Dan Wootton Outspoken - RUPERT LOWE & BEN HABIB TO RETURN TO REFORM UK IN BOLD PEACE DEAL BY NIGEL FARAGE ALLY

Episode Date: April 2, 2025

SHEATH UNDERWEAR - Get 20% off with the code OUTSPOKEN at checkout https://sheath.com A major Nigel Farage ally who was backstage with him at the Birmingham rally on Friday night has proposed an audacious peace deal to bring both Rupert Lowe and Ben Habib back into the party. But can that really happen given Rupert’s strident attack on Nigel for breaking his promises over the Rape Gang Inquiry in a blistering Daily Telegraph column today? Dan will explore in his Digest before analysis from his Superstar Panel: Conservative social media sensation Charlie Downes and the host of the brilliant If This Is True channel on YouTube and X Bernie Spofforth. PLUS: How can the right challenge hard left economist Gary Stevenson who is now being embraced by the MSM? AND: Prince Andrew could be set for a public comeback as the lies of his accuser Virginia Giufree have dramatically unravelled in Australia overnight. THEN IN THE UNCANCELLED AFTERSHOW: It’s launch day for Meghan Markle’s new brand As Ever, which of course means a mortifying interview with the New York Times from her kitchen containing bold new lies AND an awkward video with her reluctant mother. We’ll cover it all with Royal YouTube sensation P-Dina. Sign up to watch at www.outspoken.live. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It won't take long to tell you Neutral's ingredients. Vodka, soda, natural flavors. So, what should we talk about? No sugar added? Neutral. Refreshingly simple. No spin, no bias, no censorship. I'm Dan Wooten. This is Outspoken Live episode number 196. And breaking right now, a major Nigel Farage ally, who was backstage with him at the Birmingham rally on Friday night, has proposed an audacious peace deal to bring both Rupert Lowe and Ben Habib back into the party. There needs to be more leadership from both Farage and from Rupert Lowe.

And part of that leadership, I think, is the kiss and make up between the two of them. I think Ben Habib should broker the deal because he knows both and he's highly trusted. He is the kind of pope, if you like, of our religion, of patriotism and right-wingery. God, the religious metaphors have gone far too far. But that's what we have to do. But can that really happen, given Rupert's strident attack on Nigel

for breaking his promises over the rape gang inquiry in a blistering Daily Telegraph column today. So in my digest, I'm going to explore this new plan being discussed within Reform UK to reunite the right. Then analysis from my superstar panel, conservative social media sensation, Charlie Downs, and the host of the brilliant If This Is True channel on YouTube and ex-Bernie Spofforth. Also coming up on the show today, how can the right challenge hard left economist Gary Stevenson, who has now been embraced by the MSM? Harry and Meghan's Sussex squad has been exposed for bullying

the black female charity boss, who has called out the Duke of Sussex squad has been exposed for bullying the black female charity boss who has called out the Duke of Sussex for bullying and harassment, and yet the fake royals still refuse to call them out. And Prince Andrew could be set for a public comeback, as the lies of his accuser, Virginia Dufresne, have dramatically unraveled in Australia overnight. You're not going to believe the story. Big updates after yesterday. Then in the uncancelled after show on Substack, it's launch day for Meghan Markle's new brand as ever, which of course means a mortifying interview with the New York Times from her kitchen containing bold new lies and an awkward video encounter with her reluctant mother. We're going to cover it all with the royal YouTube

sensation, P. Diner. Do you know what the most outrageous thing is? Although actually I'm taking this as quite a positive. You can't even buy your products in the United Kingdom. She dislikes us that much. www.outspoken.live is where you can sign up to watch the after show. We'll also, before the end of the show, reveal today's Greatest Britain and Union Jackass. You choose the end of the show reveal today's greatest britain and union jackass you choose the nominees and the winner as ever you can vote in our poll running right now on the live chat on youtube but here are today's nominees prince harry nominated by c vicky one yet again using the press he supposedly loathes to try and woman ruin a prominent woman, Dr Sophie Chandoka, because she wouldn't cover up for Markle's vile behaviour. Harry the petulant man-child pushing his BS around and not taking accountability.

The Harkles are bullies. Virginia Roberts or Dufresne, nominated by Becca Thorncuvist for lying again allegedly to the world about dying in four days. And nominee three, Thomas Wold by the Heathrow CEO, nominated by Darren Donaldson because they were warned about the potential issues that would cause a power outage. And we know how many people were just completely destroyed

or had their lives or their weddings or funeral plans completely destroyed because of that Heathrow shutdown. We're going to announce the greatest Britain at the end of the show. Let me know your comments as well, especially on whether you think this reform UK civil war can be resolved by allowing Ben Habib and Rupert Lowe back into the party. But now, let's go. is there a bold solution being developed to deal with the growing reform uk civil war andre walker a longtime conservative who defected to reform uk and is close to nigel Farage, so close that he was backstage with him at the Birmingham rally on Friday night, has made a number of bombshell proposals to Reform's leadership to reunite the warring party. And they include hiring Ben Habib, who, as you'll know, has been on the attack against Nigel,

to be reappointed within the party to lead a transition team, a US-style transition team preparing reform for government. Let's have a go at Nigel Farage. Nigel Farage is an egotist who has a solidly poor track record of dealing with people who overshadow him. And his personal ego has caused the party significant damage in the past and what i would say is with both low and farage you can't get to where you get to chairman of southampton football club leader of ukip and now leader of reform unless you're single-minded now let's just see exactly how this could potentially work. There needs to be more leadership from both Farage and from Rupert Lowe and part of that leadership I think is the kiss and make up between the two of them.

I think Ben Habib should broker the deal because he knows both and he's highly trusted. He is the kind of pope if you like of of our religion of of of patriotism and right-wingery god the religious metaphors have gone far too far but that's what we have to do and we have to take seriously this concept of not saying i support him or i support him and take seriously this concept of not saying i'm not watching andre anymore because he hasn't supported rupert or i'm not support i'm not watching my tuesday anymore because he's not supporting nigel we have to get into the mindset of recognizing that unity is strength and disunity is weakness okay so that's the plan bring rupert low back into the fold end the police investigation end

the bitter recriminations of the past month. Now, I've been speaking to my reform sources, who tell me that such a proposal would hinge on Zia Youssef being prepared to stand down as chairman, perhaps with a promise internally that he would be part of Reform's first cabinet. However, a Farage confidant has told me that Habib's ongoing attacks on Zia Yusuf have made Nigel even more determined to stand by his man, hence why he included this very public declaration in Birmingham. Zia has given dedication, hard work, belief, helping me, helping us do what we can do. Zia, as chairman, is an absolute superstar and has a major future in British politics. Where is he? Where is he? He's somewhere. I saw him in the green room, he's somewhere.

But it was telling, of course, that Zia Youssef wasn't on stage, he didn't give a speech, amid fears that he could be booed by the Rupert Lowe fans who the security had to silence throughout that event. The problem is, and by the way, I don't blame him for this, but Rupert Lowe isn't toning down his rhetoric either. He is quite rightly furious that the MSN broadcast media, including GB News, I'm told, at the behest of Farage, have totally ignored the extraordinary launch of the rape gang inquiry, which is now hurtling towards raising £450,000. Not bad for a bunch of Indian bots, right? Now, the Daily Telegraph, kudos to them because they did give him the space to reveal why he is crowdfunding this proper inquiry, where he made a pledge not to be deterred by allegations of racism because he will hound down the truth, however vile it might be. But he did attack Farage in quite a strident manner in the article, writing, firstly, I would like to start with an apology. In January,

my former party Reform UK made a number of bold promises stating that they would launch and hold an inquiry into the rape gang scandal. That never materialised. In my view, that is not how politics should be conducted, particularly on an issue of such magnitude. I pushed behind the scenes hard, but I was unsuccessful. For my role in that, I apologise. Farage and Reform used it for political capital, but failed to deliver any real action. Their pledge gave so much hope to so many millions, to renege on that once the headlines had moved on as politics at its very worst. This is what the inquiry will do. We will not be deterred by baseless allegations of racism or Islamophobia. We will hound down the truth, however vile it may be. A qualified panel

is currently being assembled, including a victim representative who was groomed and raped for many years herself. We will fund a legal advisory team to support the panel and all hearings will be live streamed. Every pound spent will be transparently published. In January, it looked like something might finally change for the victims. Justice might finally come. In the end, nothing did. This inquiry is the only way we can change that. I hope you will consider supporting it. And I mean, how can you have an issue with that? It was a promise made by Nigel Fryde, and I think it was a promise reform should have kept.

And while reform has taken a significant dip in both polling and membership numbers, you've got to remember the overall political scenario, where there is a real opportunity to pick off Labour heavy hitters at the next election, one by one. I mean, look at these latest statistics, revealing that a stunning 13 Labour cabinet ministers could be defeated. Angela Rayner to reform. It would be deformed if she was in it. Shabnam Mahmood to an independent. Ed Miliband to reform. Bridget Phillipson to report. Wes Streeting to an independent. Rachel Reeves to reform. Liz Kendall to reform. Yvette Cooper to reform. John Healy to reform. Jonathan Reynolds to reform.

Heidi Alexander to the Conservatives. Lisa Nandy to reform. Pat McFadden to reform. Whoa. Meanwhile, though, reform has wasted so much political capital at a time when the government is ripe for destruction on so many issues. Take these two examples from today's superstar panel. Bernie Spofforth has concentrated on this threat from the United States, with Trump saying that Britain won't get a trade deal until Starmer restores free speech to British citizens. Bernie writes, you want a white knight? Trump just played the Queen's gambit. I might cry, outstanding move. And what about this lunacy of Slippery Starmer governing based on a fictitious Netflix show, Adolescence, which by the way, changed the ethnicity of the murderer at the centre of the drama from a black teenager to a young working class white lad from a nuclear family in Liverpool. Starmer, by the way, has now twice described this absolute work

of fiction as a documentary. And Charlie Downs posted on this, it is fair to say that governing on the basis of fiction is a sign of a deeply unwell society. As with so much of what goes on in modern Britain, this too will be looked back upon our descendants as a symptom of madness. And both Bernie and Charlie join me now. OK, so can the Reform UK civil war be solved? Charlie Downs, what do you make of this momentum gathering behind an idea put forward by Andre Walker directly to Nigel Farage to put Ben Habib in charge of a transition team and use him to bring Rupert Lowe back into the fold? Dan, I've been in reforms orbit for a number of years now, and I know senior members of the party, and I spoke to them today about this proposition. And what they're saying is it's just not going to

happen because as much as it is a nice idea and as much as I personally would love to see Ben and Rupert reconcile with Farage. I don't see it happening anytime soon because, you know, for instance, Ben Habib, somebody who I know reasonably well and whom I respect, he continues to attack Farage online, on X and on broadcast media. The same is true of Rupert Lowe, another man who I know reasonably well and respect hugely. But he also continues to take shots at reform. And what the senior members of reform that I've spoken to have said is, you know, Farage is not taking those shots back at them and is more interested in winning the country. Now, whether you believe that or not is, you know, up for the audience to decide.

But what I would say is this is not a political dispute. That's really the message that I'm receiving, having had conversations with all the people involved in this. It's a personal thing, right? Farage feels personally slighted by the comments and activities of both Rupert Lowe and Ben Habib. And I can't help but think that the bridge is burned, to be honest with you. And as depressing as that is to say,

because I think that Ben and Rupert are both spectacular politicians. I think that they both know what time it is. They understand the bleak condition of the nation, and I would love to see them in Reform UK. But whether that's actually going to be possible, I think, is very much up for debate. And again, from the conversations I had, it sounds pretty unlikely. Burning spot forth, isn't that then putting ego and personal rows ahead of saving the United Kingdom? Yeah. And it was always going to be that. You've got five large egos all fighting for control over a party, more than caring about the policies they're going to put out to the country. Because let's face it, reform's big policy used to be deport illegal migrants, right? But they haven't told you how they're going to do that.

Because if you get rid of all your documentation, where are you going to send them? Who are you going to send them back to? It's the same with Rupert and Ben. And I know that Ben is fronting the Great British PAC, which for the viewers that don't know is is it's like a lobbying group and it's a big thing in America. And they bring in their policies. They're hugely funded by very wealthy people. And they push the party to take their policies forward.

And some of those policies within the PAC reform won't don't want to take their policies forward. And some of those policies within the PAC reform don't want to take forward. What amazes me is that what none of these blokes have ever bothered telling any of the British public is you can't do any of them, right? You can't do it. You can't even do the Great Repeal Act, because if you start to push the Great Repeal Act, then what happened to Liz will look like jam on toast in the morning, because the banks won't stand for it. The Central Bank, the World Bank, the IMF, the Bank of International Settlements will absolutely crush Britain's economy. And they are not talking about how they're going to put any of their policies in place. They just want

the British public to think they're going to deport everybody right it's not going to happen neither of them have I've seen and I've watched a great deal probably like you probably like Charlie outside of that microcosm of huge problem in the UK no one's talking about anything they're not talking about funding anything because you can't get blood out of a stone. And currently, Britain is a stone. Very good point. Charlie? Yeah, no, I do think that's a good point. And I think the point on policy is crucial as well, because the gravity of the situation that Britain is in, I think few people are actually prepared to acknowledge, you know, and the extent of change that's going to be necessary to right the cause of this country is is gargantuan and the complexity of it the you

know the legal complexity the uh financial complexity and so on um is is also almost incomprehensible and so until a serious political force is prepared to have that conversation um i agree i don't see things getting better in this country. And I would say that, you know, as a supporter of reform, they are yet to publish a comprehensive manifesto on their strategy. You know, we've heard some policies, they have their contract with the people and all the rest of it. But in terms of an actual strategy for effecting change, because, you know, just saying you're going to do something is one thing, but actually explaining how you're going to do it is something else but actually explaining how you're going to do it is is something else completely well of course and

that's essential can't be any form of denial that a lot of the positions have changed and nigel has made it clear that he doesn't stand by that contract for the people and i think it's this tacking to the center which rupert and ben Habib have been right to point out. Now, I want to look specifically at the issue of Islam, because, of course, that's utterly key, as well as mass deportations. And I've got a couple of clips here, which I want us to watch and analyze of Farage in the past which his detractors say prove that he has tacked to the center on this one so let's watch this speech first on the question of Islamification I think we have to do a bit more, probably starting in our schools to actually teach people of the values of our Judeo-Christian culture,

the good that it's done and all that it's represented over centuries. Because I'm getting a bit tired of my kids coming home from school being taught about every other religion in the world, celebrating every other religious holiday, but not actually being taught about Christianity. Maybe sacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and getting somebody decent would be good. There are over 20 police forces now in this country that turn a complete blind eye to the operation of Sharia courts and Sharia law. If you're not prepared as a nation from the top down to stand up for your cultures and your values, then those cultures and values will be threatened.

And it's one of the ways in which I just have this huge admiration for what the Aussies have done over the last 20 years. I really do. I really do. They want people to go and live in Australia who will accept their customs, accept their culture, bring value to their country, and I agree with that. And if you listen to what John Howard and other PMs have said over the last ten years in the case of Islam, he said to them, you're welcome. You're welcome to come here and to have your children here and to bring them up as Australians. But if you're coming to take us over, you're not welcome. We need a little bit more backbone, do we not, in our church, in our police force, in our parliament.

And I would say, Bernie Spofforth, absolutely we need that type of backbone. But the irony is that if a Reform UK potential candidate were to say some of that today, they would genuinely not pass the vetting. That is now rhetoric that Nigel himself would say is, quote, extreme or far right. So he has changed. And I think it's almost gaslighting people to claim that he hasn't. Yes, he has changed. And it's very odd because if you look back into the 1970s, and you look at some old television programs with Enoch Powell, who I believe was a great hero of Nigel's, and Enoch more likely to take on your culture. But if you take them in in vast numbers, then they will never take on someone else's culture. They will become a culture within

their own space. So you'll have a situation in Britain where we have lots of different cultures of people and no nationalism at all, which is, of course, what Nigel used to talk about wanting. And it used to be a big flag for him to wave. Now his problem is he's been told, possibly by Yusuf, I don't know, but he's been told to go for the centre ground. And I think one of the reasons he's been told to go to the centre ground is because not only for numbers, but if he was to tell the truth to his core voters, they wouldn't vote for him. They just wouldn't vote for him. Because in the next 10 years, the least of our problems, the least of our problems will be sending migrants back. Now, we can do that. We can do it easily. If you look during COVID, we put up these huge hotels and we

stuff people into hotels and we stuffed people into hotels and we wouldn't let them leave for 15 days until the passed a stupid up your nose test, which didn't work anyway, right? We did that. And then we charged those people. So we could easily do that with migrants, but no one's talking about the migration pact, are they? Which we signed by royal prerogative that we can't get out of unless we break international law. And Nigel is not being truthful with the public. And that's why he's come to the centre in the hope that no one will ask him. If he doesn't say how he's going to remove these people and how he's going to stop the boats, no one will ask him anymore, you see.

And then average people will vote for him. I think it's incredibly underhand to lie to the public. You go with a message. If the public don't vote you in, you lost. That's democracy. You didn't make your argument well enough. But don't soften your argument so that you are able to continue a lie, because that's the position we're in at the moment. Charlie, just before I bring you in, I want to show you another previous clip.

This is Nigel Farage on Fox News. I think actually he's been interviewed by the now US defence secretary. Watch. I've been saying for some years that we have a fifth column now living within our country who hates us. US Defence Secretary, watch. Since 2010, we've had quite a big cut in police numbers in this country. So we've literally been getting everything wrong. And short term, if we use the army on the streets to leave the police freer to follow these 3000 people and to try and get on top of this problem, that it's a good thing to do. And it's an omission, not so much that we've been invaded. It's an omission that government has not understood just how serious this problem is but charlie isn't the argument that nigel's new rhetoric isn't appreciating how serious this problem is two points here i think dan the first is what i can gather from the conversations i've had with senior figures in reform is that they believe the British public to be fairly moderate.

Right. And so to that end, they are seeking to moderate their rhetoric in order to win, in order to win the election, to gain power and then to enact the kind of changes that this country needs. Now, I think I understand the strategy. I understand where they're coming from. But I think that if you go out and talk to people today in 2025 in Britain, if you go to the pub or speak to people in the street or anything like that, ordinary people, people are angry. People are really, really angry about what's going on in this country. And so I think that perhaps reform placed too much emphasis on the worldview and beliefs of the kind of media Westminster political bubble that they exist in. And, you know, it's unavoidable to a certain extent. But, you know, Westminster and media circles are a hell of a lot more liberal

than ordinary people, because ordinary people are very, very upset and they feel they have no voice. Reform looks to me like the only viable vehicle for real change in Britain. But, you know, ordinary people are just so furious, whether it's migration, whether it's grooming gangs, whether it's energy, whether it's de-indust so furious, whether it's migration, whether it's grooming gangs, whether it's energy, whether it's deindustrialisation, whether it's housing prices. All of these things are interlinked. But Britain's not in a good place. And so I don't know whether moderating is actually going to be an effective strategy, because I think what the British people want is radicalism. What the British people want is a real offering of change and not the kind of change that, you know, that Labour's slogan at the last election was change. And look how good that, you know, look how well that's gone. But real change, fundamental change, a change in the way that we're governed, a change in the style

of politics that leads this country. And I do think that reform is capable of doing that. But on that score, I think that the rhetoric that we were hearing from Farage just now on integration, and I don't know how long ago those clips were from, but even then he was talking about how the priority when it comes to mass immigration has to be integration and assimilation. Now, I would say that, to be honest, I reject the concept of integration in principle, to be honest with you. At this stage where integration has been shown to be a total myth it hasn't worked we're well beyond the point of integration now um i think that that language

needs to be dispensed with as you know as as along with the language of values you know britain in those clips by farage was described as being a nation of values that you know you can become british if you just buy into our values and i personally think that's basically nonsense i don't think that that's the way this country has ever operated. I think that that's a creation really of new labour that has come into existence over the last 30 or so years that has sought to transform Britain into a kind of American style propositional nation that's based on ideas and values and this sort of thing rather than people because Britain obviously England Scotland Wales and Ireland are is a nation that's thousands of years old and has had a settled

indigenous population here for thousands of years and the values that people like Farage and others talk about emerged out of those people they didn't come from nowhere they are a product of a specific time and place and so if you do away with the people, well, the values disappear as well. So this idea that, you know, if you bring in 10 million migrants and if they just buy into democracy and the rule of law and individual liberty and free speech and all the rest of it, then they're just as British as anybody else, I think is nonsensical. I actually think that, you know, there's a little bit more to Britishness than just going along with what amounts to a four point political doctrine that could be presented on a corporate seminar slide. I think that Britishness is a far deeper, more

profound thing than that. And it's not a costume that you can put on and take off. And this is a conversation that needs to happen in mainstream British politics, because this is at the crux of the immigration issue. And until we're prepared to get serious about what it actually means to be British, you know, I just don't think that we are taking the problem seriously. Now, I'm really sorry to do this because, trust me, I find this guy more annoying than Owen Jones and Femi Oluwole combined. But Gary Stevenson, the multi-millionaire former trader, turned hard left tax the rich economist, who is now a favourite across the MSM,

being given a huge amount of airtime, especially by the British bashing corporation, matters. This guy has been accused of telling outlandish lies about his past by his former colleagues. But there is now a growing argument that this man is also a figure the right in the UK should be very worried about. What would your advice be to them, Gary, at this moment in time? This is such a hard question. I know Dan's angry at me for what I put in my video, how to get rich. Somebody came around to my house and asked me this the other day. Obviously, I get asked it a lot because stupidly, I'm very public about the fact that I'm rich. What I did is not replicable. What I did is not replicable. It's not. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, but it's not. People always say, why don't you teach me to trade? Like, it's hard. It's hard

trading and it's dangerous. And I think a lot of young men are getting sort of sold into trading and becoming gambling addicts um you know work hard honestly my blood pressure rises every time i see this man why am i talking about him well look at this tweet from char Downs, who posted, The right needs a good answer to the emerging post-woke left embodied in the figure of Gary Stevenson. Though obviously astroturfed, his message is cutting through. And understandably so. Housing is unaffordable. Energy is expensive. Wages are down. Work is soulless. And the sense of decline is all-pervading. Young people are asking why, and Stevenson is providing a compelling answer in a relatable and straightforward way. Moreover, the substance of his answer, the rich, the billionaires, the capitalists, wealth inequality cannot just be dismissed.

For too long, the right has unquestionably embraced capitalism and the free market as the fix-all solution to our nation's problems. This attitude is 50 years out of date. Stevenson is right. Moneyed interests are partly to blame for the condition of Britain, and more capitalism is the last thing we need. Of course, what he fails to address is the fact that policies like mass immigration are the project of those same moneyed interests. Rather than pointing this out and offering real solutions, he advocates for yet more tax, which is exactly what the present political class wants too. Stevenson is pushing at an open door. He is not a radical, but an agent of the establishment. He promises change, but what he actually represents is more of the same. Restoration is the domain of the right.

Time for us to stop being timid conservatives. We've got a country to save. And I'm delighted to say Charlie Downs joins me now alongside the successful businesswoman Bernie Spofford, who I imagine takes a bit of a different view. But Charlie, can you just tell me why you think this message from Gary Stevenson is resonating so much with people of your age? I've been itching to talk about this, Dan, so I'm glad that you've given me the opportunity. The right has basically thought in only economic terms for the last 50

years since Thatcher, basically. We've behaved as if the only thing that matters when it comes to politics and the running of a nation is the economy. And you can see this right the way from Thatcher through to John Major, through even to Blair, the continuation of Thatcher, through then to Cameron and the Cameronite Conservative Party, right the way through to Sunak and today with Keir Starmer. Because all you ever hear our politicians talk about is growth, whatever that means. I mean, growth, as defined by our ruling class, is just an increase in GDP, which is this totally abstract figure that doesn't really have any. It doesn't reflect the well-being and the quality of life of ordinary people at all.

GDP per capita is the statistic that would tell you that. And GDP per capita has not kept pace with GDP, certainly since 2008. And the price of housing, the price of electricity, wages and so on, have all, you know, basically left, have deteriorated, and they've left the welfare of ordinary people declining. And this is what Stevenson talks about, right? And he provides answers, though we might disagree with them, he provides answers to those questions. And I think that there's a reason that he is, as I said, he is astroturf, there's no doubt about it. He's been on Question Time and all that sort of thing. Which other, you know, populist white male YouTuber

could get on Question Time in a matter of months? I mean, it looks to me as it certainly raises raises my eyebrows. But he is providing quite a compelling answer to these questions. He's saying, well, the reason that your quality of life is deteriorating is because greedy moneyed interests at the very top of society are doing things that are making life more difficult for you whilst lining their own pockets. And to be frank, I think that he's not wrong about that. And maybe I will be, you know, shot down as some kind of socialist for making that comment. But I think that he's not wrong about that. And maybe I will be, you know, shot down as some kind of socialist for making that comment. But I think that if you look at the economic system that we have in the West, where huge amounts of capital are owned by a small number of people, and moreover, not owned, but managed by organisations like BlackRock and Vanguard and

State Street, I think that it's quite fair to say that these muddied interests absolutely have hugely disproportionate level of power over our society, because like I said in my tweet, policies like mass immigration are the project of these moneyed interests. It's in the interest of the capitalist class to have an ever expanding workforce because that suppresses wages and it allows, especially when you're having mass migration from the third world, from impoverished regions where work and stability is not available, therefore bringing in people who are going to be prepared to take lower wages. That's obviously in the interests of those seeking to turn a profit because it means they have to spend less on their workforce. And what that means for those people and for the working class in Britain is that quality of life degrades. But the point is, you know, and what I would say my answer to Gary Stevenson is, is that Britain or any nation for that matter is not just a balance sheet. And this is the problem, because we've thought of Britain as being just an economic zone, at least for the last 50 years.

And it is. It's a ancient ancestral homeland with a beautiful, unique history, a beautiful countryside, beautiful people, beautiful culture. It's a you know, it's a country that's full of beauty and it's being destroyed by the present political class that we have. And so I would rather have a conversation about how the economy is a means to an end. Economics are not the be all and end all, but actually the economy should serve the national interest rather than the other way around, where the nation serves economic interests and i think that the way you do that is not through socialism or the kind of wealth taxes that people like gary stevenson advocate for but by reconceptualizing how we think of our nation and how we think of the relationship between the economy and and ordinary people because actually

what is important when it comes to building a nation well i would say that it's giving people a sense of belonging giving people a sense of belonging, giving people a sense of purpose, a sense of rootedness, a sense that they are in their right place, doing the right thing and contributing to society. And I think for hundreds, maybe thousands of years, we've had that in this country because we had an economy and a kind of a nation that was organized along the lines of rootedness

rather than the kind of nomadism that we have today. Because I think part of the reason that young people especially have such problems with mental health and such problems with feeling a sense of belonging and purpose is because we're always on the move, whether that's moving from rented accommodation to rented accommodation, overpriced and full of mould, in a place that we don't feel we belong,

where we didn't grow up, or whether it's work that feels soulless and completely without meaning, just punching a clock, hitting KPIs for a manager who you hate. It's no wonder that young people especially are feeling so disaffected in this country. But I think the way we answer that is not by giving more money to the government, especially this government, which again is Stevenson's solution. It's by saying, look, the point of an economy is not to drive as much profit as possible for a tiny number of people. That is wrong. And that, in my mind, is what pure capitalism

is. And I think the right have been wrong to ally themselves with pure capitalism. But at the same time, we can't have centralized control of the economy because that way there's no innovation. There's no wealth generation. And so you need a mixture of the two. And this is where I start to sound like Blair or something. You need a kind of third economic way that combines the best elements of both of those things, because you need to ensure that ordinary people have enough to put food on their table and clothes on their children's back and to own a home, not just rent a home, but to own a home and to create a sense of rootedness. But you also need to ensure that the economic activities of large economic actors like corporations are in the interest of ordinary people. Because if those large corporations are advocating for and funding policies like mass

immigration, which destroy the way of life of those same ordinary people that I was talking about just now, well, then we can't have that, right? What I would like to see is a relationship between the state and the economy, where the state has its hand on the economy's shoulder and is making sure that economic activity always serves the national interest. And to be honest with you, and I might get in trouble for saying this, but if you look at China's economic model, this is essentially what they do. Now, I'm not saying that we should turn into a totalitarian surveillance state by any means. But what I am saying is, you know, whether you like it or not, China's government does make sure that all the economic activity that takes place in their country

serves the national interest. And maybe that's because they aren't a democracy. Maybe that's because they can think on a wider timescale than we can. But I would say that, you know, maybe there's a thing or two we could learn from that, because right now, the economic system that we have in Britain and the West more generally is not serving the interests of ordinary people. And as a matter of fact, Stevenson is right when he says it's lining the pockets of an out-of-touch oligarchical billionaire class. Bernie, one of the problems is that I think Gary Stevenson is such a bad actor whose own story has not been scrutinised at all. So before I get you to come in, let me give you an example. What was the most amount of money that you lost?

Well, I lost $8 million in a week when I was in 2010, when I was still 23. I lost $8 million in a week. And that was mad because I graduated in 2008. So a lot of my mates couldn't get jobs. Obviously, that was the financial crisis, right? And I was like halfway through this week by that point. I'd already lost like $5 million in three days. And all my mates around just like playing Pro Evolution. you're just thinking like i've lost five million dollars

like how much more can i lose project lose my job um it really dehumanizes you and kent bray bernie who worked on the trading desk at Citibank alongside Stevenson said like he actually contacted the guy Stevenson and said is this book fiction or non-fiction because there are so many outlandish lies do you buy what he's saying at all and also how do you respond to Charlie first I want to respond to Charlie because I quite like a lot of what you said, Charlie. But I think you're missing the key thing here. And that's that Gary Stevenson is naming rich people as the problem. He hasn't talked about corporations.

He's talked about rich people. And this is a massive distraction. Don't forget, Gary Stevenson is now aligned with Democrat funders. These are the same funders that fund huge NGOs pushing this progressive liberalism everywhere. Now, over the course of the last five years, a huge amount of the public all over the world have begun to wake up to, hold on a minute, all of my taxes are being spent on complete bullshit, right? We've got net zero on this fictitious climate change thing where, you know, cities are going to be underwater by 2020. We're now in 2025 and nothing is underwater. So there's this huge problem that these big NGOs and these big platforms and these huge corporations, I'm with

you there totally, they've got a huge problem, right? Because they're not making it work anymore for the British public. So now what's the argument? What can we do now? Well, you're all still victims because now the problem is the rich people. And you just took the public that are watching Dan straight down that road. You just took them there, which is exactly what Labour wanted you to do, which is so brilliant of these people. I mean, seriously, I mean,

these guys are so good at strategy because now nobody's looking at net zero. Nobody's looking at, you know, all the other things we're spending complete crap on, like teaching people how to cook in Africa with electricity when they don't even have running water. We've stopped people focusing on that. And now the bad guy is the rich people. And my problem with Gary Stevenson. Yeah, you're right. Look, he's exaggerated a lot in his book, Dan, and I'm sure lots of people do. But he talks about coming from poverty. Let's talk about that. He grew up in a two-parent family in a terraced house with brothers and sisters. His mother paid for him to go to university. She had a really good job. And in 2011, he had himself, or whatever year it was,

he had himself a Sega Mega Drive and a Sonic the Hedgehog game. Well, the Sega Mega Drive cost 200 quid, and the Sonic the Hedgehog cost 39.99. I have one, never got personal level three. Anyway, my whole point to that is that child benefit that year was £7.35 a week. So he was not poverty stricken. Now, Gary goes on about entrepreneurs.

He forgets that the people he's talking about all around him were entrepreneurs. He has never been one. He's an employee. He got taken into a very large corporate operation as an employee. He's never got up at 6 o'clock in the morning to take in the deliveries. He doesn't know how to write an invoice. He doesn't know what a debit is. He doesn't know how to speak to customer service or HR. It was all provided for him. 99% of businesses in this country are micro businesses. They employ one to 10 people. And those owners, I guarantee it, I've done it myself. They have paid their staff and not taken a salary. He has never done that. He pulling in half a million pounds a year from those people.

He'd be down in Knowsley where they filmed that program. And he'd be talking to those kids because their parents in Knowsley didn't even get A-levels. Right. They didn't get A-levels. Up until five years ago, you couldn't take an A-level in Knowsley, says Gary, who went to Oxford. So he has absolutely no concept whatsoever. He's been scooped up by these huge progressive liberal organizations, NGOs that I fund and you fund, Charlie, and he's been taken up into this narrative of complete loveliness. Look how lovely it will all be if the economy works for everybody. Meanwhile, his friends in that group are taking subsidies, because without subsidies, those businesses would fail. And by subsidies, I don't mean that the government has paid it. I mean, taxpayers have paid it. The reason all our prices are higher is because of energy. You're right, Charlie. We are de-industrialized. Our house prices are too high. Our energy is the highest in the industrial world. But guess what? It's for the

greater good. And it's the rich man's fault. And that's why the left are so brilliant at this. And go back to Ben Habib, Dan. That's what Ben is trying to do with his PAC, is galvanise the right to have the ideas, Charlie, that you're suggesting. The problem is that the current liberal progressives and all of their organisations have 70 years on him. And some of his rhetoric, by the way, is actually dangerous, I think. Yeah.

Look at this. Very hard to keep wealth in generations. Down in the 20th century, we had two world wars and a holocaust. That redistributed wealth. I would prefer not to have that again. Yeah. Yeah. Charlie,

come on. Dangerous talk. Yeah. I mean, I haven't seen that podcast. I've seen that clip going around and I am prepared to give Gary Stevenson the benefit of the doubt

because that's been taken out of context. I don't know the context of the conversation, but I think what I'm getting at here is I'm just observing the reality of the fact that, you know, I can tell you anecdotally in my own life that there are young people who are really buying into Gary Stevens'

message, rightly or wrongly. He is effective. And I think part of that is he is, there's a kind of, and I knew this was going to happen, right? Because I referred to him as being the embodiment of the post-woke left, because woke is in the rearview mirror now. Woke is over. All of the major corporations that were propping up have moved away from it. USAID, which was funding it and astroturfing it, is obviously over because of Elon Musk's Doge program. And, you know, the left are basically having to redefine themselves. And I knew, and I've really sincerely believed this for years, that they would go back to a kind of, you know, post-2008 Occupy Wall Street, punk punky anti-capitalist kind of vibe and actually um where woke was cringe and brow beating and moralizing and horrible and and just just just awful and embarrassing to be

associated with especially for young men especially for young white straight men something like gary stevenson is a far easier sell to those people. Gary Stevenson, there's something that's kind of cool about him. And I know you said you find him annoying, Dan, but to be honest with you, I don't. I think that his delivery is quite compelling, and I think his style is quite effective. He does have, I mean, he never wears a suit. He comes across as being this kind

of rebellious, kind of punky type figure, you know, ignoring the fact that he, as I said, is an agent of the establishment, entirely astroturfed, bought and paid for by those same interests that he claims to rail against. And do you know what ignoring the fact that he, as I said, is an agent of the establishment, entirely astroturfed, bought and paid for by those same interests that he claims to rail against. And do you know what though? I bet his former colleagues are like, if only you'd met this

guy when he was in the city and he was wearing a pinstripe suit every day, but it is a fascinating debate. Breaking right now, the charity boss who has accused Prince Harry of racism, of discrimination, and of being part of a massive cover-up has now been forced off social media, bullied off social media because of the biggest gang of trolls in the history of the internet, the Sussex Squad,

who on the behalf of Meghan Markle are now quite ironically using racist terms to denounce Dr. Chandoka. Now, she's been branded a fraud, jumping on a bandwagon of hate. There are dig after dig after dig being thrown at her. And a Centre Bali spokesperson has said Dr Chandoka deleted her Twitter account due to the proliferation of online bullying. Meanwhile, I think it's Prince Harry who should be worried because the abusive email that he sent to Dr. Chandoka when she wouldn't put up with Meghan Markle's bullying looks like it's about to be released. Now, this is all deeply, deeply uncomfortable. But in some ways, I'm glad it has happened. Because I have been subjected to the type of destruction that the Sussex squad, through a whole medium and network of paid bots, of coordinated campaigns to shut down enemies,

I have been subjected to that. I know what it's like. So has Victoria Arbiter, the daughter of the famous Royal Press Secretary Dickie Arbiter, who posted on X, if Harry and Meghan's cyberbullying initiatives are ever to carry any weight, they'll have to denounce all the accounts posting hate in their name. Granted, in a world of free speech, they can't control what people write, but they've publicly thanked their fans on numerous occasions, which is tantamount to permission to post on. And I'm sorry, I have given Prince Harry and Meghan Markle well over a year to disassociate with the Sussex squad, and they refuse. Meanwhile, more footage has emerged

of Meghan acting like a bully on stage with Dr Sophie Chandoka. Watch. You can see there, Meghan wants absolutely nothing to do with this woman. Mean girl behaviour, just like we saw yesterday. Let me bring in my superstar panel, Bernie Spofforth and Charlie Downs on this now. Look, in some ways, there's quite an irony about the fact, Bernie, that it is a powerful black woman, a very accomplished individual, one who I don't agree with a lot on politically, but actually I am so

proud of for finally standing up publicly against the Sussex squad when so many people have just allowed themselves to be destroyed. And how on earth can anyone take Prince Harry and Meghan Markle seriously when they talk about the scourge of trolls, when they talk about the need to regulate the internet, when actually they have a professionalised gang of internet trolls trying to bring down anyone who decides to take them on for appalling behaviour, for bullying behaviour, for racist behaviour? I know I shouldn't find this funny, but I actually do. Because it's just so beautiful, isn't it? Because it's just the woke eating the even woker.

Because, yes, right, the troll farms that go after anybody are despicable. And we've seen that a huge amount. Anybody who disagrees with anything that the left say on any of the progressive narrative are completely destroyed. But and I know you're not going to like this, Dan, but I think Harry might have a point. And his point is that this charity he set up for his, in his mother's name, was to look after the orphans of AIDS victims and children who have AIDS, right? That was the original concept. And I know it spread out slightly, but that was the concept. And we saw him playing football with kids where he was at his happiest before he met Sparkle and his life went woke. But that was what he wanted to do, a traditional type of charity. What's happened in the last two years is that the woman they've brought in

is a massive activist and far less money has been spent on the children and a huge amount of money has been spent on costs and activism including climate change so the money that's coming in I think last year they pulled in their revenue was 3.4 million including a million pound from Harry's fictional spare they pulled in 3.4 million but they spent three point seven million and have accomplished nothing with the children. But they did spend one hundred and seventy five thousand pounds on a party funded by themselves, inviting lots of American Democrats. I mean, if you're going to and that's the problem with modern day charities. And I think that's the problem that perhaps Harry had with how the charity was running, was that it wasn't doing things on the ground. It had become an activist organization. And that was his discussion with her.

She, of course, is hugely woke and experienced it, have all come in to attack her. It's just they will always eat themselves. But the main crux of this... But that isn't why... I mean, I completely agree, by the way, with your criticism of what these charity organisations have become. They are not charities, they are activists, I completely agree. The interesting thing, charlie is that isn't actually why prince harry had the problem because that's what all of his charities do you know hilariously this is the guy who travels around

in private jets but then has a charity business operation called travelist which is all about stopping us mere mortals using air transportation. So the guy is just like a massive hypocrite. What actually this came down to is that there was a powerful woman of colour who wasn't prepared to march to the beat of Meghan Markle's drum, who wasn't prepared to be bullied by Meghan Markle, who wasn't prepared to allow Meghan Markle to humiliate her on this stage during, it was mortifying, you know, the Santa Barley charity. Look, she just refuses to allow Dr. Sophie to stand next to Harry. Harry's friends are now trying to say, oh, Dr. Sophie must be

jealous of Meghan. No, no, no, no. It's the other way around. Because remember, Dr. Sophie Chandorkar has never wanted to be a public figure. She chose not to publicly defend Meghan Markle. So I totally agree with the points that Bernie is making about the charity, Charlie. But actually, that's not why this fallout has happened. I find it just mind-blowing that the Sussexes, specifically Meghan Markle, has anything approaching a fan base.

I just don't understand how people... It's very small, Charlie. It's very small these days. Well, indeed. And probably also astroturfed as well. But it just, you know, the idea that somebody could get excited about and go to bat for somebody like Markle

just blows my mind. I think that Markle is a... You know, at once I don't like talking about her because I think that attention is exactly what she wants. But on the other hand, I found her a fascinating object of study because she is one of these figures that comes around every now and then who embodies some certain elements of the zeitgeist that we're living in because she is at once this kind of, you know, glzy hollywood uh you know bourgeois uh actress is also this incredibly narcissistic vindictive nasty you know by all accounts person who steps over people who who

destroys people who attacks people who get in her way and she is also alongside those two things this kind of you know moralizing progressive woke um you know politically minded person and it's this clash of three things that makes markel such a fascinating figure to me but this uh this this um bust up that's happened here um i mean it seems like these things are just accidents waiting to happen if you go into business with uh with the sussexes um you know and so maybe it's not surprising and it will be interesting to see whether this leaked email sheds any more light on what's actually happened here. But on the broader point of the, you know, what I would call the charity industrial complex. Yes. I think this is another area of economics and politics that nobody's talking about.

Nobody is owning this issue. And I think part of that is because something the left do so well is they capture language and ideas that sound really nice, that sound really cuddly, whether that's Black Lives Matter or anti-fascism or whatever else, pride, for example. You know, these little things that sound kind of good on the surface of them, but actually conceal very, you know, they conceal ulterior motives, which are always, you know, the destruction of beauty and the destruction of morality and the destruction of standards and identity. Of course. And this is the big issue that Prince Harry has, though, right? Because we've even seen his allies this week, like Hindi Andrews, who is the hard left race baiter intellectual who appeared on their Netflix series. And he's now turned on Harry saying, oh, no, no, no,

of course this guy, he's from the British royal family. Of course, he's all about a white colonial narrative. And this is what's fascinating. I want to show you, by the way, two very different reactions from both sides of the political spectrum. And I think they're equally hilarious. First, Julia Hartley Brewer had one hell of a meltdown in the talk studio today and it was just beautiful to watch live and i just wish harry and megan had done what they said they were going to do which was just live to america and live a private life shush just shush bye bye no one's into it no one cares charity boss stands when you're handing a completely utterly pointless stupid massive trophy to your husband for playing a polo a game which like only five rich people

from aristocratic families of top boarding schools play no one sodding cares you know why she was upset she was upset because sophie had the same dress on as her she had a glamorous white dress that's what she didn't like these people are absurd and they need to get real problems they need to be worried about losing their job they need to be worried about paying the electricity bill next week they need to be worried about whether they can get into a and e they need a proper problem as opposed to oh i'm a bit worried about the trustees of this charity that i started you know from my multi-millionaire royal palace where I lived. I just don't think that British people, sane British people, not the Sussex squad, care.

I just love that. But then on the other hand, right, you have Dr. Scholler, who I actually describe as the biggest race baiter in Britain, spacer in britain now put in the hilarious position where because of her sort of uh almost uh i would argue unquestioning support of harry and megan is now having to find a way to turn on dr sophie chandoka the type of black woman on the left who she would usually support offended now this entire framing is a tad intellectually disingenuous to me. Because how is the public statement of Prince Harry

and Princess Jo an example of bullying and harassment at a scale when you, Sophie, put this out in the public domain first? Yeah, your report against the Board of Trustees and the Charity Commission is in the public domain. Your lawsuit against the Board of Trustees and High Court is in the public domain how else are prince harry and princess are meant to respond to your public actions except by responding with a public

statement you know you know can you see that i think you may have other examples so dig deep because this right here isn't it it fascinating the way Sophie uses words like my country director, my executive director. Cause I'm thinking, girl, you're the chair. We all know the role of a chair. Do you? Because you're not the CEO who runs the daily operations of the charity. The CEO would have country directors, executive directors, yada, yada.

But so why are you talking like you're the CEO? Why are you talking like you own the place? The language smacks of a hostile takeover, in my humble opinion. Bernie, I find this so beautiful, right? In a very similar way that you were before, because how hilarious that we have the ultimate class warrior dr scholler now backing the prince backing the privileged prince who has had every advantage of the colonialism that she claims to despise it's just wonderful i just don't even know i don't even know where to start because

actually she is completely right but that means she's supporting the prince and she hates the prince because of all his colonial past. She must be in a terrible situation. Daniel, you should definitely send her some wine. She's not coping, is she, Charlie? Although neither was Julia Hartley Brewer. But I totally agree with what Julia says. I mean, this is just an argument that most people look at. No one cares. And think, what the hell? Well, they just think,

what the hell? And they also think, I think, Charlie, that this just represents why Prince Harry has allowed a woman to ruin his entire legacy. Yeah, I mean, you're doing pretty well if you're upsetting and annoying julia hartley brewer and dr showa i mean that's that's actually quite an achievement maybe commendable but i'm just waiting for the prince harry redemption arc i'm waiting for the inevitable separation the inevitable divorce and then the inevitable round of you know media and maybe books from harry where he said i was in this horrible relationship here's the tell-all story and all the rest of it and hey maybe he comes out of it looking quite good I don't know I mean maybe I

find that hard to believe because he's made a bit of a tit of himself over the last you know five to ten years but either way it's uh it's all good fun isn't it this stuff it takes our minds off the more uh you know the more more more awful things that are happening in uh in this country and elsewhere but I do think just to tie the previous story and this one together, just as a political point, you know, you're looking at listening to Dr. Scholler and looking at Meghan Markle and those sorts of figures who really do represent, they're like the embodiment of woke politics, right?

Brow beating, bitchy, unpleasant, you know, rude and, you know, vindictive, completely without, you know, without a kind of desire to make the world a better place, I would say. You compare that to somebody like Gary Stevenson, and again, I find Gary Stevenson to be a far more compelling sell, and that's why I think he's popular.

But either way, I'm glad to see the back of Woke. I think anyone is more appealing, if I'm honest, than the toxic combination of Dr. Scholler and Meghan Markle. But yes, they can just keep eating themselves. I'm going to enjoy it, but I will just say once more, because I want to give them a chance, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, if you do not believe in internet trolling,

surely this is the moment to release a statement distancing yourself and disassociating yourself from the Sussex squad, who are now not only trolling in your name, but spreading racist abuse in your name. I thought that would be everything that you're against. But look, do stand by Bernie Spofforth, Charlie Downs, because in just one moment, another story that is almost impossible to believe. Virginia Dufresne, she matters. This mad woman matters because it was her alone who was able to bring an end to the royal career of Prince Andrew. And her credibility has just been totally shot in the most extraordinary manner.

I promise you, you want to hear about this because it is truly nuts. So much more on that 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 is 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 brilliant US Army veteran, Robert Patton, while he was serving in Iraq back in 2007. That's right, this isn't just any underwear brand. It 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 away from unwanted friction and heat. Trust me, it's genuinely transformative. I've tested these things at the gym, on long days at work, relaxing at home. Once you've experienced sheath, there's simply no going back. My new order arrived today.

They're stylish. They're supportive. They deliver unmatched comfort. To be honest, I view it 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, that's 20% off your entire order. All you have to do is use my special promo code OUTSPOKEN at checkout. So what are you waiting for? Sheath is the perfect present, by the way, if you're looking for your husband, your boyfriend, your son, your brother, or your hard-to-buy best mate. And guess what, ladies? When you're on the

website, you will see there are female versions available too. By the way, Sheath, very cool brand, the first official underwear of the UFC. And look, there's some of the ladies in the brand. So click on the link below or just go to sheath.com and enter Outspoken at checkout. 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. Virginia Dufresne's credibility is shot and sources close to Prince Andrew tell me this is the tick-tock, tick-tock moment. The moment that they believe the disgraced Duke, who remember completely lost his royal role as a result of his settlement with this accuser, even though he insisted that he had never met the

woman, they think this is his way back. And I think they're potentially right. Because when you look into what has happened with Virginia Dufresne over the last two days, it is now impossible to believe this woman has any credibility. So let me take you through it. Totally unknown to the world until today, Virginia Dufresne is now standing accused of breaching a family violence restraining order, and she will face court in just days. That's after, on Sunday, she posted a picture of herself covered in bruises, claiming that she had just four days to live, after being in a car accident, where Australian police say no serious injuries were reported. What's so fascinating, of course, is that Virginia Dufresne stands accused by allies close to Prince Andrew, including friend of this show and his former girlfriend, Lady Victoria Harvey,

of falsifying the original image of herself in a London house alongside Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell. Now, medical experts say that the picture that Dufresne posted with bruises all over herself would be very unlikely to be caused by a kidney condition. Meanwhile, it's emerged dufray is due in court on the 9th of april over an alleged breach of a restraining order connected to family violence she is believed to no longer have access to her estranged husband or her children now I want to share with you what our regular contributor here at Outspoken and a woman who has been across the Andrew case for some time, Lady Colin Campbell, has to say about this story, which she has been working on for the past 48 hours. Lady C writes, I'm getting very interesting reports from Australia about Virginia Dufresne,

whom I make no bones about regarding as a liar, cheat and fraud, without mentioning that she was also pimped for Jeffrey Epstein, whom she did not start working for until she was 17 and therefore was over the age of consent, despite her claims to the contrary. Not only have the Australian authorities confirmed that there was no catastrophic road accident, but also that no one was injured. So who caused her apparent facial injuries? Or were they Amber Heard injuries? Or is this a bottle of makeup? As for dying, I made it clear in yesterday's episode on my YouTube channel that I laid no credence on her claim that she had been given four days to live. And sure enough, she's now backtracked on that. The woman is utterly unreliable and how she has been presented as credible is a damning indictment on certain publications as well as politicians. My chum Lady Victoria Harvey rightly says she is a fantasist and that's being polite. She set Prince

Andrew up. I did videos on it, contemporaneously giving chapter and verse. Grutter's one of the world's most eminent lawyers who worked with and against David Boyce and explained to me how the whole scam was set up and how it would unfold, which it did. Prince Andrew may not be the most appealing of individuals, but how many of his detractors have stopped to think how cruel it was of Virginia Dufresne to pile the pressure on the late Queen while she was dying painfully of cancer, knowing that her son was entirely innocent of the accusations against him, that he had been set up in a sophisticated shakedown to preserve the reputations of the

Clintons by Clinton lawyers, judges, Attorney General Zala, while his accuser would be financially rewarded, while at the same time having her credibility neutralized as an accuser against Bill Clinton, for she did accuse him, which everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten. I won't even go into the justice of Dufresne's children wanting to have nothing to do with her I know if I know she's deadlier than the hemlock that killed Socrates how much more insight must they have into why avoiding her is the best course of action for them to pursue she's made millions off the back of a very fertile imagination and a victim narrative when she's been anything but a victim and anyone who has examined the facts, as I have done, will understand that she is what used to be called a badden from the word go.

She deserves to be exposed for what she is, but whether that will vindicate Prince Andrew is a moot point. His unpopularity makes him too easy a target for brickbacks, which he doesn't deserve, even if he does deserve others for being rather more pompous than some people find comforting. And if the Dufresne woman thinks I'm defaming her, I invite her to sue me. The truth is an absolute defense to defamation, and I will see her in court. Also overnight, I received an email from Katrina Hart in Sydney, who wrote to me saying, I suspected from the beginning this had something to do with her family as she has lost custody of her children. I am not a lover of Prince Andrew, but I've also never believed Virginia Dufresne. My family owned a bus company for almost 50 years, and I can say with full confidence,

a bus is very unlikely to get up to a speed of 110 kilometers if it is not on a motorway. It takes time to build up that speed and a long time to decrease from that speed. Now, I just want you again to look at the video of Virginia Dufresne on 60 Minutes Australia, where I believe it is quite obvious that this story is an invention. Prince Andrew denies the allegations against him. And he says that this photo is a fake, that he was never there and that he's not his arm and they're not his fingers. Those are his fingers. That is Andrew. This photo has been verified as an original and it's been since given to the FBI and they've never contested that it's a fake.

And I know it's real. And he needs to stop with all these lame excuses. We're sick of hearing it. This is a real photo. And that was the first time you met him? And that's the very first time I met him. And that's right before I was abused by him. Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Maxwell

took the 17-year-old Virginia to London to party with Prince Andrew. Then we went to Club Tramp and he danced with me and he sweats a lot and he smells funny. And then we get in the car and Ghislaine tells me in the car that I have to do what I do for Geoffrey for Prince Andrew. And that's when I learned what was going to happen. How many times were you trafficked to him? Three times. Virginia Dufresne is a liar.

The mainstream media narrative on this, which I was once a part of, is wrong. I am ashamed for my part in it. But I want to bring in my superstar panel now, Bernie Spofforth of If This Is True and the conservative social media sensation Charlie Downs. Bernie, this is obviously a difficult topic. As Lady Colin Campbell says, in a lot of ways, Prince Andrew isn't the easiest guy to support. He did have a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. I'm not defending that, Bernie. It was an unwise decision given his role in the royal family.

However, who else had a close friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, Bernie? Katie Couric, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates. The darlings of the American liberal left were all at the same dinner party that Prince Andrew was, or if not that particular dinner party, certainly on the Lolita jet, certainly socialising with him on the island. So the targeting of Prince Andrew over this Epstein relationship all came down to Virginia Dufresne's claims and her credibility has now been shattered. Yeah, it's completely shattered. I think it is. And, you know, for a doctor to tell you, you have four days left, really four days, what, from this minute? So four days from now at this minute, I'm going to drop dead. And you're able to post that on your Facebook or your Instagram.

It's incredulous. Yes, because Bernie, sorry, I should just quickly interrupt because I meant to say this earlier. She is now trying to say that she didn't mean to post it on her Instagram. She means to share it on her private Facebook account. But even if she shared it on her Facebook account, what doctor says to you, yeah, really sorry, you've got kidney damage, you're going to die four days from now. It's not the countdown to Christmas, you know, and she's not hooked up to lots of machines. She doesn't look like she's on any kind of dialysis. I showed the image to my daughter, who's a painter, and said her bruises are bad, aren't they? And she just said, no, it's makeup.

And I think a lot of people have said, no, that's makeup. And if you've hurt your kidneys and you've been in a minor bump, which is what the police said it was, a minor bump, then you wouldn't have facial bruises like that. I think it's interesting that a restraining order was taken out on her by her husband and children. But it's also interesting to note that her husband is up on firearms charges and on reckless driving charges. So it doesn't look like a completely cohesive family to start with, which it must give you pause to say, look, if everything this woman has said previously is undermined by this now, you have to question what went before. And I think what's really it's telling about all of this is that if Prince Andrew hadn't been in the public eye and Prince Andrew,

then there wouldn't have been so much pressure on him to settle this case. The Queen was very ill. It was obviously deemed in the royal family's interest to settle it and get rid of it as quickly as possible. Whereas if he had been able to go to court, she probably wouldn't have come forward if it hadn't been Prince Andrew. But if he had gone to court, would this all have actually been proved to be false at the time? I know, and the problem is he wanted to

and it is worth me pointing out charlie downs that my reporting uh according to shall i say very senior royal sources was that until the day she died the late queen elizabeth the second 100 believed in prince andrews innocence and nothing was going to tell her otherwise. That is why she funded all of his legal fees, all of his PR support, all of his support for the wider team around him. That was all funded by the late queen because she was so determined for him to be able to clear his name. Now, Charlie, the problem with what happened with Dufresne is it was part of what I would describe as Me Too hysteria. And it was this hysteria of believe all women, believe all victims. Unfortunately, Charlie, time and again,

we have seen that there are loads of reasons for accusers to lie. Virginia Dufresne is a very rich woman because of these lies, Charlie. Millions and millions of dollars because of these lies. And still she hasn't been able to turn her life around. There are so many layers to this story. I mean, the first thing I will say is, you know, as much as she is a rightly venerated and loved, beloved figure, and as much as I respect her and love her hugely, just because the Queen says something doesn't make it true.

And I'm not inclined personally to go to bat for and defend a man who was a known associate of Jeffrey Epstein. Now, my first reaction when I... Totally agree. That was his mistake. No, no, I'm just saying, I totally agree. And by the way, I'm not defending that at all. What a stupid thing to do. This guy had gone to prison for sex trafficking.

All I was saying, Charlie, is that Bill Gates remained friends with him. Bill Clinton remains friends with him. And so did many others of the liberal establishment in America. It's certainly a big club. And one wonders what would happen if the true extent of Epstein's activities with these people was revealed. Because obviously all of this still remains a mystery to the general public. And I think that that's one thing that, you know, we've allowed it to slip out of the public consciousness, but actually we should

still be demanding answers about just exactly what it was Epstein was up to with his island and with the recordings and who was involved and who was incriminated and what he used the compromise that he gathered to do and the political interests that he was serving and the economic interests that he was serving all of this remains a mystery and i think that's really the big story here because my first reaction when i heard this story about virginia dufray was um oh they tried to whack her you know they've tried to whack her like they whacked epstein uh because the people that we are talking about here these uh you know people who are yeah the people who surrounded epstein were high-powered politicians um and uh you know, people who are, yeah, the people who surrounded Epstein were high powered politicians and billionaires, scientists, tech people and so on.

And they're people who are certainly not above murder, as far as I'm concerned, because I don't believe that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide. I think that he was probably murdered for what he knew and for what he probably threatened these people with. And so my initial response was, well, Geoffrey has uh has you know they tried to kill her as well now obviously uh there are there's a little bit more nuance to this story because it does sound as if there are questions as to uh dufray's uh reliability as a source but then my response to that would be well maybe there has been a concerted campaign against her to discredit her because maybe what she's saying is correct and maybe that you know maybe prince andrew was completely involved in this again i'm not going to make any specific accusations here but i can't help but think that everything that surrounds anything

to do with jeffrey epstein is just it's rife with misinformation and confusion and misdirection and i think that that's by design because i think that the powers that be want us to be as far away from this topic as possible because a hell of a lot of them are incriminated by it. Well, indeed, all I would just say is that people really do have to start thinking about why the only two people who either lost their liberty forever, or lost their reputation, their career, their jobs, as a result of connection to Jeffrey Epstein outside of Epstein himself are two Brits, Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell, who remains locked up in Florida. Two Brits. Now, that is very, very convenient

for the Democrats in New York who run that judiciary. Very, very convenient. They don't have to look at any of their own. They don't have to look at Gates. They don't have to look at Clinton. Come on, wake up. And I think there's a lot more to come on this story, actually. I totally agree with you about Jeffrey Epstein, but I also think there's going to be a lot more to come about Ghislaine Maxwell and how she has ended up the fall guy for this. And remember, Prince Andrew is waiting patiently. Now, I know there'll be a lot of people watching who say, you're crazy. The idea that Prince Andrew could ever return to a public role is for the birds. But all I'm saying is that's not how Prince Andrew feels.

He is utterly determined to return. He's patient. He's still a relatively young man. Let's see. It's going to be absolutely fascinating. But Virginia Dufresne, I think now, to the world, has exposed what people like Lady Victoria Harvey and Lady Colin Campbell have been saying for a very long time. But it's a fascinating story. Brilliant superstar panel. Thank you so

much. You've got to follow Bernie and Charlie on social media. Bernie is if this is true on YouTube specifically. Thank you both so much for your company today. And actually, lots of debate from you, as you can mention, in our live chat on the reform situation. Richard B. says, don't give up hope, people. I firmly believe Rupert and Ben will launch a new party after the local elections. Reform will be finished within the year and we have an open path to government. Then on the whole issue of Gary Stevenson, Katrina Williams says, recently listened to him, he is so full of himself. Plus he says, nothing new. We have known from the 80s that the gap between the poorest and the wealthy has widened. My mother used to say the working man couldn't care about the rich as long as they feel they are getting a fair wage or a day's work. Okay, Greatest Britain Union

jackass time now. Let's look at the nominees. Prince Harry, nominated by C. Vicky One for yet again using the press he supposedly loathed to try and ruin a prominent woman in Dr. Sophie Chandoka. Virginia Roberts, now Dufresne, who we just discussed, nominated by Becca Thornqvist for lying, allegedly, to the world about dying in four days. And Thomas Welby, the Heathrow CEO, nominated by Darren Donaldson because they were warned about the potential issues that would cause a power outage. The results are in. It's close today. In third place, Virginia Dufresne with 27%. In second place, the runner-up, Thomas Wolby, the Heathrow CEO, with 30% of the vote. But today's Union jackass

for the Dr. Sophie media row, Prince Harry. First time he's won in the new incarnation of Greatest Britain and Union jackass. We're going to be discussing much more about the Royals, by the way, in our uncancelled after show, www.outspoken.live. Sign up to watch. P. Diner is with me. And we're really getting into Meghan Markle's big launch day because we haven't had a chance to do it on the show today. But before we go, you may have seen this at the top of the show

because we accidentally revealed the greatest Britain. But if not, let me tell you, it is such a brilliant woman, Betty Webb, nominated by Yvette Hansen. She was the Bletchley codebreaker who died this week, aged 101. And Tessa Dunlop, the left-wing columnist, had done a brilliant book with her. And oh, I just hate losing this generation. It actually breaks my heart. Breaks my heart. It's a brilliant choice, Yvette, and such a perfect Greatest Britain. So thank you so much for your company today. Back tomorrow, 5 p.m. UK time, midday Eastern, 9 a.m. Pacific with Maya Tusi tomorrow. Very much looking forward to that. But hit subscribe if you're watching right now on YouTube and Rumble.

Turn on the notification bell. I promise to keep fighting for you. And I will see you on the after show in just one moment.