Dan Wootton Outspoken - REASON BEHIND RACHEL REEVES PMQS BREAKDOWN WAS "BULLY" ANGELA RAYNER AS MSM COVER UP STORY

Episode Date: July 3, 2025

SHEATH UNDERWEAR - Get 20% off with the code OUTSPOKEN at checkout https://sheath.com BREAKING TODAY: The Westminster establishment, Labour and mainstream media are lying about the real reason for Rachel Reeves’ tears: Her ongoing feud with bully girl Red Rayner who sat with an evil stare as the Chancellor broke down in PMQs yesterday. Tellingly, today’s unconvincing show of defiance from Slippery Starmer, Wes Streeting and Rachel from Accounts did not feature Our Ange – and there was not one MSM question about their bust-up either as Reeves lied yet again. In his Digest Dan reveal what’s really going on as the untouchable Deputy Prime Minister wreaks havoc behind the scenes as part of her secret bid to enter Number 10. Then, real tough birds Katie Hopkins and Julia Hartley Brewer turn on Reeves and say she’s giving other women a bad name. And the Superstar Panel weigh in: Host of Breaking Embargo on YouTube Peter C Barnes and political commentator Charlie Sansom. PLUS: Tommy Robinson’s fury at the Daily Mail after his court appearance today in London, as his trial versus the journalists is set for next October. We’ll show you what he said. AND: A new celebrity low as the truly grotesque Lily Allen competes with another washed up star on her podcast about how many abortions she’s had. We’ll debate what the horrifying revelation means about our society. THEN IN THE UNCANCELLED AFTERSHOW: Then in the Uncancelled Aftershow on Substack: A tale of two princesses – one real and one fake. Catherine opens up in emotional detail about her struggle to recover from cancer treatment as Meghan Markle pretends her latest commercial disaster has been a success, even though desperate customers feel ripped off. The royal latest with YouTube sensation According2Taz. Sign up to watch at www.outspoken.live. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Colgate Total is more than just your favorite toothpaste. It's dedicated to advancing oral health. The new Colgate Total Active Prevention System features a reformulated toothpaste, innovative toothbrush, and a refreshing antibacterial mouthwash, all designed to work together to fight the root cause of common oral health issues,

such as gingivitis, plaque, and tartar. Use the full routine twice daily and be dentist ready. Shop the Colgate Total Active Prevention System now at walmart.ca. No spit, no bias, no censorship. I'm Dan Woodton. This is Outspoken Live, episode number 262. And breaking today, the Westminster establishment, Labour and the MSM are lying to you about the real reason for Rachel Reeves tears her ongoing feud with bully girl Red Rainer who sat with an evil stare as the Chancellor broke down in PMQs yesterday. Tellingly, today's unconvincing show of defiance from Slippery Starmer, Where's Streeting and Rachel from Accounts did not feature

our Ange and there was not one MSM question about their bust up either as Reeves lied yet again. I was probably the last to appreciate anything else going on in the chamber that's just a straightforward human explanation, common sense explanation. So in my digest next I'll reveal what's really going on as the untouchable Deputy Prime Minister wreaks havoc behind the scenes as part of her secret bid to enter number 10. Then a couple of real tough birds, Katie Hopkins and Julia Hartley Brewer turn on Reeves and say she's giving other women a bad name. ...sympathy with Rachel. She clawed her way there with her nails falling off, desperate

to get to that position. She lied on her CV. She stabbed each other in the head to get to that position. I'm so sorry little Rachel Reeves. First woman Chancellor, you don't get to that person. I'm so sorry little Rachel Reeves, first woman chancellor you don't get to play the woman card and then throw the rest of us under the bus at the first sign of trouble. Been a couple of other real tough birds on my superstar panel today just looking we've got the host of Breaking Embargo on YouTube joining out spoken for the first time Peter C Barnes and making

a return our good friend political commentator Charlie Sansom. Also coming up on the show today, Tommy Robinson's fury at the Daily Mail after his court appearance in London as his trial versus the journalist set for next October will tell you what happened in court and show you what he had to say. And a new celebrity low, as the truly grotesque Lily Allen competes with another washed up star on their Washed Up BBC podcast about how many abortions she's had. We'll debate what this horrifying revelation means about today's society. Then, in the uncancelled aftershow on Substack, a tale of two princesses, one real, one fake.

Catherine, the Princess of Wales, opens up in emotional detail about her struggle to recover from cancer treatment, as Meghan Markle pretends her latest commercial disaster has indeed been a success. Even though there are tons of desperate customers who feel completely ripped off. All the Royal Latest with YouTube sensation, according to Taz, which you can find after the main show. If you sign up to our sub stack right now, www.outspoken.live. Of course, do stick with us until the end of the show, because we will be revealing today's greatest Britain and Union Jackass. The great thing about Union Jackass is that it's chosen by you. Get voting in the YouTube live chat. But here are today's nominations.

Lily Allen, nominated by Anna Island. Typical attention whore, Anna says. Singing the narrative, she had four to five abortions she can't remember during an individual interview but has said nothing during an abortion debate a week earlier. Diane Abbott, nominated by It's Only Me 44 over the banning of Palestine Action as a terrorist group. And Rachel Reeves, nominated by Amaze Linini who says Rachel from accounts because of the tears for herself, not for freezing pensioners, farmers or small businesses to name but a few.

That is what happens when you're appointed to a role way out of your expertise. So get voting for today's union Jackass and we will reveal the winner at the end of today's show. But now, let's go. They must really think we're stupid, right? Because after yesterday's PMQ's breakdown, we have all been assured by the liars who now run our country that Rachel from accounts tears were purely personal. And nothing to do with her ongoing bitter nasty divisive feud with Labour's bully girl who is now really pulling the strings. Just a reminder by the way that this was Red Rainer's face as Reeves was bawling her eyes out. But of course Rainer couldn't comfort Reeves given she's the large part of the reason

that our Chancellor was such a bloody pathetic mess. Now let me be very clear, I am certainly not one of these lefty loveys defending Reeves' meltdown. After Stammer's very public breakdown last week, it is now clear that we are being led by two emotionally incompetent messes of human beings unable to cope with the pressure that they are destroying our country. But the operation to protect Rainer, Red Rainer, let me tell you, is now in full force after this truly dire set of front pages for the government today. Indeed Indeed only Dan Hodges in the Daily Mail has come close to the truth and you know not one of the

pathetic shill MSM journalists dared mention Rainer's name when questioning Stammer and Reeves today about what really happened. And can I just say, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are now more used to lying than telling the truth, which is something we should never actually accept as normal because it disgusts me. Now Stammer was marginally pushed by Sly News' Beth Rigby, who showed far more compassion to Reeves than she ever did Liz Truss or Suhaela Braviman, by the way, who she loved to monster watch. First, it's really good to see you today. It's really good to see you here. But Prime

Minister, I have to ask you, on a human level, people were shocked and baffled that in the Commons yesterday you did not offer your Chancellor your support. Was it because you didn't see what was happening or did you not know what to do? Thank you. Beth, let me clear that up straight away. I didn't appreciate what was happening because, as you will

probably appreciate, the PMQ is pretty wired. It goes from question to question and I'm literally up down, looking at who has asked me a question, thinking about my response and getting up and answering it. So it wasn't just yesterday. No Prime Minister ever has had side conversations during PMQs. It does happen in other debates when there is a bit more time, but in PMQs it is bang, bang, bang. That's what it was yesterday. And therefore I was probably the last to appreciate anything else going on in the chamber. That's just a straightforward human explanation, common sense explanation.

Oh, is it? And then we had Reeves. Now you'll remember Reeves we're meant to believe was just in such a dire state yesterday because of this personal issue that she will not tell us about. But today emerges with a face of makeup looking like the most together woman in the world to try and prove that we're not really witnessing the collapse of this government after less than a year as Reina seizes control. Chancellor, can you tell us a bit more about what it was that clearly upset you yesterday? Well, clearly I was upset yesterday and everyone could see that. It was a personal issue and I'm not going to go into the details of that. But my job as Chancellor at 12 o'clock on a Wednesday is to be at PMQs next to the Prime Minister supporting the government and

that's what I try to do. I guess the thing that maybe is a bit different between my job and many of your viewers is that when I'm having a tough day it's on the telly and most people don't have to deal with that. That is certainly true. I mean, it's it said there was an altercation between you and the speaker, or there's also a story about potentially a conversation with someone else in the government before that happened. Is that true? No, no, no, it was a personal issue.

I'm not going to go into the details of that. That's not that wouldn't be right or fair. Okay, let me just be very clear about this. She is lying. She's lying just like she lied on her CV. Just like she lied when she told you that she wasn't going to increase your taxes. The Main Street media might be tiptoeing around the issue, but Rachel Reeves is lying. I have to give credit to Dan Hodges, the Labour columnist in the Daily Mail who has been the only MSM figure to ignore the pathetic number 10 denials and actually produce a version of the truth. And this piece headlined what one cabinet minister has told me about what really

lies behind Reeves public breakdown, the truth about Angela Rayner's role and why it all means the chancellor cannot remain in post any longer. So let me take you through the key points. He writes, Dan Haunches writes, another minister said tensions between Reeves and Rayner had burst into the open after the Deputy Prime Minister's allies had briefed colleagues she had brokered yesterday's welfare climb down directly with the PM, bypassing the Chancellor. This came after an emerged Rayner had been directly lobbying Reeves to change course on tax policy.

One said, Rachel thinks Angela has been undermining her and damaging her credibility with the markets. Another observer of PMQ said it was noticeable Angela and Rachel were ignoring each other throughout the session. Dan Hodges goes on. Eventually, her advisors issued her statement claiming she had experienced a personal matter and they would not be commenting further. An explanation that has created significant skepticism across Westminster and even among her own colleagues. According to one cabinet minister.

So this is a quote from a cabinet minister. She was already on edge after an argument she had with Angela Rainer over the benefits climbed down. Then when Lindsay, speaking about Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House, had a little pop, that pushed her over the edge. But it wasn't his fault, it wasn't really about him. Dan Hodges goes on. It is simply not tenable to have a Chancellor breaking down in tears in the House of Commons chamber. The circumstances of their emotional distress are not relevant. Reeves' suffering significantly undermined the financial markets and the chaotic speculation that followed it further undermined the credibility

of a government that has already had its authority shredded. What's more, the Prime Minister has a duty of care to a valued colleague and while he may not have been fully aware of her anguish at the time, he is fully aware of it now, and it simply cannot be brushed off as one of those things. Reeves needs to be pulled back at least temporarily from the political front line, Keir Starmer owes it to her, and more importantly he owes it to the nation. But actually what's really going on behind the scenes, and let me be very clear about this, going on behind the scenes and let me be very clear about this is a bid and it will be a long-term bid by Rainer allies, Red Rainer allies to get rid of both Slippery Stama and Rachel from accounts but here's the thing if Rachel from accounts goes then as we saw with Kwazikwatang and Listrass

the PM's job becomes untenable. So I've got a couple of pieces of quite astonishing reporting to show you, which again has largely been ignored by the MSM. So first, astonishing reporting from Sly News' Sam Coats. Remember up to this point he has been slavishly loyal to the failed Prime Minister. I had a couple of conversations today, Sophie, that I wasn't, bluntly I really wasn't expected in this week of the anniversary of Kirstama's election. One was with a prominent Labour MP, one was with a Minister in Kirstama's government. Both of them put the Prime Minister on notice. Both said the same thing.

If, come next May, Labour performs terribly in that set of elections, and remember, there are elections in Scotland where Labour could win, there are elections in Wales where Labour could lose to reform, there are elections in London where potentially you could end up without Labour in power there, going to Greens and others. If Labour do badly then, they said that could be Keir Starmer out. Maybe Keir Starmer should be out at that point.

The level of unhappiness and despair in parts of the Labour Party is so striking that right now on the first anniversary I am hearing from ministers in the government Keir Starmer might have to go in months. But of course after Sam Coats said that unsly news not another mention, not another mention. No one asked the Prime Minister about it today. Then Labour leftist James Mathewson went on GB News to reveal what's really been said about racial from accounts by her own colleagues. I'm just going to read you a text Martin that I've just gotten from somebody who was in Downing Street or in the leaders office at least for the good part of the past year and I said to them what's the next steps after the

the benefit vote last night what's the next steps after the benefit vote last night, what's the next steps? And they said, getting rid of this effing chancellor. So that tells you everything you need to know about how some people, actively people who support Keir Starmer's leadership, are reacting to Rachel Reeves at the moment. And while speculation is of course something that I try and avoid, you know, the

fact that she's in the chamber, she's turned up, she's there, and clearly showing that emotion and the stress on her face. I wouldn't be surprised if these things were linked. Just remember, Red Rayner, whose allies are trying to get the f-rid of this Chancellor, in order to get the F rid of this Chancellor in order to get the F rid of this Prime Minister use the chaos of the welfare reforms back down to appear with Lorraine Kelly yesterday morning and quietly push for the top job. From a human point of view when you look at Keir Starmer he looks tired, he looks under siege as a person how is he? From a human point of view, when you look at Keir Starmer, he looks tired, he looks under siege. As a person, how is he?

I've always... Do you know what I mean? Because you're working with him all the time, you know. She doesn't care in the rain. The strains of this, he looks absolutely exhausted. And some people have said, he's not going to be here after Christmas, he doesn't have the stomach for it, or he might be ousted, we don't know. Do you know what? Even before I was in politics, I said that, have you ever seen a Prime Minister after a year or two in government?

And people always say to me, do you want to be Prime Minister? Not a chance, it'll age me by 10 years within six months. And it has. It does. It does. Anyone who's been Prime Minister is a very challenging job. And there's been, to be fair for Keir Starmer, there's been a lot going on. He's been all around the world trying to repair the relationships in Europe. So she knows what she was saying there. He's been all around the world, he's been ignoring what's going on here at home. Everything's coded at the moment with Red Rainer. Now predictably,

the Be Kind, Woke Mob are saying any of this conversation is morally reprehensible. Like, did you hear from the MP Preet Kher who wrote, Let's be clear, the focus on Rachel Reeve's showing emotion isn't just tired, it's deeply revealing of outdated attitudes. Rachel is the first woman Chancellor in British history in just a year, she has delivered more for public services, stability and economic credibility. But I have to say, I much prefer these responses from some of our sound women like Annabelle Denham who said, this is the problem with diversity hires. In addition to guaranteeing you don't get the right person for the job, you also tee

whoever is appointed up for failure. And what about Sophie Kikorin who I think made a very good point. I just look at the double standards between the horrendous things the media said and continue to say about Liz Truss versus the sympathy they're giving Reeves. Why do Labour get the kid gloves? And I have to say, that's why I loved Robert Jenrick, the next Conservative leader, not putting on his kid gloves. In fact, not giving a damn about being PC.

Rachel Reeves' benefits bill is dead. And so is her career. She's been humiliated by her own backbenches and forced into her most embarrassing U-turn yet. By her own metric, she's crashed the economy. She's lost the confidence of the markets. and now it seems she's lost the confidence of the Prime Minister too. It's time for Reeves to go. And of course Reeves' tears yesterday belie actually the most serious crisis that as Sunday Telegraph editor Alistair Heath points out today means Britain is now just one blunder away from an IMF bailout and becoming a failed state. So I want to take you through some of his very important points. Alistair Heath writes, the real power lies now with an economically illiterate,

fiscally irresponsible mob on the Labour-backed benches and their cabinet allies Angela Reina and Ed Miliband. The parliamentary party is now little more than a mismatched coalition at war with itself. Factionalism rules guaranteeing drift. And it has taken just a year for this farce of a government to run out of other people's money, as all left-wing administrations eventually do. Yet it is now unclear who has the authority to grasp a situation that threatens to spiral out of control. Britain in 2025 feels ominously like a gigantic Ponzi scheme, on the brink of exposure, taking down everything and everybody with it. No wonder many young ambitious people are dashing for the exits while they still can.

Alistair Heath goes on. Stama will eventually sack Reeves or she will quit in disgust, but whoever replaces her will either be a creature of the party's tax-loving, anti-capitalist spendthrift left or suffer her sorry fate. Her successor won't be allowed to make any cuts, just hype taxes on the rich and successful, further crippling the economy. The next Chancellor will be under immense pressure to loosen the fiscal rules and borrow with even more abandon. Labour's experiment with technocratic social democracy lasted exactly one year. Whatever comes next will be much

more explicitly socialist and destructive. Yet this is not merely the latest instalment in a parliamentary theatre of the absurd or even the human tragedy of a hubristic, overpromoted politician stabbed in the back by her party and cut adrift by her honourless leader. This is real life and the situation is grave. This is the moment when political crises typically metastasize into financial meltdowns. When the markets begin to treat us like a failed state, sell the currency and push up interest rates. Britain is one political blunder away from a run on the pound, an emergency budget and a bailout by the IMF. It was striking

how Sterling slumped when it looked as if Reeves was about to be axed during PMQs. The markets don't love her, but they are terrified that her successor could be even worse. And that folks is the depressing situation we are now in. situation we are now in. It's almost like, okay, let's keep an emotionally unstable, incompetent liar as our Chancellor because the alternative is only going to be even more of a disaster. To react now, let me bring in the superstar panel. And we are joined today by the host of Breaking Embargo on YouTube, Peter C. Barnes and the political commentator Charlie Sansom. So Charlie, look, why are the mainstream media handsome. So Charlie, look, why are the mainstream media so desperate to avoid the conversation that it was Angela Rayner who made Rachel Reeves cry? Like Dan Hodges, he's the only one who's

actually been prepared to say it on the record and then there was not one question about it to starmer today. And even the interviewer who asked Rachel Reeves the question said, Oh, a fight with Lindsay Hoyle or another government figure. Like why are they not just prepared to say that it's Angela Rayner? I'm not entirely sure, but there's obviously problems within the Labour Party that, you know, are not being specified publicly. I don't know why that would be. But from what I can tell, Rainer definitely wants the job.

There's no doubt about that. And maybe the media want her to get it. Peter C. Barnes, I think there is now a protection racket in place. The mainstream media have worked out, Starmer is finished, and so it's going to be their girl, Angela Rayner, who takes the job. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't report the truth, right? Like this bust up between Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves was

obviously really significant, Peter. Great to have you, by the way. Oh, of course it was. But again, thank you so much for having me. It's been great. But the thing you have to remember is it's not just about protecting Reina, it's about protecting themselves. They hoisted Rachel Reeves up as the greatest thing since sliced bread. There was an article that said that she was Labour's secret weapon just during the general election. There was no scrutiny on this woman at all, just other than, oh, is it she's the first woman, so therefore she must be amazing. This is actually, I actually think more about the media protecting itself from its own criticism, because yet again, they let the public down by not holding people accountable and not actually challenging the Labour Party

when they were in opposition about what they were going to do. You know, none of this was kind of a surprise to any of us in Westminster, because the chaos behind the scenes was self-evident to everybody, but the Labour Party just, sorry, the mainstream media never reported on it. It's absolutely disgraceful, but it doesn't surprise me

because you're asking liars to tell you the truth and well, you know where that gets you. Charlie, how stupid do they think we are though? So we're meant to believe, okay, so if we're just following their narrative, we're meant to believe that this issue that literally caused Rachel Reeves to be a sobbing wreck during PMQs yesterday was so serious and so personal that we're not even allowed a little hint Charlie. Like for example, right, let's just say something is wrong with one of her family members health, right? Or a pet had died or something like that. Like there are things that could be said without actually revealing the full truth. But instead we're just meant to believe, oh no, no, it's personal, but that's all you're getting. That is all you're

getting. And yet today, she turns up, brand new makeup, new hair, happy as Larry. It's like, well, it clearly can't have been that serious. Do you think that perhaps she has to put on the show now because of all the the news about her crying in Parliament and she has to put on the face? You know what? And it may very well be that it was a personal issue. I don't believe so. But if it was, do politicians deserve a private life? Well, I'm sorry., they don't deserve privacy about breaking down in the middle of the House of Commons when there are literal impacts on our financial markets.

No, under that circumstance, no privacy is required or warranted. But as I say, there are lots of ways around this. You know, what do we all say when we're talking to workmates who maybe we don't want to reveal everything about our lives? Really sudden health issue in the family. You know, there are ways around this. A problem with one of my children. You know, there are ways around it, which problem with one of my children. You know there are ways around it

which is why, let me just repeat, Rachel Reeves who lied on her CV was lying to us all again. Breaking today, real tough birds Katie Hopkins and Julia Hartley Brewer have turned on Rachel from accounts and say her astonishing breakdown in PMQs yesterday after that bitch fight with Angela Rayner are actually giving real women, powerful women, women who don't have to talk all the time about being a woman a bad name. So this is what Katie posted on X she said this is not a matter of sympathy for personal issues or boys who don't like to see a girl cry this is a matter of respect for the public office you clawed and lied your ways to get hashtag Rachel from accounts and she went even further in this video watch

Boys who are upset to see Rachel Reeves crying in the House of Commons, would you please? Would you please get over yourself one? She represents the office of the Chancellor of Great Britain She should be giving people the idea of confidence, of positivity, of someone who knows what they're doing. You can't sit there blubbing. You can't. It's irrelevant what's going on in your life, whether you're male or female. All that matters is that you represent the office with the sort of respect that you would want to accord to it. Number two, this is why you shouldn't over-promote females. You're all having sympathy with Rachel.

She clawed her way there with her nails falling off, desperate to get to that position. She lied on her CV. She stabbed each other in the head to get to that position. And now she's in tears, and you want to say that you feel sorry for her. All politicians are snakes. None of them deserve sympathy at any time and this is

specifically why women should not be over promoted past their capabilities. If you don't have a spine, if you can't separate your private life and your business life, if you have to be a big I'm a mother as well or I am a heart person, sure you are. Chat about that in your off-duty moments. Chat about that in magazines if you want to. Show pictures of your fanny. I don't care when you're at work you're in business and it's why women must not be over promoted. So boys quit with the blubbery. Yes Katie I completely agree. We need to stop talking about identity politics full stop. I was so disturbed that when Christopher Hope from GB News got the first interview with Rachel Reeves after a whole load of epic financial disasters and U-turns and lies on her CV, the

first thing he asked her was about the fact that she was the first woman chancellor. I do not care. I do not care. I do not care. Margaret Thatcher was prime minister in the 80s. So I do not care that we have a female chancellor. What I care about is that she does the job properly. And actually what I love about the powerful women in my life who I respect, like Katie Hopkins and like Julia Hartley Brewer, is they never fall back on the fact that you should be treated differently because you are a woman. Julia was on fire on talk today. Watch. I don't know about you, I'm dealing with some personal matters.

I can't cope with today and I've had a row with someone. I just can't do my job. Has anyone else ever felt like that? Philip Ingram, as you just heard. I'm Julia Hartley-Brew. This is Talk. We're the home of common sense where we don't cry. I'm so sorry, little Rachel Reeves. First

woman Chancellor, you don't get to play the woman card and then throw the rest of us under the bus at the first sign of trouble. You cried yesterday, not because you had a row with Keir Starmer or Angela Rayner or the common speaker Lindsay Hoyle or because you weren't backed by the Prime Minister in questions from Kemi Badenock about your future. And by the way, the Prime Minister's lying. You're not lasting all the way to the next election or beyond. You cried because you're not up to the job. You have been overpromoted. You overfilled your CV. You made claims that were not true. Some might call them actual lies because most of us could remember whether we'd worked for, I don't know, 10 years or five years

at the Bank of England as an economist. Some of us could remember whether we were in the complaints department or an economist at Halifax Bank of Scotland, if we'd worked there for a number of years. You have overplayed your cards. You are up to your neck in it, and you are out of your depths.

And that is why you couldn't cope with the pressure when it came to it. If it was a personal matter, Rachel Reeves, stay at home. If it was serious enough that you could cry in public, moving the markets, taking £3 billion off the markets, putting the cost of public borrowing up, probably people's mortgages up as a result of what you did, the cost of the pound, people are going on holiday, is going to get fewer euros for their pounds because you couldn't hold the tears back. I'm sorry Rachel Reeves as I said yesterday it's as simple as this man the hell up. Yes Julia man the hell up I love it but of course we have

client journalists operating throughout the mainstream media. So the people, have you noticed this? The people who were the most cruel to Liz Truss, who actually wanted to send our former prime minister to a breakdown, who even now taunt her over a sick daily star stunt involving a lettuce, all of a sudden they care about humanity and politics. They want us to go easy on female politicians like the very wet LBC lefty Ben Kentish. Thought it was a really, really poor decision and a sign of a lack of empathy from Kemi Badenok.

And a lot of other people that have chosen to respond cruelly to the Chancellor, I would suggest respectfully might take a look at themselves and just ask whether they've really dealt with this, with the humanity that I think even politicians, even the most senior of them, still deserve. Piss off Ben Kentish, because you don't give a damn if that female politician happens to be a Conservative. You don't give a damn if that female politician happens to be a conservative. You don't give a damn if it was Preeti Patel. You don't give a damn if it was Suella Bravaman.

You certainly don't give a damn if it is Liz Truss. So we're not going to show sympathy now simply because someone is a woman. Especially when this woman is destroying our country. But there was so much of this and actually Katie Hopkins pulled a lot of these people apart. I loved it. So look at this post from Shia LaFogatey, also of the Labour Broadcasting Company, who wrote, I once read an entire news bulletin in tears. Somehow stifled them as I read each cue, then sobbed during the audio. Co-presenter Nikki Campbell saved me by making me laugh. God bless him. I really

felt for Rachel Reeves today. Why did nobody help her? Katie Hopkins responded, Calm down, she loves donuts, Fogarty. She's the chuffing Chancellor at PMQs, not some radio sloth with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. But Katie was particularly harsh on the men who were making excuses for Katie Hopkins, though I'm not sure if this dude actually describes himself as a man, he's more of a they them. Tom Harwood from GB News who wrote, This is genuinely very sad to watch and utterly heartless of the Prime Minister. Well, Katie responded, Tom let me show you the body of the dead farmer who shot himself. She

forced his hand on the trigger. Get your spine in gear son, you have a voice. Do not be weakened by the tears of a woman. And she wasn't finished there because Matthew Said tweeted or posted on, sorry I should say correctly, a huge admiration for Rachel Reese for having the guts to go into politics. A hundred times braver than the armchair cowards on here, crying doesn't show weakness. Don't agree with her policies but salute her courage, not least her going into the chamber while feeling miserable.

And Katie said, so weird to watch these men she put men in inverted commas lose all rational ability would you admire the dentist that lied to get the job then effed your teeth Matthew would you admire the surgeon who turned up sobbing for your heart transplant eff your phony female fellatio.

And is there anyone worse in the mainstream media? I mean honestly I know it's a very very like tough market but is there anyone worse in the mainstream media than Paul Brand of WokeItv who just seems to get it wrong every single time? So this was his take yesterday, a tear just rolled down the chances cheek at PMQ's as the PM refuses to answer whether or not she'll stay in her job. A fever or something else. And then he said, I am loathe to jump to conclusions given the inherent sexism and politics about female ministers crying, et cetera. But much of Westminster is wondering if that was a moment of genuine upset for Reeves. Now can I just tell you Mr Paul Brand if a man were to go into the House of Commons and start sobbing, yeah that would be a real issue

mate and it would be a bigger issue than what we saw yesterday. June Slater, the brilliant June Slater responded to Brand saying for god's sake stop talking about this bloody woman like she's Tessa the Dervish. She's a hard- arsed, ambitious, ruthless individual whose policies have wreaked havoc on pensioners, farmers, small businesses and the big employers crushing many families. She exaggerated her capabilities and she should park whatever she is upset about and have some backbone. If it was personal, stay at home. If it was work related, own it and stop some backbone. If it was personal, stay at home. If it was work related, own it and stop

the tears. But the problem is, have you noticed, so many of the people who claim to be so-called conservatives are actually part of this wet, woke movement? Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Sajid Javid, who posted, whatever your politics, it was hard not to feel for Rachel Reeves today, wishing her all the best. Well, I actually loved this reply from the right angle, I had to share it with you. You're such a cuck. These people were happy when Boris was at death's door. They jeered at Liz Truss. They wished Margaret Thatcher could die again. Get a grip to my superstar panel now, Charlie Sansom and Peter C. Barnes. Peter, that post is totally right, isn't it? From the right angle.

Like all of a sudden, all of a sudden when it's Rachel Reeves, these lefties who honestly, I think wanted to drive Liz's trust to suicide, I really do mean that, right? Like what they were putting her through and what they continue to put her through, a lot of people would not have coped. All of a sudden, oh, you've been horrible. You're being horrible. You're being a chauvinist if you even dare discuss these tears of Rachel from accounts. Oh yeah, definitely. I think the phrase get a grip might be the most accurate statement to deal with all of this situation because you're bang on. I mean, it's a really good point about the Boris Johnson situation when he was on death's door. We didn't know whether

the prime minister was alive or dead at one point, you know, and yet these people were planning a party at one. I mean, it's always this kind of empathy for the right people. But I would remind people that, you know, Rachel Reeves' actions have cost this country an estimated 30 billion pounds. Fiscal credibility is non-existent. The 22-point jump in the gilt market makes it so expensive to borrow money now. The pound is basically worthless against the dollar and the euro. So, you know, the chances of this country recovering from this incident is slim to nil without the IMF bailout.

That's how serious this is. Rachel Reeves is not just a woman or a politician or anything. She is the chancellor of the exchequer. That is a very important role in terms of providing confidence in the markets that we need on our side more now so than ever in terms of investment and growth. And under her, I'm sorry, it just doesn't exist. She has to resign.

She has to for the sake of the nation. She's got to go. But unfortunately, she won't because she has a political acumen of a turnip and the responsibility of God knows what. But I think there's a really strong point Katie Hopkins made there about the farmer. Her actions have had direct consequences, direct consequences that have decimated families. And she has taken no responsibility for that. So I don't have any sympathy for her now. And I never will do. Her actions were reckless and they were dangerous and they cost lives. That's this Labour Party and that's this government and they've got to go. 100%. I mean, Charlie Sands and I completely agree with Katie Hopkins because this is a

cruel and actually cruel is not strong enough. This is an evil government. Peter Lynch is dead because you decided to lock up political prisoners, slippery stama. Julie Sweeney remains behind bars. Wayne O'Rourke remains behind bars. Lucy Connolly remains behind bars. So I'm sorry if I refuse to have compassion for this lot. I agree with you. I've never liked Labour anyway. Obviously, I don't like anyone on the left. I think

they're reprehensible in general politically. What I would say about this whole situation though is why has it taken Rachel Reeves to start shedding some crocodile tears to then be in the conversation of should she keep her job? This should have been happening a long time ago but it hasn't and I think that's an example of how feminized our country has become and how feminized politics has become in general, because all it takes is the emotions of a woman for people to go, oh my God, let's feel sorry for her, but oh my God, should she be crying? Oh my God, should she lose her job? Oh my God, oh my God. I just want someone competent actually. And I think Peter spoke for me in what he said a moment ago, everything that he was saying there was absolutely spot on. So can we get someone competent please? That

would be great. Sure, if you're having a bad day, I'm not completely inhuman. If you're having a bad day and you want to let out a few tears, go to the toilet, leave the chamber why you got to sit there and do it? And you know, I'm not a nasty guy, but you know, there's a, there's a look here and that's a woman under pressure and she's under pressure from all sides because she doesn't know what she's doing and from all sides because she doesn't know what she's doing and her colleagues Know that she doesn't know what she's doing That is a really interesting point isn't it Peter? Yes, please comment. No comment. Yeah. Sorry my fault I'm gonna say it because politically she's been out in the cold for quite some time the Labour Party want nothing to do with her

She's toxic on the doorstep. So she's no allies She's no one to lean on for support at all. And I'm having the starting suspicion that a lot of this may have been brought up in terms of deflection away from her actions. So we don't actually talk about the damage and the chaos that she's caused with having sympathy for her. Do you know, is it not a narrative way of kind of changing the conversation? So we have sympathy for her, so we try to keep her in place. I'm wondering if there's a little bit of a strategy involved here now to manipulate the public into thinking that this is what we should be talking about, when in reality, as I've said,

£30 billion has just been knocked off this country's assets. That is a substantial amount of money and nobody's going to be held accountable for that because unfortunately, the Chancellor asked for a Kleenex. It's embarrassing. Internationally, we are a laughing stock right now. Nobody takes this country seriously. We're out of the room when it comes to most geopolitical stuff. I mean, it's just a joke, absolute joke. But all of this could have been prevented if the mainstream media did their job and held them accountable when they were in opposition. Because in opposition, they were just as chaotic. But once they got into government, it was it was kid gloves all the way. It's just the most disgusting thing ever.

And do you agree with Charlie that part of this is because we now live in a feminized society, which actually was the total opposite of what Margaret Thatcher wanted. It was like first and foremost, she was going to be a competent, brilliant prime minister. Second, she was a woman. Third, she was a mother. Fourth, she was a wife. And actually she never wanted to focus on number two, three and four. Yeah, I was going back to what Katie Hopkins said in one of her very first appearances on Question of Time, saying women couldn't handle being treated equally, most of them. And that's the reality of it. We're living in a society where people are being treated

equally, they don't like it, so they start crying and then we feel sorry for them. I'm sorry, I just don't have time for this. The nation does not have time for this. We are about to face an economic crisis that's going to make 2008 look like child's play. The seriousness cannot be understated and we're spending our time dealing with a chancellor who should not be there. I completely agree with Charlie that, you know, if you're having a bad day that's one thing, but again she has to recognize that she is more than just a politician, she's the chancellor of the Exchequer, her actions have consequences well beyond the average voter. And I'm sorry, her political naivety and the naivety of number 10

at the moment, the political operation there is shocking. They all need clearing out. It's just shambles. Westminster is rotting around this and there's nobody in my opinion that's capable of taking up the mantle at the moment. And that concerns me even more than what's going on. Breaking today, Tommy Robinson will face a jury trial for the first time in October next year, October 2026, after being charged with two counts of harassment and the fear of causing violence against a duo of reporters from the Daily Mail newspaper. Now, I'm always going to be totally transparent when I'm talking about these type of court cases. There is so much more I would love

to say about this, but of course it is an act of proceeding. So I do have to be slightly careful. I also hold my hands up, of course, and say that I was previously a columnist for the Daily Mail in saying that I am disgusted, utterly appalled with the activities of this newspaper surrounding Tommy Robinson and the fact that they now want to present themselves as the victim. So we're going to get into exactly what happened in court now. This is what Tommy Robinson said after emerging from making his decision to go ahead with a jury trial and what he feels the Daily Mail has done.

Describe what has just happened. They've read out my charges which basically what they're saying is the mainstream media can track your family down, they can take pictures of innocent family members, they can give the location which if you follow the two day slot of when they've done this, resulting in Somalians with machine guns threatening to murder my family, threats to rape my kids, Muslims giving the address away of the location of my family, six different groups turning up at the family hotel where we were, the managers of the hotel put me in a side room saying we're scared for the safety of all the guests of this hotel, that is what the mail done. They didn't need to locate my family. They

could have run the story around publishing where we were. They didn't need to publish any pictures of innocent people. I now face prosecution for saying I'm going to ask them some questions. And he does. And I'm just going to read out some of the key facts that emerged in court today. As I say, I really wish that the British legal system meant that I could be more analytical about what Tommy was really saying in these posts, but let me just read you out what he said. So he told one of the reporters, I'm coming to get you while

tweeting about how he tracked the pair down. He is he wrote you will be questioned on camera about how you think endangering children is okay. The court heard he also messaged one of the reporters saying he had his address and said I'll be knocking on your door, let your bosses know I'm coming to all your houses. Of course Tommy had accused the journalists of endangering and doxing his children. He pleaded not guilty to the charges. So again I'm just going to be very careful but I just want you to listen and think about what he said. And just ask yourself, did he really make any direct threat at all? Or did he just say that he's doing journalism? And of course, the reason that Tommy is so disgusted with the Daily Mail is because they purposefully chose to make him the face of the South Port

massacre rather than Axel Rudekibana. celebrating what they've done. We made Tommy Robinson on a sunbed the poster of last year's riots. Last year's riots, the poster was not Axel Rudicabana. That's not the image that they want people to remember. They want me on my sunbed. Which I'm not bothered about the picture of me on my sunbed. I'm bothered that they located and docked and gave the location of my children. You can hear the messages of evidence. It's me saying to them, how do you think it's fair to endanger my kids? How do you think that's right to endanger my kids? That's what they've done. And while Tommy is horrified about the fact that he now has to suffer another year of lawfare given that this trial will not take place until next October, he is very clear that he wants

to be tried by a jury of his peers and he believes that for the first time it will be the Daily Mail rather than him on trial. Watch. Again, they think I'm on trial now. The Daily Mail are going to be on trial. Their behavior, their tactics are going to be on trial and the jury are going to get shown what they've done to my family and their jury are going to get shown what they intentionally done to my family. What was the need to put pictures of innocent family members when they know there's threats to attack my ex-wife with acid? Why would you show a picture of her? Why would you do that? What story, what part were my children or my ex-wife or innocent people? How were they part of this story?

They weren't they purposely done it on behalf of the British state At a time when they wanted to put a target and pressure on me and my family. That's what they did And you can see Tommy, of course very upset about what happened in court But here's what he had to say when he first arrived. So basically what I said is I want to ask you some questions and put a camera on you. The journalists, these guys, the mainstream media act as a weapon of the British state. They track down my family, they photograph innocent members of my family, they get the location of my family, they endangered my family and then

because I turned around to them and said now I'm going to ask you some questions, they then use the other weapon of the state which is this base which now I now probably face probably a year, two years of prosecution now. This costs £8,800 today, that's what this is. And we're in Southwark where I expect today they'll try and move it to the Old Bailey and if they do, when I go to the Old Bailey there'll be 24 murder trials and then me for trying to ask some questions of some journalists. I actually thought when I came out of jail this time, it's the first time that I'm not going to face prosecutions.

I currently in October face a trial for terrorism legislation. You've just seen some men calling for the murder of MPs flying flags of terrorist organisations and they're not getting prosecuted. I'm prosecuted as a journalist. You're all journalists for refusing to let the police have access to my sources of information. That's it. Let me bring in my superstar panel now, host of Breaking Embargo on YouTube, Peter C Barnes and the political commentator Charlie Sansom. So Charlie, there's not going to be anything on this case now until October the 5th next year. And Tommy has been released on conditional bail. But the problem with conditional bail is it means

that he has no free speech around these issues. So there are a whole number of conditions like not contacting prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly, you know, you can argue that standard, but also not posting anything online, which would identify them. Okay, that standard, but far more difficult for Tommy as a journalist and a commentator and an activist is the third condition, which states he is not to publish any content relating to current proceedings that may prejudiced the parties to proceedings or proceedings themselves other than those permitted by the Crime and Disorder Act. Daily Mail does for the next 12 months. And this is the problem with this type of lawfare, which I believe is designed to create political prisoners and also shut down free speech in the United Kingdom. It's a good question you've asked there. I didn't think about that coming into the show today, actually, about the prohibition on his journalism, really.

I think that because Tommy is one of those figures where every publication writes about him, whatever he gets up to, however they want to spin the story I should really say, he could probably get around that by talking about a report made in The Sun or The Independent or whichever rag it's going to be in. But I think he's being treated very unfairly here because I wouldn't like it if I was away with my family and I was being photographed or my children being photographed, my family were, because I tried to keep what I do completely away

from my family and friends unless they are actually in the political world. And I think that's fair enough. Tommy is so famous, not just here in the UK, but around Europe, in America, that to put his kids in danger and then say, oh, you can't ask us why we've put your kids in danger, is a complete affront to what it is the Daily Mail are trying to do. They're trying to report on stories. You could argue that

they shouldn't be photographing his kids. I think that is a step too far. But for him to say, well, I'm going to come and do the same thing to you now as a journalist and then being found in court, that's a complete joke. That's complete, like you said, it's lawfare. I don't use that word often, but it is lawfare. They're using it against him and I hope he wins. I hope he takes them for all they've got. Peter C. Barnes, what do you make of what happened in court today? I have to admit, I've kind of coming around to Tommy Robinson, I have to admit I may have fallen for a lot of the narratives, a lot of the spin in the past, but one thing I will say is that the reaction of the mainstream media towards him makes me believe him more. You know, they strike me as very much of a wounded animal in a corner at the moment. The way

that they are savagely using lawfare, and you're bang on to point out that this is how this law is designed. It is designed to strangle him, basically, to make sure he can't earn money, he can't operate, and to essentially make him so irrelevant that he just goes away. It's part of what we call the human rights regime. In other words, it's about using the law to block people in. It's a very nefarious way of having very vague laws, and you could then wield them as an instrument. It's very toxic that it's been allowed to happen, but it doesn't surprise me, given the fact you got Keir Starmer running around. But I will say, the way that all of this has gone down, it just stinks to high heaven of an organization backed into a corner,

caught with its pants down, and it's about time that it had some accountability thrown back at it. Most of the mainstream media needs it more now than ever. Yeah, it's interesting, isn't it, Charlie? We're hearing so many people like Peter saying, actually, I'm not buying into the narrative anymore. You've known Tommy for a long time. What's your view of him as a man? I think he's really nice, actually. He's very charming, he's very approachable, he's not up his own arse like you might expect from some people who are famous and got a reputation like he does.

I think that going to Peter's acknowledgement of being a victim of the narrative, should we say, he's not the only one. But what I would say, that's me there in the background, you see that? Yeah, that's me DJing in one of his bands. Yeah. ALICE That wasn't planned, but great. That's a good shot. But I've been on the Tommy train for, I don't know, 15 years, maybe more than that. And I've been called all names under the sun, racist, big, you know, Islamophobic, you name it. And I've worn it. I've worn it.

I've accepted it because I knew in the end that the truth would come out, the truth would prevail. And I don't criticize people for believing the narrative because it's perpetual and it's consistent that he's this and he's that. But once you peel it back a little bit, and I give full credit to the internet for this, because I think it democratizes information, now people can really see how the government works. Now people are seeing that maybe there is an issue with a certain religion doing certain things. Maybe there's an issue with the authorities for ignoring that. And there's a reason why. And it's not racist to say that. You know, I wrote a tweet yesterday saying, I hate it when people call me racist. I'm a statistics enthusiast. Yeah, I mean, look, I do think it's a bit of a litmus test now, Peter C Barnes. I really

do. I mean, for me, it's a bit like, are you an establishment shill? Are you just a mainstream media or die person? Which is why when I hear like Patrick Christie's calling him racist or Camilla Tomane describing him as a white supremacist. I'm like, you're captured, you're caught, you're cut, you're part of that system. Because there was no need. I mean, look, silence is maybe not the greatest thing, but at least you're not actively out there telling lies. I mean, Camilla Tomane went on this morning and said he's a white supremacist. I'm like, no, no, no, I'm not going to respect a word you say again. Now I do genuinely view this as a

bit of a litmus test issue. Yeah, I think you're right there. And I call it the age of consequence or the age of reckoning. Do you know the old structures are falling, the old kind of facade is, you know, is disappearing. And as Charlie says, you just peel back the layer just a little bit. And all of it is shown to be smoke and mirrors. And this is why you've got so much scrambling, you know, we're seeing such a ferocious kind of backlash to so many people to so many issues, because they know that the power is slipping. And that's, that's why I think over the next probably five years, we'll see more of these kind of woke things kind of really pushed down really extreme, because this is the last ditch attempt for it. It is crumbling. It's crumbling around us. And Charlie's right, it is the democratisation of the internet and access to information that has terrified the mainstream. It is shook it to its nth degree, and it doesn't know how to get around it because it is finally being held accountable for the lies, the mystery and just all of it. It is all falling down. But what I will say is we have got to be very careful about what we'd replace in its, you know, what establishment is not a good thing, replacing it with the same

thing, even worse. And that's, that's what I'm more concerned about right now. Charlie, we discussed on the show yesterday, but I just want to get your take on it because of course, as you say, you are a regular at these marches, you've DJ'd on stage before. The next one's 10th of the 13th. I mean, this is going to be far, far bigger than anything that's happened before. Mainstream figures, right? So Jordan Peterson has agreed to speak. But I was really shocked yesterday by the fact, I mean delighted, but shocked that two of the main contenders to become Reform UK's London mayoral candidate at the

next local election, Derek Chisora and Dan Middleton have both agreed to speak. Do you think that means that they are now ruled out of running for a UK given for Argers position? Well, I was going to say just then that they were candidates for. It's now wide open. To be fair, I mean, I like Ant Middleton. I don't know much about Derek Chazor apart from the boxing, what his views are politically, but I know he's friends with Nigel. I would be flabbergasted if they were still kept in the fold because I know Nigel has a hard on for Tommy and well, I mean I find this quite

comical actually, I've got to be honest, because it kind of puts Nigel into a corner and will Nigel decide to get rid of those characters? They're a lot bigger than some of the people he's got rid of before so maybe... And he personally likes them, that's the difference isn't it? Like whatever you say about the whole Reform UK issue, I think you could say Nigel didn't personally have a great affinity or affection for Ben Habib or Rupert Lowe. I wonder why. But whereas when you look at some of these other characters, he loves them. Derek Chisora,

he adores the man. And Middleton, he took him to Trump's inauguration in Washington, DC. What about outspoken regular Alex Phillips, who has been a long time Farajist and a real ally of Nigel Farage, but has interviewed Tommy and has been very public about the fact that she is a supporter of his. I do wonder if this event on September the 13th, Peter, is going to be that moment when the Overton window shifts. Oh, I really hope it is. But the more the likely is that it's going to get briefed and they've got Alzheimer's. So I don't really have much hope, I'm afraid, because it is the Nigel Farage show and he is in control and you dare go against him. And that is the end of you, because for too long,

too many people have kept that man in power and he has kept the right out of power. He is in it for himself. He's not in it for the country. And as far as I'm concerned, the country will be better off without him. And you actually wrote a brilliant sub stack about this which I really do recommend everyone check out actually, Peter, and I think at some point I will be publishing it via the Outspoken sub stack because I really would love people to read this. www.outspoken.live is the address if you would like to subscribe and of course it is a free speech platform and you can do it completely for free.

Okay, do stand by because this Lily Allen abortion thing, whoa, whoa, and Charlize Theron, now boasting in a sweary rant about how proud she is of shagging 26 year old guy. This is all really interesting stuff. And I worry about what it says about our culture. So do stand by because I'll be revealing both of those stories in just one minute. But first, you know I never recommend anything unless I truly believe in it and today I've got something absolutely game-changing for you. Have

you ever stopped to think about how crucial comfort is, especially down there? Well let me tell you, today's Outspoken proudly sponsored by Sheath Underwear, the revolutionary brand shaking up men's comfort across the globe. And here's what makes Sheath even better. It was founded by a US Army veteran Robert Patton while he was serving in Iraq back in 2007. So that's right, not just any underwear brand. This brand was designed for the toughest conditions imaginable. Patton was battling relentless heat and discomfort in full combat gear and he thought there has to be a better way so he created it. And let's be honest traditional underwear just doesn't cut it anymore.

Sheath's innovative dual pouch design ensures your comfort all day long keeping things separate, cool and fresh. Imagine your essentials being comfortably cradled and away from unwanted friction and heat. Trust me this is genuinely transformative. I love this underwear at the gym, on long days at work, and I'm telling you, once you've experienced Sheath, there simply is no turning back. They're stylish, they're supportive, and they deliver unmatched comfort. It's like upgrading from economy to first class, but for your underwear. And right now, I'm offering you an exclusive 20% discount at Sheath.com. Yes, 20% off your entire order when you use my special

promo code Outspoken. You just type Outspoken at checkout. So what are you waiting for? Sheath is also the perfect present for your husband, your boyfriend, your son, your brother, or your hard to buy for best mate. And ladies, this is exciting. There are female versions available too. And this is such a cool thing. Sheath, the first official underwear brand of the UFC. So click on the link below, enter out Spokaneat checkout, head to sheath.com. And you can thank me later when you're feeling comfortable,

confident and ready to tackle anything. Your day throws at you. Sheath underwear, redefining comfort one pair at a time. But now back to the show. So I'm going to be very honest with you. I can't be neutral when it comes to that cretinous celebrity, Lily Allen. In all of my years, because as you know before I did the news, I did the showbiz thing, and in all of my decades covering celebrities, there was no one worse than Lily Allen. No one more vile in the way that she treated people, no one more appalling in her arrogance of her hard left political views being acceptable. No one more hypocritical when it came to her own lifestyle. No one treated men worse. No one treated other women worse. This is someone who really had very, very limited

redeeming qualities apart from the fact that to be completely honest I did really like a couple of her songs. So Lily Allen has started a podcast on the British Bashing Corporation. She's been paid our money for this podcast and I really just think you should let that sink in for one moment. And she's done it with someone called Makita Oliver, who's another equally hard left washed up celebrity who you may have known from the telly years ago. And I've ignored this podcast up until now because it's had absolutely no cultural resonance and it's been a major flop. But on this week's episode, Lily Allen I think showed just how far our culture has slumped, just how truly he-ness the world

of celebrity now is in terms of the messaging that it puts out to young people about what is acceptable and what is appropriate. And of course I worked in this industry as I say for 20 years, I'm certainly no prude, I'm not someone who believes in censorship or that conversations should not be had. But I'm sorry when the BBC has got to the point where it is promoting podcasts from previously drugged up, moribully reprehensible individuals, boasting and joking about the number of abortions that they've had? Have we not just hit a new low? Do we not need to have a serious question about where the culture is heading?

So I'm going to debate this in just one moment with today's superstar panel Charlie Sansom and Peter C Barnes. But first I know you will be horrified. I know you will be horrified because I know you. I know the outspoken audience and whether you are pro-life or whether you think abortion should be legal. I know you will be horrified by this conversation between Lily Allen and Makeda Oliver. I have an IUD now. I think I'm on my third, maybe fourth. And I just remember before that was a complete disaster area. Like I was just, yeah, I'd get pregnant all the time. All the time. All the time. I mean, you farts are like me in those days.

Oh, yeah. Because, you know, I said today to someone, I was like, I actually don't know if Lily's had an abortion. I didn't know. Okay, God. See, why didn't we talk about that? Abortions. I've had a few. But then again again I can't remember exactly how many I mean I'm speechless and she then went on to reveal just how many she thinks she had had Yeah, why didn't this come up in last week's episode we were just talking about abortions because I was just letting you You run with it.

Reveal everything. I can't remember, yeah. I think maybe like... I want to say five. Four or five? Yeah, I've heard about five too. Lily, I'm so happy I can say that and you can say it and... No one came to shoot us down! You can say it, but I will shoot you down. Because to treat abortion as a joke,

to be laughing amongst yourselves about the fact that maybe you've had four or five is honestly so gross. And the fact that you are now openly advocating for abortion to be used as a form of birth control, I think shows why we should no longer listen, we should no longer look up to pop stars. And I think actually a lot of young people are turned off that. June Slater posted on that interview, do we really care how slovenly someone is with the gift of life? I'm pro-. But FFS. Okay. Peter C. Barnes, where do you stand on this one? I think what we've just watched there was vile. That's the only word I can think to use it. I

think you've really hit the issue on the on the head there, Dan, because this whether you're pro choice or pro life, for me, the casualness to which she just made those comments was vile. It's the only word that I could probably use that won't get me into trouble because that is a really difficult decision that so many women have to tackle and have to really challenge themselves with on a far too common basis. And I just think she's disrespected women, she's disrespected the concept of the argument. I think it's just vile. And you're perfectly right that we just, I'm so happy that this has been a flop. I really, really am. And I think it shows there is still a

little bit of moral character left in this country that we don't pay attention to that. And actually, when we see it, we can think, do you know what, vile and go away. And I, you know, I am happy that you, like you said, there's a lot of young people that are turning away from this and they're seeing it for what it actually is, a moral decay. And you know, I very rarely take a public position on the issue of abortion. I don't have skin in the game, but I do think we have to have a much more grown up conversation about it, considering the fact that we've just altered the laws on this stuff by the back door and nobody noticed. I think the progressive side of politics, use air quotes for that, have a lot to answer for, if I'm being honest. And Lily Allen never liked her. And I thought we were done with her, if I'm being honest,

but she just won't go away. She's like a bad smell. I know. I know. And now she's got a BBC podcast. Charlie Sandson, what do you think? Well, you saw my face when the clip was playing and I want to respectfully disagree with Peter, not in a major way, but slightly when he says that he doesn't have seen in the game. And I'm sure he meant men in general don't have seen in the game. Correct me if I'm wrong. But I disagree completely with that because if a woman has an abortion these days,

it's my body, my choice. I am woman, hear me roar. But if a man decides that he wants to walk away from a child that he does not want to take responsibility for, he's a scumbag, he's a deadbeat, he's an asshole. That's the way society runs. But I wanna pick up on something that Lily Allen said, which I'm gonna call bullshit on,

is that she said that her IUDs didn't work. Well, I did some research before the show. The IUD success rate typically between a hormonal IUD and a copper IUD is 99.2% for copper and 99.6 to 99.9% for hormonal. So unless she's sleeping with men who have got Superman ejaculate, I think she's lying. And I think that her to just come on and say, I've had, you know, abortions, I've had a few, like, that's not, that's not something to boast about. And a friend on the show saying, I'm so happy I get to share this with you as well. What are you happy about? There are nine really

effective contraceptive methods that women can use. And all of them are great. The best one is the contraceptive implant is 99.99% effective. So what excuses do women really have in 2025 to get up the dup and then go to the clinic? And the thing is right, like I am no prude. Like I love authenticity, but I also just feel like we've got to be honest when this authenticity is completely morally bankrupt. And I actually felt exactly the same way about this new interview that has just emerged with Charlize Theron. Brilliant actress, right? I think she's I'm just going to check actually how old she is now, because it is it is relevant because obviously she was for a very long time, you know, one of those young

hot stars now 49 years old. And I guess some people would say she might be clinging on to a youth, you know, she's doing I think it's the Call Her Daddy podcast. I think that's what it's called, you know, trendy, young sort of podcast she went on was swearing like an absolute trooper and boasting about the fact that she just shagged a 26 year old bloke. And like, it's just all a bit odd and a bit unseemly for someone who I think is previously known as like one of our best Hollywood starlets, one of our greatest actresses. Watch this. With women it's always like something must be wrong with her.

She can't keep a man. She must be a real bitch. What a cunt. I love that I don't have to run every fucking thing by a guy. I'm having the kind of sex I never had in my 20s or in my 30s. We should be the ones that are like, fuck you. Like I'm going to have an orgasm. But I did just recently fuck a 26 year old and it was really fucking amazing. I mean like, Charlie, I, again, I really have to be clear. Like people can say whatever

they want. I'm not offended. I don't care about the language, but I'm just like, is this where our culture is at? Like, you are a credible actress, why do you feel the need to do this? What are you trying to prove? This is feminism's culmination. This is what women wanted. Women wanted to act like men, they're acting like men, and now they're being criticised for it, which is... But seriously, imagine though, imagine, because I think that's a really good point there, Charlie. But can we just imagine for a second, if a 49 year old Hollywood man said that, there wouldn't be people saying, oh, this is empowering.

All of the people on the left who are celebrating this would be saying, that man is a chauvinist pig taking advantage of women and he should be cancelled. I promise you that would be the reaction. You know, if Leonardo DiCaprio went on a podcast and boasted about shagging a 26 year old in that way. Well, I mean, yeah, he does it, but he doesn't boast about it. Do you see what I'm saying? Sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Can I just say that I think you're perfectly right there, Dan, because I think it's this, the idea that vulgarity is somehow a substitute for a personality. You say that this was authenticity. I don't think it was. I don't think any of it's true. I think it's these

vacuous people looking for some semblance of a personality. And yet this is what they clung to, because this is what society has told them they should behave like. And I think there is a real problem here between the disconnect, between the people in the media and the people who consume media, because I think most women would watch those interviews and be horrified by it and say, that is not how you behave, that's not how my mother taught me to behave in public. I mean, it's just vulgar. It's not shocking. It's off-putting. And it's this kind of outrage culture on steroids. And I think we're really seeing the end of that, if I'm being honest. And I think it's the... Charles Bangor, this is the end result of feminism. It is the kind of treat me like a man. Oh, you can't say that. We can't play

it both ways. And I think they're starting to find that out because I think society has had enough of these kinds of special privileges for certain groups. Well, it brings us full circle, doesn't it? To Rachel from accounts, the UK chancellor breaking down in tears at PMQs. And then all of the people on the left saying, well, she should get special treatment because she's a woman. No, no. If you want equality, that's fine. And if you want to say that, that's fine. I think the change here is that this is why people are walking away from woke culture. This is why Taylor Swift endorsing Joe Biden and Carmela, sorry, endorsing Kamala Harris at the last US election was meaningless because it's like, shut up and sing, we love your music, but we do not give a damn what you have to say about politics. And actually, the sorts of

people that we respect much more are the Brett Coopers of this world, when it comes to young, sane voices, who would never do something so crude and so crass. Because we don't want that, you know? And it's weird because it's like, Charlie's thrown, like, you're speaking like Lily Phillips, you're speaking like Bonnie Blue, you are an acclaimed actress. Sorry, Charlie. Charlie I said they're feminism final bosses, they are. They are the epitome of what we don't want actually from women in general. I was going to say, sorry, Charlie, I just want to jump in really quickly because it's such a good point. I think it's up to women to tell these lot to be quiet. And actually it's up to other women

to step forward and to step up and to say they don't speak for me. We have to be very careful about not speaking for minorities. They're very capable of defending themselves. And I, but I do think for too long, women have been too quiet and about allowing who speaks in their name. And I think we're starting to see a lot more people say, wait a minute, no, that's not right. And you don't speak for me. Peter Z Barnes. So brilliant to have you on Outspoken for the first time, host of Breaking Embargo on YouTube. And Charlie Sandsome, we always love having you here. Thank you both so much. But don't go anywhere because of course we're just about to reveal today's greatest Britain and Union jackass before we get there though, lots of feedback from you coming in about Rachel from

accounts breaking down in tears at PMQs. Of course I've been very clear that it was Angela Rayner, Red Rayner, who was responsible for it. Moonlight Sonata said, think about the people who cry every day because of the damage she has done to the UK. From Carl on the comment section, I'm sure my grandparents were upset when you, not talking about me, talking about Rachel Thieves, took their winter allowances and laughed at them after they voted for you and my granddad had Parkinson's. Raina Bell said Airhead Raina would be an embarrassment to our country should she ever be PM. I dread the thought. Patricia Downing said why doesn't Starmie get some backbone and fire her and put it out of her misery?

Olly, 1987, wrote, Labour really have done a great job of making the hardworking people of this country look like a bunch of idiots on the world stage. And Russell said, I used to think fleece the mega rich, but it's financial suicide. We need them investing, not leaving the country. Russell, you're completely right. It's all well and good to say, oh, let's just tax the rich. They're not staying. They're not staying. 16,500 high net worth individuals have fled the country as a result of the policies put in place by Slippery, Star and Rachel from accounts we are in a dire situation.

Here are today's nominees for Union Jackass. Lily Allen, nominated by AnnaIsland17 who called her a typical attention whore, singing the narrative that she's had four to five abortions, can't remember during an individual interview but said nothing about abortion during the debate a week earlier. Diane Abbott nominated by It's Only Me 44 over the banning of Palestine Action as a terrorist group. And Rachel from Accounts Rachel Reeves nominated by Amaze Linney who said the tears will fill herself not for freezing pensioners, farmers or small businesses to name but a few. That is what happens when you are appointed to a role way out of your expertise. And the results are in. In third place with 21% of the vote, Lily Allen.

The runner up with 23% of the vote, Diane Abbott. But today's Union Jackass with a whopping 57% of the vote is Rachel from Accounts, the sobbing Chancellor of the Exchequer. And straight after the show, you get to vote on the four Union Jackasses from across the week as they go head to head to be named the worst Briton in the world this week. As a reminder of who you voted for on Monday, it was Bob Villain after his Glastonbury rant. On Tuesday, it was Femi Olawali for repeating Bob Villain's Glastonbury rant. On Wednesday, Carol Vorderman for her continued defence of the slave government. And on Thursday, Rachel Reeves. So who's it going to be?

Bob Villain, Femi Olawali, Carol Vorderman, Rachel from account. You can vote in the posts or community section on YouTube straight after the show. But today's Greatest Briton is Tommy Robinson, nominated by Leah Pennington, who says Stephen Yaxley Lennon fighting back against the establishment who are trying, yet again, to destroy him. We're moving to Substack now for the uncancelled after show, and it's a tale of two princesses, one real and one fake. Catherine, the princess of Wales, opens up an emotional detail about her struggle to recover from cancer

treatment as Meghan Markle pretends her latest commercial disaster has been a success even though so many desperate customers feel completely ripped off. We're going to have all the royal latest with our YouTube sensation friend. She's back! according to Taz so at this stage we come off YouTube and Rumble we move to Substack to continue with the uncancelled after show there's how you sign up www.outspoken.live just enter your email address hit the subscribe and you can join us there but we are back live here on YouTube and Rumble and on podcast tomorrow 5 p.m. UK time midday Eastern 9 9am Pacific. Hit subscribe if you're watching on YouTube or Rumble and most importantly I promise to keep fighting for you.