are prosperous, you tend to no longer have the moral guardrails or the limitations that the, let's just say, you no longer have delayed gratification because you have instant gratification because you have a surplus of goods, and then you have a decline of a transcendent moral order. Now, Katie Hopkins responded to Charlie Kirk by writing, My dear Charlie, us Brits love the very bones of this country. We feel our people in the stones and the soil. But you are right. We are dying. We feel the pain of it with every breath we try to steal back from the butchers in power. And I think she is right that so much of our culture is being dismantled. I mean, look at this video showing the election of Rotherham's new mayor, which I think illustrates the point somewhat. Yep, that's the UK, that's Rotherham, that's Rotherham's new mayor.

And as Chris Rose pointed out, it was actually what Rukhshana Ismail said that was more disturbing. She said after her election, I am representing my Pakistani nation and Pakistani Muslim women. And Chris asked the question, shouldn't she be representing everyone in Rotherham? Then you get to Labour's official decision to set violent criminals free today, while Lucy Connolly remains incarcerated for a tweet. Look at that. Child rapist, not a day in prison, Lucy Connolly, 31 months. And the Justice Secretary, Shabnam Mahmood, was unconvincing in Parliament. Criminals, they will say. Well, we're ahead of where they were

and today we have accepted major reform to go further and faster. When it comes to stopping re-offending, tags are about as useful as smoke alarms are at putting out bonfires. What is the Justice Secretary going to say when she

meets the victims of offenders that she let off? How is she going to look them in the eye and say with a straight face, I'm sorry? We're looking into how this criminal escaped from their digital prison cell. Mr Speaker, her reforms are a recipe for carnage. Good response from Robert Jenrick there. However, it's actually Katie Hopkins who has today exposed the real reason behind this prisoner release plot. And Lucy Connolly and the other political prisoners in this country, well, they are at the heart of it. She has described this as the terrorist's playbook watch.

I don't care what your opinion was about the tweet. I don't care for the people who say it's a terrible tweet, but I have no time for that. It was a tweet on Twitter, which is a cacophony of noise at the best of times, and she deleted it. There is absolutely no reason for her to be in prison under any rational argument. What you saw after the Court of Appeal was instead of Lucy being released on that day, which would have been absolutely appropriate, the Lord Justice had to go away and have a little think about what he was going to do. And that is a clear indication that he's not deciding on the basis of facts placed in front of him or on the basis of law. He's being told what will be best for the British government. Okay, and then you think about why. Why is the government wanting to keep normal people locked up for expressing views they're not comfortable with?

Well, Katie reveals that is behind today's widespread release scheme. And the thing that I think is being missed when people just shout two-tier care, which has become it's become a sort of throwaway phrase or queer here or whatever, is Lucy Connolly is not a prisoner. Lucy Connolly is a hostage. She is a hostage being held by the British state. Lucy Connolly is a hostage of the British government. And there is a specific reason that I say this. Lucy Connolly is being used as the whipping boy. She has been put in the stocks in the public square for all to see. And when she's crying in court, appealing because of the horror, the daughter might not make it. Still, the government says to its hostage, you're going back to jail. And it isn't about Lucy. It certainly isn't about a tweet. It's a message to the British people. You stay in your place. You keep your heads down. You stay compliant. You don't ask questions. You

go to work. You pay your taxes. You pay your bills that rise every day. You pay for this. You pay for that. You don't have democracy, but you keep your head down. You nod along and you keep quiet. Otherwise, we will do this to you. And it is no coincidence that prison places are being cleared. It is no coincidence that another makeshift, another thousand places, makeshift temporary prison spaces are being created in readiness. And it is no coincidence that prisoners are being released early in order to create spaces. Because there is only so long that you can keep doing this to people before that they see the system that is being used to control them is all a lie. Now, to respond, the Hamiltons are here on today's Superstar Panel.

Hello, you two. I don't know where to begin. So, Neil Hamilton, let me ask you first. Charlie Kirk is right, isn't he, when he says we have no free speech in the United Kingdom, when he describes us as a totalitarian country. Those were his words in an interview before that debate at Cambridge University. Because how can anyone deny that when we see Lucy Connolly in prison for 31 months for a tweet, and then a child rapist on the streets without spending a day behind bars. And after this decision today from Shabnam Mahmood, a whole load more violent criminals joining him.

Well, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the whole of the British establishment has gone completely mad. But what we're seeing here is actually an agenda being imposed upon us all to destroy most of the things which made Britain great as a country and makes us a country still to have been proud of. But who could be proud of Britain in the shambles that it's in today? At one time, of course, and it was judges in the 18th century largely

who produced this free speech, which we once took for granted, when the government tried to silence and muzzle people and arrest them for saying things that they didn't like, our judges were strong enough in the fundamentals of justice in those days to prevent that from taking root. And today, because of so-called hate speech in the equalities legislation, which the Tories did nothing

to reverse or to amend in their 14 years of office, and many other restrictions on freedom which have been developed over the last few decades. You're absolutely right, free speech is very seriously curtailed. And clearly, it's an absurdity that violent criminals who've done horrible things like gang, be participants in gang rapes, are let out of prison, whilst one relatively harmless individual who in a hot headed moment, put something which offended a lot of people on Twitter which is full of offensive remarks all the time from millions of people she is actually banged up in prison for two and a half years or more how much of her sentence she will actually serve at the end of the day and that is a preposterous sense of priorities and

it's amazing that British governments of all persuasions, because the last government was a Conservative Liberal coalition, and now we've got a Labour government, they've all actually been of this mindset. We have a uniparty in this country, which now is being threatened by Reform UK, of course. But nevertheless, we have had for 30 years or so, a uni party that's one party is indistinguishable from the other in what they do in office. You know, that's why the Conservative Party is in the parlous state that it's in today. And the Labour Party looks as though it's going the same way. Fortunately, this establishment consensus is breaking down and being broken down, because the British public is now

rising in revolt against this and so it should you know free speech one time was guaranteed for anybody who was peaceable and if the reasonable man could infer from your words that you were provoking violence then that speech could be restricted but But nobody in his right mind, I think, reading the tweet of Lucy Connolly, which was only up there for 15 minutes anyway before she deleted it, could possibly be regarded as a serious attempt to provoke rioting or violent disorder. There's so much misreporting about it because people are trying to suggest that she posted that once there was disorder underway i mean i call them the so-called riots because i think they were infiltrated by

the left and antifa and all of that but but let's put that to one side her post actually was up days and days before there was any type of violence on the streets and actually she posted numerous other tweets once there was disorder on the streets. And actually, she posted numerous other tweets once there was disorder on the streets saying that the violence was wrong. So there's so much mischaracterization of what she said. Now, Christine, can I ask you about Katie Hopkins' claim today that she thinks this prisoner release scheme, which Labour is undergoing, is all part of a plot, effectively, to keep more prison spaces available, presumably if there are more riots, for example, this summer. Well, as so often, Katie Hopkins is right. She really is.

A lot of people think she goes over the top, but she hits the nail on the head. And in particular, she did when she said that Lucy Connolly was a hostage. And of course, she's a prisoner in the general sense of the word, but she is also a hostage. And she is there in the way that Admiral Bing was shot, you know, pour encourager les autres, just to make sure, as she said, or you said, both of you said maybe, that the rest of us stay in line and we don't voice our opinions on Twitter just in case they might disagree with the government. So no, I think I've actually forgotten exactly what your question was, but Katie is right. And yes, we are. It's about

emptying the prisons. Yes, of course. They're not interested in having people in prison who have done serious offences. I mean, if somebody's done five years for some horrendous act, then let them out so they can put some poor Lucy Connolly in there. No, I think she is right. And of course, there's a problem in the prisons. And I blame the Tory government. I blame governments going back for decades. There should have been a really big prison building programme, which there hasn't been. So we end up in this mess. And it also goes back to your earlier remarks about immigration. What, I don't know the answer to this, but the nationality of the persistent offenders in prison is not British. They are not British. Most of these people are prisoners. People aren't prepared to say this, of course, because people aren't prepared to say this, but our prisons are now controlled by muslim gangs i mean that was behind the slashing of the throat of the prison officer

hmp woodhill just last week where tommy robinson is obviously housed and neil hamilton i mean we see these net migration figures today which the tories are patting themselves on the back about, the Labour Party are patting themselves on the back about. I'm sorry, we let 940,000 people in legally. That doesn't take into account the people that are arriving illegally in the invasion of the channel. And I'm really interested to know what you think about this debate, which has been sparked by Stephen Edgerton online about whether Enoch Powell has actually won the argument here, because Carl Benjamin posted saying, yes, he won back in the 60s. It just took them this amount of time to realize. And Paul Joseph Watson added, they're still mad about a line from a speech given 57 years ago shows you how powerful it was and i mean can you

see that we are at all as a country able to import a city the size of bristol every single year let alone all of the cultural issues that are coming from waving goodbye so many English people and importing so much of the third world. Yeah. I knew Enoch Powell. Enoch Powell was a friend of mine. And when he made his now famous Rivers of Blood speech, it's called, that's actually part of a Latin quotation that he gave when he made the speech.

When he made that speech in 1968, the average net inflow of migrants to this country was 50,000, 50,000, one-tenth of the figure that the government is now patting itself on the back about. And the idea that we could, within half a century or so, see nearly a million people added to our population every year through migration under a Conservative government.

Let's remember, that's what happened under Conservative government as a result of Boris Johnson relaxing controls on visas. That's what happened. But those figures actually don't tell you the whole story. What about the illegal overstayers, the people who are given visas but then stay after those visas? And we're told it's 1.3 million illegals in this country. There's no way. It's definitely 2 million plus.

But Neil, sorry, I didn't know you were friends with Enoch Powell. That's fascinating to me. Can I just ask you, did he in the 90s, because I was reading up on this the other week, did he feel a sense of vindication? And do you know anything about why he didn't endorse Nigel Farage? Because I'm aware that Nigel Farage asked him for an endorsement and they had communication, but he didn't provide it. Well, Enoch died in 1998 and Nigel wasn't the

leader of UKIP in those days. UKIP wasn't founded until 1993 or 1994. And it was very much a fringe party in the early, mid-1990s. The Referendum Party, founded by Jimmy Goldsmith, was the main standard bearer for getting out of the EU in the 1997 election. I was one of the few Conservative candidates in that election who weren't opposed by the Referendum Party because I was regarded as completely sound on the issue because I joined the Anti-Comm on the issue, because I joined the Anti-Common Market League way back in 1967. So, but going back to immigration, of course,

Enoch regarded himself as having been proved right even 30 years ago. I think even he could not have contemplated the kind of figures that we've seen in the last few years as taking place, certainly under a Conservative government, or even a Labour government for that matter. And the idea that we should now be congratulating ourselves, as you rightly say, for importing a city the size of Bristol, even on the official figures, which will undoubtedly understate the true figure, is just preposterous. We would be five years ago, if we'd said that we were going to have 400,000 people coming to this country in this year. We would have been absolutely horrified by that figure.

Even then, you know, we were importing 250,000, 300,000 a year. And things have got steadily worse and worse and worse. blood speech, despite the way it is still to this day portrayed in the mainstream media, the British public were two-thirds in favour of Enoch Powell and what he said. Now, that's despite the fact that the mainstream media was pushing this message down Brits' throats saying, oh, this is the most racist, terrible human being. And we've all been ignored for six decades now, Christine, effectively.

Absolutely. And if you go back to for six decades now, Christine, effectively. Absolutely. And if you go back to when Powell was making that speech, there's a funny noise, is that? No, I can hear you loud and clear. You can hear me? Yes. Okay, I've stopped. If you go back to the time when he was making his speech,

the great British public, they had no alternative but the official broadcasting corporation. There weren't all these. There was no Twitter. There was no social media. There was certainly no Dan Wood the official broadcasting corporation. There weren't all these. There was no Twitter. There was no social media. There was certainly no Dan Wooden outspoken. So they had to make their mind up when they were actually being fed a diet of absolutely anti-Bowl, and the figures are astonishing.

They realised what was happening then, and, my God, they realise now. I think a lot of people have a feeling of absolute helplessness. They simply don't know what to do because of this avalanche that is overtaking this country. And if you live, it's all very well if you live up in the middle of rural Wales or Scotland or wherever. But if you live in some of our big cities and you are a white British, you are a complete stranger. Your white British child could be the only one in the school that he or she attends.

And honestly, I have to say, I had not caught up with the mayor of Rotherham. I mean, that is horrific. Absolutely horrific and anti-democratic. This is what Enoch in particular predicted would happen and warned against all those years ago, the rise of what he called communalism, where people voted not for the national interest, as they saw it, for the United Kingdom, but they voted for their own compatriots, their own co-religionists, or others of their cultural background.

And what we are seeing now in the fragmentation in our great cities, where Labour is being defeated not by the Tories or Reform, but by people like the mayor of Rotherham and others like her, they're being defeated by those who are not promoting a British political cause. They're actually fighting the battles of Pakistan or Gaza or wherever. And so that kind of fragmentation leads to the destruction of a nation from the inside. There's a horrible disease called necrotizing fasciitis, whereby effectively the body eats itself. And we're seeing that in a cultural form in the United Kingdom at the moment. Horrifying thought.

Fascinating point. Yes, Christine. Just to quickly add, it isn't just the mayor of Rotherham. I don't know the exact figure, but there's a very large number of Labour MPs nowadays in the House of Commons whose first loyalty is not to this country. It's not to the British people. It is not to their constituents. It's to the country of their...

We saw it the other day, didn't we? With the airport. Or to their religion. With the court campaigning to build an airport in Pakistan. I mean, honestly, astonishing. It's on, folks. If you thought things in the United Kingdom were bad at the moment, can you imagine what an Angela Rayner premiership would look like? Well, I hate to tell you that I believe that is going to happen after the ginger-headed left-wing firebrand launched a not-so-subtle leadership campaign against Keir Starmer and Rachel from Account as open warfare breaks out in the cabinet. I'm going to take you through all of this and discuss how it will work in just a moment with our superstar panel, Neil and Christine Hamilton. But first, I think it is worth looking to this fascinating exchange

in PMQs yesterday, where Kemi Badenoch put the issue of Angela Rayner and her leadership ambitions front and centre of the political debate. Look at the numbers this morning. As if inflation figures weren't bad enough, we've also learned that the Deputy Prime Minister is on manoeuvres. He's lost control of the economy. He's lost control of his Cabinet. She's sitting there staring at me. She knew exactly what she was doing when she briefed that into the papers. She is demanding, Mr Speaker, eight new tax rises, as if we haven't suffered enough. People out there are struggling. Businesses are struggling. People are losing their jobs.

We cannot have more tax rises. Will the Prime Minister rule out new tax rises this year? Mr Speaker, she's not learned or changed. They lost the election because they're a appalling record on the NHS, on health, on prisons, you name it. Now, he did come to the issue of Angela Rayner and his answer was not convincing. Watch.

He wants to talk about the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister working with the Chancellor building 1.5 million new homes, reforming our planning system, putting £7 billion into our economy and bringing forward our employment rights bill as the single biggest upgrade to workers' rights in a generation. That's desperate stuff.

The whole House would have heard the Prime Minister refuse to rule out new tax rises. The whole House heard it. He didn't rule it out. This Cabinet is open warfare. The Deputy Prime Minister clearly calling the shots. What is it that we've learned? We're heading for new tax rises. We know inflation is up. It's just more and more bad news from a prime minister who has lost control. And Christine Hamilton, the Times newspaper, has reported today that even though Reina's allies categorically deny that she's behind this

leak of the memo where she demanded a whole load of tax rises, no one really believes that. Senior Labour backbenchers say that in private, Rainer is distancing herself from Dowling Street in response to a series of rows over welfare reform, winter fuel payments and departmental spending. She is on manoeuvres, Angela Rayner. There's no doubt about that, Christine Hamilton. And the thing is, she will win. She will win. As horrifying as that might be to the wider British public, amongst the Labour Party, she's the superstar at the moment. Starmer's not, Reeves certainly isn't, but neither, by the way, is where street him because he's far too centrist.

He's only got a 500 majority over an extreme Muslim. Exactly. He'll be taken out by a sectarian at the next election. Sorry, Christine. And the thing that people, maybe some people need reminding of, is that Angela Rayner has an incredibly powerful power base. She was elected the Deputy Prime Minister, which first of all means that Starmer can't get rid of her.

She wasn't appointed. She was elected by the members, by the Labour supporters. And she has the unions on her side. I mean, she's a very, very powerful lady. Of course she leaked that herself. Who has it damaged? It has damaged her opponents. Who has it puffed up?

It has puffed her up. So who has the incentive to leak that? Of course she did it. I think, I mean, I hope to goodness you're not right, but I fear you may be. It's going to happen. Honestly, I have been predicting this for months. I've been predicting it for months. Neil Hamilton, can we just flash forward for a second and imagine what an Angela Rayner premiership would look like? I mean, it's already bad enough, right? Our borders have already been swung open. Our economy is already in a catastrophic

state. But with the tax rises that Angela Rayner is proposing, aren't we looking at 1970s style destruction of our economic credibility? Well, the idea that you can continually increase taxes without damaging economic growth is plainly preposterous. You know, her workers' rights bill, which Starmer was lauding in that clip that you showed him in a minute ago, of course, is going to make life impossible for lots of small businesses who are only struggling to make ends meet at the moment. So more lawfare against employers is not the way to increase economic growth. And that's the trouble with the Labour Party they have no idea how the economy works they have no idea about enterprise there isn't a single member of the cabinet not one that has had experience of the private sector and has had a job in the private sector they're all

public sector drones of one kind or another all like Angela Rayner herself a trade union official you know she was a senior official in Unite, the Labour Party's biggest paymaster. Of course she was. But Neil, you know that personal politics are so important as well. I mean, you've learned that over the years. And can we just be frank about this?

Because a lot of folk might not know because the mainstream media has done a big cover-up with so much to do with Labour, right? But Angela Rayner and Keir Starmer despise each other. There is personal hatred between the two of them, so much so that Starmer actually tried to remove Angela Rayner altogether in a failed coup. So there's no love lost between these two.

She is on manoeuvres. She knows that he's a weak prime minister, despite the majority. And if she's got an opportunity to become the first Labour leader who is a female, I believe she's going to take it. And I think it will happen within the next two to three years. Yeah. Well, Starmer has all the personality of a speaking clock. And she, in comparison with that, does win hands down. You may not like her as a person. No, no, but she's a compelling individual.

She is a compelling individual. I mean, look, I can't stand her politics, but Christine, there's a humanity to her. She's got an interesting story. And given that the view from Labour is that the opposition now is Nigel Farage and Reform UK and the Red Wall, I'm telling you, there's no way they're going to the next election with Starmer as leader. And by the way, I think he's realised that, too.

He would not confirm to Christopher Hope on GB News just last week that he would still run for a second term. He knows the game is up. Yes, I think, frankly, I think most of them know the game is up, even Angela Rayner. This is their big chance. They've got four years. Thankfully, they've only got three and a bit left now, and they're just going all out.

This is what's happened ever since the war. Whenever the Labour got in, they twisted the ratchet towards socialism, and then when the Tories got in, they never rode back again. They just stopped the rot and went on from there. They never, ever, until Margaret Thatcher, they never wound back the socialist clock. And I just hope to goodness whoever gets in after this. I don't think Labour have a hope in hell of winning the next election. But Angela Rayner wants to have her go. She wants to, as you say, be the first Labour female prime minister. I mean, frankly, in a way, good for her.

She came from a very disadvantaged background and she's pulled herself up. Well, good for her, apart from the fact that she might bankrupt us. Now, Dan Hodges... No, I'm not saying... Not good for us. I said good for her. No, no, no. I know what you mean. Dan Hodges is very tapped in to the whole Labour Party on this.

So let me just take you through what he has written on this. He says, Angela Rayner is angling to be our next Prime Minister. The Labour Civil War is underway, and this is the truth about her extraordinary power play and why she's more than happy to throw Keir Starmer under the bus and he writes I couldn't was there you coming well he's absolutely right about that as I said they all know that the game will be up fairly soon and this is her possibly her one chance in her lifetime to have a shot at number 10 and she'll go for it hell for leather

and if she destroys the Labour Party in the meantime who cares yeah I mean well in her view Neil in some ways no worse is better because you need to bring on a crisis as happened with the Labour government in the 1970s with the winter of discontent in order to break the cycle of decline and I can't see any sign that the Conservative Party is going to have a revival of its fortunes because they are fundamentally full of their own conflicts you know half the Tory MPs would look at home in the Lib Dems and so they just can't say anything which is meaningful to the public about how they would change things, given that their record is so appallingly bad anyway on every count, even on taxes, for example. One thing for Kemi Badenoch to attack the Labour Party. She was a member of the cabinet when Jeremy Hunt was Chancellor of the Exchequer just before the last election, when he announced an increase in corporation tax from 18 to 25 percent, a massive seven percent, a third of current corporation tax rates. And the abolition of the non-dom status, which has now led to tens of thousands of millionaires fleeing this country,

along with the tax revenues which would otherwise have been paid to the exchequer. That was another brilliant conservative measure too. So all we're seeing is actually the uni party once again playing out the same agenda and whoever's the prime minister from either of those parties, we're not going to see that much change which makes a difference to ordinary people. So what we need is a complete breakdown

of the current party system. We need to have the kind of disruption which Trump has brought to politics in the United States and is now exporting around the world. Well, I couldn't agree with that more. But the big question is, and the big question on the right of politics at the moment, and I'm fascinated to hear from both of you on this. So, Christine, I'll start with you. Is Nigel Farage the man to lead that revolution that is required? Because I note that in just

the last 24 hours, there's been two reports suggesting that Reform UK is rolling back on other policy areas. First, their £80 billion worth of tax cuts. Secondly, proportional representation, apparently now not a guaranteed. So isn't Reform UK in lots of ways just currently turning into Tory light? Well, when you're a minority party and nobody really cares what you say, you can say what you like, like the Lib Dems for goodness knows how many decades. They could promise the earth whoever they were talking to. And it didn't matter because they were never going to be in government. They were never going to have to follow through. When they did in the coalition, we had the student loans fiasco. And reform are finding themselves now in that cycle. They are now, the spotlight is very heavily on them. It's

on them as people, as personalities. Hence, we've had the Rupert Lowe, Nigel Farage business, but it is also on their policies. And they're going to have to, and this is where I think Rupert Lowe is correct, he says they're going to have to work out some serious policies. It's no good just saying we're not the Tories, we're going to do this, we're going, they've got to come up with properly hosted policies. And that is going to be quite difficult. They are a maverick party, but they've... Perfectly legitimate means they've wormed their way into the political system, and no wonder they don't want proportional representation anymore, because they can live...

They can win without it. It's only the people who can't win without it who want it. When you're winning, you don't change the goalposts suddenly. But I can't see Nigel Farage as prime minister i'm afraid he he doesn't his personality is not right i mean he's brilliant he's a wonderful speaker he's a great rabble rouser etc etc and he's done an amazing job and he's possibly the most significant political figure along with margaret thatcher of you know recent decades But the idea of him actually as prime minister, he's too disorganised, he's too, just to me, doesn't wash.

So things, questions like that, the personality of the key people, personalities of the key people are going to become much more of a focus as we get closer to an election. Well, Neil, you've sort of been that Rupert Lowe figure, haven't you? There was a civil war within UKIP. And how would you describe it? Nigel threw you under the bus too? Yeah, well, Nigel's problem is that he has to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. Everything has to be about him. And I don't in any way take away from Nigel the colossal impact that he's had on British politics in the last

30 years. Nobody but he could have been as successful as he has been. And, you know, Reform UK is his creature. He created it, he owns it, or owned it formally, but I think he still owns it informally. And he's been a brilliant campaigner all his active political life. And he is the most significant individual who has stormed into Parliament in my lifetime from outside the system. So I do hope that reform is going to score a massive result in the next general election. And without Nigel, I can't see them doing that because he has the personality and the following in the country. He is chalk and cheese, of course, so-called Marmite figure. But whereas other political leaders have been so bland, almost invisible, he is the precise opposite. And so I think he is

indispensable to reform. And although I think that what Rupert Lowe was saying was absolutely common sense, and it was a great shame that Nigel reacted so strongly against Rupert and was determined to destroy him. But I've seen that happen numerous times in the course of the last quarter of a century that I have been involved with Nigel. So who knows? Winning elections is very different from governing. And if reform does well enough in the next election, it can form a government of the country. And presumably Nigel will be the leader of it and hence become prime minister. But it's difficult to see how reform can, at the moment at any rate, form a government on its own, because even though 29% in the polls, that's not enough to elect 50% of the members of parliament plus one.

So who knows what's going to happen happen i can't see other parties wanting to do a deal with him that's the problem and that's what we see uh in other parts of the world is the uni party ganging up against the disruptor uh but you know the i think that what is happening in this country is now we're on an inexorable path to the destruction of the party consensus that we've seen, at least since Thatcher was assassinated by her own party back in 1990. And so in spite of what Nigel did to me and the disputes we've had in the past, I'm not going to be unhelpful to reform because they're the best vehicle we've got to smash the system that has let us down so badly and is still letting us down so badly on multiple fronts. and issues like net zero, for example, where all the other parties are still wedded to this disastrous policy, which has given us the highest electricity prices in the world and has de-industrialized Britain

and has weaponized trade in the hands of autocracies like China, which now controls the production of the essentials of nuclear energy, of renewable energy. So on so many fronts, you know, the Tories have failed us and I don't see them reviving in the next three or four years. So people will have to make a choice. Do we want to revert to the kind of government that has brought us to this sorry state today? Or do we want to do something which breaks with that system and forges out in a different direction, the one which we know will reverse the tide of decline that we are now suffering? So I do think that reform does offer the best prospect at the minute for the revival of Britain. Breaking right now, the BBC, the Britishish bashing corporation as i call them has

done it again marking its own homework over this biased and completely captured and cut interview with prince harry the duke of sussex claiming that they did nothing wrong. So let me explain what happened here. A woman called Nada Torfik, a virtual unknown Californian interviewer and reporter for the BBC, was allowed to sit down with the Duke of Sussex for an interview where we were told no subjects were off limits. But instead of pushing back on his very obvious lies, his very obvious slurs, including, by the way, against the British royal family, who the BBC did not even go to for a right of reply, they simply allowed Harry to spread his propaganda and they broadcast it to the world. I'm going to get reaction from

Christine and Neil Hamilton in just one moment, but here's a couple of the low moments from that car crash BBC interview. Watch this. This all was initiated under a previous government. There is now a new government. I have had it described to me once people knew about the facts that this is a good old fashioned establishment stitch up and that's what it feels like. Of course some members of my family will never forgive me for writing a book. Of course family will never forgive me for writing a book. Of course they will never forgive me for lots of things. But, you know, there is... I would love reconciliation with my family.

I've always... There's no point in continuing to fight anymore. As I said, life is precious. Now, Nada Torfek and the BBC did not do their job at all. I mean, I can think of a million things where they should have pushed back, but instead Nada Torfek became the new Oprah Winfrey, just allowing Harry's victimhood narrative to go out to millions around the world, in fact, tens of millions around the world, without any type of journalistic response to the lies that he was spreading. A couple of examples.

Well, your father paid for your security to the tune of millions of dollars per year for a very long time. And you were warned very clearly that if you were to leave the royal family to set up your own commercial ventures, that security would not be provided by the British state. When it came to his family and trying to suggest that the issues in terms of the relationship being rebuilt are down to Charles and William, why did Nada Torfick at the BBC not say quite clearly to Harry, okay, this is your opportunity then. Are you rolling back in the claims to Oprah Winfrey that the royal family is racist? That King Charles and Catherine, the Princess of Wales, were racist about your unborn

baby? Let's just be clear here. But there was none of that. Nada Torfuk was like the British Oprah Winfrey, nodding along like a nodding dog, because she was so enamored with the fact that she was sitting down to this celebrity. She described him later, by the way, in an article for the BBC website as a celebrity. Well, it doesn't matter if he's a celebrity or not. He is making serious claims about the British royal family and about the British government. And it is your job to question him on the veracity of those rather than allow him to spread his propaganda. So anyway, as I'm sure you could imagine, there was a huge number of complaints about this.

And the BBC, in the summary summary of complaint which they have now released admitted we received complaints from people who feel we shouldn't have interviewed Prince Harry and that our approach to this interview and subsequent coverage was biased in his favour. Now, so I agree with two of the parts of the complaints. I absolutely think the BBC had a right to interview Prince Harry. I would interview Prince Harry if he agreed to it. However, the approach to the interview and the subsequent coverage was clearly biased. They didn't do their job as journalists. And it's quite appalling to me that we've now got a succession of BBC interviews with major royal figures, Princess Diana, Prince

Andrew, which are just absolutely proof and point that the BBC is not a proper journalistic organisation anymore. Now, the BBC has marked its own homework, as it does, and has decided that they did nothing wrong. So the BBC responded saying, our interview with the Duke of Sussex generated global interest and provided our audience with significant insights into Prince Harry's perspective on losing his latest legal challenge over his security arrangements and his relationship with the royal family. Nada Torfik's tone and approach was appropriate to the context of this interview,

which was conducted hours after this court ruling was announced. Nada gave the Prince time to express his views while scrutinising statements he made. I'm sorry, I've got to interrupt there. There was no scrutiny whatsoever. The BBC adds, Nader asked the Duke why the UK taxpayer should fund his security now he was no longer a working royal. Our coverage of this story included the response from Buckingham Palace and the position of the Home Office. Our royal correspondents offered comprehensive analysis of the implications of this interview, examining claims made by the Duke and reflecting that there are those who disputed some points made by the Prince. We also broadcast the remarks of Sir Geoffrey Voss, who was

responsible for delivering the Court of Appeal verdict of the three judges. We believe our interview with the Prince Harry was duly impartial and in the public interest, highlighting issues of importance to our audience. Well, Christine Hamilton, look, I know we shouldn't be surprised when it comes to the BBC marking its own homework. But do you not think the fundamental mistake that this very inexperienced journalist, Nada Torfik, made was treating Prince Harry as if he were a celebrity, and as a result, not providing any scrutiny on his answers. And if you look closely into this case, Christine, which I obviously have over numerous years, it just doesn't stack up what Prince Harry's trying to argue. And remember,

Christine, some of his claims were so serious that he's actually suggesting, and again, there was no pushback from the BBC on this, no pushback whatsoever. He's actually suggesting some type of conspiracy from the British government and his own family to knock him off. I mean, it was nuts. And he was just allowed to say it all. Well, personally, I've never heard of this interviewer, Nadia Tawfiq. No, she's a nomad. Heard of her.

So you really would think that, I mean, they did at least send Emily Mankis, who is a whatever you think of her. She has quite a history of broadcasting, to interview Prince Andrew. Why did they send a complete unknown, I mean, I have no idea what experience she's got, to interview somebody as important as Prince Harry? This was clearly going to be a very important interview. And you couldn't really, I mean, the palace was not going to respond to anything. So if you're going to interview Prince Harry, you know perfectly well that if he attacks his own family, they are not going to respond. They'll never explain, never complain. So in a way, it's a one-way street. But I don't know. I mean, that Oprah Winfrey

interview was just unbelievable. It was so stage managed. I mean, Oprah's mouth falling open when you said they were wondering about the colour of your baby of course they were any mixed marriage that is pregnant if that makes sense people of course they talk about the colour I mean of course they do and the royal family are no different they're just a normal family just like they say oh yeah and and was actually going to have ginger here do you know what I mean it's like exactly exactly it was no no different to that exactly i know so um and i was horrified i saw the bits i didn't sit down and watch the whole interview i'm not i'm not that obsessed by harry i suppose in a way he is a celebrity because that word now is so overused and he ought not to be he ought to be i mean david beckham is a celebrity um harry ought

not to be he ought to be a royal prince but he's not he's turned himself into a celebrity. Harry ought not to be. He ought to be a royal prince, but he's not. He's turned himself into a celebrity by marrying Meghan Markle. The bit in that interview that I really found horrifying was when he said something like, talking about his father, we don't know how long he's got. Of course we don't. We don't know how long any of us have got. We could all be dead tomorrow. But he was revealing private information, let's be honest, about King Charles's health battle and the king and his and his team who were prepared to talk about some type of reconciliation with Harry after the verdict came through.

Quite rightly, livid about that. Because that I don't know how long he's got. Carries with it all sorts of implications in innuendos, which may be correct, they may not be. But people are going to take away more from that remark, possibly even than he intended. But it was he ought to know better than to say things like that. He ought to know better than to have done the interview in the

first place. Honestly. But Neil Hamilton, the thing is right, in this case, I appreciate what Christine is saying. Harry in some ways is a celebrity the thing is right in this case i appreciate what christine is saying harry in some ways is a celebrity right but in this case this was a really significant issue right it was a issue of national significance involving claims of security uh government conspiracy he had to be scrutinized given the claims he was making and this is the bbc who are conducting this interview and there was no scrutiny and then they're just allowed to say oh yeah we did nothing wrong we did nothing wrong i mean it's a joke well harry would never

have given the interview in the first place if he was going to be subjected to any scrutiny. So I wonder what discussions his PRs had with the BBC in getting that interview to take place. My guess is that they hedged the whole thing around with all sorts of restrictions, which the interviewer followed. But they insist nothing was off limits. And this is why I'm so angry with the BBC, Neil Hamilton, because if genuinely you were in front of Prince Harry and nothing was off limits and that's what you ask, you have failed as a journalist and you've failed as a journalistic organisation. Of course, there are fundamental and obvious questions which you posed in this programme this afternoon, which Prince Harry should be asked in those circumstances, because his claims just don't add up on all sorts of levels. And he's put himself in the position he's now in. He is a celebrity, if all celebrity means is that you are well known, and he is known worldwide for what he is rather than who he is. And, you know, he hasn't got where he is today

by intelligence and hard work. That's for sure. He's now defined by his wife. I suppose I am too, in a way. But luckily, Neil, you made a good choice. You made a great choice. You made a choice of a woman who enhances you every day. And also I know, because I know quite a lot

about the dynamics of your relationship, enhances you every day. And also I know, because I know quite a lot about the dynamics of your relationship, wants you to succeed. And isn't that's what's so interesting about Meghan and Harry, Christine. It's so obvious that Meghan wants to control and isolate Harry, take him away from all of his family, almost destroy him really as a man. Well, she has to a certain extent, considerable extent, emasculated him.

Yes, that's the word. I honestly, I can't see this marriage lasting for that long. But can I just say one more thing about the BBC? Well, what really annoys me is that with any other broadcasting outfit, you can complain to Ofcom. You see a programme that you don't agree with, and if you don't agree with something on the BBC, who do you think you have to complain to? The BBC.

Talk about marking your own homework. You have to complain to them. And if you want to, you can then take it up with Ofcom. But they mark their own homework all the time, which is totally wrong. It's a joke. But, I mean, no, to be honest, I think Harry is a laughingstock. He has been totally emasculated. She's cut them off.

I don't just mean from the family. That's not what I'm talking about, to cut off something rather more personal. Well, she has. She obviously rules the room with a rod of iron. And those poor kids, they have, you know, look at the experiences they could have had. there's a picture of the sort of experiences and they're doing this type of weird thing i i mean neil seriously surely the time has come to say that it is wrong for two children who have never set foot in the united kingdom in a way that they would remember, right? Have little American accents.

Harry has made it quite clear in the BBC interview that they will never be allowed to come to the United Kingdom and meet the king. Isn't it wrong that they're in our line of succession? Isn't it time for that new law to be introduced? Well, I think it's highly unlikely that Harry will ever be king, because not only have we got Prince William, but we've also got his three children who take precedence over Prince Harry. And I hope that there might be more to come in order to avoid even the most remote possibility of Prince Harry becoming the monarch, because I think that would be the death knell for the royal family, quite frankly. But I'm afraid we have to take pity on Prince Harry becoming the monarch, because I think that would be the death knell for the royal family, quite frankly.

But I'm afraid we have to take pity on Prince Harry more than anything else, because he's clearly so unselfaware and so dim that he can't understand why he's in the state that he is in today. And it's kind of diminished responsibility, really. And I think what he's doing to his own children is a form of child abuse, just in the same way as I think his wife is actually abusing

him, because I think she's behind all the travails which he's now endearing. And so I think, in many ways, we have to feel sorry for him. I mean, I think he's been extraordinarily damaging to the royal family as an institution in Britain. And mind you, he's not the only one. Yeah, I'm sorry. I just can't feel sorry for someone who threw his own family under the bus like that, Christy. And also, let alone the stress he put the late Queen Elizabeth II through.

But it's interesting, isn't it? Because those children, Christine, I think Neil's right. You know, they may well, in say 10 years' time, even 20 years' time, look back and think, oh, my God, we had this opportunity to be part of history and to embrace our heritage. Like, I was born in New Zealand. I'm a dual citizen, but my parents are English. My grandparents are English.

And I always felt English. I had such a strong connection to this country. And it's something we've discussed a lot, isn't it, over the past few months. It's not about where you're born. That isn't what makes you English. So these two children are English that's assuming if they are actually born to Meghan and Harry and that's a whole other conversation but these two children

are English and they are being denied that the right to their heritage which I think Neil is right to say is a form of abuse of them is it not Christine uh yes absolutely I mean I'm afraid I don't feel sorry for Harry I mean he, he's a complete idiot, frankly, and he's allowed himself to be put in the situation. I wonder how much those kids, and by the way, calling the girl Lilibet, I think it's just a... Which the Queen never wanted. Of course she did, and she was never asked,

and she would never have said yes, but we'll explode if we go into that one. They've never seen their grandfather on the other side either. Thomas, is it Thomas Markle? I wonder how much they know about their ancestry. I wonder if they even know that their grandfather is the King of England. I mean, they may not. And not only are they missing out on the older generation, they're missing out on all the cousins and the siblings. And you showed a photograph just now of Princess Anne now good heavens if you could have princess anne as i think she'd be a great aunt wow you'd be one of the luckiest kids on this earth and they are denied

that just to take and the problem is it's going to be too late once they have the wherewithal to make their own decisions absolutely Absolutely fascinating. Okay. Christy, Neil Hamilton, do stand by because, goodness me, it's all kicked off this week at ITV. Huge developments in this civil war, including one Good Morning Britain presenter already being axed. So we're going to reveal it all in just one minute. But first, Father's Day is just around the corner. And let's be honest, dad does not need another coffee mug

or a pair of socks. It's time to give him something he will actually use. So meet the Chairman Pro from Manscaped, the perfect Father's Day gift for the dad who deserves to look and feel his best. This isn't just any razor. The Chairman Pro is a high-tech dad-approved grooming upgrade. It's an electric face shaver that can tackle up to five days of growth and features two interchangeable blade heads. So whether he's cleaning up for golf dinner or just another accidental nap on the recliner, make sure he does it with style. The Chairman Pro is perfect for the dad who taught you how to shave and now needs a reminder of how it's really done. So have him join the over 12 million men worldwide who trust Manscaped. Use the code outspoken for 15% off your entire order

at manscaped.com. I use Manscaped every day. This is honestly the best gift for Father's Day. The two interchangeable skin safe blade heads are so handy, by the way, because there's the four-blade foil for a super close shave or the SkinSafe stubble trimmer if you want the sophisticated five o'clock shadow look, which is what I go for. And there's a 360 degree contouring head and blade, which flex and adjust to the contours of the face and neck. It is waterproof. It has mega battery power, 75 minutes of runtime on a single charge, plus a two-year warranty on all power devices, giving you peace of mind with every use. So get your dad a Father's Day gift. It's coming up. It's coming up. I'm sure you're freaking out about this right now. So just get a Manscaped and he will be delighted, let me tell you.

Manscaped.com is the address where you need to head online. If you use the code OUTSPOKEN, you will get 15% off your entire order. So www.manscaped.com or just click on the link in the description box below. But now, back to the show. Breaking right now, the ITV daytime bloodbath, which has already seen Lorraine Kelly and loose women in some type of civil war with This Morning, has just claimed another scalp. So I'm going to be going into all of the details of what's going on. But the brand new information is that hard left dude, who I think should not be on television anyway, just because he's so awful. Adil Ray is axed.

Good morning, Britain presenter facing the ax from The Breakfast Show, no denial from ITV. And of course, as the Daily Mail reports, the 51-year-old's host time on the show has been marred in controversy, including accusations of being woke and fat-shaming darts champion Luke Littler. The Mail reports ITV did not deny that Adal Ray was in trouble amid a huge cost-saving exercise at the channel. So look, there's a lot to pick up here. And Christine Hamilton, I know your heritage with ITV goes back a long way. Of course, you were on the inaugural I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here. So Neil Hamilton, let me kick off with you. I mean, this is in so many ways, I think, the end of the mainstream media.

If ITV can't afford proper daytime programming, then what's left? I do also think, Neil, though, there's a real issue with the whole go woke, go broke thing. ITV used to be the channel for the working classes. And in recent years, it's become the channel of the chattering classes. Like, Adil Ray is so left wing. He's such a member of the chattering classes. Like, Adil Ray is so left-wing. He's such a member of the elite class, and I never thought he was right for that show. So, actually, I think it's a very good thing if he goes.

Do you? Well, I have to say, I had never heard of him, so I'm not the best qualified to talk about this. You're lucky for that. But if he's as described by you, I can well understand. But all the mainstream media channels, apart from the BBC, of course,

because we're all hostages to the BBC having to fund it through the license fee. But all the other mainstream channels are suffering death by a thousand cuts and this is an inexorable process I think which is going to come to an inevitable conclusion they will not be able to fund worthwhile program making through the advertising model that they've got now they're not nimble enough to do what you're doing for example on this Substack and many, many others are doing, the alternative media outlets are now so diverse and actually so much better in their formats than what you see in the

stale and repetitive formats of the mainstream channels that I see traditional television as well on the way to being out of the window. It's dead. This is the start of the death of the MSM. I mean, Christine, though, I wonder if you have mixed emotions about this because, of course, so much of your career, ITV's been a big part of it. Yes, I mean, I don't call it a career. I've just sort of bumbled from one thing to another. Oh, shush, you're amazing. You're a star.

It's true. It's not a career. But, yeah, I mean, it is true. I was on the first time a celebrity get me out of here. So I suppose I owe ITV quite a lot because that was quite a good sort of launchpad after my political days.

We've got some lovely memories, Christine. Oh dear, yes, I nearly wore that shirt, funnily enough, just now. No, I mean, I have done a lot with them over the years. I think, I mean, in a funny way, the BBC gets criticised for paying Gary Lineker too much and allowing him to get away with stuff off the BBC, etc. And he's now finally gone, thank goodness.

And we object to that because it's the BBC and we pay for it. ITV raises their own money, so in a way they can do what they like. But they've possibly allowed some of their presenters to get a little bit too self-important, maybe, you know, bigger than the show. I was once asked to do a trial in the early days to be one of the loose women, for goodness sake. And I thought that might be quite fun, although I don't actually enjoy discussing a lot of the things that they discuss anyway after two or three days of being trialed as a loose woman I was taken on one side by the producer

and you'll love this and he said Christian I'm sorry but this isn't going to work because you are perceived as being too posh for loose women what I know he did say perceived of course I'm not I'm not remotely posh um but I am apparently by some people perceived. So I probably had a lucky escape. But for example, they shouldn't be employing Ed Balls to interview his own wife. Well, I said today, I said today on X, Adel Ray first, Ed Balls has to be the next to go. Absolutely insane that you have a longtime Labour member who's in bed with the home secretary and then being allowed to interview him the next day because you just know if any i mean look at the off communists and what they're trying to do with gb news but look i've got to talk to you

christine about what's going on with the loose women because they are furious about this i'll go into this reporting but just in case people have missed it, effectively, their show has now been slashed for half the year, despite the fact it's just been nominated for a BAFTA and is considered more successful than this morning. So this is The Sun's reporting, which has said all hell breaks loose. And let me take you through it. ITV's daytime division is on the brink of civil war after this week's brutal cost-cutting announcement hammered loose women while leaving this morning sitting pretty. We can reveal the loose women lineup had been left in the dark about the cuts to their lunchtime talk show, which will take effect from January. Their anger is also with Kat Deely and

Ben Shepard's This Morning, which has escaped the measures unscathed despite the show's troubled recent history. A source at ITV HQ said the tension is unbearable. There's a lot of rage towards This Morning, which everyone feels is constantly favoured despite it being the lame duck of the daytime flock. The infighting is a feverish time bomb which executives are desperate to defuse. ITV Daytime could combust from the inside at this rate. They feel like often all the negative criticism is leveled at them. This is the loose woman, the odd out of touch comment.

Whereas the new panellists, oh sorry, this is about, actually Christine, I'll come to that in a moment. First, let's take that first section because that's on a different thing. So, Christine, effectively what they're saying, and this is I believe what Lorraine Kelly is saying too, is where the successful shows, you're backing this morning after all of the scandal, everything that went on with Philip Schofield, because effectively what's happening, Christine, is this morning is doing like a reverse takeover of Loose Women and Lorraine.

They are going to produce both shows. Is that fair criticism? Because this morning is just tanking these days. No one is watching. Well, it's I mean, I don't watch it enough to be able to weigh out one against the other. But it's all about one thing, isn't it? It's all about viewing figures. It's all about bums on seat. And presumably the ITV executives know which shows are successful. And if a show is tanking then it should make way for something that isn't going to tank and I gather that they're also you know I'm getting rid of some of these what shall I call them from my great age old stages

and they wanted to bring in new people because they want younger people a younger audience but younger people don't watch television if they get get rid of the stages, they're going to lose their audience, which will not be replaced. So this is what I was coming on to. This is what I was coming on to because basically Loose Women has, it's one of the only shows actually, and I give them credit for this, that does continue to put older women on television. So you're talking about Jane Moore, Janet Street Porter,

Denise Welsh, Kay Adams, you know, Ruth Langsford. And so this is according to the older women on Loose Women. The Sun reports they feel like often all the negative criticism is leveled at them, whereas the new panellists, there is a buzz around them because they have that different point of view. Execs have also proudly proclaimed how the youngsters have brought with them a much needed new audience. And now all of a sudden the older panellists feel like they are going to have to fight for their places against these shiny teachers' pets. And so that's an interesting take on it, isn't it, Christine? Well, I didn't realise that that next quote was coming. I mean, if they think that the younger audience are going to watch, I don't know who these new young people are, because I'm just as

out of touch as the old status on Loose Women. But, you know, a lot of people who watch television are out of touch. They are older people and they have the views that are regarded as dino-sonic. Can you say that? By other people. Dino-sonic, it'll do anyway. As I say, it's all about and, you know, the Loose Women panelists have paid a monumental amount of money.

They get £3,000 a day. So, you know, if you're on it all week, that's that every five days. I mean, that's a lot of money. Which is why they're furious. But the problem that I've got. Well, it is. They're losing their livelihood and no one can understand that.

But Neil, the problem is they haven't listened to the audience, Neil, because the great thing about Loose Women is it used to be a little bit un-PC. I actually used to think it was a great show when it had Carol McGiffin and Jane MacDonald and it was quite wild and quite raucous. It's all about identity politics now, Neil, including, by the way, and I got into a big row with Charlene White over this. She quite outrageously accused me of racism when I pointed out that is there not a hypocrisy, Neil, to the fact that WOKI TV bigs up this idea of an all black panel. They think it's brilliant, but then thinks it's absolutely terrible if there's ever an all white panel. And I just said, that's really hypocritical, isn't it?

Yeah, well, of course, you're absolutely right. I mean, I have been on Loose Women a few times and enjoyed the experience. We've had lots of joshing and kind of flirting, usually with Christine standing by just to make sure it doesn't get totally out of hand and I don't get ravished by the panel. But quite a long time ago when I was in better shape. But no, I thought it was a jolly show

and it was good television of its kind as a a lunchtime show uh and i think it's a shame if that no longer happens you're absolutely right that the woke is killing mainstream go go bro go go bro okay then christian yeah totally then christine hamilton i've got to ask you about lorraine kelly i obviously worked on her show for 10 years so this is a weird one for me but a worker on the Lorraine show told The Sun, everyone is absolutely furious that This Morning has got away with it yet again. There's a feeling that Loose Women and Lorraine are delivering resilient, solid ratings, while This Morning is always in the press for its tumbling viewing figures. Never mind the

Philip Schofield scandal and then Holly Willoughby leaving. This morning is like the black sheep, and yet that's the show that is not facing cuts. In its heyday this morning, it enjoyed ratings of 2.7 million viewers. Now it's lucky to scrape 500,000. And the Daily Mirror, Christine, is reporting that Lorraine Kelly might leave. I mean, it does feel pretty humiliating for her. I mean, when I was there, Christine,

it was an hour-long show. It had a big team. It was taken very seriously. This is now going to be just half the year, a half an hour show sort of tacked on to the end of Good Morning Britain. I mean, that doesn't feel like a particularly nice way to end Lorraine Kelly's broadcasting career because I mean she has been legendary Christine yes I mean I hope it isn't the end of her broadcasting career she I mean she's been around a hell of a long time I remember when she was just on the radio um when in fact when the Lorraine Kelly I can't tell you when it was well hell of a long time ago when the Lorraine Kelly show started I have read and you may know whether this is true or not,

criticism of her for not doing enough of her own eponymous shows, that she allows other people to do them while she's off doing something else. I have no idea whether that's true or not. But if she is doing that, perhaps that's what they said. I think that was the problem. It was a show called Lorraine and there was a lot of criticism over the fact that I think last year she was only there for something like 66 percent of the time and obviously in America they would pre-record those types of shows but I mean look it's difficult it's a difficult

one but I feel sorry for the teams on Loose Women and Lorraine who effectively have been told, oh, this morning they're going to take over you even though they've been a big failure. Now, I've got to ask you too, I don't know if you saw. It seems unfair, doesn't it? Yeah, it does. It does seem unfair. By the way, Dan, can we stop showing all these photographs

of you and me looking hideously young? I know what happened to us. Oh, God. I know, I'm very, very disturbing actually seeing that. We were young once. Now, I've got to ask you both about what happened with Eamon Holmes on GB News yesterday. I'm not sure if you saw it, but in case you didn't,

this is a reminder. Nationalisation needs to come in. Oh, my gosh. Okay, forget it. break. Now, he did come back on and sort of blame it on the chairs at GB News, which I'm sure you two both agree with me have always been terrible. This is what he said. Welcome back. Good to see you again. Especially good for me to see you again. I am still alive, yes.

And there's a, there are very wonky wheels on chairs that we've got here. And matter of fact, we don't really like the chairs full stop, do we? They're a bit slippy and slidey, aren't they? They're a bit slippy and slidey. And I've slipped and slid off mine there. Not the first guest to have done so. We've had a few. They have to remain nameless because they're well-known people,

but they've hit the floor really badly, quite frightening, and it was a bit of a shock for me because I've had a fall in my bathroom two weeks ago, which hospitalised me, and that hit me again right in the back, and really, really sore, really sore. Are you OK? Oh, oh, oh, oh.

Don't know if it all works or not, but we'll find out. Anyway, Charlie Riley believes that it was some government agent. Christine Hamilton, the Daily Mail reporting today that bosses at GB News are really concerned about whether Eamon can go on like this. What do you make of it? Well, I've no idea what's going on inside the minds of the bosses of GB News, but Eamon is a consummate broadcaster. He's been around a hell of a long time. He's a thunderingly lovely guy. I mean, he really is. And that shines through. And if I was GB News, I would be very reluctant to lose Eamon. But there comes a moment when you can't push somebody beyond their physical limits.

And goodness knows what time he has to get up in the morning to be on Parade. Is it six o'clock? I always decline to go on breakfast television because I can't. I mean, I can't do it. And I'm relatively fit, unlike Eamon. So I think it would be a tragedy if he had to end his broadcasting career because I do think he's brilliant and he brings something very special. He brings a massive honesty, as you can see there in that clip. You know, look at these photographs that he's allowed, that's allowed to be released of him.

You know, and I fell over in the bath. Well, that's not something that a lot of elderly people would make. I mean, how terrible, Neil, that they still have not just bought some decent chairs in that studio. I mean, I honestly remember when I was on GB News, Christine, you might remember it. There were some times when my chair would just collapse while we were on air. I think, I mean, look no i have no idea but they

certainly have improved the chairs and they have improved obviously they've proved a lot of the sense amen i have no idea if this is true but amen just might in order to save a bit of face for himself be blaming the chair when in fact he kind of slipped off a perfectly good chair. I don't know. Yeah, anyway. I don't know. Anyway, let's hope he's okay. Let's hope he's okay. He's a lovely guy. He's a lovely guy, and I hope he still has a great future ahead of him.

Well, you two both definitely do. Two of my absolute favourites, the Hamiltons, Neil and Christine. Before you go, really important that we talk about your campaign, which I think it's best I leave it to you. But effectively, as part of this nut zero madness, they're trying to completely destroy your area. And actually, Katie Hopkins got into one of these solar farms the other day. She did. I saw that. Exposed. And they had her out so quickly. So please, this is such an important campaign.

Can you explain? I don't know who wants to take it on. Christine? Well, I'll start and then, Neil, I'm sure we'll finish and tidy it up. But I mean, Ed Miliband, he's a madman. He's an absolute zealot. Yes, he is. He is not interested in the fact about the costs that net zero is inflicting on us all. And in our particular case, they want to,

they call it a solar farmer. That's ridiculous. It's a solar industrial zone, it would become, if they get the go-ahead. And we are fighting it. It's called, our campaign is called Stop Lime Down. And Lime Down is the cosy little name that they give to this cluster of fields.

They found some local farmers, nine of them in all, including the Duke of Beaufort at Badminton. None of the people who put their land in, or bar one who doesn't care, can see the land that they've put in. We can, it'll be viewed from our window. But they will either live miles away, etc. So it doesn't affect them. And, you know, it's just going to ruin the

landscape forever. What is now productive farmland will never, ever, ever be brought back in 40 years time when the solar panels will have been replaced at least once and they become redundant. And solar itself is a redundant method of energy. These will just become brownfield sites. So we will lose forever good agricultural land that, as we speak now, and it will be covered in four and a half metre high shiny black panels. Neil will give you all the details about the very cost of um alternative energy solar do you know the world bank did a did a survey the other day and there were 210 countries involved and it was the suitability of solar in all these different

countries and top of the list came namibia they are the most suitable. Oh, look at that lovely graphic. Well done. Thank you. They are the most suitable in the country because of their... So, exactly. So, Neil, this basically... We're bottom. Yeah.

We're bottom. Well, this sign, Neil, so stoplimedown.com is the address, but these signs say, solar on rooftops, not fields, protect our countryside. Well, that's what it's principally about. This campaign isn't a campaign against solar energy, although it's a massively inefficient way of generating electricity in Britain. We're at a latitude of 51 degrees north, so in the winter we don't get much daylight. And also we're on the edge of the Atlantic Ocean. So even at the best of times, not in the last few weeks, but usually we suffer from a lot of

clouds. So that reduces the light levels, which is how electricity is generated from solar panels. As Christine was saying, there are 210 countries in the World Bank ratings of where's the most suitable place in the world for solar. We're number 209. The only country below us is the Republic of Ireland, which is even wetter than Britain. So the costs of these things are absolutely colossal. The cost of renewables, A, to the electricity consumer,

having it loaded onto your monthly electricity bill, or B, through taxpayer subsidies given by the UK government, and now anything between 15 and 25 billion a year. And as the proportion of renewables increases in the amount of electricity which is generated, that figure is going to increase. Except that the world is waking up now to the massive costs that are being imposed on ordinary people. Because anything connected to net zero, by the way, is socialist madness.

That's what we know. Now, there is a QR code. Is it too late for this QR code, Christine, or can people still? Oh, no, no, no. We're only at the beginning of this fight. This could go on for another 18 months or two years. Okay, no, no, no. Okay, great. We're only at the beginning of this fight. This could go on for another 18 months or two years. Okay, well, let's put this up on screen. Let's put this up full screen, Jaden.

And this is a QR code. And Christine says, if you don't want solar on farming land, should be on rooftops and brownfield. If you care about greenfields and homegrown food, then please sign the petition. It's not anti-solar. Just want it in the right places.

And this QR code, Christine, presumably takes you to the website connected to that petition. It takes you to the website where there's a lot of extra. We don't put much faith in the petition. It's not going to alter Mad Miliband's mind, is it? But everything helps. And the bandwagon, as both you and Neil have said, the bandwagon against net zero is rolling quite steadily.

And we go back to reform. You see, they have had the sense to pick it up. They realise they will immediately cancel all these things. Yeah, indeed. And having been to your beautiful abode, I can see that you would be very furious about this. And I totally agree. Christine, Neil Hamilton, stop lying down. Couldn't agree more. Thank you so much for being here on Outspoken today.

Thank you. And can I just say, Dan, if we've got to, I was very interested by your little break about the shaving thing, because I cannot get my husband to do anything other than a wet shave. He says nothing else works as well. Neil, you need Manscaped. You need Manscaped. Christine, you've got to buy him that gift. Come on. Think of my discount. Think of my

discount code. That's Christmas sorted. Yeah, that's Christmas sorted. Thank you both so much. Lots of great comments coming in from you today. Horatio Nelson says, what has happened to this once great nation? What has happened to my country, the country I would die for? Oh, I feel those words, Horatio, so passionately. Mary Bradley says, Starmer does not like to hear the truth from British people,

so you go to jail. But these people should have put in a not guilty plea. Absolutely. And of course, Lucy Connolly regrets that so much. Now, Kath Lissenden says, oh, this is in regards to Labour. It wasn't a landslide, though. It was a poor turnout and a desire to destroy the Tories. It was a landslip, not a landslide.

Absolutely. But the issue is this is where First Past the Post is just completely wrong. But interestingly, Jack Stowe says Farage will be worse than Starmer. this is where first past the post is just completely wrong but interestingly jack stowe says faraj will be worse than starmer people vote for change but it doesn't occur that it will be changed for worse it happened to get rid of tories and will happen to get rid of starmer okay greatest britain union jackass time now your nominees for gb for union jackass today. Shabnam Mahmood, nominated by It's Only Me 44 for her prison release scheme. Liam O'Hanna of kneecap, charged for a terror offence

for jumping around with a Hezbollah flag. And Sadiq Khan, nominated by Brit First for saying that London is now a sanctuary city. And my God, don't we know it. The results are in with 7% of the vote, kneecap. The runner-up, Shabnam Mahmood with 23% of the vote. But the overwhelming favourite to be Union jackass today, Sadiq Khan with 70% of the vote.

So you know what we do straight after the show, and I'm very excited about this vote this week. We put the Union jackasses from across the week head-to-head to be named the worst Britain in from across the week head to head to be named the worst britain in the world this week your nominees from monday kirstama tuesday lord justice holroyd wednesday angela rainer and thursday sadiq khan that will be in the community section of youtube very shortly but before then your greatest britain nominated by History Nerd 89, Rupert Lowe for speaking up for Lucy Connolly in the House of Commons. That was at PMQs yesterday.

OK, we're not done yet, but you're going to have to join Substack for the fun. www.outspoken.live. It's super easy. A breakthrough moment as the Daily Mail decides to cover Meghan Markle's moon bump for the first time. We'll analyse with royal YouTube youtube sensation according to taz back tomorrow 5 p.m uk 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 for you