Dan Wootton Outspoken - NIGEL FARAGE ACCUSES STARMER & RAYNER OF RIGGING ELECTION AFTER GIVING 16 YEAR OLDS VOTE

Episode Date: July 17, 2025

Go to https://ground.news/outspoken to see through media bias and stay fully informed. Subscribe through my link for 40% off unlimited access this month. BREAKING RIGHT NOW: A devious bid by Slippery Starmer to fix the next general election, as he gives 16 and 17-year-olds, who cannot get a tattoo or use a sunbed under the law, the vote at general elections. It’s Labour’s last desperate bid to maintain power forever in a legal version of ballot box stuffing, but is this about to backfire given it’s Nigel Farage who young people are idolising in the political space? Dan will reveal why Reform UK has opposed the shocking move today in his Digest. Then the Superstar Panel weigh in: Former Brexit Party MEP and the independent journalist behind That’s What She Said on Substack Alex Phillips and Britain’s most outspoken headteacher, now the author of the bestselling book Cancel This, Mike Fairclough. PLUS: The Afghan cover up scandal proves Britain as lost, as Richard Tice and Robert Jenrick go to war over the issue. Who’s right? We’ll debate. AND: Michelle Obama finally admits troubles in her marriage in a mortifying new podcast where she’s sitting in front of her husband Barack Obama amid the ongoing Jennifer Aniston rumours. We'll show you what happened. THEN IN THE UNCANCELLED AFTERSHOW: A bombshell from Prince Harry, as he reveals to his new favourite propagandist that he is prepared to ditch Meghan Markle to secure peace with the King, as he bans his wife from his attention seeking trip to Angola. All the royal latest coming up with YouTube sensation According2Taz. Sign up to watch live or on demand and totally ad free at https://www.outspoken.live Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Woo, woo, woo! Stop. Do you know how fast you were going? I'm gonna have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Liam Neeson. Buy your tickets now and get a free chili dog. Chili dog not included. The Naked Gun. Tickets on sale now. August 1st.

There's regular cold. And then, there's the mountains are blue cold. Mountain cold refreshment. Coors Light. The Chill Choice. Celebrate responsibly. Must be legal drinking age. No spit, no bias, no censorship. I'm Dan Woodson. This is Outspoken Live, episode number 272. And breaking right now, a devious bid by Slippery Stama to fix, to rig the next general election as he gives 16 and 17 year olds who cannot get a tattoo

or use a sunbed under the law, give them the vote at general elections from the next time we vote. This is Labour's last desperate bid to maintain power forever in a legal version of ballot box stuffing. forever in a legal version of ballot box stuffing. You're saying this is about democracy. This is not. This is gerrymandering. This is actually bare faced ballot box stuffing. That's what they're doing. They know that the vote, the people that voted them in are never going to vote for them again. So they're trying to find a whole new tranche of people who will. But is this all about to backfire? Given it's Nigel Farage who young people are idolising in the political space?

They're full of enthusiasm, they're optimistic, they're self-confident, they're the sun rays, they're going places. So I'll reveal why Nigel Farage has this afternoon opposed this shocking move in my digest next. Then my superstar panel weigh in. Today former Brexit Party MEP and the independent journalist behind That's What She Said on Substack Alex Phillips and there he is Britain's most outspoken head teacher, now the author of the best-selling book, Cancel This, Mike Fairclough. Also coming up on the show today, the Afghan cover-up scandal proves Britain is lost as

Richard Tice and Robert Jenner go to war over the issue, so who's right we'll debate. Michelle Obama finally admits troubles in her marriage in a mortifying new podcast interview where she says all of this sitting in front of her husband, Barack Obama, amid ongoing Jennifer Aniston rumors. I'll show you what happened. And Prince Harry does all he can to boot Kim Eilish off the front pages on her 78th birthday

and succeeds in doing so, by the way, as Meghan Markle sends the Queen some dodgy rosé and announces it all on Instagram. How tacky can these two get? We'll have the royal latest for you then in the uncancelled after show on Substack. Much more on the Royals and Prince Harry's shocking trip to Angola with royal YouTube sensation according to Taz. Sign up to watch www.outspoken.live. Of course we'll also be unveiling a new Greatest Britain Union Jackass at the end of the show. Then you can vote for the worst Britain in the world this week where we put all of our Union Jackasses head to head. But today's nominees are Rishi Sunak put forward by Bunny Bluff FT

nominees are Rishi Sunak, put forward by Bunny Bluff FT for bringing Afghans to our homeland, using our money and keeping us in the dark. Grant Schapps, nominated by Linz NFA 911 for trumping the Wallace D. notice with a super injunction. The context of that of course is that Grant Schapps pushed for the Ministry of Defence Afghan super injunction to remain in place. And Diane Abbott nominated by Darren Donaldson by standing by her comments that got her suspended from the Labour Party in the first place. Now she's being investigated by Labour. They're in a dilemma though aren't they? Because if you boot Diane Abbott this time, she goes back to her former shag buddy, Jeremy Corbyn, and teams up with that lot. So, goodness me, what are they going to do with Diane Abbott? Who knows? Who knows? Okay, let's go. In the United Kingdom, you are not treated as an adult by the state until you turn 18. So 16 and 17 year olds are legally banned from serving on a jury, adopting a child,

buying alcohol in shops, pubs or online, drinking alcohol alcohol in a pub or bar. Buying cigarettes or vapes. Purchasing solvents like glue. Gambling, including even entering the premises of a betting shop or casino. Likewise a nightclub. Ban from buying fireworks or sparklers. Going to an 18 rated movie. Buying knives, crossbows, firearms or air weapons, getting married or entering a civil partnership, even procuring a credit card or joining the armed forces without parental consent. I mean hell, 16 and 17 year olds in the United Kingdom can't even legally get a tattoo, most body piercings or even use a bloody sunbed.

But today, in one of the most disgusting examples of gerrymandering translation, vote rigging, slippery stoma and red rainer have quietly announced without any form of national debate that at the next election, 16 and 17 year olds will be given the vote. I think it's really important that 16 and 17 year olds have the vote because they're old enough to go out to work, they're old enough to pay taxes, so to pay in. And I think if you pay in, you should have the opportunity to say what you want your money spent on, which way the government should go. So I'm really pleased that we're able to bring more young people into our democracy and give them the chance to have a say over how their taxes are going to be paid and what they're going to be used for.

Now the move has been driven by the real leader of our country, our Ange, Red Rainer, who boasted, for too long public trust in our democracy has been damaged and faith in our institutions has been allowed to decline. We are taking action to break down barriers to participation that will ensure more people have the opportunity to engage in UK democracy, supporting our plan for change and delivering on our manifesto commitment to give 16 year olds the right to vote.

But let's just think about this for one second because if you really are going to give 16 year olds the vote then you are deciding that they are adults. They should be able to do everything on that list that I just ran through. But the irony here is of course there's no way Labour would do that. There's no way Labour's going to let 16 and 17 year olds into pubs, into gambling outfits. They're not going to do that because they know it would increase crime. It would increase the decline of our society. So there's a reason why those youngsters should also not be choosing who's in government. According to Carol Malone, this is nothing short of ballot box stuffing. But you're saying this is about democracy. This is not. This is gerrymandering. This is actually

bare faced ballot box stuffing. That's what they're doing. They know that the vote, the people that voted them in are never going to vote for them again. So they're trying to find a whole new tranche of people who will. Indeed, she says there are even physiological reasons to oppose such an obviously irresponsible decision. In fact, science tells us that the frontal cortex of the brain, which is about you know making decisions and you know assessing things, is not fully developed till year 25. So we're asking kids, basically kids, to decide and you're saying all of these kids are going to be working. Most 16 year olds aren't, they're in education or they're at

university. But even though I am vociferously opposed to this decision on so many levels, my gut feeling is this is going to backfire spectacularly on Labour. Because young people on the whole are moving to the right. And they're moving to the right because they're living through socialism and a daily invasion of our country and they don't like it because it's their phones being stolen in our major cities with the police refusing to even bother to show up. It's their homes being taken by illegal migrants who sexually assault their friends in the high street. And the working class white boys know they are being demonised by the deep state. And so what they've been doing, and this is something that happens,

not just on the right, but on the left too. I mean, look at the Bernie Sanders phenomenon, for example, in the US is that they have been turning to older men on the right including Rupert Lowe and of course Nigel Farage. I'm so happy mate! So did you! Wow! Full on stuff! Is that good enough to win your approval and follow us? What do you think?

I think it is personally. I agree. You are cocky aren't you? This is a mullet. Which is a good attribute. You go a long way in life. Right, we going to follow them Dan? Yes! There we go.

Yes! They're young, they're full of enthusiasm, they're optimistic, they're self-confident, they're the sun rays, they're going places! Can I get a selfie? Hold this, hold that. Don't take all bloody damage. There we go. Hold this guy, hold that guy. I'm getting one. Don't take all bloody down. There we go.

So even though Farage has sensibly, and I give him credit for this today, by the way, officially opposed this shocking Labour decision, which he does believe is vote rigging, he clearly sees an opportunity too. So the government today have announced seismic government election reforms. This means votes will be extended to 16 and 17 year olds now in the past. I've always said I don't support this because I don't think you should be able to vote in an election if you can't stand as a candidate and I don't think we should have 16 year olds in parliament. But the problem with this is not only do half of youngsters not want the

vote but they have to stay at school now until they're 18. And we know, and I get emails every week from bias in schools. This week a 12 year old was sent home for turning up at a party in a Union Jack dress. The educational establishment is full of left-wing prejudice, is full of anti reform bias. And frankly, if 16 to 18 year olds at school are going to be able to vote, we can have to make sure that our education system is teaching kids to make their own minds up and not indoctrinating them. Prager's also raised the wider issue of voter ID bringing the opportunity for the

sort of wide-scale fraud we have already seen in areas like Tower Hamlets. One other thing Angela Reynos says for too long public trust in our democracy has been damaged and our faith and institutions has been allowed to decline. Well, what have they done with voter ID at polling stations? They've said it will be extended to include bank cards. But bank cards don't even have your photograph on. What they're bringing in here is wide, open to fraud on a most extraordinary level. But of course, they think it will be OK,

because most of the 16 and 17-year-olds are going to vote for us, the Labour Party. Well, reform is in second place with this age group. And I tell you what, if this is what's going to happen, we are going to give this Labour government the shock of their lives. We're going to get 16 and 17-year-olds to vote for us. You know why? Because like me, they want to make Britain great again. They want it

to be a place that it's worth growing up in, going to work in. And I think you're going to see a big shift in the polls. The youngsters are coming to reform. Now that may well be true, actually. But I have to be honest, that worries me even more because my head tells me that Nigel and Reform UK will now push even harder to the left on certain issues like benefits, like free education in order to attract the younger vote and that is the last thing this bloody country needs or can afford. But Reform are taking their chance and you can't blame them for that because let's be honest the Tories are screwed when it comes to youngsters.

So as Reform's very youthful councillor Jamie McIver shared alongside a very youthful picture today full of young Reform supporters, let's be clear, lowering the voting age to 16 is going to be a huge gift to Reform UK. We can debate all we like about if it's right or wrong, the government promised it, so let's make sure we capitalise on it. But sensible youngsters know that this is a mad move. Our very own young superstar 17-year-old Ellie Hodges doesn't want the vote yet. She posted 16 and 17-year-olds in my opinion should not be able to vote. Lewis Brackpult pointed out, this move reeks of desperation. Labour knows just how unpopular this government is and is now trying to pad their support

by lowering the voting age. Not only is it short-sighted, it could potentially backfire on the political establishment. Still, I don't welcome this move. Madeleine Graham shared the anger that I feel today writing, It is not possible to hate this government enough. They can't pretend this is anything but shameless gerrymandering because they want 16-year-olds to be treated as children in every other way. And Adam Brooks also made a very disturbing point given the lack of English being taught in our schools writing, In England England one in five school children don't use English as their first language. And then he said

Labour gives votes to 16 year olds. I wonder why. Now it sickens me. It actually sickens me that the battleground at what is going to be the most important election for the United Kingdom in history, right? The next election is the most important election we have ever had. And it annoys me and sickens me that that battleground is going to move to schools. Schools which are already captured by the woke left. But I always knew Labour would realise they had zero chance of being re-elected. would realise they had zero chance of being re-elected. So, Slippery, Stammer and Red Rainer have worked out their only hope is trying to rig the system. Now, the superstar panel. Alex Phillips, Mike Fairclough here. Alex, what do you make of this decision by Labour today? They promised it, but it doesn't mean that it makes it any easier to swallow. Yeah, I think so many points that you've made are absolutely bang on. First of all, this idea that high school kids are automatically going to vote

left wing isn't necessarily tried and tested when you look at other countries, actually high school kids in the Netherlands, polled extremely favourably in support of H' builders in the PVV, the populist party over there. But, like you also said, our schools are in the clutches of left-wing unions, so these kids are all going to be brainwashed on steroids about things such as Net Zero, which will be a central plank of Reform UK's general election manifesto, i.e. scrapping it. But this is gerrymandering, and the problem is what the Labour Party have done, yes, this was in their manifesto, they've been playing with this for a long time

because they think it will benefit them. They've seen how unpopular they are. And so they've broken the glass that says, break here for 16 year old votes. And we've seen what they did in local elections, of course. Yes, we're going to change the way various authorities are structured so you don't need to have a ballot at all.

They've just changed the system for voting in mayoral campaigns to have it as preferential candidate instead, following reform success in getting a couple of mayors elected. So what makes you think, if they actually think that break glass for 16-year-old votes isn't enough to get them over the line, that they won't also do break glass for PR or preferential candidate. And then what they will then do is form super coalitions with other left-wing parties, Ply, the SNP, the Lib Dems, the Greens, you know, coming up with ideas

that we don't stand where you stand, et cetera. It will be like in France, where there's a super coalition of the left to keep reform out. Because what this indicates to me is this government has figured out it can't win by playing fairly and playing within the rules, so it's going to change the rules. And unfortunately, with that massive majority in parliament, with the Lords loaded with left wingers, and with some of these ideas already floated in the manifesto, there's not much we can do about it, Dan. So expect worse to come.

Yeah. Yeah. I think you're right. And this was always why I warned. You cannot vote for Labour. You know, you cannot vote for Labour because what they want to become is a forever government. Look, Mike Fairclough, great to have you on the show for the first time. Thank you. is a forever government. Look, Mike Fairclough, great to have you on the show for the first time. Perfect day for it, by the way, because you are Britain's most outspoken head teacher. Obviously, you know youngsters pretty well. Where do you stand on this? Do you think 16 and 17 year old should be on the vote? No, I don't. But I'm just bracing myself for the sort of insufferably cringy when you see adults trying to kind of get down with the kids and everything and it's, I think it's just going to be like not particularly cool. I had to check out how many 16 and 17 year olds there are in

the country. There's 1.6 million, well just under 1.6 million and I looked at the percentage of the vote in the general election last year from the general public and it was 59.7%. So if you were to take that and apply it to the 16 to 17 year olds, you're looking about 900,000. But what you're going to find is that now I was in the education system from 1995. I was a teacher for 10 years and then I was a head teacher for 19 years. And I saw over the last maybe kind of eight years of when I was there and I left two years ago, this massive amount of indoctrination going on within the education sector and it

included everything from gender ideology to climate alarmism. Yeah. And so let's be honest, Mike, let's be honest, right? And we know this, a lot of teachers will be now campaigning. Well, they will start to indoctrinate them. This is the thing and it will happen. And we saw it this week with that little girl who was excluded for wearing a union flag dress. And the same thing will happen. They will be coerced and indoctrinated into voting labour. So we're going to see next level, level cringe on the kind of media side of the political side. But we're also going to see some very nefarious stuff happening on the ground in schools. Yeah. And I totally agree with all of that. I guess the one area, Alex, you

might want to pick up on though, is that weirdly, I think with Nigel Farage, specifically, there is actually a sort of effortlessness in the way that he does deal with youngsters, because he's not trying to be cool, is he? And weirdly, that is part of the attraction. And I think, Alex, we've seen it with figures like Bernie Sanders in America, like the sort of thing that people assume is like, oh, the youth that are going to gravitate towards a young politician,

but that actually really isn't always the case. Yeah, and I just got by far the biggest following on TikTok. His very first was the GOAT, the greatest of all time. And like I said, when you looked at polling done in other Western European nations, this idea that high school kids, that it's a fore drawn conclusion that they're going to vote for the left isn't strictly true. But the Labour Party wouldn't be doing this if they had not done their maths, if they had not done their polling, if they didn't think it would favour them. That's what you've got to bear in mind. This isn't an act of altruism. This is the Labour Party trying to gerrymander to make sure they can stay in power. So they would have done all of the surveying behind the scenes, the focus groups, the calculations. I mean, what's actually just given me some hope actually is when Mike's talking about the number of people we're talking about, you know, when we're looking at these extra voters who are finally part of the plebiscites, then you imagine that half of them probably won't bother to turn out to vote, which

is what we have seen in the Welsh and the Scottish elections, and then you peel off maybe half again who won't vote left wing. Is it going to be enough to move the needle? But like I said, all these calculations will be taken into consideration when the Labour Party come up to 2029 and do not be surprised if they make other changes to the plebiscite to make sure there can be a left-wing heterogeneity going forward for time immemorial. That's what worries me. It's a sign of the fact that this government wants to play tactics and change the rules when they can't win fairly. Oh, big time. Big time. And I think it is really interesting to point that out though, because actually the statistics that I've seen show actually there's no demand for this coming

from youngsters themselves. I mean, 16 and 17 year olds, they have enough pressure, right? They're thinking about A-levels, thinking about GCSEs, like they don't actually want to vote. And the polling shows that only one in five of 16 to 17 year olds have any particular desire for this change to be made. But actually, that's why it's even more shameful and more disgraceful that Stammer and Rayner are pushing on with this for their own political reasons. Developing today, growing fury over the way the mainstream media and the deep state are trying to cover up what Mike Jones has rightly described as Britain's Watergate. Of course, I'm talking about the Afghan migrant scandal, which the British Bashing Corporation decided wasn't even one of the top two stories of the day when it broke. Now what has really,

I guess, surprised me about the story is how many people who previously were to an extent establishment people, people who on the whole would buy the mainstream media narrative, would believe that the government on the whole was there to do what was right by the people. And just holding their hands up and saying, I'm done. An example of this actually, my former colleague at GB News, good guy, but certainly, you know, and I'd say to the right of the mainstream, but certainly someone who's never bought into a lot of what he would describe

as conspiracy theories that someone like me has, Simon McCoy, posted on this, globally, nationally, politically, I feel lost. The Afghan resettlement case has been underplayed. This 24-hour media, which I was once a part of, just moves on. Super injunctions have been used maliciously against the British public. OMG. And I actually think he summed up that feeling perfectly like, how can we just move on from this, especially as the story just gets worse by the minute. So look at this, GB Politics posted, the Afghan soldiers granted asylum will be allowed to bring their family members,

meaning the number of Afghan migrants will be more like 100,000 to 150,000. And Dominic Cummings added to this logical and inevitable, thanks to the consensus of both parties supporting the ECHR and Human Rights Act, right to family life means number 10 has been told sorry PM, but you have no choice. And there's loads of specific examples of this by the way, like one Afghan migrant resettled by the government is believed to have brought 14 dependents. Now of course, sane people who I respect have understood just how serious this is. Stephen Edgington writes, every official responsible for this should be put on trial. The Tory

ministers should be held accountable too. I remember when the counter-terrorism police launched a three-year investigation into me for publisher leak calling Trump inept. The British state protects its own. And this was a theme very much taken on by Richard Tice, the deputy leader of Reform UK, who wrote in a column in the Taley Telegraph, it really does beg the question of treason. Keeping MPs and the British public in the dark about importing thousands of unchecked fighting aged males and their families is not in our best interests. This proves what we have known all along, the Tories and Labour are more interested in protecting and providing for foreign nationals than for British citizens.

And here's where we get political. Because what Reform UK want to do, and maybe you can't blame them politically but I think there has to be a degree of honesty with how they do it, is they want to use this scandal to finish off the Conservative Party once and for all, for it to be the final nail in the Tories' coffin. And I actually have no issue with that. I think the fact that Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister at the time, is not being followed wherever he is today by every single mainstream media outlet in the country is a disgrace, is a complete disgrace. He hasn't even been asked about this. No politician raised this in PMQs yesterday. So on that I'm with him. But the problem is he's also getting very personal, as is Zia Youssef, personally attempting to neutralise two right-wing political rivals in the Conservative Party in Zula Bravman, which we covered yesterday, and Robert Jenrik.

And now it's getting nasty. Because Robert Jenrik has been under such fire for the past 24 hours, he has now turned his metaphorical guns on Richard Tice. Because the slight issue is that at the time when all of this was going on, when I have to say Nigel Farage was very sound saying why are we bringing all these Afghans in, that wasn't what the leader of Reform UK was saying. Richard Tice posted at the time, we must protect those brave Afghans who helped us and their families by settling them in the US and the UK, sorry, simple, no ifs,

no buts. So what Robert Jenrick had to say about this was Richard thought it was a good idea, will he be the next independent MP? And Richard Tice did struggle when he was asked about this during an appearance today on GB News Watch. There's a tweet of yours resurfaced from 2021 where you were saying that brave Afghans who helped us and their families should be settled in the UK. We must protect them. Simple, no ifs, no buts is what you said. My position is completely clear. Fast forward to now you say that there could be sex offenders, terrorists, criminals etc. This is a scandal. Tories and Labour lied and covered up the arrival of these people

with no cheques etc. But you were willing to have people over here. I'm completely consistent. The key word there is brave. Those brave Afghan soldiers who fought alongside our own special forces, clearly that is what I was talking about at the time, and I stand by that. But the tens of thousands of chances who are jumping on the bandwagon and coming to the UK, that is completely unacceptable.

And regrettably, the evidence is now the presents itself but I stand by what I said the key word is brave. That does sound like it might be a retrospective conditional but um but let's take you at your word and say that you only wanted the brave ones to come across. There's nothing retrospective about it I'm absolutely 110% consistent. Okay okay let's let's take you at your word for the moment and say you only wanted those who were brave who fought alongside the British Who the brave ones were and who the cowardly ones were So I think this is a bit difficult for Richard Tice But Zia Youssef is absolutely determined to use this as the moment to say goodbye to all Former Tory ministers saying that indeed any of them sitting around the cabinet table Even if they weren't involved in this decision will be beaten by reform at the next election.

Little bit awkward, even one of those people is Jake Berry, who has just been recruited to reform UK. Just saying. And I'll also remind everyone that Yusuf was a member of the Conservative Party when this was all going on. But this is what he said, when the Tories were booted out of office, the public didn't even know of their worst crime. That two of their good ones were Home Secretary and Immigration Minister when the government got a super injunction is a poetic irony. RIP the Tory party. He added, the list of former Tory ministers who should defect to reform is shorter than the list that should probably be in jail. And specifically targeting Robert Jenrick, he posted these memes saying, dodging £2 tube fares, importing 24,000 Afghans at the cost of £7 billion and covering it up. He then added, how many videos about fare dodgers does it take to atone for engaging in the

worst political cover-up and betrayal of British people in recent history. The problem with this is, and I absolutely share the anger about what's happened, and as I say, I say shame on Rishi Sunak, shame on Grant Schapps, shame on Ben Wallace, shame on James Heapy, they should all be held to account. I repeat, they should be being followed by every single camera person and mainstream media outlet in the country today. The problem is, why is he a use of not talking about them? Why is he trying to disingenuously blame this on Suheila Bravman and Robert Jenrick? Well, Robert Jenrick has now hit back. This is his response, I'll share it with

you. He writes, the Afghan response route has been a complete disaster. Yes, we have an obligation to keep safe those who had genuinely risked their lives for us and those we had endangered who now face credible threats. But as the defense secretary has said, most of those names on the list were people who didn't work alongside our forces, didn't serve with our forces.

And as Johnny Mercer has said, the Afghan response route has gone well beyond that. It means thousands with few links to Britain have come here and will continue to come here at a cost of billions to the public. Why was the super injunction extended for two years, so long after the event, and with little regard for the consequences for public trust? Why was the vetting of prospective arrivals not tighter? The public needs answers to these questions, so this never ever happens again. I first learned of the data leak and planed to resettle people after the superinjunction was in place. Parliamentary privilege is not unlimited, I was bound by the Official Secrets

Act. In internal government discussions in the short period before my resignation, the then Home Secretary Suhaillah Braviman and I strongly opposed the plans to bring over 24,000 Afghan nationals. For those at genuine risk, we thought there were alternative options to pursue that better served the interests of the British people. The Afghan response route was agreed and started after I had resigned from the government over their migration policies. The plan to do this scheme was on the list of things Suhaela Bravman and I were working together to oppose and change. Clearly the last government made serious mistakes. What's not been mentioned enough is what has happened since. Thousands more have come since Labour came to power, 5,400 more have received invitation letters and will be flowing over in the coming weeks, leading to the cost reaching £7 billion.

However the disastrous data leak does not mean that those who bravely served with our armed forces should have been left at the mercy of the Taliban. It means there needs to be accountability for such a terrible error. Contrary to what some have suggested, the Afghan individuals I helped came on the ARAP scheme and had nothing to do with the subsequent AARR scheme caused by the data leak. Okay, so this is a complicated story in a lot of ways, but it is an outrage. However, Alex Phillips, is Zia Youssef wrong to use this to specifically try to end? And that is what he's done. He has said he wants to end the political careers and also see them

in jail. Suala Braviman and Robert Jenrick, who had nothing to do with the procurement of this injunction, had actually force it behind the scenes? Well look, I don't know whether they've sat down and had a discussion about how they're going to play this and how they're going to use it politically. I get the impression they probably haven't because there doesn't seem to be much cohesion with the responses. But, you know, I also don't understand why politicians can't say new information has come to light. I might have said something then and I was wrong and I've changed my opinion. There are a lot of us who a number of years ago might have said if there were people who fought alongside British troops when that disaster of a withdrawal from Afghanistan took place, especially women who served in the government

who are now going to have to shroud themselves like ghosts or faces stoning or interpreters who therefore because they speak fluent English probably share a lot of our values. I think a lot of us back then would have said we would like to protect those people but now we have learned that this scheme has been opened up to any Tom, Dick and Harry with any particular connection or their 14 kids and we also now have the data on sex offences and who's committing them in this country. So actually we've changed our minds or this scheme has been a disaster. Everyone should just focus upon dealing with the situation in hand. And this is a disaster and what is even

more telling in my opinion is the fact that there was that super injunction and this actually shows to me that our security services, our government, our deep states, whoever it is, are very, very aware how close we are to some sort of massive revolution in this country, some massive revolt against unfettered immigration, that social cohesion is already strained to the core, which is why things like crime statistics by nationality haven't been given to the public, which is why this has been covered up. And yet rather than deal with the subject at source, rather than actually grab it by nettle and say, okay, what we have realised is unfettered immigration from cultures who are massively different

to our own is posing a national security risk to this country, harming integration and making it a meaning that the safety and integrity of women and girls in this nation is at stake, they're not doing anything about the cause at all. They're just constantly being part of the cover-up. And so look, I have a lot of sympathy with people like Suella Baberman and Robert Jenrick who, when they learn more about the situation, wanted to do something and couldn't because of the super-intention. Because just imagine, Alex, if they were to say, okay, we're resigning, they would have had to not say why. You know, they couldn't even say, oh, it's because of an injunction.

So I mean, they did resign. Remember, they both did resign and they resigned for a whole load of reasons. And I have no doubt that this was part of it. Alex, just a quick word on Simon McCoy, because I know you two were obviously super close as co-presenters on GB News at launch. But look, he's, he's probably, I think he's a conservative guy in a lot of ways, but he's more to the mainstream of us. I think this is becoming such an eye opener, isn't it? This, this moment is becoming such an eye opener for so many people who just are starting to realize, oh my God, the deep state's against us, the establishment is against us, even the mainstream media is against us.

Yeah. Dan, first of all, I want to make a correction. You said that he's more mainstream than us. Dan, we are the mainstream. Okay? Don't forget that. We are actually the mainstream. Just not the mainstream media.

These weirdos are working with the BBC who aren't the mainstream, who are niche and actually don't represent anyone in the country. And knowing Simon, like I do, Simon's a brilliant man, loves this country, is a patriot and has very sensible political opinions that are 100% of the mainstream and the rest of the people. But this just goes to show actually how much things are now tilting because even people who had quite radical left-wing views, I had a woman knock my door in London the other day, oh look at her, there he is, I look really

skinny there, my god. You just love him don't you, you're just looking at him with adoring puffy dog eyes. But I do, I love that man. But you know, I had a woman knock my door the other day who was a Lib Dem and his friends in the Lib Dem council of the borough where I live. We started speaking about immigration into the borough and the risk posed to women and the degradation of the neighbourhood. And she said to me, I've always, always been a Lib Dem, always been. She used her own language, a bit of a radical lefty.

And she said, I'm going to vote reform. So things are really tipping now in totally the other direction, where even people who always thought that they would be refugees welcome and you know we've got to be a rainbow nation and multiculturalism is good, are beginning to see reality. And you know I wonder what four more years of labor is going to look like. And also, now we know what's happened with all of these people being resettled into this country, I think we're going to start getting more and more stories

of the consequences of that. Because where media suddenly realize that there is a story, that there is a narrative to tell, they're now going to go after what's happened to these people, where they are, what they are doing. I just hope and pray there is no more censorship from the top. But you know what? I wouldn't count on it. No, I mean, we don't know how many super injunctions there are.

And ironically, the media can ask the government spokesperson as much as they want. But the government spokesperson cannot tell the truth, because even if the government spokesperson wanted to tell the truth, they would be locked up for contempt of court if they were to reveal that there was an existence of a super injunction Super injunctions do not exist in the United States of America. They should not exist in any free society It is utterly utterly insane and chilly Mike Fairclough, can I just bring you back to the whole issue of the politics around this though? Because what Zia Youssef is attempting to do is finish the Conservative Party. Fine. There's lots of people who think that... I mean, personally, I can't ever see myself voting for the Conservative Party again after the terrible betrayal of the past 14 years. But he's trying to point

the blame and you saw those posts. I mean, he's not, there's no gray area. You know, he's trying to say this is the fault of Suala Bravman and Robert Jenner because they are the two people who are his rivals. Really. I mean, I've spoken to reform insiders who say when it comes to Suala Bravman, he didn't want her to join the party, even though Nigel Farage has made her top of his target list of defections. And obviously, we all know that Robert Jenrick will be the next leader of the Conservative Party. So is it fair for him to be going around acting as if this is the fault of everyone in that cabinet? Why is he not targeting Rishi Sunak, Ben Wallace,

Grant Shaps, James Heapy, who were the actual people in charge and responsible for this decision? Okay, so we can only speculate and don't really know, but what we can say for sure is that there's something very, very sinister going on with, first of all, the lack of transparency. But also I would say that this entire thing is about, well, my personal view is that I think this is all about paving the way for digital ID. That's why we've got open borders. Since

like the beginning of the year, there's been 20,000 illegal immigrants rock up on our beaches with like between 75 and 90 percent of them being military aged men between the ages of 18 and 35. On a single day in May there was a thousand who rocked up, you know, and what it does is it creates racial tension where there shouldn't be any. So just to be clear, it's like I'm married to a dark-skinned Punjabi Indian woman and yet when I talk about immigration I can be cast as like a sort of far-right extremist, whereas all of her family came to the country legally, they work incredibly hard, her late father Siddal Singh Satara was awarded an MBE by the Queen for his services to the country. So it's not about race. So, and the same with refugees as well.

We have a duty to protect women and children and men if they're genuinely fleeing persecution. We've got a long legacy of protecting people going back to the Jews in World War II. So again, this muddies the waters, but I can't help thinking that this is a deep state plan to, I don't think there's any mistakes basically and I think this is to get people enraged and I think that the answer as we've been seeing has been popping up all over the place not just here but

in America with Planter and the the EU with their digital ID as well and Australia with digital ID is the idea is that everyone gets documented and tracked. And I think that's what this is all about. It's not about being, um, a humanitarian and, and caring for people because I don't think they care about anyone at all. It's all about self-interest. A hundred percent it is, hundred percent it is. And unfortunately for a lot of people, And unfortunately for a lot of people, a lot of folk like Simon McCoy are now realizing, holy crap, the whole system is now against us. In fact, Alison Pearson, you know, my friend, the Daily Telegraph columnist said, gosh, you know, the government, the mainstream media is the enemy of ordinary British people.

And I think that is completely true. Breaking today, Michelle Obama, Big Mike, has hit back at all of those marriage rumours for the first time, including former US President Barack Obama's rumoured affair with Friends star Jennifer Aniston. But the mortifying thing is that she's done it in a podcast interview face to face with her husband, Barack, where she admits much to his awkwardness that there were troubles in their marriage. And she tells him about all of the rumours without naming her old mate, her old friend, I should say, Jennifer Aniston.

Yet Obama pretends he just hasn't heard about any of these things. I mean, the whole thing is car crash. It's totally mortifying. She's a really good example of someone very famous who probably shouldn't have a podcast because the real authentic version of Michelle Obama that we're seeing is actually a total misery guts with a victim complex. But given the speculation around the marriage, given the fact that my sources within Washington DC have been saying for some time the closeness between Jennifer Aniston and Barack Obama was just an open secret. No one in power was really not aware of the fact that something had been going on and that Michelle was so angry that that is why she didn't turn up to Jimmy Carter's funeral. And of course,

the inauguration, the second inauguration of Donald Trump. So you saw there from Barack's face that this was a bit more of like a waterboarding experience he wasn't enjoying this interview with his wife but he had to pretend watch what went down wait you guys like each other oh yeah really the rumor mill It's my husband, y'all. She'll send me back. Now don't start. It was touching y'all for a while. It's so nice to have you both in the same room together. I know.

I know. Because when we aren't, folks think we're divorced. These are the kinds of things that I just miss, right? So I don't even know this stuff's going on. And then somebody will mention it to me and I'm all like, what are you talking about? There hasn't been one moment in our marriage where I thought about quitting my man. And we've had some really hard times. So we had a lot of fun times, a lot of adventures, and I have become a better person because of the man I'm married to.

Okay. Don't make me cry now. Right at the beginning of the show. Don't let me start tearing up now. Burak, pull the other one. You don't know that half of Washington, D.C. is saying that you're shagging one of the hottest women in the world in Jennifer Aniston and that this has leaked out even into mainstream media outlets and you've never heard of that. I mean come on! This is so awkward and weird and your marriage is clearly completely effed up, which is fine, but why are you trying

to bring it all to the world? By the way, this podcast, The Dude in the Middle, is Michelle Obama's brother, Craig Robinson, and together they are hosting this new podcast, IMO with Michelle Obama and Craig Robinson. Okay, to my superstar panel, Mike Fairclough, Alex Phillips. Alex, look, I mean, this is just a cringe moment, okay? But at the end of the day,

if they don't want people talking about their marriage, why on earth did she launch this podcast? Why on earth has she spoken about how troubled her marriage has been in all of these previous episodes? And then why on earth has she dragged Barack on to go through what I think feels like a ritual humiliation?

Do you know what I find really weird about that clip that you just played? At no point was there a denial of an affair. He said he didn't know about the rumours. He said, oh look, she took me back. She said there have been challenges, but I wouldn't leave my man. So actually all of what was said seemed to me a bit of an admittance that something's gone on there. I don't follow celeb stuff or tittle-tattle or gossip or marriages or affairs. I'm just really not in that world at all. I prefer the British stiff upper lip, which is just keep things behind the scenes.

If you want to sort stuff out, sort stuff out. I'm zero tolerance when it comes to adultery personally. But, you know, the thing is about America is it's all about this stuff. It's all about the brand. It's all about PR executives saying the Obamas together could make billions of pints, and especially if there are rumors about marriage, and then they get back together, and then they do a tour, and then they bring out a book saying how to survive a relationship breakdown. Do you know what I mean?

There's so much in America that is all about artificially creating relationships and looking at relationship statuses as a way of making a lot of money. I mean, the Kardashians have been doing this for a long time now and it's just so cynical and it is cringe-worthy and it's also very American. I don't really think in the UK you could have like,

you know Boris Johnson doing a tour with his ex-wife saying all the affairs I had isn't it great or you know we just don't really sort of buy into that sort of rubbish. But yeah no it is cringeworthy but there's an audience for it there'll be people out there who worship those two there'll be people who buy into every word they say there are people out there who still think that they're like Mr. and Mrs. America, especially representative of the black community. But frankly, the Obamas are kind of a couple of has beens. They've got a lot of money in the bank.

They should just get on with enjoying their money and focusing on their marriage and focusing on the upbringing of their daughters and not succumbing to all of this really naff, you know, let's present a unified entity to the world if it doesn't exist. I mean, do you know what, I'm going to say honestly, I hope that they are fine. I actually hope that this affair didn't happen. I don't know anything about this stuff, but I'd hope it didn't. I hope if it didn't, she happily took it back that they have managed to restore their

relationship because I believe in monogamy and I believe in marriage and I wish that anybody who took vows to one another upholds the meaning of those vows. I'm very serious about this stuff as a Christian, but I don't think going around and commercialising your relationship and doing podcasts is the way to actually make sure that that is the case. Yeah, I mean, what's so interesting about this, Mike Fairclough, right, is that as Alex says, it is them that have turned this into an issue which has been talked about in like mainstream political journalism, because for a long time, the Jennifer Aniston rumors were the domain of the, you know, the supermarket tabloid magazines, right, in America. So the In Touch Weekly and all

of that, that covered this for a long time. But it was once Michel didn't turn up to Jimmy Carter's funeral and to Trump's inauguration, when all of a sudden, the Washington insiders felt under pressure to stop concealing this information. And some very light, high profile journalists like Meghan McCain and Tara Palmieri, who are very well known and considered to be credible in the mainstream media space, started talking about this. And then Michelle used those rumors to launch her podcast. The podcast has been totally bizarre because I view her as one of the most privileged women in the world, right? She's a multimillionaire.

She had eight years in the White House where she lived the life of Riley and was beloved. Do you know what I mean? Completely beloved. She didn't have to do or say much and she was just totally adored by everyone in the establishment. And this podcast has been like the constant tale of woe. So she talks about the fact that it was so hard being in the White House because, you know, we'd have to pay for our daughter's plane tickets if they came on Air Force One, even though he had a plane and she had her own plane. And the fact that we had to pay for our own food in the White House, which is one of those loopholes, but it's like, OK, you're living rent free in the most famous house in the world. Like she is a really miserable woman, basically. But when it comes to the

marriage, right, she is constantly talking about how difficult the marriage is. So everyone viewed these two as like a fairy tale. People used to say, wow, I'd love a marriage like Michelle and Barack Obama. And she has spoken about how in marriage, right, you have some decade of misery. And none of this adds up to me, Mike, none of this adds up to me. She's trying to tell us something, isn't she? But what do you make of it all? I don't know. So I'm kind of like with Alex on this one. So I've got that kind of interesting dual personality on it where I'm the sort of British side of me is like, you know, I snub my business, I don't care. But then once you mentioned Jennifer Aniston, then because I'm

a very visual person, I can't quite get that image out of my mind now of Barack and Jennifer kind of like getting it on which feels kind of bit weird. But of course they've got an incredible brand, haven't they? The Obama brand is worth billions. And even, well, I'm sure it's still incredibly lucrative. And even the way that they talk in that interview is very much like getting down with the kind of black thing. And it's like, and yet when you listen to past speeches from Barack Obama, he speaks in a completely different way. So this is about trying to level with the people and be kind of like a cool person. However, I still I'm kind of haunted by things that Julian Assange said

about Barack Obama, having Tuesday kill day where he would like have drone drone strikes where he would personally decide who would be killed on every single Tuesday, like pressing the button. I remember when he stood next to George Bush and Bill Clinton and tried to coerce everyone into taking the Covid vaccine. I kind of see these sort of, I think they're kind of, it's creepy how it can be so, they can have these very, very sinister kind of double lives. But in terms of what's actually happening, I don't know. I mean, of course, there's all that stuff

about whether Michelle's a bloke as well, which is entirely possible. I've seen... Big Mike, is she the new Brigitte? But this is the thing. So I like, this is where I kind of go, actually, I'm not interested in them. And then I'm like, actually, I'm a little bit interested. I'm going to have a look. I pretend not to be fascinated, but I suppose I am. But in terms of what's actually happening, I don't know. Well, it's human nature. And obviously they have now decided to turn it into the focus of this podcast. I will just show you what House and Habit, I love House and Habit by the way, one of the best sort of alternative media substacks out of America. This is what they reported on the whole situation.

Yesterday's DM, he's with Jennifer Aniston, my old manager now a friend is connected to her inner circle. At a gathering with Jennifer's friends, the affair came up casually. Jennifer herself admitted it. They were sitting with a psychic, makes it sound surreal but it's definitely not a secret among her closest friends. If this is true it changes everything. The Obamas have been a symbol of stability and grace for years. A revelation like this would completely shatter that image and for someone like Michelle who spent her life embodying tradition and loyalty it must feel like an unbearable betrayal. For now it's all whispers but the whispers are getting louder. I mean, Alex Phillips, I guess the one area that I might question in terms of Mike is that I think the Obamas used to be worth billions,

but actually their stock has significantly lowered in recent years. There's been a sort of turning away from these major celebrity couples. The other ones, the other examples, which are similar, are Will and Jada Pinkett Smith and the obvious one for us, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. So there was a period of time where corporates, right, like Netflix were throwing billions, Spotify throwing billions, well not billions, but tens of millions, hundreds, actually in the case of the Smiths and the Obamas and actually, in the case of the Smiths and the Obamas and Meghan and Harry, hundreds of millions, right? But they didn't deliver. They didn't deliver commercially. And so they're not getting those sorts of deals now. Like no one is really even listening to this Michelle Obama podcast,

for example. Right. I mean, like I said, there has been, if you were once worth billions, then it stands to a matter of reason that you probably still are unless you've been living like big pun and I don't know like gambling houses like Omar Sharif and losing them every time. So that's what they said the Obamas should just retire happily and focus upon their marriage if they are these sort of socially conservative people that they've professed to be and it's interesting I agree with what Mike said I noticed the way that Barack Obama was like y'all and all of that and I was like, y'all and all of that. And I was like, you didn't sound like that as president.

They're going after a particular audience. Maybe this is a genius move by Michelle. So actually if these rumors are true and he's still affiliated with Jennifer Aniston, maybe this is her way of going, come on then, come out and do it properly. Come out and say it or admit to it. Cause I've got you by the balls, my friend.

You're gonna come on my podcast with my brother and say how wonderful our relationship is and leave that woman I don't know maybe this is actually a really sort of like you know a stealth move a ninja move by Michelle to try and claw her man back and prevent him ever admitting to that relationship and going public about it. Developing today outrage within the Family, given after these peace talks with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, there was a promise, and there was a resolute promise not to leak any information, and also to stop slagging off the Royal Family, which by the way includes ridiculous PR stunts designed to take away from the work of the true monarchy. And what's happened over the last few days?

The total opposite. So the Royal Family had planned this release of a brand new portrait of Camilla the Queen for many weeks. And they posted last night, ahead of Her Majesty's 78th birthday tomorrow, a new picture of the Queen has been released by Buckingham Palace.

This image was taken this month in the garden at Raymill, Her Majesty's private home in Wiltshire by Chris Jackson and of course it was a beautiful picture. Slight issue is that Harry at the exact moment that that picture was released decided to release his own images of what I believe is a sixth stunt because this is the third time he's done it of walking through the minefields in Angola pretending to do a princess Diana looking in the same way as her lined up in the same way as her and he knew exactly what that was going to do and he succeeded it pushed Camilla off the front pages and there is fury amongst

the palaces as a result there's the Daily Telegraph that space was reserved for an image of the Queen the Daily Mirror probably wouldn't have put Camilla on the front page but they put Harry on the front page but the mail certainly would have and instead what's happened half the front page to Prince Harry so So what this shows you is that nothing is changing. They went into these peace talks, they made all of these promises, but nothing is changing. And it gets worse because Meghan decided to use Camilla's birthday to plug her crappy wine. I'm not even joking. I'm not even joking. Look at this Instagram message All about as ever of course or was never as Lady Colin Campbell caused it and she said

Sending birthday love both near and far to my ladies We know what she means a lady being Queen Camilla Princess Carl Harkle posted on this this cannot possibly be a birthday message for Queen Camilla But Meghan Markle posted this around 4pm Wednesday, Pacific Time, which would make it midnight Thursday in London, which is Camilla's birthday, so a few days ago, Harry and Meghan's team meets with the King's comms people, and now Markle is sending vague birthday messages to the Queen. How utterly and blatantly manipulative and disingenuous and using her cheap as ever swill to do it. She just can't stop

using that tenuous royal connection can she? Had she posted a legitimate birthday message without self-promotion it wouldn't be so phony and unbelievable but here we are. And from according to Taz there are 365 days in a year. You can't tell me that Harry retracing his mother's steps again the day before Queen Camilla's birthday wasn't intentional. The King needs to wake up and start seeing his son for who he is. No more chances. Harry is still a vengeful arsehat. And that was a new one to me. That was a new one to me. Arsehat. But I like it. Is that what it is, arsehat? I don't know. Okay, let me bring in my superstar panel,

Mike Fairclough and Alex Phillips. So look, Alex, I think Charles, I mean, I don't like criticizing Charles, okay, he's our king, he's our monarch, and I've criticized him a lot over the last week, but I just am so angry with him for reopening the circus, right? Because these peace talks meant to be separate. They were leaked by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. What ensues is days of leaks about exactly what was said, the circus returns. Then we have Harry and Angola deliberately pushing Camilla off the front pages. Then we have Meghan using Camilla's birthday to try and plug her wine in. I'm just like, just don't bother. Just don't bother

because this is what happens every single time you try and bring them back into the fold. Right. I mean, look, we don't know what the nature of those talks were. Unless we were sitting there and heard what the conversation was, it could have been about Ford telling what might have to be done at his funeral, because that is his son. That is his son and he's still the prince, however much we might dislike him

and absolutely detest his wife. But the other thing is, look, the Harry and Meghan PR team are cognizant of one thing. They don't seem to be able to come up with any original ideas, but cynically, they deliberately copy what Diana did and deliberately attach these things to other dates in the calendar that are significant for the royal family because they know it maximizes the

coverage. If Meghan just happened to send this, why is she unlocking a box for crying out loud? What's wrong with the normal like sixing in the carry handle? But you know if she brought this out on any other day that wasn't around Camilla's birthday or if Prince Harry hadn't walked through that minefield and had a photo identical to his mum on the same day on any other day of the year, it wouldn't get as much attention. So the team behind them know what they're doing without a doubt and the problem is we lap it up, don't we? We all sort of give them the extra coverage by not just the sort of, you know, vaguely supportive left-wing press going, aren't they wonderful? Look at what they're up to, and that's diminishing.

But all the right-wing press who hate them give them publicity anyway, saying, oh, look, they've done it at the same time as the Royal Family again. So, you know, they're cynical and strategic and they know exactly what game they're playing at. But at the end of the day, that is still the king's son. Family's family. And parental relationships are parental relationships. And he is a poorly man. We don't know how much longer we get of him. Of course, it was Harry who sort of leaked to the press that it might not be as long as we expected. But they've got a multi-million pound, if not multi-billion

pound PR team behind them over in America. These decisions are of course taken very specifically and very purposefully. And like we're talking about the Obamas, this is kind of how the American multi-billion pound PR industry works. It doesn't care about truth, it doesn't care about reality, it doesn't care about people's emotions or family relations or honesty. All they look at is how can they apply more and more money into the brand and keep the brand relevant. Yeah, totally. And I feel like the Royal Family though have almost opened the door to allow

them to do that more. I mean, by the way, Alex, you mentioned that interview. It is worth just reminding everyone this took place like less than three months ago. Watch. And I mean, Mike Fairclough, that interview actually was even more batshit than that, because Harry also suggested publicly to the world that the King had potentially been involved in some type of plot to want him dead. So I mean, I find it insane that the door has been opened to him so quickly anyway. But what do you make of this whole Diana thing? Like the walking through the land mine, trying to look like her because for me now I'm like you did this twice already Harry, you did it in 2010, you did it in 2019. The land mine issue in Angola which Princess Diana absolutely

raised the attention of for the first time in 1997 when this was a huge issue right a massive massive issue is no longer the issue that it once was because obviously three decades have passed and a huge amount has been done so to me this doesn't feel like Harry cares about the issue it feels like he cares about getting himself some good publicity yeah so so if I personally I feel if the royal family wanted to, if King Charles wanted to shut this down, it would be shut down instantly. I don't believe that any of this stuff is by accident. It's about, it's almost a soap opera. So in order to keep, and just to be clear, it's like, you know, I'm proud to be British. I love kings and castles of my heritage. I do feel a bit sold out by the current monarchy

going back to things like, you know, the great resets. And I think if like that, if we could all be serfs, I think that would be more than happy. But basically I feel like this is allowed to happen. You know, you could shut that down easily with the intelligence agencies or a word from powerful people and that would be the end of it. But I think it's in order to kind of keep it juicy.

But to be honest with you, I like, you know, for me, it's like particularly this sort of image here. I just can't wait for South Park to get hold of it. I remember when they did the worldwide privacy tour and it was just like fantastic. Because actually, that's the whole point. It's like, you know, this is what we need more of is that there's sort of less of this blind adoration and so on. I think there should be respect for our traditions but I think these guys need to also know where they stand in relation to us as well because it feels a little bit like we're moving back to that era where you know the

king sort of rules and I think there's been a lot of where there's been certainly with climate change and all the rest of it, there's been a bit of a encroaching on that stuff with, with, with King Charles. But yeah, I think if they wanted to shut this down, they could, it wouldn't be an issue. And again, it just keeps it entertaining. It keeps the brand rolling. And as I say, as soon as the South Park episode comes out, I'll bring it on. I cannot wait for the South Park episode. That's for sure. Alex, I just want to play you how the Sun covered this because they sort of, following Harry's narrative on this, but just while you're watching this, can you just have a think about, because I'm like, how can Harry, given he's so woke, right, and, and they're so left and they sign up to all of this, like, how does this not

escape what the left and the woke mob describe as the whole white savior thing when it comes to Africa? It's not something I sign up to at all, but obviously his mob do. So I'll come to you that, come to that in just a moment, but here's how his visit has been portrayed in the mainstream media. Harry walked in his mother's footsteps today as he visited a landmine field in Angola, Africa. Now, Princess Diana, his mother, famously attracted worldwide attention when she walked through a live landmine field in Angola back in 1997. It's been a cause that Harry has always looked

at and wanted to echo his mother in a bid to make Angola landmine free. And he returned today for a two or three day visit where he's bringing attention to this grave, grave problem. Does having the halos, having the job demining, does it help with the family? having the job demining, does it help with the family? At this sound. Okay, quiet. In sound, fire. Hey! Woo!

Thank you. Woo! Even the photographs are echoes of the famous photographs taken of Diana back in 1997 when she was the first person to really bring attention to this cause. Harry since 2013 has been patron of the Halo Trust and it is a matter very close to his heart. He didn't just walk through this land mine field, he also spoke to some children where he said, children should never have to live in fear of playing outside or walking to school. He called for a land mine free country. Now, Halo, with Harry's support,

have cleared many, many land mines in Angola and other places around the world. However, still in the last five years, 80 people have died in Angola. There are still millions of landmines in Angola. There's 67 square kilometres of landmines in this African country. And Harry, this is a personal crusade for him. It's something that he's spoken about. It's something that's close to his heart. And it's very important to him to follow quite literally in his mother's footsteps. Now this is the first time that we've seen Prince Harry since he sent his aides across the Atlantic to London to meet the King's aides to open up a form of communication and I'm sure in Buckingham Palace they're looking at this trip that he's made to Angola and I think maybe there is a lot of sympathy and I don't think they can find too much trouble in what Harry's been doing

in Angola this week. Alex, do you agree? Do you know what I was thinking just watching that? I felt quite emotional about it because I don't care about Meghan's rosé, I don't care about Harry's griping and moaning and the timing of those press releases but one thing I do care about Harry's griping and moaning and the timing of those press releases. But one thing I do care about are those poor wee kids in Africa. Kids have been blown up. Kids who are now amputees and paraplegics for the rest of their lives. Kids are orphaned because their parents are dead. And to find out there are still millions of these things undetonated in that country, despite the fact that it has been, what, 30 years since it was first raised to international attention, I would rather, I'd rather the press were talking about that. I'd rather the press were saying, how can we come up with solutions to make sure that that is dealt with, rather than

whether or not it was timed at a specific time of the year so Harry could get attention for himself? I mean, maybe he is doing a good thing, because now I didn't know quite how desperate the situation is. It's something that's definitely pulled on my heartstrings as someone who used to live in West Africa and lived in East Africa. And it just honestly, I just shattered my heart seeing that and learning about the statistics of that. So it's something I'm now going to keep an eye on. And I wish ridiculous mainstream media who seem to just write the headlines that they want to write and don't write the headlines that matter to ordinary people with a soul and with a consciousness, actually talked about that instead.

Well, I think it also shows the missed opportunity though, too, right, that Harry and Meghan had. Because if they weren't so desperate trying to make all this money all the time with their silly little stunts, I mean, this was the whole point of what they had an opportunity to do as members of the royal family. The Royal Family actually wanted to relocate them for six months of the year to Africa. So they could be completely focused on these types of causes. And I think Harry has huge regrets actually, with the fact that instead they went to Hollywood and just tried to pimp out their lives and it hasn't worked out. But look, huge developments in the Daily Mail today in regards to Harry's positioning on these peace talks.

And this has been written by the newspaper's editor-at-large Charlotte Griffiths, who broke the story in the first place, having been leaked the information from Team Harry. So it's pretty significant stuff. The headline is, Harry wants to reconcile with Roy, but knows he must do it without Megan. As he walks through Diana Minefield, friends say he's sick of being the Bitter Prince and hint why his wife isn't with him. And so Charlotte Griffiths reports, friends say Harry is desperate to distance himself from the image of the Bitter Prince that has defined him since Meg said, and is willing to do whatever it takes to move on, even if it means briefly leaving Meghan behind for important publicity tours. Indeed, he travelled to Africa, which he has previously described as his home away from home without Meghan, whom it has been said hoped that she might be thought of as a new Diana

when she married Harry in 2018. This event has been months in the planning and it was Harry himself who ruled out Meghan's attendance on the landmine walk from the start. Harry didn't want Meghan there according to sources in Angola. This decision was motivated partly by concerns over her safety but also by a leaf that the Halo charity is his thing and the source adds he wants to keep it that way. After all, Meghan could hardly resist the opportunity to be snapped by photographers walking literally in Diana's footsteps in a flatjacket and face shield her prints by her side. Apart from anything else, the images would no doubt have been a welcome publicity boost for her new business venture as ever. Until now, Harry has remained doggedly loyal to his wife, but his old friends tell me they

believe he has finally realised what the world has known for years, that if he wants to reconcile with the royal family he must be willing to stand alone. After all, several events have been involved and ended up being PR disasters, including in Africa. Harry may blame the press for the so-called media circus that surrounds Meghan, which is why he banned the British media from attending his halo walk, but some might reasonably suggest that her absence is a tacit admission that she might be the problem. I am told the Prince now wants to own this project, or at least the ones he has left. Insiders say that after the Torrid Centibali scandal, he is determined to ensure that such a situation never arises again, not with Invictus, not with his other UK charity, Wellchild, and certainly not with Halo, which will forever be associated with his beloved mother.

So, Mike Fairclough, look, it's an interesting strategy, isn't it? But do you really think it will work now? Because I feel like the British public are not just going to immediately forgive Harry because Meghan isn't by his side. I mean, if you think about the past few years, we look at the late Queen and Prince Philip being put through absolute hell in their final months on Earth because of false claims of racism. For example, we look at William and all of the claims that Harry has made about him in his book.

I don't know, I just feel it's a bit like we're not so stupid that just because Meghan wasn't there that all of a sudden we're going to remember the Harry that maybe we thought we used to love because I think haven't we seen the real bloke over the past couple of years? So it's interesting. So it's just as a kind of a receiver, a kind of consumer of information there. I had the same sort of visceral reaction that Alex did

when I was, that really well put together Sun article. And it's like, oh, right, actually there's something, this is like major stuff. I mean, I did then start thinking, right, where did they get the landmines from? Was it from us? The bigger thoughts about the military industrial complex, the fact that this goes on today, you know,

Lockheed Martin, Boeing, et cetera, the whole thing's just awful. It's like death cult that's involved. But you can't escape from the fact that they're little kids who are being killed and destroyed and you know for me when I was watching that piece it was so I'll go back to when they got married so I said to my wife when they were just before they got married I said right I'm not going to watch the wedding, I refuse to do it, I'm not going to do it, I'm a non-conformist and all the rest of

it and I ended up watching the entire thing from the beginning, middle to end and feeling really emotional about it and really proud to be British by the end. And then Megan started doing things which felt really uncouth and very un-British and I sort of fell out of love with that five minute love affair with the two of them when they first got married. So I think it's all about marketing really. I mean, you know, again, going back to what Alex has said, this is all like, you know, whether people think it's, you know, they're together or not together

or they're going to be, there'll be some friction or this, this is all a big soap opera really. But what, if there's anything that good is going to come out of it, maybe, as Alex said again, it will refocus people on an important issue, one that actually matters and that people can get behind. So that's my response. Very good response, I think. Breaking right now, Diane Abbott has just been suspended by Labour again after repeating the belief that anti-Semitism is less serious than racism endured by Black people. I mean, Alex Phillips, look, I thought it was insane that Stama ever let this woman back into the Labour Party. I mean,

she is racist. She is completely anti-Semitic, right? But he gave in, he gave in to the left. Now she's being suspended again. I mean, surely what she's gonna do is run off and join her former Shag buddy, Jeremy Corbyn, and join Hope UK, as it's gonna be called, or as I call it, Hopeless UK. But I mean, what do you make of this? I just think she's a nasty piece of work, isn't she?

But, you know, he created this problem because he didn't stand by the previous suspension. Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if she repeated the allegations just so she can be booted out, just so she can then publicly go to that party of all the sort of headlines that makes it a big thing. I mean, she's another political has been really. And I just hate this game of which racism is worse than the other, which is what is going on in the hierarchy of victimhood, you know, is it that you're Muslim, is it that you're black, is it that you're a woman, is it that you're disabled or gay or trans, I mean, it's so tedious. It is tedious, it is tedious, but the problem is, right, the left are so on every other form of discrimination. If you actually listen to what, because this is what she said, Alex, she said, clearly there must, this is her new comments, by the way, to Radio 4, clearly there must be a difference between racism, which is about color and other types of racism, because you can

see a traveler or a Jewish person walking down the street. You don't know what they are. But I think the reality is Alex, she just doesn't believe antisemitism exists at all. We know about the antisemitism problem within labor. We know about the antisemitism problem, she just doesn't believe anti-Semitism exists at all. We know about the anti-Semitism problem within Labour, we know about the anti-Semitism problem when she was the shadow Home Secretary under a Corbyn Labour Party, they just don't really buy into it at all. No, I know. I mean, look, a lot of people on the left and in the comfortable middle classes seem to have these really perverse views on our Jewish population. And it is a massive red flag for our society.

When Jewish people start leaving your country, you know you've got a pretty bad form of cancer going on. But she's also obsessed, as she always has been, with the color of her own skin. I just want to give her a piece of information. Guess what? It's all imagined that the rest of the country is obsessed with the fact you're black.

We're not. I don't care. We don't really care. We don't care that Rishi Sunak was a Hindu Indian of Punjabi descent born in East Africa. We don't care that Kemi Badenox black. We don't care that you're black. The only person who cares so much about being black,

it seems, is you, Diane. And this is the thing, you know, people like her make a bit of a sort of, you know, a sort of keep her reputation alive by playing this card because we know that she can't do radio interviews, we know she can't add up, we know she'd make a pretty rubbish Minister of State. And so it's kind of the only card she's got to play anymore. And a lot of people who play this card, it's usually I mean, I think of that mother of the house. It's so embarrassing.

No, but you know, like I said, how did she get that position? Age, she's been a politician for a long time, but also because it's a historic moment. Yeah. You know, I just a lot of people play this card, having enjoyed the system for so long. I think that Nadia Hussain, the hijab wearing Baker from the BBC, obviously, look, she might be a very personal and nice young woman who can cook a cake.

But, you know, I think she was given all those opportunities and all those series for the tick box DEI diversity, doesn't this make us look progressive as a corporation? When the BBC said you ain't getting the viewing figures, we're going to cancel it, all of a sudden it's like, this is racism, despite the fact that she probably got the opportunity in the first place. Totally. Because it's quite particular. Totally.

And so I think about Diane Alba in this same view, as the minute their star begins to fade, opportunity in the first place. Totally. Because it's quite particular isn't it? Totally. And so I think about Diane Aber in the same view as the minute their star begins to fade it's like, oh, better talk about the fact that I'm black again. It's like, Diane, no one cares but you love. We're not really a racist country. We're pretty colourblind as a nation and the people who are obsessed with race are the people who want to maximise their own opportunities because of it. Couldn't agree more. Mike Fairclough, this is a good point to talk about

your brilliant best-selling book, Cancel This, because of course, as Britain's most outspoken head teacher, you know all about cancellation. But this is interesting, isn't it? Because, like, I in some ways would say, okay, don't cancel Diane Abbott for what she actually believes, apart from the fact that can you imagine if this had been a white male conservative or reform UK MP saying that they didn't believe Jamaican people suffered from racism. That'd be gone, it would be leading the mainstream media. We just know that. Yeah. So first of all, I've noticed, well, we've all noticed, haven't we, that antisemitism has become a socially acceptable form of racism. Totally. It's literally just happened in the last few months. Prior to that, we've had like 70 years of it being the most taboo

thing you can do. You can, like, even if you were to mention something about Israel kind of innocently, you could be branded anti-Semitic. So, and just suddenly it's almost become fashionable. And it's interesting because my kids, they've got one of their teachers as their classics teacher, she's a wonderful older lady who's born in Israel, she's Jewish. She's actually anti-establishment. She doesn't agree with the Israeli regime. She was a freedom fighter during the COVID era. She's got friends who are Palestinian, she's got friends who are Jewish and all the rest of it. And she's told me that she's had incredible amounts of anti-Semitism directed at her since all of the Hamas attacks

last year. So, you know, it's extraordinary with her and with also with her community saying, you know, hide your star of David and that kind of thing. And it's become really it's actually chilling because we've always had this like for decades, we've had this like this self reflection on like, how did the horrors of 1930s Germany happen? How did the rise of the Nazis happen when there were good people who just sat around and didn't say anything and just kept their mouth shut? Now we know, because I've had I've had very good friends say to me, oh, yeah, you know, I don't kind of really don't agree with all this

kind of hammers flag waving stuff through London and, you know, but just can't really say anything at the moment because of what's going on. And that's exactly what the problem is. It's self-censorship for fear of reprisals from others and that's what we've got to crush. Going back to the race thing, as I said earlier, I'm married to a dark-skinned Punjabi Indian woman and if you had to spend any time with the Sikhs, they are the least victimy group of people I can possibly imagine and they completely rip the pee out of every single other nation as well, just like we do, just kind of almost like racist horseplay and I think

we just got to get back to this vibe where we just kind of get a bit more chilled about the whole thing, but certainly anti-Semitism should be banished. Hear hear, hear hear. Mike Fairclough, a brilliant outspoken debut. Thank you so much for being here and of course cancel this. A Best Seller on Amazon is available right now and it is such a brilliant book. Thank you so much for being here today Mike. Of course we're gonna reveal Greatest Britain Union Jackass in just one moment. Diane Abbott is one of those nominees but first to your comments today Marion writes the more I watch and listen to Stumber the more I'm convinced he's baiting the people to true unrest. He's a psychopath. Yes Marion he is he really is I agree with you. Angela Orr says I'd be

interested to know the actual percentage of 16 and 17 year olds that are working in this country paying taxes and deserve the right to vote to say how their money is spent. And then there's this divide over, do we go for Nigel? Do we not? Is reform the answer, is it not? Well, here's both sides of the angle from outspoken viewers.

Susan says, if we don't get behind Nigel and stop talking about Nigel, we're going to lose our country. Please back Nigel, we need our country back. But avtomat4774 says, a generic of your UJ nominees, Rishi Sunak nominated by Bunny Bluff for his government, bringing Afghans to our homeland, using our money and keeping us in the dark. Grant Schapps nominated by Linz, FA911 for trumping the Wallis D notice with a super injunction, and Diane Abbott, the aforementioned

Diane Abbott, nominated by Darren Donaldson for standing by her comments that got her suspended from the Labour Party in the first place. With the party taking it seriously, will she be the next to join the new Communist Corbyn Party? And of course, in the past few moments we know she has now been suspended. Okay, so has she been suspended and become Union Jackass? Let's see, here are your results. In third place with 31% of the vote, Grant Shaps, the runner up with 32% of the vote, Diane Abbott.

So today just got a little bit better. And today's Union Jackass, the former Prime Minister responsible for this revolting cover-up, Rishi Sunak. Fishy Rishi I used to call him on GB News. God I was right. Today's Greatest Britain, nominated by Real McCass, is Katie Hopkins for not giving up the fight for free speech and fighting against the rugby council.

Okay, we're moving over to Substack now for much more Royal News with According to Taz. Just sign up at www.outspoken.live if you want to watch. But we are back tomorrow. Very excited actually. Dr David Starkey in the house tomorrow, 5pm UK time, midday eastern, 9am Pacific. Hit subscribe if you're watching on YouTube or Rumble and most importantly I promise to keep fighting for you.