Dan Wootton Outspoken - KEIR STARMER END GAME AS CRUNCH VOTE GRANTED & KING CHARLES STATE VISIT TO TRUMP WON'T SAVE PM

Episode Date: April 27, 2026

BREAKING TODAY: King Charles is currently over the Atlantic preparing for the most controversial royal state visit in history, just two days after a brazen assassination attempt on US President Donald Trump. But Slippery Starmer’s hopes that the monarch will save his dying premiership have been completely torpedoed as we come on air with MPs to vote TOMORROW on whether the dying Prime Minister should face a vote on whether he misled MPs over the Peter Mandelson cover up. The hypocrisy is now impossible for even Labour MPs to ignore. Today is also the start of the Ukrainian rent boy firebomber trial and that’s before we get to the fact that police are reopening their inquiry into Morgan McSweeney’s fake phone theft, ahead of his crucial appearance in front of MPs tomorrow. In his Digest, Dan says Slippery Starmer is prepared to throw Rachel From Accounts under the bus to cling on, but Angela Red Rayner The Tax Evader is sharpening the knife because she knows it’s now or never. Then Former Head of Royal Protection Dai Davies on the risks for King Charles in the US – and the Superstar Panel: Social commentator Leilani Dowding and freedom fighter Elizabeth Fox. PLUS: The Epsom migrant cover up is complete, with police claiming the so-called victim had a head injury and made the whole thing up. AND: GB News censors Restore Britain leader Rupert Lowe in the latest disgrace for Nigel Farage’s former free speech channel, as a star presenter speaks out. THEN IN THE UNCANCELLED AFTERSHOW: Prince Harry disgraces the memory of the late Queen by insisting he is still a working royal in a deranged TV interview with Chris Ship of Woke ITV. We’ll analyse with Rob Shuter. Sign up to watch live or on demand and totally ad free at https://www.outspoken.live LIKE & SUBSCRIBE for new videos every day: https://youtube.com/@danwoottonoutspoken?si=-2BhmEbBSN1fyESS?sub_confirmation=1 ---------- Find the full audio show wherever you get your podcasts: Apple — https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/dan-wootton-outspoken/id1762436723 Spotify — https://open.spotify.com/show/19Ltoneek2MSPL10CpSA1J?si=8f6d84e2db56448c ---------- Follow Dan on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@outspokendan Follow Dan on Twitter: https://x.com/danwootton Follow Dan on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/danwootton/ Follow Dan on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/danwootton/?hl=en #DanWootton #DanWoottonOutspoken #news #outspoken #uknews Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

No spend, no bias, no censorship. I'm Dan Wooden. This is Outspoken episode number 476. I hope you had a wonderful weekend. Breaking today, King Charles, currently over the Atlantic on a plane preparing for the most controversial royal state visit in history. Less than two days after a brazen third assassination attempt. And yes, I do believe there was an assassination attempt on US President Donald Trump. This was a lone wolf in my opinion. We may find out something else. This was a sick lone wolf. He's a sicker. And is it any wonder, given the way sick leftists in the MSM on both sides of the Atlantic continue with their insane brand of Trump derangement syndrome? Our first lady, Melania, is here.

Look at, so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow. There has been a big. rise in political violence in the last few years. There's a lot of unhappy people in America about what's happening. The poor particularly have been, you know, really treated rather badly. But Slippery Stalmers hopes that the monarch will save his dying premiership have been completely torpedoed as we come on air, with confirmation that British MPs will vote tomorrow on whether the dying prime minister should face a vote on

if he misled MPs over the Peter Mandelson cover-up. of the century. The hypocrisy is now impossible for even Labour MPs to ignore. Do you think spending too much time talking about it? Is it, I guess, like a Westminster bubble story? I think we are spending a lot of time, too much time, talking about it. We know they've been disappeared. You know, we know there's been a cover-up, because we all know how government works.

I mean, I know you know everybody who covers the Westminster knows. The Prime Minister resorting to lies. The Prime Minister lied. to lie to this country. If he misled Parliament, he must resign. It's no good in trying to blame politicians in general. There's one person at the centre of this. Now, do you know what you won't have heard in the mainstream media?

Today is also the start of the Ukrainian so-called rent-boy firebomber trial, which I think is going to lead to another cover-up. But if the truth is out there, could also finally see the PM forced to quit. That's before we get to the fact that police are reopening their inquiry into Morgan McSweeney's fake fake. phone theft ahead of his crucial appearance in front of MPs tomorrow. I don't recognise that description of me. I'm not going to say too much about right now.

I'm seeing the MPs next week and I don't want to in any way disrespect their process. But I don't, I find it strange reading about a character with the same name as mine sometimes. But yeah, I don't recognise that character. So in my digest next, I'll reveal why Slippery Stama is now prepared to throw Rachel from accounts under the bus to cling on, but Angela Red Rainer the tax evader is sharpening her knife because she knows it's now or never. Then, former head of Royal Protection, Dai Davies, joins us on the risks for King Charles in the US. And there they are my superstar panel today. Top social commentator, Lalani Dowdine and Freedom Fighter extraordinaire, Elizabeth Fox.

Also coming up on the show today, the Epson migrant cover-up is now complete, with police claiming the so-called victim had a head injury and made the whole thing up. Do you really believe that? I don't. G.B. News, censors restore Britain leader Rupert Lowe in the latest disgrace for Nigel Farage's former Free Speech Channel as a star presenter speaks out. We're actually going to play you the footage that GB News refused to wear. You don't want to miss that. And David Hay divides Britain with the I'm a celebrity star saying, and fat girls have better personalities.

We'll debate whether he's right. Then, in the Royal Uncanceled After Show on Substack, Prince Harry disgraces the memory of the late Queen by insisting he is still a working royal in a deranged TV interview with Chris Ship of Woke ITV. We'll analyse it with Rob Shooter over on Substack www.outspoken.live. It's also the first greatest Britain and Union jackass of the week.

You can vote for the worst Britain in the world today right now in the YouTube live chat. me, Lelani and Elizabeth have all nominated. I've gone for Ed Davy because I couldn't believe he had these crocodile tears after the Trump assassination attempt. Elizabeth has gone for Sadiq Khan. She says the dangerously increasing rape statistics for Britain is at an all-time high. And his denial than anything bad is happening in that crime rates are low in England's capital is an utter disgrace. While Lelani has gone for Peter Mandelson because of the new Palantir-Tier scandal. So get voting in the live chat. Keep your comments coming through. Keep your superchats coming

through. I see them as the show goes on. But now, let's go. So Slippery Stama thinks King Charles can save his failing, dying ass. Let me tell you right now, he is wrong. Sure, the fact the US state visit will go on, even after the third serious assassination attempt on President Trump. And no, I don't believe the shooting was staged before you ask, is going to dominate much. of the attention. But the Ukrainian fire bomber and so-called rent-boy trial has finally started today with independent reporter Jonathan Wong revealing that no reporting restrictions have been implemented as of yet at the High Court. And Kemi Badenok has won a critical commons vote tomorrow on whether Tutea Khaer misled the House, not to mention this bombshell evidence which is going

to come tomorrow morning from Morgan McSweeney. But first to the King, who is currently in the air but about to fly into a DC firestorm. In a statement yesterday, Buckingham Palace said following discussions on both sides of the Atlantic through the day and acting on advice of government, we can confirm the state visit by their majesties will proceed as planned. The king and queen are most grateful to all those who have worked at pace to ensure this remains the case and are looking forward to the visit getting underway tomorrow. Christian Turner, the new British ambassador to the US, confirmed in person that the visit would be going ahead, adding keep calm and carry on. Now, the King, I'm told, was naturally concerned by these shocking scenes

at the event, the Washington White House Correspondence event, at the same DC hotel where President Ronald Reagan was shot in the 80s. But overnight, in a new interview with Nora O'Donnell on 60 Minutes, the CBS show, he insisted, Donald Trump insisted the King, will be safe. The king is coming here, king of England. I think it's great. He'll be very safe, yeah. Yeah. And will you have been able to go forward?

No, no concerns about security going forward? The White House grounds are really safe. This area of not very many acres, it's really safe. And he'll be staying here. Now, I believe he's going to a couple of other locations because he's here for a few days. And he's a great guy. Oh, they called and they are so looking forward to being here.

We spoke this morning. So the king is fine. He's still coming. The week, your events are still going forward. He's a good person. There's no indication from the Secret Service or the FBI that there's an additional threat to you or other administration officials? No, no. This was a lone wolf, in my opinion.

We may find out something else. This was a sick lone wolf. He's a sicker. Now, that interview quickly spiraled out of control. When Nora O'Donnell of the MSM Network CBS repeated the egregious allegations made in the shooter's manifesto. The so-called manifesto is a stunning thing to read, Mr. President. He appears to reference a motive in it. He writes this, quote, administration officials, they are targets.

And he also wrote this. I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes. What's your reaction to that? Well, I was waiting for you to read that because I knew you would because you're horrible people. Horrible people. Yeah, he did write that. I'm not a rapist. I didn't rape anybody.

Oh, you think he was referring to you? Excuse me. I'm not a pedophile. You read that crap from some sick person. I got associated with stuff that has nothing to do with me. I was totally exonerated. Your friends on the other side of. The plate are the ones that were involved with, let's say, Epstein or other things.

But I said to myself, you know, I'll do this interview and they'll probably, I read the manifesto. You know, it's a sick person. But you should be ashamed of yourself reading that because I'm not any of those things. Mr. President, these are the gunman's words. Excuse me. You shouldn't be reading that on 60 minutes. You're a disgrace. But go ahead.

Let's finish the interview. The other thing that he wrote in the end. You're disgraceful. Now, Trump eventually explained what happened on the night and why there was that delay, watch. You see the security moving quickly, within seconds, grabbing the vice president by his coat, lifting him up, bringing him out.

Then the counter-assault comes in, took 10 seconds for them to flank you, Mr. President, and then 20 seconds to get you out. It looked periodic. At one point, you were down. What was happening? Well, what happened is it was a little bit me. I wanted to see what was happening, and I wasn't making it that easy for him.

I wanted to see what was going on. And the time we started to realize maybe it was a bad problem, different kind of a problem, bad one, and different than what would be normal noise from a ballroom, which you hear all the time. And I was surrounded by great people, and I probably made them actually. a little bit more slowly. I said, wait a minute, wait a minute, let me see, wait a minute. So, you know, I'm telling guys. Just at that moment where it looks like you go sort of down with the service, you were telling them to wait. Well, I know what happened is then I started walking with them, I turned, I started walking and then said, please go down, please go down on the floor.

So I went down and First Lady went down also, but we were asked to go down by the agents as I was walking. In other words, they wanted you almost to crawl out. I was standing up, pretty much. I was standing up and then turned around the opposite direction and started pretty much walking out pretty tall, a little bent over because I'm not looking to be standing too tall. But I was walking out. It was pretty about halfway there. And they said, please go down to the floor. Please go down to the floor. So I dropped to the floor so to the first lady.

But former head of Royal Protection Day Davies, who will be here on outspoken shortly, said uncomfortable questions about the white. how shooting are already beginning to circulate, we must urgently review King Charles's visit. On Fox News, Trump described the King as brave for continuing the trip while battling cancer and this new security threat. First of all, King Charles is coming and he's a great guy and we look forward to it. He's really a fantastic person and a tremendous representative. And he's brave. You know, he's fought something.

It's very tough to fight. He's got a problem with, as you know, that very well documented problem with his health. And he's been amazing, actually. He's very brave, actually. And he's a friend of mine for a long time. So he's coming and we're going to have a great time. And he represents his nation like nobody else can do it.

Actually, I would say both men, a pretty brave, given this is how they have previously dealt with assassination attempts. It happened as Prince Charles was being introduced to the crowd at Darling Harbour. There were two shots. The attacker came within a metre of the prince, the New South Wales Premier, among those who grabbed him. Eyewitnesses say the man has aged in his late 20s and tripped as he rushed on stage. The Australia Day celebration continued afterwards. The Prince unhurt and he made no comment on the incident.

The man's being questioned by police. No matter what you think of Charles, right? no matter what you think of Chats. That is pretty cool, right? Like, just playing with McCufflings, as the dude tries to assassinate me. But on a serious note, there is growing outrage. At how left us on both side of the Atlantic

have contributed to what is a surge of political violence. As Marianne O'Faul put it, April 23rd, Jimmy Kimmel, made an assassination joke about Trump. April 25th. Someone tried to assassinate Trump. If you're looking for an explanation on why this cycle of violence continues, there it is.

Watch. Our first lady, Melania, is here. Look at, so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow. Now, the first lady who will welcome Queen Camilla this evening, has just responded. And she has called for Disney to sack Jimmy Kimmel. Posting on X, Kimmel's hateful and violent rhetoric is intended to divide our country. His monologue about my family isn't comedy.

his words are corrosive and deepens the political sickness within America. People like Kimmel shouldn't have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate. A coward, Kimmel hides behind ABC because he knows the network will keep running cover to protect him. Enough is enough. It is time for ABC to take a stand. How many times will ABC's leadership enable Kimmel's atrocious behavior at the expense of our community? Enough is enough. But what about here in the UK, where the British bashing corporation allowed the leftist actor Brian Cox to suggest it's Trump's own fault that he was nearly assassinated?

Brian, you spend a lot of time in the United States and there has been a big rise in political violence in the last few years. There's a lot of unhappy people in America about what's happening. The poor particularly have been, you know, really treated rather badly. Medicaid is under threat. Everything is under threat. He's doing the most extraordinary things to people's well-being and people are not happy. People who voted for him are not happy.

He is not popular. He really isn't popular. He would like to pretend he is popular and he will give that impression, but he's not. His popularity rate has gone way, way down. And I think he's behaving, well, I won't even go into that. Okay, maybe we will a bit later on.

No pushback whatsoever, nothing. Nothing. So an actor is just allowed to go on the BBC and basically suggest that it's Trump's fault that these nutters are trying to kill him. Then we come to Stama and ahead of the visit, attention is fast turning to our truly appalling Prime Minister. With Florida Senator Rick Scott posting in an extraordinary rebuke,

I have a gift for UKPM Kirstama. I'm hoping you can take a few notes from Churchill on how to stand up for your country and be a true ally to the United States. Your appeasement of the evil Iranian regime is despicable. Don't be a Chamberl and be a Churchill. He then made this video. I have a gift.

A gift for the Prime Minister of the UK. Prime Minister Starmor. This is a gift. It's about somebody that had a spine. Somebody that understood you don't appease people that want to destroy the people of your country. So your appeasement of the Iranian regime is despicable. They don't just want to kill Americans.

They don't just want to kill Israelis. They want to kill the people of Great Britain. They hate our Judeo-Christian values. Don't be a Chamberlain. Be a Churchill. I hope when you get this, you'll read it and take a few notes. Okay. Then we come to the court case,

which the mainstream media are ignoring. Now, you probably wouldn't have heard about the Ukrainian firebomers, alleged rent boys, if you're just watching the British Bashing Corporation, Wokai TV and Sline News, but you know we've been covering this for many weeks. Tom London has spelled out what's going on, though. Three men charged in connection with arson attacks on two properties and a car linked to Kare Starmour will face trial starting today at the Old Bailey. The charges relate to three incidents.

On the 8th of May 2025, a car previously owned by Starmour was, found on fire on a street he used to live on in Kentish Town, North London. On the 11th of May, a fire was discovered at flats linked to Stama in Islington. On 12th of May, a fire was discovered at the entrance to Stama's Kentish Town home, which is currently rented out. The three men are Mr. Lavarovich, a Ukrainian, Mr. Carpacus, a Ukrainian-born-Romania, and Mr. Poshnok, a Ukrainian, all pleaded not guilty. And there is some, how do I put it, some confused reporting coming from the court today.

Because we got from one of the outlets there, VP news, a reporting restriction notice saying formal notice has been issued at the old Bailey regarding reporting restrictions in regards to the trial. Legal deliberations are ongoing to determine the scope of these limits. we will provide updates as soon as the court permits. And you know that I have always predicted, and I even said to George Galloway last week, who's all over this trial too, that I do believe there will be a cover-up

and we will not get the truth. But Jonathan Wong, who is on the scene reporting for Vox Populi, said that reception, and so he's gone to check, are these reporting restrictions in place? And he said, reception just spoke with the clerk on the phone and confirmed that as of this moment, the court has not imposed any reporting restrictions on the Ukrainian models.

trial, note that this does not rule out the possibility that restrictions will be imposed at a later date. And for all of you asking about what went on at the trial today, at this point, everything has been procedural. And so, of course, you know, I am all over this, but I'm also going to warn you, I think there is already a cover-up at play. Do I seriously believe that the truth of what these Ukrainian rent-boy fire bombers were doing at Starrmas properties is going to emerge in this court case? no, I don't. I really don't. But of course, we are going to keep on the truth of this one. What's interesting, though, is even Stama's allies in the mainstream media are done with Pairs Morgan, even calling on him to resign, posting, if I were here Stama, I'd quit now over the Mandelson scandal

before the May local elections, which will be a historically humiliating repudiation of his entire agenda. And Labor MPs now have a clear choice to whether they are all lying hypocritical or moral scumbags with this vote tomorrow afternoon. as to where the Slippery Stama will be referred to the Privileges Committee. The Prime Minister needs to be held to the same standards he held previous Prime Ministers to. There is no room for hypocrisy. He has sacked innocent officials to cover up his failures. He has let Parliament down.

More importantly, he has let the country down. That's why I'm asking MPs to vote to refer the Prime Minister to the Privileges. committee. Every MP now faces a matter of conscience, not party, conscience. Do they cover this up, or do they vote to seek the truth? But as Labour columnist for the mail, Dan Hodges explained, Kirstama remains blissfully unaware of just how much everyone loathes him. But the patience of his MPs has finally snapped. It's now only a matter of when he is ousted, not if. He added the situation has effectively left Kare Stama cut off from the outside world. And he compared it to the film Downfall, where the late Swiss actor Bruno Ganses Hitler yells, where is Steiner? We are not far from

the point where Stama will be heard to bellow. Where are Reeves, Cooper and Milliband? A compounding issue is Sir Kerr's chronic lack of self-awareness. Trapped within the bubble that surrounds all Prime Ministers, his perception of himself as a principled man, battling a tide of reactory forces that are seeking to undermine him and his progressive vision has decoupled him from reality. He is unable to fathom the level of contempt he has now held it by both his colleagues and the country at large. It's antipathy that has been cemented by the spectacle of him chucking everyone out of the balloon to save his own political skin. As one Labour Grandee told me over the weekend, the parliamentary party used to think he was useless but basically decent. After this week,

they still think he's useless, but also that he's a guy who will stab them and anyone else to save himself. But the bigger problem is this. Kirstama has no idea what his colleagues think because he's never bothered to actually take the time to ask them. There has not been a Prime Minister in modern British political history as being so detached by choice from their own Cabinet and backbenchers. As one Cabinet Minister told me, it's like we're not here. He has no interest in what we say. He has no interest in what we do. damningly, Dan Hodges then said that Slippery Stama is now part of a cover-up to disappear.

99% of the relevant messages regarding the Mandelson scandal. We know they've been disappeared. You know, we know there's been a cover-up because we all know how government works. I mean, I know you know everybody covers Westminster knows. People are messaging and WhatsApp. Nobody phones anybody anymore. No. People are just messaging.

It's like society. people are messaging what's happening all the times. All those messages, I suspect, 99% of the relevant messages will have disappeared. Now, just think of the extent of this cover-up, right? Yet hilariously, the same mainstream media and the same Labor Cabinet ministers that hounded by restaurants for months and months on end

over a piece of cake, and now saying, we just shouldn't be spending any time talking about Stama's cover-up of the century. Are we spending too much time talking about the Mandelson appointment? I do think it is frustrating for not only the Prime Minister, but for government ministers like me. We want to be here talking to you about the fantastic things that we're doing as a government to help people with the cost of living pressure, some of the international, big judgments that the Prime Minister has made not to be dragged into a war that didn't seem to have a plan.

So, you know, the Prime Minister spent, I think, a couple of hours, two or three hours in Parliament last Monday answering questions from MPs. So, you know, of course we must provide that information. We are providing all the information that has been asked of us through the humble address. We are being transparent about the process. We've said that the process needs to be reviewed and overhauled because it wasn't the right process.

But yes, it is frustrating because we do want to be talking about the things the government are doing to help working people across the country. Do you think spending too much time talking about it? Is it, I guess, like a Westminster bubble story? I think we are spending... a lot of time, too much time talking about it. I mean ludicrous. The Conservatives have rightly pointed out the rank hypocrisy.

The Prime Minister resorting to lies. The Prime Minister lied. Lie to this country. If he misled Parliament, he must resign. It's no good in trying to blame politicians in general. There's one person at the centre of this. Look, there are only two possible explanations. Either he's trashing the ministerial code.

All he's claiming he was repeatedly lied to by his own advisers. Come off it. The public have made up their mind. I think the facts speak for themselves. He then lied about what had happened. The Prime Minister lied. I genuinely think now that it's in the national interest that he goes. The Ministerial Code says that ministers who knowingly mislead the House should resign.

Why is he still here? Why is he still here? Now, Stammer is totally tone dip, though. He actually gave an interview to the Sunday time. this weekend, which reported, yet many in his party no longer think this is a viable position. The country has made up its mind on Stummer and he can't win. But he said, I think we can. I think it's going to be a very important general election. It's likely to be Labor versus reform, an election where the defining question is, what is it to be British, an election where what I would call patriotic values of tolerance, decency, live and let live, diversity

are under challenge like we've never seen before. And during a dire speech this morning, he repeats. he did his same old stump speech. I'll tell you now, I will fight for that with every breath I have. I will fight for working people. Fight for the tolerant, decent, respectful Britain that I know and I love. Because that is my politics. And it is time to strengthen our security, take control of our future and build a Britain that is fair for all.

Yet tomorrow things could get a hell of a lot worse for that scumbag with Morgan McSweeney giving evidence in front of Emily Thornbury's select committee, just as police reopen the inquiry into his fake phone theft. I don't recognise that description of me. I'm not going to say too much about right now. I'm seeing the MPs next week and I don't want to in any way disrespect their process. But I don't, I find it strange reading about a character with the same name as mine sometimes. but yeah, I don't recognize that character.

You don't recognize him. Do you regret sending Peter Mandelson to America without vetting him first? Well, my role was to advise the Prime Minister, and I take responsibility in the advice that I gave and resigned, but that's all I can take responsibility for the role that I played, and I think it's right to take responsibility when you get the call wrong. which you did in your resignation letter. That was the specific reason.

Can you be more specific about what it was? Because that seems to be one of the issues. Why did you resign over it? What were you regretting? The advice I gave was wrong. And what was the advice? That he should go to the US, as ambassador. And are you taking each other's calls at the moment?

That's a no. Okay. But Stama has one more trick up his sleeve, sacking his incompetent Chancellor Rachel Reeves, which she should have done months ago. One source branded it to the mail on Sunday, one final roll of the dice to re-establish Sir Kerr's authority if the results of the May 7th polar is disastrous as expected.

It is understood that Downing Street is considering then making Evick Cooper, who is currently Foreign Secretary-Chancellor. However, this would not go down well with Labor's soft-left MPs who are agitating for Ed Miliband to get the job. Now, of course it's too late. Red Rainer, the tax evader, knows it. And that's why one MP, who's an ally of the ex-depity PM, says the line from Angela is that it needs to happen now. Otherwise, this deadly stablemate will drag on forever.

That it's now or never. Ms. Rainer and her two main rivals for the leadership, Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham and Health Secretary West Streeting are all ready to launch campaigns. if Sir Kerr announces he is standing down as Labour leader on May the 8th, the day after the local and devolved government elections. Come on, that is Friday week. If he does so, either as a result of cabinet pressure or of his own volition, they expect him to say that he would stay until autumn when a contest would produce a new leader in time for the party's annual conference. Ms Raina is the frontrunner because, of course, she is in Parliament, even though she remains under investigation for tax evasion.

You really couldn't make that up. But be very afraid. Be very afraid. Because take a look at this. This is the cabinet that Angela Rainer wants to put in place. Ed Miliband as Chancellor. Wes Streeting as Foreign Secretary. I mean, God, just when you thought it couldn't get worse.

But maybe, as I always say, things do have to get worse before they get better because what we are now seeing is the total end of the Labour Party as a political force at all. Dr. Philip Casale, putting it this way, this isn't just the end for Kirstama. We are witnessing the total destruction of the Labour Party. There will never be another Labour government. This means the left will no longer be able to hide behind a vener of respectability. From now on, it will be the full on crazy loon show that is the Green Party aided by an alarming number of Islamist independence that the Greens will never be. ever former government is immaterial. They'll stoke up such hatred that their presence will be felt

everywhere. It's absurdly naive to think that civil unrest won't come knocking. We will be looking at a fight for the life of this country, a life worth leading. For the first time in my 54 years of life, I dread the future. Now the superstar panel. Lelani Daldine and Elizabeth Fox both with me. So straight to the latest on this trial, Lulani and Elizabeth. And then we're going to come to Di Davies, by the way, former head of Royal Protection. The Ukrainian boys have pleaded not guilty. This is from Jonathan Wong reporting from the old Bailey for Vox Populi. He says they have sworn the juries in and the defendants have pleaded not guilty.

He says the judge is giving an introduction to the juries. they will dismiss the juries after and back in court on Wednesday. So all we know at this stage, Lulani, is that there is going to be some form of trial. But can we really believe that we are going to get the truth here, Lelani? No, it's all very, very odd to me. The reporting from the beginning has been very strange in the mainstream media. I don't trust that we'll get it. I don't, we, we need to establish how these guys knew where he lived.

So I'm going to say that I think that the trial is going to be very interesting and people need to really keep an eye on it. And, you know, there's going to be so many questions about how he knew where he lived, how he knew, how they knew what his old car was. George Galloway's been doing some brilliant stuff on MOTS all about it. And he's actually very funny as well when he's talking about them. So I think it's going to be worth watch. I'm glad it's going to trial actually because I was worried that they plead guilty

and that way everything would be hush, hush. So this is going to be very, very interesting now, you know, as the questions get asked. Yeah, do you think we're going to get the truth on this case, Elizabeth? No. In a nutshell, no. I think that it's very interesting that as strangers, they seem to know, like Lani said, so much information about Stama

and certain locations and cars and things like that. But I think with trials, what is good is that it gives us a sense, it gives the public a sense that we get to see and hear elements of the truth. But I deep down believe that a lot of this is going to be covered up. A lot of things that should come to light, will not be allowed to come out in court. Yeah, that is exactly how I feel on this. So to Di Davies, he is the former head of royal protection.

And in the Digest just then I was covering your Daily Mail column. And you are concerned over the security for King Charles after this third assassination attempt on Donald Trump on Saturday. Was it the right decision for him to go to Washington, D.C.? Well, it's a fate of company now, and what I was concerned about primary was what would happen, what would have happened if the king and queen had been in that scenario. And again, a number of questions need to have been asked about the security, how he was able to run like a sprinter, past five or six,

secret agents and get to another checkpoint where obviously he was stopped but he was in with a hundred or two yards and very close really and the questions have to be asked how on earth he got in to the hotel carrying all these firearms and then how he should have gone into what's known as a sterile area and despite hundreds of police officers secret agents SWAT teams you name it he was able to do it And not only was he able to do, he's able to shoot a secret service guy, and he's lucky to be alive. So there are questions to ask. The political issue, should he have gone at that time, I disagreed with one or two of my colleagues, and I said, I'm not sure it's appropriate at this time, but the government are in a dreadful situation.

I think they'll cling to every bit of raft or anything. that we'll try and get them further up and stop any of the issues that Trump is trying to impose on us. I mean, I have some sympathy with the fact that we should have allowed him to use the basis, the nonsences that came out and eventually agreed off or for defensive. He knew perfectly well they were doing. It affects all of us. So, yes, I have lots of concerns about the policy in the first place, but we are where we are now.

But I do take issue when some secret service people say this was textbook. Well, if that's a textbook, I'm a sugar plum, you know what. Yeah. What about Di all of the online reaction suggesting that this shooting could have been faked? Is there anything that you have seen, with all of your years of experience, leading Royal Protection in the UK, to suggest, there was anything fishy going on? No, it was suggested to me in the article

by the gentleman who wrote it, that might be an issue. I have to say I've considered it and rejected it, if I'm honest, and I've been at this game, as you know, for 55 years in one shape or another. So, no, I reject that wholly. I think this, as so often is the case, and historically has been the case. I've studied every attack that's been on the royal family since 1760, believe it or not,

and the European royalties. It's very rare and conspiracies sometimes have a realistic chance, but in this case, I reject it utterly. Is there a serious risk to the safety of King Charles and Queen Camilla over the next four days? I sincerely hope not, and I hope that the Secret Service and all the others have learned the lessons. And one aspect has been is that this has hopefully ensured that both the royalty protection officers from this country who were there already, ready to prepare them, and those who are traveling with the king and queen, that they have gone over every aspect. Washington and other areas, particularly where they're going to face

the public, has to be looked at again. A greater safety zone. has to be built in and including assassination points. I mean, Trump, whether you like him or not, is hugely unpopular, I'm told, not by everyone. But again, we're in a war zone. And I don't know any other, apart from 1939, when Georgia the Sixth went to America just before, but they weren't at war then. Yes, war was coming. But again, believe it or not, there was a plot to attack them as they went over,

the Canadian border then. So you've got to learn your lessons of history and you've got to remember that quite often so-called lone skins or lone wolf, they often are the ones who prevent you with, present you with problems. In terms of, am I seriously worried? No, I think they will be as safe as you can be. There's no such thing as 100%. But I can't imagine that Trump and his various individuals who are responsible would let anything happen to them. But I hope the planning has been secure, et cetera, et cetera. But it is a strange environment to send a king and queen to a country at war with an enemy who we know has plotted and planned to do all manner of things in the United States.

It is a strange decision at the time of war. That's all I would say. Former head of Royal Protection, Di Davies, thank you so much for being here today. Breaking right now, the Surrey police say nothing to see here. The woman who just last week they were describing as a victim after alleged gang rape by migrants in Epsom made the whole thing up. But they're not intending to take any criminal action because, because apparently she had a head injury. Do you believe this? Do you really believe this? Or are we being lied to constantly and consistently by our authorities to manage the population,

to stop anyone getting on the streets, given that that area, very upmarket town, by the way, had become a Tinderbox. I have to admit to feeling like the video that we saw from the police, I'm going to show it to you now is almost dystopian. We're being told, don't believe what the person you described as a victim said because she hit her head and it turns out it was all alive, but by the way, she did nothing wrong. Yep, that's where we're at. And just shut up about it now. Just shut up about it.

This is Sarah Graham, the assistant chief constable for Surrey Police. An update in relation to a report of a rape in Epsom, which we received in the early hours of Saturday, the 11th of April. A thorough investigation, including an extensive examination of CCTV footage of the women's movements, house-to-house inquiries, interviewing witnesses and forensic tests has been carried out. Through this examination of all evidence, we can conclude that no sexual offence occurred on this occasion, and we are closing the investigation. What has become clear is that a woman in her 20s, during a night out in Epsom, sustained an accidental head injury

prior to making a confused report. The woman involved has given us permission to share this information with you and she continues to be supported by relevant services. To be clear, we take every report of sexual offending seriously and any such report is treated with sensitivity. To do this, it is imperative that the appropriate time is allowed to complete a thorough investigation and support is given to the complainant to progress inquiries at their own pace. This limits what information we are able to release publicly.

Okay. So if this really was a made up and confused report, it would be a crime. And I think given the circumstances, the police would be desperate to arrest the woman, right? So this makes no sense to me. She then went on to say that the descriptions given by other witnesses were vague and limited and claims that actually there are no suspects at all. At the start of this investigation, we issued an appeal for any witnesses or information that could help us progress our inquiries and identify any potential suspects. There was a lack of information in our initial appeal, particularly regards.

potential persons of interest. This was because the descriptions given were vague and limited. We recognise this caused concern amongst the community. We are now confident that there was no offence and there were no suspects. Our local officers will maintain a visible presence in Epson over the coming days. So please speak to them if you have any questions or concerns. Oh, yeah, because they're going to tell you the truth, aren't they? Okay, just in case you don't remember.

this is what locals had been told and what the pink ladies had confirmed. How do you know that? No, no, just tell me. Just tell me. How'd you know? Someone told me there was four migrants, raider for two hours. They've got them on this. Pink ladies. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I love the pink ladies. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I know the pink ladies. They have got CCTV, but they will not be released it.

There you go. There you go. She knows the family. So there we go. There's the reason why they're not telling her. Press the button. And as a result of that concern, Danny Tomo went to the scene.

They are not communicating with you. They are not telling you what's going on. And for that reason, your women and your girls are scared. They have sent the most vulnerable PSSO they defied to drive. Why don't they send Tommy Pierce? internet has come onto the street and spoken to you. Why did they not tell you exactly who it is? Because they know.

They knew as in 12 hours exactly who did this black girl down that road. Information out what might happen. So how long are they're going to wait? This is the rise to that absolutely point which only looks like it has. Well, they didn't do that initially. The Surrey police actually sent in the wrong. Riot Squad, however, they did end up having a botch meeting with locals. And I want to just show you part of it because locals on the scene pointed out that other residents had actually

heard a woman screaming outside the Methodist Church and others had seen this woman injured in A&E. You also mentioned that multiple potential witnesses had been interviewed. This leads us to ask, did you not manage to get any evidence from anyone or from your or house-to-house inquiries. Additionally, we are concerned that no parent, close friend or relative has come forward publicly. This raises further questions about the circumstances surrounding the case. If there is an implication that the allegation may be false, then it is reasonable to ask if action has been taken in relation to making false statements or ways to

or wasting police time. Clarity on this point would help address public concern. We have also received reports from local residents. One individual living near the church described hearing a girl screaming for help, prompting them to contact the police. Another person has stated they saw a distressed young girl in A&E, reportedly saying she had been followed

and ran to the church as a place of the police. safety. These accounts, well anecdotal, add to the need for transparency. Now, the police ended up storming out of that meeting. So I want to bring my superstar panel in now, legal expert Elizabeth Fox and social commentator Lalani Dowdy. Lalani, do you buy this? The woman had a head injury and so she got the whole thing wrong. But, you know, we're not going to pursue her. I mean, they were described. driving her as a victim the week before Alani. Does this make any sense to you?

None at all. It all sounds like a complete and utter BS to me. I've fallen off my horse and had concussion and head injury, woken up all dizzy. I didn't wake up and think, oh my goodness, I've been gang raped by four people. It doesn't happen, Dan. Unless it's a completely psychopathic woman crying wolf,

in which case she needs to be done for wasting police time and making false statements, because you cannot, you know, cry wolf about something this serious that is going on around the country. You know, if it didn't happen, she needs to be charged and she needs to be in trouble and there needs to be consequences because you cannot have somebody making this up. Now, the fact is it appears that she hasn't. So in that case, you know, what can you conclude that are they covering something up? Did it happen?

but they've, you know, something has come up in our past that they could use against her, so they're trying to keep her quiet. Something very bizarre is going on here, something very bizarre. And I do not, I don't trust this at all. None of it seems right. Yeah, or did she feel threatened

when all of a sudden her case became national news? I mean, Elizabeth Fox, this doesn't make sense to me because if you've made a false complaint, that is actually against the law and yet the police are now saying oh no no no that the complainant just had a head I mean it just all stinks to me well I smell a big fat rat

first of all we're never really told are we the full story we're only ever told by the police or the media what they allow and what they want because they want to control the situation so if this is a cover up that's exactly what they're doing And it's obvious to anybody that is aware of the police policies and processes and anybody in the legal field that if you make false allegations, if you waste police time and resources like the forensic team and obviously the time that they've spent investigating, going through and reviewing all of the CCTV footage, the door-to-door inquiries, that's taxpayers' money. that's time that the police could have used actually investigating an actual crime that happened.

So I smell a big fat rat. I believe it's either a cover-up or like Lainley has said, it is somebody who's playing the victim and has some sort of mental health issue and is, you know, has said it and whether it's for attention, whether it's because they've got some sort of mental health disorder. but a head injury yeah you don't wait you don't get a head injury and then suddenly say

I've been raped gang raped no and the other thing surely we have to consider Lelani is the possibility of this being some type of false flag operation because just hear me out on this right these gang rapes take place all over the country

we know that there was just one in Brighton there's been one and born like these happen all the time but this could be a left-wing false flag where a woman purposefully lies on the left to try and make the locals and the people who cover these cases like us here on outspoken, crazy, mad, part of the so-called far right. Yet we know that these incidents do take place in towns and cities up and down the country where migrants are arrested and then charged.

So I feel like this is almost like potentially a left-wing false flag, even though I'm not certain yet, because of course, as Elizabeth says, we don't know everything. Dan, you know what, that could quite easily be the case, because as you said, you know, it's going to hype people up. These people have got out on the street to protest to protect their, you know, towns. And for then it to come out that it didn't happen, And these people can go,

ah, I told you so, told you so. And Danny Tomo's just trying to cause trouble and, you know, all of that. And that is why that woman,

if that was a false statement, must be in trouble because you can't have that happening. Because as you said, it's going on all around the country, for real. So if there's one woman who's a, you know,

bad egg, she needs to be dealt with because this mustn't go on. Yes, You can't just push it on the carpet. And we need to know who she is. Because if it is a lie, because the thing is, Llanney, what we will never know under these circumstances is this woman could be a hard leftist.

She could be a member of Antifa. She could be a member of the Green Party. We're never going to know her name. So the police are engaging in a cover up here. And I smell a rat because we haven't been told the whole truth, not even close. And why are the police wanting to protect someone if this someone lied? I would argue, and I'm just putting it out there, I would argue because it's a hard leftist who was attempting a false flag operation.

But again, we're going to keep on this story because we don't know everything yet. And they just want us to shut up. It's a bit like the Stama firebomber trial. They just want us to shut up. Breaking today, Restore Britain has just revealed the footage that GB News censored in Jacob Rees-Mogg's interview with their leader Rupert Lowe. Now, this is a disgusting new low for Britain's free speech channel, which is now effectively operating as a propagandist for Reform UK and Nigel Farage. Indeed, one of the star presenters of G.B. News has spoken out about this. I'll tell you what they've had to have say later and let's just say they're going for it, they're gunning for the channel and saying the

channel now needs to make a real decision about what it wants to be. And this all started so promisingly, Rupert Lowe actually said a big thank you to Jacob Rees-Mogg for having me back on Gb News after a very, very long time in the wilderness. Next step is back in the studio live and unedited. So here's the problem with what they did. And I totally understand why Rupert Lowe's team at Restore Britain thought this was worth the shot. But Jacob Rees-Mogg conducted a lengthy interview, and GB News chose to broadcast just 10 minutes of it on TV and then put the rest out on the internet.

But the problem is they cut out the segments where Rupert was telling the truth about what Nigel Farage did to him. It just proves everything I've been saying for months. There is total censorship on GB News, which has now sadly become a propaganda arm. of Reform UK. But I do want to show you, before I get to what GB News left out, I want to show you what they left in,

because that's also very telling. Jacob Rees-Mogg literally went on GB News and said that Tommy Robinson is a member of the far right who Rupert Lowe should not want to be associated with. Now, I think Rupert dealt with the question very well, but I think it's really important that you see this exchange. One person who does seem to me to be far right is Tommy Robinson. I assume you wouldn't want to be associated with him and his somewhat extreme statements.

Well, I'm not associated with Tommy. I think, as I've said in the past, Tommy has been right about the rape gangs, and we haven't talked about our rate gang inquiry, which again, I think we should possibly touch. Which is a very important issue, yes. So, GB News actually has done your options of the work. I've given him credit, and the establishment for some reason, I think, fears Tommy Robinson because you know he is somebody who's been prepared you've brought up in Luton's you know he he saw at first hand what was happening and the rape gang issue has

been going on for probably 50 years but accelerating really after the Blairite sort of era and particularly into the early 2000 so and he was talking about it in 2001 two, three. And he's been right. He's absolutely right about that issue. And I believe if somebody's right about something, you have to give them credit for it. But the establishment fears Tommy Robinson, for some reason, I'm not quite sure why. I think they, I don't know what he has or hasn't done wrong. I give him credit for being right on this issue. He's got a criminal record for fraud, which is quite serious. But so have quite a lot of people. Well, not that, many.

Quite a lot of people have got a criminal record. Well, not in the circles I move in, not in. I haven't. I haven't, and you haven't, but some have it. But so, look, I don't judge him for that, but he has been right on this issue. I thought Rupert's great there. I think Jacob, who I've always liked, came across as a big stinking Tory snob. From Connor Tomlinson, Restore supporter, Rupert Lodosarmed, the tripwire of a question very well, refused to concede to framing that puts Robinson as the benchmark

of extreme, meaning the Tories who imported the Boris wave are moderate. Turn the question back to how the establishment, including Labour and conserved as a complicit and the Pakistani rape gang scandal, doesn't care if he gets called racist. Never gatekeep, according to liberal standards. Those taboos caused the rape gangs to happen and covered them up in the first place. Israel Avant of Rebel News is disappointing that a GB News host and one as thoughtful as Jacob Reese Mogg would repeat a talking point from Hope Not Hate. He calls Tommy Ron and Far Right and Extreme, but can come up with no evidence other than a trumped-up mortgage fraud conviction, very BBC. And Milo Unopoulos, a well-judged response from Rupert Law on the subject

of Tommy Robinson, who was sounding the alarm on the great moral horror of our age 20 years before anyone else. Lauren, the insider wrote G.B. News failed to understand by the constant weaponisation of the word far-right and grossly misplacing it that they are smaring a huge amount of their audience who are good, hard-working, honest patrons who are not and have never been far right. If the state and establishment can come for Tommy for telling the truth and exposing them, they can and will come for every single one of us. Advocating for silence children that have been raped by predominantly Pakistani rape gangs is not far right. If it's far right to stand up for basic justice and safeguarding that anyone not doing this, I believe, is a child abuse enabler.

Labor and conservatives have both failed children. Would you give them another chance to fail them again? Pushing the GB News line that the right has to unite likely behind Farage to avoid a left-wing coalition of chaos. That's what Jacob Rees-Mogg went on to do. But deluding yourself really matters, because if you make it more likely in 2029, that we get a coalition of possibly Angela Rainer, Zach Polanski, and whoever the SMP leader is,

that is disastrous for the country. This isn't a game. This is really serious. I do know that, and I can tell you, reassuringly, that a lot of the people who are joining us, and we now have 131,000 signed up supporters. Now, ours are real supporters, I call the Reform membership, the Hotel California membership,

because it's easier to sign up. It's less easy to check in. It's less easy to check out. Great line. Amazing that that got broadcast. But then Jacobree Smog pushed this idea that, oh, no one actually knows who Rupert Lowe is. So the plan is to suggest that low and restore Britain are irrelevant, while at the same time suggesting that low and restore Britain are going to destroy the country by splitting the vote.

Make it make sense, watch. It gives you with your own party. And the question is, where is your own party going? Because J.L. Partners did some polling on your name recognition, and your name recognition is lower than mine, which you would have thought was almost impossible as you're the leader of a party. but 92% of people don't know who you are. Well, Jacob, you're a national treasure. That's very flattering.

We've all heard of you because of your sort of eccentricity and you're lounging in Pond, looking like you were sort of in the public school prefect's lounge. But you better do some lounging, because with any 8% of people knowing who you are, I think a lot more than 8% of people. We were stopped by how many people on the way here? Three or four people.

But this was a lot of people. This was a poll of 2,200 people. Your name recognition actually gone down in the last year. There's obviously a margin of error. That's fine, quite. Let's see, Jacob. I think that's not right. Okay, but Nigel has taken 30 years on the public stage

to get to the point where his party is sometimes at 30% in the polls. It was at 30% in the polls. It no longer is. 25 to 30, but how credible is it to go? from nothing, no name recognition, no real public profile, one MP on his own, to winning an election. Don't you need to be working with the Conservative Party, as you are on the public council? Maybe I'm deluding myself, Jacob, but I'm going to continue to delude myself, and I'm going to continue to build my party, because I don't think that survey is correct.

All right, but, I don't know who they interviewed and who they talked to, but our polling indicates that we are polling, somewhere between 8 and 10%. None of the existing polls are naming us yet. So I don't think that is consistent with what you're asking me with regard to that one, which I think is a row poll. Okay, so then we get to what they didn't include, what GB News censored. This from Restore Britain today.

As you all know, Rupert has been banned from GB News for many months on Farage's instruction. we were pleasantly surprised when Jacob asked Rupert on his show pre-recorded. What follows is not Jacob's fault. It was agreed that the interview would go out entirely unedited. A shorter clip went on Jacob's show. Then the full interview would be put online. We were told Jacob said so on his show too.

A longer clip did go online, but it was not the full interview. We suspected this may happen, so our team recorded his interview. We have the full segment. The segment was cut out, replaced by a VPN ad. The only ad in the whole interview. What did the segment cover? Jacob asking Rupert about what happened regarding reform's attempt to put him in prison. Jacob raised how Rupert's guns were seized,

how his home was raided by armed police late on a Friday night as a direct result of the reform allegations. Rupert explained following Jacob's questioning that Farage had admitted their attempt to incriminate Rupert and imprison him on false allegations was entirely because he disagreed with Rupert's position of deporting foreign child rapists. He said so publicly at a reform press conference. Barrage said it was brutal, but it had to be done.

Rupert's position is that foreign rapists and their accomplices should be removed, one that British people agree with. This was all cut from the interview despite an agreement it would go out unedited. Rupert has spoken with Jacob about this and the clip removal was not his decision. It is not Jacob's fault. But why would Gb News not want their viewers to at least hear both sides of the story? Farage, of course, is a shareholder in GB News. It is essentially his channel.

Other GB News presenters have stated publicly that they will have Rupert on their show live and unedited and then gone cold and ignored him. Alex Armstrong and Patrick Christie's as two examples. There are others too. If GB News won't welcome free, open and honest debate on its live shows, then honestly, what is the point of the channel? They have blamed the elections for not having. Rupert on that is totally false and debunk by media law experts. There was a ban before any elections

and there continues to be a ban now. Of course, news channels can have politicians on. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. Rupert is happy to go on GB News on two conditions that it is live and unedited. The continued censorship of Restore Britain is unacceptable. And one star GB News presenter has hit out at Channel bosses today in extraordinary fashion. Nick Dixon, former host of headliners, still a contributor on the channel, posted, GB News really needs to decide if it is a proper channel or if it is to reform UK what MUTV is to Man United. The obvious bias was less of an issue when reform were plucky upstarts, but it becomes increasingly absurd and would be frankly obscene if reform were the city government. And now in the past hour, we have the footage. We have the footage of the interview,

or the audio, sorry, of the interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and Rupert Lowe that GB News refused to air. Let's listen to this together now. That's my opinion on Kenny. Yeah, but I don't disagree with that. We're agreeing for too much. But let's get back. You then joined the form and you were elected under the reform banner and had a spectacular falling out with... No, I just had assassination did, but I didn't fall out. Well, I'm glad to say you're still... It came out of the sun like a spitfire.

Okay. Accusations of early onset dementia. Two false witness statements from Messrs. Anderson and Yusuf. One saying I'd threaten to hit Zia Yusuf. I mean, I haven't got a copy of those statements from what I was asked in a police station. I've never been in a police station in my life, but I went voluntarily to answer these questions on the basis they had these work for statements, which they wouldn't show me. I'm demanding them now, I'm going to get hold of them before I finish.

Nigers actually contradicted them because he admitted the real reason publicly. The other day when he spoke on a platform to say the reason they got rid of me was because of my views on mass deportation. He made it quite clear. And he said it was brutal, but it had to be done. So Zia Yusuf, powerful witness, state. Lee Anderson, so I was going around the apartment saying I was a very good shot and I was going to shoot Zia Yusuf. I mean, quite frankly, it's things for the birds.

I mean, it's absolutely driven. Guns were taken away. Gunners were taken away. I was asked to attend a meeting voluntarily. My father sent up to CVS. My name was leaked to the police. They're not supposed to leak it before you were charged. Of course, I'd never charge because there's nothing there.

The WhatsApp chain didn't prove it. There's absolutely nervous that what they said was correct. And arguably, the police should be prosecuting Messrs. Anderson used the forgiving a false witness statement. But they haven't done so. I don't know why, but I can tell you that the girl who carried out the investigation was very close to Sadiq Khan and had worked with him before.

So the imagination can run right, Jayhawr. So it's not a healthy or indeed honest reflection on the Metropolitan Police. So you were in reform and you leave because... Well, they're assassins. They're trying to try. Now he's got a track record of doing that. He's done it to Habeekyllis Silk. Wow.

Well, to my superstar panel, Lelani Dowdy and Elizabeth Fon. Lulani, I mean, they edited that all out having promised. to include it. And so any suggestion that G.B. News is not operating as a propaganda tool on behalf of Reform UK and Nigel Farage. Come on. I mean, this is categorical proof. You know what, Dan, I saw this. I saw Lewis Bracknell talking about it. He showed the video. I think Charlie Down secretly recorded it, he said. Good on them. Yeah. You know, I think it's really important now that you can get some kind of copy of what actually was said so you can prove or not whether it was edited.

But this is disgraceful. I mean, you can see why it was taken out because Nigel Frudge would not have been very happy about that at all. And I got to say, I think G.B. News has just gone right down the pan since you left, since Mark Stein left. I just think it's, you know, it's tribalism, it's propaganda. I mean, I know this is going off topic a little bit, but, you know, we're looking at, everyone's talking about the,

Palantir scandal because Stama and Peter Mandelson went to Washington and met with a Palantir secretly, right? You've got Zach Palensky of the Green Party calling him out, but then you have Alex Armstrong on G.B. News because it was Zach calling him out, sideing with Palantir, because Trump likes Palantir and has tweeted. So to me, GB News has just gone full on Trump. Bible, propaganda, and it's just like, we're going to just go and stick on reform side, stick on Trump's side, whatever, you know, they say, that's the correct narrative that we're going to keep pushing and that's all they're going to do. And what they did with that little bait and switch with Rupert telling him he was going to be unedited and then throwing that on,

it's disgusting. It's disgusting. G.B, I don't know what G.B. News anymore, but they're not the, you know, it's not the free speech channel and it's not the people's channel anymore. 100%. And I mean, it's really interesting that you point out Alex Armstrong because he does this a lot, Lulani. And this post has been going viral on X. And I think it's really important to share because he says, oh, I'm not working on behalf of Reform UK.

Look at that post. And this was in 2024 when Elon Musk was still supporting Reform UK. look at what he said. Yeah, reform is the only answer here in the UK. So my point, Elizabeth, is if you are working as a party apparatchit, just admit it. But to say that you are being an independent journalist and then secretly backing one party, that is so dishonest to me. At least you know Elizabeth with Jacob Rees-Mogg, he is a Tory. He supports the Tory view of the world. With Nigel Farage, he is a Reform UK leader. He supports a Reform UK view of the world. I think it's for me the presenters who are pretending that they're independent when actually secretly pushing the cause of Reform UK behind the scenes that really gets to me. The most important word you said there was independent, let's face it, they're not independent, okay, because they're not, they are biased and they don't, they don't act and speak and report on all parties in the same way. They just don't.

And it's obvious that also that G.B. News, you know, says that they're the channel of the people. They're not because they withheld the truth from that interview. And I always say to my husband when he gets asked to do speeches or talks, I always say, be careful. Another former GB News star, Mr. Lawrence Fox, just to remind people. I always say to him, this is a trap. because what they're going to do is they're going to ask you, you know, a list of questions, and they're only going to show what they edit

to make you look to push a narrative about you that they want to. And that's exactly what they've done here with Rupert. And luckily, and very sensible of his team, that they recorded it as well, and they have been able to show the world the truth and to also highlight that G.B. News only showed the parts that they wanted to, which was to push the narrative that they wanted their viewers to follow, which is obviously the reform narrative and their bias and to highlight and to show Rupert in a negative light. And I have to say, Rupert Lowe was a gentleman in that interview. He was very calm. He kept a smile. on his face and he was very, very well presented in the way that he dealt with the questions

that he was given and he answered them so eloquently and politely and with integrity. And he was, you know, everything that was thrown at him and tried to be twisted, he was able to turn it back on Jacob Rees-Mogg in a very gentlemanly manner. And I think that I admire him for that. I always love it when a celebrity finally just says to hell with the woke bullshit. I don't give a damn about the narrative anymore. And in an explosive series of I Am a Celebrity, where they put together a whole load of former winners of the show,

former legends of the show, we saw it a plenty because yes, there was the drama with Adam Thomas going on to win the show despite this massive fallout with Jimmy Bullard and all sorts of accusations towards woke ITV of covering up the truth of what happened, which definitely was the case. Actually, an anti-woke force emerged in the form of the former boxer, David Hay, now a fan of the Thruppel, who has decided, I'm not going to play the mainstream media game anymore on a whole load of issues. And it includes a discussion, which is a sensitive one, around women and whether women who are overweight and maybe struggle with their appearance in some ways actually are blessed with better personalities because

of the battles that they've had to go through in life. And David Hay received quite surprise backing, a surprise ally, you might say, in this fight from our superstar panelist today. She's here alongside Elizabeth Fox, Lelani Dowdine, who herself is a former model and a woman very much blessed with good looks, but has gone out on a limb to back David Hay in his claims. So before we get Lulani to explain exactly why, I want to show you David Hay's argument on this. who happens to win the human lottery that were tall attractive to the masses

have it easier going through life in general obviously there's exceptions to do all but as a general rule their personalities I'm talking about the not the pretty girl in your pub I mean that type is pretty I mean like

supermodel you know and not those little chubby Instagram models either I mean the proper ones where if you met them in real life not just all airbrushed up you look at them and go goddamn are you real

those ones but no people believe their personality even though they've had all those advantages right in life growing up, their personally will be identical to some bird who's both her parents are short, fat and ugly, her realising that and having to really navigate life

knowing the boys ain't looking at me, I want to get married one day, so they got really, they got to bring something additional to the table. But me bringing it up, I don't know, people really, People really get triggered. Really, really triggered. I'm like, what are you upset about? Am I wrong?

Is there no such thing is pretty privileged? And it's not like a thing. But no. The question, it's even terrible even bringing it up. What? You can't bring up. Ugly fat girls needing to do more than two beautiful girls. No?

That's not a thing. Over 85% thing. wrong. It means not a lot of sensible people left in the world. But what are you going to do? It's just going to navigate the world with all these stupid-ass people in it.

Oh, it's funny. And after that, and after David Hay actually ran a poll on this issue, which he lost, Lalani, you publicly backed him. Posting on X, we grew up in the days of reality.

When you are in sport, it's reality. The new generation and the entertainment lot are woke lovies. The only reason that poll lost is because triggered people shared it. People like me never saw it. Keep being you. It's hilarious. And David replied, you're a small minority of chick who isn't instantly triggered by this truth. It's very interesting who sits on what side of this. reality. I hope you're still winning, hon. So, Lulani, over to you. Why do you back David Hay on this? Well, first of all, Dan, I saw the post that you replied on where he was on this morning. Is it this morning with Cat and Ben? And they were going for him.

Going for him. And I was laughing. So this new post he did, he doubled down because I already supported him after your post. Because I think it's actually true. My fianc. My fianc. say is like, all right, bear, you okay, bear? And I said, what, what's bare? You go, bare minimum, bare minimum effort from you all the time. It's true. It's true. I think I've had it very, very easy in life and I can be a bit, and I do not care what people think of me. I make no effort with my personality. I have to say. And I do think that I'm not going to be as direct as him, but I do think less attractive goals might be more bubbly, sweeter, make a lot more effort. They have, you, they do kind of have to, whereas I'm not saying I'm hot or anything else.

I'm not saying I come into the category he's talking about, but I do think attractive people have it a little bit easier and okay, maybe I'm a bitch or whatever, but I agree with him. So I was talking to another really hot friend of mine, Gabrielle Richens. She's beautiful. And she was like, oh, my God, have you seen his last post? Now he's talking about the chubby Instagram models. I saw it. And I couldn't stop laughing.

But you know what? It's because he's doubled out and he just doesn't care. He's not going to sit there and try and please everyone and people please. And, you know, he's a funny guy. saying he's trying to be like Andrew Tate. Why, but this is how I think David's always been. I'm almost certain I did his rings as a ring girl when that wasn't, you know, before they stopped all of that and banned that for saying that's not PC.

So David comes from a time like me where you just say what you want and, you know, people like you or they hate you and, you know, you're not out there to people, please, everyone. I think it is absolutely hysterical. And I think actually it started from him trying to say nice things about the personalities of people. Now you think, you know, and like on this morning, who is offended? Is it the hot girls that are offended? Or is it the ugly chicks that are offended? You know, who's actually offended by the things?

Because in some ways, Elizabeth, he is actually complimenting women who he doesn't find as attractive, isn't he? Because he's saying, actually, it's the really beautiful ones. It's the supermodels who are boring as half. How? I fully agree with Laylani on this. I fully agree with David Hay. Because also, can I just say he is allowed to talk about his personal experiences in life. He is allowed to have an opinion on what he thinks from the women he's dated. So I don't understand why people are so triggered by this. I don't believe they actually are. I think, again, it's media hype and it's the whole woke ideology pushing forward.

I've seen so many things about like calling him a misogynist and, you know, the usual ists and labels that one gets when one speaks one's mind. And I agree with him. When, where I didn't, I did modelling years ago, not to the extent that Larnie did, but, and I met some stunning women, Lay Larnie being one of them, but I met some stunning women that they, they, they, I agree with David. They didn't really have a personality. And it was mainly their looks that kind of got them through the door to a lot of events and things. And they certainly didn't have a sense of humour, a lot of them. So I think it is a rare breed for people,

for women who are attractive, easy on the eye, and they're funny. They have a sense of humour and they're not so triggered. One of the things Lawrence said to me when we first dated, he was like, okay, I'm looking for red flags. And you're not offended by much. you're like you're not actually offended he said I've deliberately said some quite outrageous things on our day waiting to see your reaction and he said and you laughed he said so clearly you have a sense of humour and I was like oh what were you expecting me to be offended and he he said well most people are these days at anything which is true but good on David speaking his mind for saying that what he thinks from his experience he's allowed to he's a human being he lives a life like the rest of of us are and he shouldn't be condemned for saying, in my experience, I think this. Totally.

Well, I find it fascinating both of what you've said. I mean, Lelani, I have to say, when I was watching David Hay and that interview on this morning, I sort of had a feeling the vast majority of people in the country, if they actually saw the full interview, would be fully on team David Hay and fully against Ben Shepard, because you just know Ben Shepard was sort of robotically going through the emotions. He would not say the same thing to his mates in the pub, but it's that idea that if you're on TV, you have to just go along with a woke narrative now. And I do think a lot of people are sick of it. Totally. And you know what else, Dan, he was, you know, he was getting all up there

saying, who are you to say who's good looking or? Has anyone ever heard women speak? Women could be the worst talking about men, how good looking they are, how unattractive they are. Women do it all the time. So, you know, this whole thing that, oh my God, you can't possibly say that a woman is unattractive physically or attractive. Yes, it's all subjective. And, you know, this is part of it. Yeah, and he made that point, though, didn't you? David Hay actually made the point that, like, it is subjective.

Of course, it is an opinion. Exactly. Yeah. And he's an old one. He's a loud one. It's free speech, right? He's a loud one. Not on ITV. Not on ITV. But by the way, I don't know if anyone caught up with the whole drama with that show. I mean, I don't watch that show. I haven't watched that show in years and years and years. But basically, Adam Thomas, who's one of the Thomas brothers, called, you know, Jimmy Bullard, the C word. And ITV protected him and cut it out. And it is like total double standards, isn't it? Because could you imagine if David Hay had done that? I have a feeling he would have been. booted off that show within five minutes. So, you know, they're happy to be woken circumstances and other circumstances they protect people. Well, look, stand by you two because we're about to

reveal who has one today's union jackass. But I want to get to some feedback first because there's been so much of it today. Mark 59 says Starmo will survive, his rats won't turn on him. Starmo walks away from scandal. Lady Jay and I, over 400 rats in Parliament need 180 to turn on him so I can't see it. Flytime says he told MP's suspected attacks on properties linked him are an attack on all of us, on democracies and the values that we stand for. If it's attack on all of us, we will be told why it happened. Jackie Gummer said, I would have thought he could tell how we feel by the reception he gets in public. He's a narcissist and the only person who thinks he's right. Then in terms of his

replacements, Freddie D.W. said, I wouldn't let Cooper referring to Evick Cooper work behind a till at boots, let alone be in charge of the exchequer. Boots don't have tills these days. Trust me, you've got to do your own packing. Dominius Diabolus says, sacking Rachel from accounts won't make a blind bit of difference. And Carleen 4737 said, as I said before changing Starma Terraner is like changing your shirt after shitting your pants. And I have to say, I think that is the comment of the day. Well done. Carleen. Okay, to a reminder of the union jackass nominees, I went for Ed Dave, because he's, It's just been such a hypocrite on Donald Trump, like he posted these weasel words about Trump after,

and you know he's been spreading hate against Trump. Sidney Khan was nominated by Elizabeth for just dismissing the fact that the rape statistics are at this all-time high in London, and Lalani went for Peter Mandelson because of the new Palantir scandal, which she rightly points out much of the mainstream media have chosen to ignore. Okay, the results are in, oh my goodness, I'm in third place today. Damn you. Ed Davy gets just 8% of the vote. The runner up is Lelani on 13% of the vote with Peter Mandelson. But well, it's an overwhelming win today for Elizabeth Fox.

79% of you going for her nomination of Sadiq Khan as the worst Britain in the world today. And Elizabeth Fox, you have nominated a friend of yours to be greatest Britain today. Can you explain why, please? because he wants to unite the kingdom and he's invited Kemi Badernaq, Ben Habib, Rupert Lowe, Nigel Farage, all along to Unite the Kingdom event, which is happening on May the 16th and he's you know there's a lot of toxicity in politics but Tommy is reaching out to all of them inviting them all

and he's saying let's put Britain first let's put its people and Britain first regardless of of, you know, all the different people and their politics and their parties. And I think that's quite an integral thing to do. Amazing. Brilliant choice. You know I love you both. Elizabeth Fox, Lelani Dowding, today's superstar panel. Thank you so much for being back here on Outspoken. I am very, very grateful. We're moving over to Substack now, though, for the Royal Uncanceled After a huge week of Royal News

with the state visit in the US. we're going to have all the latest with Rob Shooter, the former Royal Courteer-turned-gossop columnist. He is stateside. He is bringing us all the latest. You can join us for that conversation at www. www. out-outspoken. But we will be back with you live tomorrow.

5pm UK time, midday eastern, 9am Pacific. It is a huge news day tomorrow. You don't want to trust the mainstream media for your coverage of Morgan McSweeney for your coverage of the state visit. So do come here to Outspoken tomorrow. Remember to hit subscribe right now on YouTube. Turn on the notification bell. podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your podcast from, and most importantly,

I promise to keep fighting for you.