Dan Wootton Outspoken - TOMMY ROBINSON JAIL BOMBSHELL AS REAL REASON HE HAS DELETED SILENCED FROM X IS REVEALED

Episode Date: May 9, 2025

Go to https://ground.news/outspoken to see through media bias and stay fully informed. Subscribe through my link for 40% off unlimited access this month. A major update in the sick jailing of Britain’s political prisoner Tommy Robinson. Dan will reveal the real reason he has deleted Silenced from the internet. But first: Was it all worth it? What did our World War Two veterans fight for? A United Kingdom with blasphemy laws being introduced through the back door to protect Islam while Christians are inflicted to daily discrimination. Great Britain is broken, yet only the brave will admit it, resulting in the growing Reformquake. Dan reveals the true predicament we now find ourselves and then gets analysis from his Superstar Panel: Politics and royal YouTube sensation Stef the Alter Nerd and political commentator and free speech advocate Charlie Sansom. PLUS: Robert Jenrick and Rupert Lowe unite on the ridiculous prospect of a blasphemy law being introduced through the backdoor to protect Islam. AND: Growing calls for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to lose their HRH titles, as the delusional Duke is hit by two major new scandals – one in Africa and one in a British courtroom. I’ll reveal the details of both. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The new BMO VI Porter MasterCard is your ticket to more. More perks. More points. More flights. More of all the things you want in a travel rewards card. And then some. Get your ticket to more with the new BMO VI Porter MasterCard. And get up to $2,400 in value in your first 13 months.

Terms and conditions apply. Visit bmo.com slash viporter to learn more. It's truck month at GMC. Tackle the open road with added confidence in the 2025 Sierra 1500 Pro Graphite at 0% financing for up to 72 months. With an available 5.3 liter V8 engine, 20 inch high gloss black painted aluminum wheels, off-road suspension with available two inch factory installed lift kit, plus a towing capacity of up to 13,200 pounds. You'll be ready for anything this truck month.

Truck month is on now. Ask your GMC dealer for details. No spin, no bias, no censorship. I'm Dan Wooten. This is Outspoken, episode number 223. And happy Friday to you. Breaking right now, a major update in the sick jailing of Britain's political prisoner, Tommy Robinson. I'll reveal the real reason he has deleted, silenced from the internet shortly. But first, was it all worth it? What did our World War II veterans fight for? A united kingdom with blasphemy laws being introduced through the back door to protect Islam while Christians were inflicted to daily discrimination? Great Britain is broken, yet only the brave will admit it. No, I think things are different.

In fact, to be honest with you, this is not the country I fall. But the thing which crossed my mind as I looked at this was how much less British we are than we were on the Eid. And it's that feeling, which the mainstream media completely ignores, resulting in the growing reform quake. Look at that poll. Here's Matt Goodwin's take. And what are they concerned about more than anything?

Mass uncontrolled immigration and our broken... In my digest next, I'll reveal the true predicament we now find ourselves in, then analysis from my superstar panel, politics and royal YouTube sensation, Steph the Alter Nerd, and political commentator and free speech advocate, Charlie Sansom. Also coming up on the show today, Robert Jenrick and Rupert Lowe unite on this ridiculous prospect of a blasphemy law being introduced through the back door to protect Islam. I'll give you the latest. And growing calls for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to lose their HRH titles as the delusional duke is hit by two, yes two, major new scandals within 24 hours. One is in Africa, the other in

a British courtroom. I'm going to reveal the details of both. Then in the uncancelled after show on Substack, oh I'm excited about this, I'm going to analyse my bombshell interview this week with Megyn Kelly which has set the internet ablaze. You can sign up to watch. We're also going to be joined by Angela Levin, www.outspoken.live. And of course, it is a Friday, which means at the end of the show, we will reveal the worst Britain in the world this week. We've already had tens of thousands of votes on YouTube, but you can still get yours in right now in the post section. This is where we put your choices for the union jackasses of the week head to head. So on Monday, we had Lucy Powell for that terrible dismissal of the rape gang scandal. Tuesday, Prince Harry. Wednesday, Meghan Markle. Thursday, Narendra Kerr. Get voting. The worst Britain in the world

announced at the end of the show. So do stick with me. But now, let's go. I think it goes without saying that Britain's biggest threat come from those who want to destroy our Christian values, but then do all they can to gaslight us into thinking that preserving our precious culture and saving the United Kingdom from, well, imminent destruction makes us the bad guys. Now look, there are some very obvious, nefarious actors in all of this. Top of the list, I've got to say, whom's are useless? Scotland's failed former First Minister, who had the temerity to post yesterday. So many sacrificed their lives, not only for our freedoms, but to defeat Hitler's racist ideology. Not only will we remember their sacrifices, but that is the least we can do. We will also honour them by standing against far-right fascism as it rears its ugly head once again.

So you have an apparently serious former politician comparing, even though he didn't name them, but trust me, he is comparing the rise of Nigel Farage and Reform UK, who I actually think have been far too soft on these issues of mass deportation and demographic change, to the damn Nazis. And it's that dangerous language that stops many people, many sound people actually, from entering this debate. It's the fear of being labelled. Luckily, a 101-year-old war veteran who fought for us to stay free doesn't have those kind of fears. So I think we should listen to his words that things are different and this is not the country I fought for. As Queen Natalie posted on X, bless him, he's right. It's shameful that these people sacrifice themselves for our country and us.

For what? Watch. No, I think things are different in fact to be honest with you this is not the country i fought for in my opinion anyway you know things are different and I don't know what would, today, I think if the same thing was to happen today with the younger generation, I don't think they would cope as well as we did. And when you look at this magical footage of old England, just take it in, captured by an off-duty police officer on VE Day 80 years ago, feels impossible to disagree with that veteran. I mean, look at the streets there, absolutely idyllic. And that was after five years, six years of the most horrendous war.

Now, I know that the streets of London, for example, our capital city, are impossible to walk without the imminent threat of being mugged. And for me, that's proof of a society that has broken down. Seriously, my partner's sister was in London last week. She came down from Scotland. She was in London, I'm not joking, for literally two minutes before she was mugged and the phone was swiped from her hand. I repeat, that is a society that has broken down. But where are the commentators and politicians prepared to admit that? Well, stand up Peter Hitchens, who says we are much less English, much less British now than on VE Day 80 years ago, as he urges people to think a lot more about whether we really did win

this war and what we can do about restoring and retaining that which is still British about us. How much less British we are than we were on VE Day. I remember this interesting minor poet called Priscilla Napier, whose husband was a destroyer captain who actually died of exhaustion in the first months of the Second World War, keeping the seas around this country safe from the Germans. And she at one stage remembers saying that what he'd gone to sea for was to make sure his children could grow up British. Yes.

And I just wonder whether those who in 1939, 1940 set out on the path to what was quite possibly going to mean death or serious injury or whatever other disaster and all the people who sighed and said okay right we're going to endure rationing and privation and everything that's coming for this immense battle if they i think all of them had if they'd been asked for their war aims the most fundamental one would be that they they wanted britain to remain britain for their children to grow up in a country like the one they've grown up in and yet this didn't happen and i'm i know that people think this is a silly

obsession in my case but i don't care for instance this you you everybody around me now uses the continental measurements, the mesas and the kilograms, the lisas, which are foreign to me. Enormous numbers of things happen in this country in a way which is foreign to me, quite different from my own childhood. And it doesn't seem to me that we succeeded very well in remaining British, either in the big things or in detail. I just think that the rejoicing is all very well, but rejoicing

without thought afterwards is pointless. And when people have put away the Union Jacks and cleared up the street party debris and all the rest of it, and when the pubs are finally closed, I would just urge people to think a lot more about whether we really did win this war, and what we could do about restoring and retaining that which is still British about us. Because I think that is really the important thing we now face. Before it all goes and vanishes altogether,

we really need to consider what we were fighting for rather more profoundly than we have before. That's my response to this. Yeah, no, I think you're right. Peter Hitchens, God bless him. I mean, he's a long-winded guy. But I wanted to play that all to you because he said the unsayable in the mainstream media. And I think that always deserves a pat on the back.

Now, the self-inflicted harm for failing to protect our border, our border, by the way, that we were able to keep Hitler away from, is insane. So I just want to show you one stat that I think will shock you. costs will be £15.3 billion, while Labour's despicable winter fuel payment cut will have saved just £1.7 billion. Even centrist Tory commentators like Nick Ferrari now realise what is causing the absolute decimation of the Uni Party. What don't they get? This country has had enough with this uncontrolled immigration. It doesn't matter whether it's called the Brexit Party, UKIP or now Reform. Consistently they do well

in local elections, by-elections. Governments of both colours say, yes, we've got the message, we're listening. Sir Keir Starmer saying we're going further and faster last week. That's my analogy again. If you're going the wrong way in the M1 I'll tell you what darling, I'm going to up the speed and go even further the wrong way up the M1

are you nuts? if they vote UKIP they vote Brexit, they vote reform, people have had enough and not enough is being done, March this year, Minister for Border Security and Asylum God knows what she does all day.

Dame Angela Eagle telling a panel of MPs she couldn't put a date on when the use of asylum in hotels might end. So let's blame the Conservatives again then. Because it's these people, these Labour politicians, they were living on another planet. It's not as if they'd had 14 years to study the Conservatives' failure and indeed to lecture us continually on radio shows such as these in newspaper articles and in the House of Commons.

They weren't aware of any of it because they just visited from another planet, weren't they? No. And look at that. I think the situation that Nick Ferrari has just summed up has led to these record poll numbers for Reform UK, with its chairman, Zia Youssef, boasting reform now polling at 33%, almost double the Tories and 13 points clear of Labour, would result in a walloping reform majority. History is being written. Matt Goodwin agrees. And what are they concerned about more than anything? Mass uncontrolled immigration and our broken borders. Matt Goodwin agrees. how immigration is changing Britain, how immigration is changing England. That is why millions of people are now rejecting the established political parties in British politics.

But given our dire state, I will still ask whether Reform UK's policy prescription is strong enough to save us from our predicament. For example, on the issue of mass deportations, it's actually their ex-DMP, Rupert Lowe, who has changed the national conversation. He's changed the national conversation so much, by the way, that this is a Conservative Party ad. Deport all foreign criminals, which they ran alongside a post on X saying every single one. As Lee Quilter pointed out, amazing how much Rupert Lowe has almost single-handedly shifted the Overton window on immigration and particularly on mass deportations. To see the Conservatives using such blunt but completely correct language would have been unimaginable a year ago. We will only be saved, let me repeat, we will only be saved if all our leaders have the bravery to acknowledge the true shitshow we now find ourselves,

thanks to politicians in the Uniparty, ignoring our demands for six decades. Now, let me bring in the superstar panel, politics and royal YouTube sensation, Steph, the alter nerd and political commentator and free speech advocate, Charlie Sansom. Charlie, it's absolutely shocking to me that Humza Useless, this extremist who the mainstream media have allowed a constant and consistent platform, uses a national day like VE Day to try and compare the rise of far-right fascism in the United Kingdom. He's talking about Nigel farage to hitler this is the the common trope isn't it of the left yep it's so easy to to mention hitler and because that evokes some sort of emotion some sort of disgust and kind of oh we can't go there

kind of attitude but at the end of the day Nigel Farage is nothing like Hitler Donald Trump is nothing like Hitler you know Tommy Robinson is nothing like Hitler but these men all get called Adolf for reasons unknown I think it's just lazy no one no one on the left can actually objectify um sorry objectively put across their points without resorting to that cheap tactic and i don't know why they do it because it's becoming lazy it's becoming boring you know people want substance i think even people on the left who i'm not a fan of anyway i'd rather the right win obviously but people on the left still need someone to look to and say yeah they speak for us but no one on the left does. They just talk all this rubbish. Steph, do you understand why there is this desire to try and paint you know, Keir Starmer label anyone or any organisation as far right, it's ultimately an attempt to silence and make that, quote, opposition cower.

The thing is, though, the truth is coming out and their attempts to paint the boogeyman as the far right is over. There was a recent report from His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary that has blown their head on for blaming the far right for pretty much everything completely right open. So His Majesty's Inspectorate of the Constabulary did a report on the Southport protests and they say, quote, during our inspection, we found no conclusive or compelling evidence that the 2024 disorder was deliberately premeditated and coordinated by any specific group or network so we now have authorities and reports coming out pretty much turning around and saying anyone in the political sphere trying to blame stuff on the far right there's no evidence for it whatsoever.

You're completely right. And that report was absolutely sensational, Charlie. But the problem is the mainstream media that reported those tropes day after day were completely unquestioning when liars like Yvette Cooper and Keir Starmer kept trying to blame the unrest after the Southport massacre. I mean, I call them so-called riots, by the way, because I don't even think they were riots on the whole. But they kept trying to blame this far-right bogeyman, making out as if far-right organisations had invaded these local communities, when actually it was nothing of the sort. It was locals. It was, in a lot of cases, Labour supporters who had just had enough and were also absolutely furious, Charlie,

that they knew Starmer and Yvette Cooper were covering up the truth, that the police were covering up the truth. And, of course, we know they were because Starmer and Yvette Cooper absolutely knew that Axel Rudik-Barner had an al-Qaeda training manual at his house, that he was producing ricin, for example. So I think the problem with Southport is that it shows that the mainstream media are such a nefarious force that even when they get it wrong, they're not prepared to admit it. Well, if they admit it, they can't be the beacon of authority or hold that position in society where people still quote the BBC or Sky News or any other network that have been proven to lie on a regular basis. Now, one thing I would say about the mention of the Al-Qaeda manual is that the police would have known about that when they

nicked the guy. They would have found it when they arrested him so why did it take so long for it to come out people are sick and tired of seeing their kids being attacked being murdered being stabbed we're sick and tired of seeing these things happen on our streets by people who we know are not from this country they're not from our culture they don't behave in in a way which is becoming of our culture which is to be tolerant and law-abiding they don't do any of that stuff and talking of Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper I mean park her for one moment but you had Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner if I'm not mistaken taking a knee in their offices when Black Lives Matter were destroying cities in America that's what you call a riot that's what you call uh left-wing extremism, not people being exercised about the murder of three children and the injuring of plenty more.

That's not a riot. That is justifiable anger. Oh, yeah, they had absolutely no problem with that because it fit their political narrative, just like there was a time when Keir Starmer was even backing the green lunatics, the eco-terrorists of the Extinction Rebellion, for example. So, Steph, then I come on to Peter Hitchens. And look, in some ways, I find Peter Hitchens on certain issues an insufferable bore. He's also a very cantankerous and difficult man. However, he is someone who is very often prepared to say the unsayable in the mainstream media. And for that, I have huge respect.

And isn't he right to say that here we are celebrating VE Day? And of course, we need to mark and commemorate, for example, for me, that my four grandparents, who were all, well, three of them fought in World War II. One was living as a teenager throughout the London Blitz. Of course we need to commemorate them. But isn't he also right to say we need to have a good, hard look at ourselves and think if the country that we have today, a country where you can't even walk around the capital city

without being mugged, is really what my grandparents, who you can see there, really fought for. He's absolutely correct. When he turns around and he says that we're much less British now than on VE Day eight years ago, you only have to literally walk outside your front door to see it. But not only that, you know, consider the statistics. Our legal establishment that we depend on is being eroded bit by bit

because the UK is now considered the Western capital for Sharia courts as we have more than 85 currently operating right here. There was a poll conducted last year that found nearly a third want Sharia law implemented in the next 20 years over half polled want homosexuality to be illegal we're supposed to be a secular country but as you referenced earlier on dan now they're trying to bring back blasphemy laws through the back door the government's more focused on looking after illegal immigrants rather than our own british people uh cost to home and provide benefits to illegals, as you mentioned,

are set to triple to over 15 billion. But the government wants to save over nearly 2 billion by taking away heat and allowance to our pensioners. We're essentially witnessing, as far as I'm concerned, an invasion where the destruction of Britain is happening from within. And we have Keir Starmer and his cronies happily letting it. So anyone, as far as I'm concerned, turning around and saying Peter Hitchens is wrong is what he's saying here.

It needs to have their head examined. Yeah, because the thing is, Charlie, obviously there's some people saying, well, it's not a patriotic thing to say, but actually, isn't it patriotic to be honest about the challenges that we face? Because the uni party have ignored the will of the people for six decades. And we saw, Charlie, in my digest, that 101-year-old war veteran. And it's sad to think, I mean, hopefully he'll be around for a couple more decades, but it's sad to think that at some point we won't have those war veterans around to actually say, this isn't what i fought for well one thing that i picked up on when peter hitchens was talking in the digest was that he said that did we really win the war and i think that's that's an unnecessary conflation

of course the war was won but that's what we did with the peace isn't it yeah of course and i think that that's the point that he was trying to make is that you know in actuality we've we've invited fascists to come into our country we're going to pay for them we're going to look after them we're going to give them carte blanche and we're going to make the people that are born here that didn't have a choice but to be born in britain pay for that and suffer alongside those cultures that we don't necessarily want. And I'm not trying to be inflammatory by saying these cultures, but we have to be honest about that. I think to be patriotic, like you said, you have to be honest about the problems the country faces. And denying that we've got a

problem with crime, denying we've got a problem with immigration, denying that the government favours foreigners over native-born Brits, that just the truth and people need to come to terms with that and hopefully reform as you mentioned it again in your digest hopefully they'll come to the forefront and be the reckoning um on the country that it needs but we'll have to wait and see about that. So Tommy Robinson has deleted silence from the internet. This was the moment that his team made a decision that for a long time, the political prisoner had resisted. So we can see it here in this video, the moment that the documentary you're about to watch is the most important documentary I've ever made.

This story is far bigger than Tommy Robbins. So you can see there the highly controversial documentary deleted from the internet. Why has he done this? Well, there it is. It's gone. Why has he done this? Well, as you know, when I spoke to Tommy and HMP Woodhill in December, he was very clear that silenced would not be coming off the internet. In his view, if it meant he had to serve a longer sentence, then so be it. However, months and months and months as a political prisoner in solitary confinement in HMP Woodhill, I think can focus the mind. But so too, can the people who love you most in life begging and pleading with you to do not what's just right for you, not just what's right for your family, but what's right for your country. So let me take you through my reporting since this decision was made to delete Silence in the past 24 hours. There is a possibility, and while no one

wants to get their hopes up, there is a possibility that this could mean Tommy Robinson is released a lot sooner than anticipated from incarceration. Let me be clear though, Tommy absolutely did not want to remove the documentary. But his friends spoke to him, appealed to him and told him that he must. For example, Liam Tufts visited Tommy Robinson on VE Day and asked him as a friend to agree for the movie to be deleted because he said the country needs him and his family needs him. What's also really important to contextualize about this story is that this isn't just about this current prison stint for Tommy Robinson. There is obviously a campaign of lawfare against this man and the authorities and the government and the deep state

and the political opponents and Reform UK and Nigel Fryde and all of them would like to see Tommy Robinson in prison in perpetuity. And what Tommy learned is that if he hadn't removed the documentary following his release, they could re-arrest him and put him through the whole contempt of court process again. His friends warned him that he could quite easily spend the rest of his life in jail. They said, everyone wants you to remove this, Tommy. The country and the world is changing, but you are no good when you're in jail. So he has been pressured by people who

love him to take it down, because otherwise he would have spent 20 years, the next 20 years in prison, to try and prove a point, which let's be honest, has already been made. Because thanks to Elon Musk, and the opening up of X, and also the obvious promotion of Tommy Robinson and Silence, that film was viewed by well over 100 million, well more than any mainstream media documentary on the issue. Here's how Tommy's team decided to announce the deletion of Silence. They posted on X, It is time to purge my friend's contempt of court. It is time to get him out of prison. I will not apologize for wanting my friend back with his family where he belongs. I will not apologise for my concern over his physical and mental wellbeing.

It serves no purpose for him to rot in prison when the British state can prosecute him over and over again for the same supposed crime. Tommy has made his point. It's time for him to come home. The Overmentionian Tufts wrote, I'm not obliged to discuss specifics, but I can say I celebrated VE Day with Tommy Robinson today, and I have made it home in time to raise a glass to our fallen hero and the fact Tommy's documentary has been removed, which will hopefully result in his early release. Good health. And Urban Scoop contributor Don Keith added, thank you Jesus, my great friend, the Lion of Britain, Tommy Robinson is coming home. So let me bring in my superstar panel on this, Steph the Alter Nerd and Charlie Sansom. Charlie, this is fascinating, isn't it? Because Tommy Robinson,

and as I say, when I last saw him face to face in December, which is obviously a long time ago now, he was absolutely resolute that he would not be deleting silence, even though it would mean he would get a much shorter prison sentence. Clearly, and I think this is the right decision, Charlie, I don't know if you agree, but I think this is right right decision charlie i don't know if you agree but i think this is right the decision and i would argue that common sense has prevailed here all right we have a slightly different view it's nuanced it's not against the view but it's there's context i'll add to this i do not think the film should have been put out in the first place because i think it adds weight to the narrative of um he's a criminal he's in prison again he's being banged up for something

he's a troublemaker etc etc because the press will paint that story i don't believe that film should have been released in the way it was if he'd have disseminated the information to different journalists people around him that he trusted i believe the impact may not have reached 100 million but it would have got there in bits and pieces in the end if you know what I mean because my whole viewpoint on this is that Tommy's a father and he's going to go into a prison system which does not like him there's going to be inmates a prison system which does not like him. There's going to be inmates that will want to do him harm. Many will likely want to kill him.

And I wonder if that was worth the risk of releasing that movie. Personally, I wouldn't have done it. And whilst I will never reveal private conversations, I did say as much to Tommy on the the phone before um and you know he's receptive to advice one thing I will say about him is that he's he's not dismissive he's not hard-headed he will listen to you if you if you make a good point and I'd say that you know this um removal of video was on his mind you know once he'd released it I think there was some form of well I've got to kind of face the music now

because I've done it. But in my view, was it worth it? Prison, being surrounded by people that want to kill you, losing your kids potentially, like the time part, I wouldn't have done it. And of course, and then not to mention

the fact that he could have died behind bars. I mean, his treatment has been absolutely inhumane and he's still in solitary and he's effectively being punished on a daily basis by British society. Let me put the counter view though, Steph, because while in usual circumstances I would agree with Charlie, if silence hadn't been released, and if Tommy Robinson hadn't been locked up, we wouldn't have seen that incredible intervention in British politics of Elon Musk, the world's richest man, who put on the map issues that we had been trying to speak about for years, Pakistani Muslim, British rape

gangs, the cover-up, the invasion of our country. And also, let's be frank, that big question about whether Nigel Farage really is the right man to lead this new movement. And so I would say Tommy Robinson actually leaves prison much, much more well-known and respected internationally than he did going in. And so I think you could argue for that reason, it has been worth it, not to mention the fact obviously well over 100 million people have seen Silenced. I would agree that what Tommy Robinson did laid the foundation to what we're seeing now in terms of more people waking the hell up

as to what the establishment has been trying to do to gaslight us over the years when it comes to uncontrolled immigration, the invasion of Islam. Let's be frank here, the Muslim rape gangs here in the UK, what Tommy Robinson has done in terms of this particular film was a watershed moment to allow all of this to come

to the forefront of the public consciousness and force it into mainstream political narrative as well because I do firmly believe with the main political parties, if they had a choice to try and still keep this under wraps and not talk about it so publicly this that and the other they would do that they've been forced to have this conversation now public and publicly and politically and a large part of that is due down to Tommy Robinson now I'm not surprised really in the grand scheme of things that they've taken down the film for me it shouldn't be seen as a retreat

or a contradiction in his values. To me, it's just now coming down to having to remove the film to save his life. I did a little bit of research and I found an article from Medical News Today. An American report shows that approximately 25% of people in prison and 35% in jail who spend 30 days or longer in solitary confinement had symptoms of serious psychological distress, such as panic attacks, hallucinations, paranoia, social withdrawal, psychosis, suicide, self-harm. Now, I'm not saying that these are the things that Tommy has been suffering from under his own solitary confinement.

But looking at that report and looking at those statistics, with there being a high chance that he could suffer from any of those things and so much more, yeah, it's now coming down to having to remove this film to save his life. And I think that's much more important. He is better to this world and to our society alive rather than dead. Yeah, very true. That I very much more important. He is better to this world and to our society alive rather than dead.

Yeah, very true. That I very much agree with. Charlie, given you are someone who has had this, these sort of robust conversations, I guess, about strategy and everything with Tommy in the past, I'm fascinated to know how you think on release, he should utilise this new found international celebrity. What should he do now? newfound international celebrity? What should he do now? Should he change tactics? Should he focus on America? Like, what would you be advising him to do now?

I would probably advise him to leave the country for a while. I think he needs some space from the UK. It kicks him out of trouble indirectly and directly, I mean I'm sure many people want him to host a rally and I'm sure that will happen but I think for him, he's better off

moving away, taking his journalism to another level, using people that have free speech in their blood in America and push the narrative from abroad pushing it over here is only going to end up with the same story being repeated and one thing I don't want to happen to him is him being killed that's something that I really don't want to happen because deep down I think that for whatever people criticize him for he has a good heart

and I think this only started because the state neglected their responsibilities that's what it all goes back to you've got to go back to the head the state neglected their responsibilities creating what is now known as tommy robinson that figure that that figurehead that's that symbolism of a man that people latch on to you know i've said this many times in the past that what Tommy Robinson commands is loyalty. And the constant comparisons to Nigel Farage is that Nigel Farage commands support, but it's conditional support.

He gets loyalty for the risks he's taken because of the risks on his own life that he's put himself in the fray for, you know, it's something that people respect. And I think that for him to continue with his work, the UK isn't the place. Well, I know the first thing he intends to do, Steph, is focus on his health. And I think no one will think that's the wrong thing.

You know, there's plans. He needs to obviously strengthen himself again and focus on his nutrition and everything because basically he's been having to eat tinned tuna and crisps really for months and months and months on end because there was too much fear that if he was eating the prison food,

it could have been laced with poison, for example, because of the muslim gangs that operate within hmp woodhill so of course he has to focus on his health first but i know he also does have massive plans for the biggest ever uniting the kingdom rally where he hoped that people like jordan peterson would want to attend in person. And he also intends to continue his controversial journalism and his projects, but really focusing on exposing and challenging the Labour government. So as far as I can see, he has no intention of dialing it back. Good. Good. dialing it back good good um tommy robinson uh is seen as really a figurehead of resistance

against a labor government that's trying to gaslight us into as far as i'm concerned an islamic state and he's the one he's the main one as far as i'm concerned that speaking truth to power when it comes to that and criticizing them all day long however i do agree with charlie on one thing that he said which was when he gets out he needs to move away from uk continue Continue with the journalism. Continue with fighting against the establishment. Continue speaking truth to power, because that's why he's getting so much support and so much loyalty and so many hundreds of thousands of people attending his rally.

He needs to do it somewhere in America. It's interesting. Yeah, I mean, it's going to be interesting to think, isn't it, Charlie, what happens? I mean, we've got J.D. Vance, obviously highly engaged in the United Kingdom and this threat to free speech. Tucker Carlson this week has just come out publicly and suggested that Russell Brand should be offered political asylum in the US by the Trump administration. So it is possible that there will be support from the

Trump administration. Of course, who we haven't heard from thus far is the big guy himself, the Donald. He's the person who at this point has also stayed silent on Tommy. And presumably, it's partly because he's obviously got a lot on his plate, but it's also partly because he knows that there is this split between two of his close allies, Nigel Farage on one hand, Elon Musk on the other. Now, when Katie Hopkins was here last week, she said that she believes one of the reasons that Trump's relationship with Nigel Farage has cooled so much over the past few months was because he was aware of Nigel's refusal to listen to Elon Musk on Tommy Robinson. But I guess with Trump, until you actually hear it from the horse's mouth,

you don't know which way he's going to go. Personally, I don't think this is an issue for the president of the United States to weigh in on now. I think when things happen, as in Tommy being released and there being conversations about him going to the United States, that's when he might be able to weigh in.

But, you know, talking on an individual figure, I don't think is very presidential. I think that might be the role of somebody like the United States, that's when he might be able to weigh in. But, you know, talking on an individual figure, I don't think is very presidential. I think that might be the role of somebody like the vice president or maybe influential figures like Elon, who obviously is a supporter of Tommy anyway. I also believe that you can intimate what the president thinks through the people around him, what they say. Yes.

So if J.D. Vance and Elon and other people are saying we need to do more to help struggling political... And Steve Bannon will be key, won't he? Because Steve Bannon is arguably the biggest supporter of Tommy Robinson in Macca world. And of course, he's not a formal part of the administration. But my God, Donald Trump listens to him. So no, I think you're right.

There's a lot of road on this to come. But it is, Donald Trump listens to him. So no, I think you're right. There's a lot of road on this to come, but it is going to be fascinating. And what's interesting, I guess, is there's been lots of times in the past when Tommy Robinson has been told, oh, you've got to professionalise your operation. You're going to have to do this. You're going to have to do that. But actually, the reason why people love him and why he has this huge amount of support is because fundamentally, he does what his gut tells him to do, not what the opinion polls might say, not what his advisors might say. Breaking right now, a major new free speech row in the United Kingdom over the burning of the Quran after a man who did burn the Quran is facing charges

under some new term harassing Islam. Toby Young's Free Speech Union has weighed in on this, writing, and what is believed to be a legal first for the UK, Free Speech Union member Hamat Kosken has been charged with harassing the religious institution of Islam after burning a copy of the Quran during a political process. The charge brought under the Public Order Act has sparked concern that prosecutors are effectively introducing a backdoor blasphemy law in a country where such laws were formally abolished in 2008. Now, thank God Rupert Lowe isn't letting his rejection from Reform UK stop him on this issue, introducing a motion in Parliament for the right to reject and criticise religious ideas, including Islam. That's led to a major online row with Adnan

Hussain, who wrote what Rupert actually wants to say is free speech means protecting the right to offend Muslims. Rupert replied, yes, I do believe the right to offend Muslims must be protected. The right to offend anyone must be protected. And Robert Jenrick, who I believe is doing really sterling work, should be the leader of the Conservative Party, is moving the Conservative Party to the right by stealth, has also taken this on as a major issue. We'll get analysis from our superstar panel, Charlie Sanson and Steph the Alternerd, in just one moment. But first, have a look at Robert Jenrick's very important take on this. Earlier this year, I raised the case of a man who'd been arrested after a video emerged of him burning a Koran. Now, here's an update. I've got hold of a copy of the legal proceedings against him.

And he's just been charged with harassment, alarm or distress against the religious institution of Islam. Now, his lawyer says that it's a defective chart, it doesn't reflect the law, and that it's tantamount to blasphemy. Now, burning a Quran, like any religious text, is something that some people find very offensive, and few people would condone. But that's not the point. There are many things in our society that people find offensive, but that doesn't make them criminal. Parliament abolished blasphemy laws almost 20 years ago. They were right to do so. It's not for the CPS or the courts to create a blasphemy law in this country by the back door.

But Charlie Sands, that is exactly what is happening. And we know that this is going to be a deranged push by Labour over the next few years, because of course, where are they being threatened? Well, they're being threatened on their left by sectarian parties. This is indicative of how far this country has fallen, because if you were to, say, burn a Bible outside of a church what would happen nothing would happen we know the answer nothing would happen if you were to burn a torah maybe maybe not you burn a quran suddenly the world stops why it's because our culture has been taken over by a foreign religion which has the political parties tied up.

Labour are no different to the Conservative Party. Robert Jenrick might be speaking the right language now, but people forget. And maybe you forget that. I'm going to challenge you here a little bit that he was part of that government for the past 14 years himself. Of course. I mean, I do so. Look, my view on the Conservatives, let me be very clear. Let me be very clear. I think I would find it almost impossible to vote for the Conservatives again. I think they betrayed the country. And there are a lot of people who actually did nothing that mattered when they were in power. So why should we listen to them now? Let me tell you why I support Robert Jenrick.

And I really do mean this. I believe that if Reform UK is going to be an effective government of Great Britain, they have to be pushed to the right. The Overton window has to shift on a whole load of issues. And I think Robert Jenrick will outflank Reform UK to the right. And it will force Nigel Farage to go to where he really wants to be as a politician, which is to the right. Because right now, you have all of his advisors saying, you've got to be a centrist, you've got to appeal to the left, you've got to appeal to Labour voters. So that's where I stand on this. The whole Overton window has to shift. And we've seen Rupert Lowe do it on the issue of mass deportation. So if he can do it on the issue of Islam, working with Robert

Jenrick, then great. Because remember, all we've got from faraj at the moment is really capitulation when it comes to the issue of islam charlie all i'm saying with my criticisms of robert jenrick is that whilst i take on board your analysis that he's moving the overton window over you can't trust him these same people told us they'd sort out the borders. They haven't. That's why you've got these blasphemy laws through the back door coming through now. These people cannot be trusted. And the problem with Nigel Farage and his leadership is that he's not solid yet.

I've seen him flip-flop in the past nine months, coming up to a year, on so many different issues where I thought, do you know what? I'm going to get in touch, I'm going to join reform. Then I've gone, actually, I'm going to pull back. Then he does something else and I go, do you know what, I'm going to pull the trigger, I'm going to go and join reform. Then I pull back. Then I think I might go and stand for reform, might have a conversation, then I pull back. Because there's so much inconsistency there that I don't know where to go. Many people will feel like that, but they'll put their cross in the box for reform because they're the only

ones that they can go for that haven't been tried and tested yet. So do we think that Nigel will go as far as we want him to go? He should be doing that without Robert Jenrick, with all due respect to the man. I don't, he doesn't look like a leader to me. He looks, he looks a bit like a wet.

I'm not going to go any further than that. Well, it is interesting. I mean, look, it is interesting. He obviously was a wet. You know, he absolutely was a Tory wet. I guess for me, you've got to embrace people who realise that they were wrong. Now, that's not to say, as I've been very clear,

that I would vote for the Conservatives, but I think there has to be a changing of the policy conversation on all of these issues. Steph, do you agree that this is effectively a blasphemy law being introduced by the backdoor? How could you disagree with it, really, at the end of the day? And, you know, in response to Adnan Hussain,

when he says what Rupert actually wants to say is free speech means protecting the right to offend Muslims. Uh, yeah, duh, of course. You know, I think he forgets a little bit that our legal system here in the UK is actually heavily influenced by a philosophical theory called utilitarianism, initially created by Jeremy Bentham. It's all about the greatest happiness for the greatest number,

but for free speech, Bentham looked at it as a way to maximise the happiness of society and minimise the pain. But it's also important to have to control government and protect the pursuit of truth. And so he viewed it as a means to achieve this goal by promoting open discussion and preventing tyranny by using free speech so yeah as per the philosophical theory our uk legal system is heavily influenced by free speech does mean based on protecting the right to offend anyone because

free speech is the ultimate tool to provide open discussion and prevent the tyranny of being censored or silenced as As far as I'm concerned, the main political parties, they're all as bad as each other. They're all trying to curtail free speech to suit their own political narrative and ultimately secure the Muslim vote. Yeah. And the thing is, at the moment, it is the Conservative Party who are prepared to have these conversations because for whatever reason, maybe it's because they have a Muslim chairman in Zia Youssef, or maybe it's because they have a Muslim chairman, Nzia Youssef, or maybe it's because they've done polling which shows that they're going to need to appeal to Muslim voters, which I think is for the birds.

But for whatever reason, Nigel Farage and this iteration of Reform UK are not prepared to challenge Islam because it was also Katie Lamb of the Conservatives who first brought this to national prominence. She posted on X, is it nice to burn a Quran? No. But it is not and must never be a crime. In February, I asked the Home Secretary to say that she refused. Now a man has been charged for it.

Islamism is the greatest national security threat we face. It can only be fought by a free society. And I want you to look very closely at this exchange between Katie Lamb and Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary in Parliament, because she did what everyone in Labour does, which is that she did acknowledge the massive threat by Islam, but then she immediately, immediately decided to bring up the far right, because this is the diversionary tactic that Labour feels they have to use. Thank you, Mr Speaker. In fighting terrorism, the Security Minister has rightly said Islamism is the foremost threat we face.

Its danger lies not just in physical violence, but in the intolerance it embodies and the intimidation it relies upon. So will the Home Secretary give a clear answer to this? Should it be a criminal offence to desecrate a Quran or any holy text? ac ymddiriedaeth sy'n ei ddilysu arni. Felly, a yw'r Prif Weinidog yn rhoi ateb glir i hyn? A yw'n ddewis fel ofn cyfrifol i ddesegrifo Corân neu unrhyw dechrau sanctaidd? Ie neu na? Rydyn ni wedi gwneud yn glir bod y ddewis terorol gwleidyddol prifolol yn dod o dderwys islamist ym mis 3.25 o'r caslwad MI5 ac yn 64% o'r rhai sy'n ymgyrchu â ddiffygion cysylltiedig â teror. Mae hynny'n cael ei ddilyn gan dderorwyr ar y llaw ar y llaw, sy'n cynnwys tua chwarth o'r caslwyd ym mis mis 5.

Mae gennym ni gyfres o leoliad i sicrhau ein bod yn gallu delio â'r math o ddiffygion framework of legislation in place to ensure that we can deal with the kinds of threats to our cohesion as well as to our communities and the kinds of dangerous threats that we face. Charlie, isn't that such a fascinating exchange, which absolutely shows the gaslighting and mental arithmetic that this Labour government plays? Because she was asking about the burning of Quran. Why are you talking about far-right terrorism, Yvette Cooper? I think, obviously, she's trying to make the distinction that it's not just Muslims that they're concerned about. It happens to be right-wingers as well. But at the end of the day, I've been called right-wing my whole life.

I don't know not one terrorist. And I think I might have come across a few or two by now you know how I network Dan I know a lot of people I'd have met one or two if I you know on my travels but at the end of the day you cannot ignore the fact that when

a Muslim does something wrong take the Manchester arena bombing what was the narrative immediately after that don't look back in anger yeah and then you post a spicy tweet saying that maybe we need to stop muslims coming to the uk or close the borders or stop building mosques etc etc knock knock knock it's the plot 100 we all know it and i. And I think what happened after Southport, Charlie, I think you're really right to raise Manchester

because it still shocks a lot of people to this day that the national conversation, all of the mainstream media went with that narrative, that don't look back in anger narrative. And I think that consensus was smashed after Southport. It was like, no, we tried that and now we are angry. We are really angry. But look, I want to ask quickly about the new Pope. We were actually live on air yesterday when the white smoke came up and it was all very exciting, actually,

a moment of history and no one expected Cardinal Robert Francis Brevost, Chicago-born, to end up becoming the first American Pope in history. And Donald Trump, immediately, we were actually on air while it happened, posted on Truth Social saying, congratulations. It is such an honour to realise that he is the first American Pope. What excitement and what a great honour for our country. I look forward to meeting Pope Leo XIV. It will be a very meaningful moment. However, overnight, it has emerged that the new pope may not exactly be a MAGA supporter,

despite the fact he is a, or at least was a, registered Republican. Take a look at two of his most recent retweets. How funny, by the way, that we have a pope with this social media record it's fascinating isn't it he wrote uh cardinal where he posted something from cardinal dolan why donald trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric is so problematic and then this jd vance is wrong jesus didn't ask us to rank our love for others so are you worried, Steph the Alternerd, that Pope Leo might be a bit of a woke-topian? Not really, because for me, there's not enough data

for me to explicitly announce Pope Leo XIV as an anti-MAGA supporter or not. Yeah, there's a couple of tweets where he's criticising Trump, but, you know, you can criticise Trump and still be a Trump supporter. So for me, I'm like, OK, the proof is going to be in Pope Leo XIV and his now reign over the Catholic Church. What is he going to decide? What is he going to do? How is he going to move the Catholic Church forward?

The proof will be in the pudding then as to whether he supports Trump or not. What did you make of it, Charlie? Genuinely, I don't care. Religion doesn't intrigue me at all, other than I would rather abolish it, actually, completely from top to bottom. I think it's a negative force around the world in general.

You know, I think I sent you a picture last night, a joke picture of me as the Pope, just for fun, really. That's how serious I take it. Didn't you say, oh, I didn't get the job and I was sucked in. I was like, oh, no. I bought the roads and everything and I didn't get it. But I used grok to make me the Pope and it did quite a good job, I thought. But yeah, I mean, does it matter?

I mean, I don't know what the Pope does in actuality. Is he a figurehead? Is he just a symbol? I don't know. Like, do they have influence really? I'm not entirely sure. Well, I mean, I think they do. There's 1.2 billion Christians around the world. And sorry, 1.2 billion Christians around the world. And sorry, 1.2 billion Catholics around the world. So I think it's going to be very interesting to see.

He's a modernizer, but maybe not to quite the extent as Pope Francis was. No, I can't get my head around that. Oh, look, there it is. There we go. Yes. Right. So this is the thing about religion that I can't get my head around.. Oh, look, there it is. There we go. Yes. Right? So this is the thing about religion that I can't get my head around. How do you modernize a religion?

If the text is holy and it's ordained and given to you by God, how does human arrogance come into the fray by changing it? Well, that's certainly the view of Father Calvin Robinson. That is certainly the view of Father Calvin Robinson. Absolutely fascinating. Charlie Sansom, Steph the Alter Nerd, do stand by. Don't go anywhere because in just one minute, fresh calls for Prince Harry to be stripped of his HRH titles.

This is after two major news scandals. Can you believe this? Developed in just 24 hours, one in the courtroom, the other connected to another one of his African charities. Anyway, this is huge. I'm going to take you all through it in one minute, so don't go anywhere. But first, the reason you're watching this show is that it's becoming increasingly difficult to trust mainstream media or the so-called fact checkers who claim to determine which facts are true. And for good reason, given the ongoing debates over free speech,

the controversy surrounding Brexit and how Trump and other establishment politicians are portrayed. But I have the solution for you. It's called Ground News and it's the best way to stay informed and cut through media bias and manipulative narratives so you can get the facts for yourself. It has been a game changer for a news junkie like me and you can see for yourself at ground.news.outspoken. But let me show you this incredible website and app in action by looking at the recent story. This has been my favourite story in a long time. UK Supreme Court ruled that women can only be biological adult human females reversing years of trans extremism. And you can see clearly in

one place that over 350 sources around the world are covering this story. Ground News instantly shows how the story is being covered by the media, broken down by whether it leans left or right, illustrated by its bias distribution chart. If you scroll down, you can see every headline about the story, along with the political bias and ownership of the publication. So we can see quite clearly for ourselves that on the right, the Daily Wire covered the case very accurately with the headline, UK Supreme Court rules trans-identified men are not women. Spiked Online was even more forthright declaring women exist, get over it. And the Daily Telegraph looked in depth at the disgraced famous faces who declared

trans women are women. By stark contrast, the left-wing National said the result was only a victory for gender-critical feminists and the Canary ran with the clearly ludicrous headline victory for the far right as Supreme Court rolls back trans women's rights by two decades. My favourite feature on Ground News, though, is their Blindspot feed, which surfaces upwards of 20 stories daily that receive the majority of coverage from just one side of the political spectrum. So if you love the news like I do, the Blindspot feed is the best way to get a balanced perspective on what is happening. This is honestly such a great app. I use it every day or website, whichever you prefer. Go to ground.news.outspoken

or scan the QR code on screen if you're watching on YouTube or Rumble to subscribe today and check this out. You will get 40% off, 40% off the same V vantage plan I use for unlimited access. That's ground.news.outspoken. But now, back to the show. Breaking right now, growing pressure for King Charles to strip Prince Harry and Meghan Markle of their HRH titles, not only because of the disastrous interview on the British Bashing Corporation, which the beep has had to apologise for, but because Prince Harry has now been caught up in two major news scandals in the past 24 hours. One connected to his second African charity, African Parks, which is in huge trouble. The other connected to his latest court case. And Prince William, well, he's made his decision on this already. On the chopping block, Prince

William plans to exact vengeance on vile Harry and Meghan as king, with the prince having plans to draw a definitive line under the Sussex saga as soon as he has the authority to do so. That is according to sources close to the Prince of Wales, who said that Harry and Meghan's behaviour has been absolutely vile. They added that Harry's unhinged BBC interview made it clear he has no interest in reconciling. And they said that William's position had gained renewed urgency following the interview. So let me bring in my superstar panel now. Charlie Sansom is a free speech advocate and political commentator. And Steph, the alter nerd, is a royal YouTuber. So Steph, what do you make of this prince william becoming increasingly

furious about the damage that harry and megan are doing to the royal family but for some reason charles seems to want to allow them to keep their titles um i'm not surprised uh the reports are coming through that prince william is increasingly getting miffed off with Hazard and Megsy. It's understandable to a certain extent that King Charles doesn't want to do anything about it or tackle the issue because he's got bigger fish to fry, you know, with his cancer treatment and what he's going through health-wise at the moment. So sounds a little bit morbid, but I think he's just waiting for Prince William to ascend to the throne, for Prince William then to have enough strength and power to deal with the Sussexes. The new reports that are coming through, though, is not only is that Prince William is now hell-bent on removing their titles, but also as well potentially looking at creating a new letters patent to remove the Sussexes from the line of succession,

which I think would be, yes, definitely a good thing to do for the Sussexes as well, remove them from the line of succession. Absolutely. And the thing is, it would require an Act of Parliament, Steph, but who cares? Who cares? Because it would be the most popular act of Parliament in recent history. The public now overwhelmingly want these two not just stripped of their HRH titles, but also removed from the line of succession. There are also serious question marks about why the hell Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet should be there, given we don't know the truth about their birth. But actually, even more important, you've got their dad saying, well, they can never return to the United Kingdom. Well, I mean, I'm sorry, you cannot have a prince and a princess in the line of succession with broad American accents who are banned from the country that one day they could potentially, in theory, rule.

It's ludicrous. It is ludicrous for him to turn around and say oh i'll never be able to take my family to the uk ever again yet for archie's sixth birthday they went to jalisco in mexico which the us and the uk government actually advise people don't even go there don't even bother due to the crime and kidnapping that's going on there. So, let's go safe. UK, not so much. Go figure, right? But, yeah, the reports previous to all this was that they wanted,

the royal family wanted to remove the titles, but they were scared of the backlash from the public. They didn't know how the public would react. Well, Hazard doing that awful disastrous bbc interview last week really has done us a lot of favors because the royal family since have seen the public backlash to that bbc interview and now know that if they do take the titles and take them out of the line of succession they're not going to get that backlash that they feared char Charlie, I mean, it's utterly incredible just looking at the stats, even for Harry's BBC interview, right?

So it was broadcast on YouTube to over 1 million viewers, which is obviously massive. But look at that, 10,000 likes, 38,000 dislikes. And if you know anything about YouTube, that's disastrous. Like probably, Steph, your videos, I imagine, get about 98, 99% likes. You know, the problem is, Charlie, Harry has lost the public with this interview well and truly. And this was all him. You know, like in the Oprah interview, for example, Charlie, I guess people could blame Megan. She was sitting there. Maybe it was a bit awkward.

This was all him, Charlie, even trying to suggest that members of the royal family are conspiring with the government to get him killed. I mean, it's crazy talk. Just that interview, and I didn't feel negatively towards him. Really? Did you feel sorry for him?

I felt like there may be some truth in some of the stuff that he was saying yeah well you think they want him dead i wouldn't go that far but i think that's what he just said i think there might be some game playing there when it comes to royal protection because whether you want to remove his hrh or his royal status is redundant you can't do it but why should he receive security it. But why should he receive security? In all seriousness, why should he receive security when he was warned, you're leaving, you're no longer providing service to this nation? Indeed, he's doing totally the opposite, Charlie. He is trying to destroy our monarchy, yet he wants us to pay for his security. No, you're a rich man living in the United States of America. Pay for

it yourself. No, I disagree with you completely because he's born into the life. People that serve the state, let's take political figures, for example. Former prime ministers, do they still get protection? Yes, for the rest of their life. Right. And how long are they in office for?

Like, on average? Well, this was for six weeks. Okay, but on average, maybe five to ten years? Right, but they in office for, like, on average? Well, this trust was for six weeks. Okay, but on average, maybe five to ten years? Right, but they get protection for life. Yes, but they're living in the United Kingdom. Dan, the point is, is that he's a prince, like it or not. He's born into state service, like it or not. He doesn't have a choice.

He's not providing any state service. I mean, Stiff, why don't you come and encounter charlie on this yeah because in in a way for me you're comparing apples and oranges charlie um when a person becomes prime minister you know they know the ins and outs of the job and whether they're forced to resign or they're voted out, you know, there is a tacit agreement that they then get protection for the rest of their lives. When it comes to Hazard, it was an absolute unprecedented moment that he quit the royal family. He left.

He wanted to move to America. He wanted to become a private citizen and all that malarkey, right, with what he said when he left. And you can't quit a job and then think that you can still have all the trappings of it. Sure you can.

You can. And even then, hang on a minute, because he's still getting the security. He's making out that he's not getting any security whatsoever. All he has to do is go to Ravik 28 days beforehand and say, right, this is when I'm coming over, this, that and the other. And then they decide the level of security that they're going to get. If he is in the United Kingdom, Charlie, if he is in the United Kingdom

for any form of event which is connected to national service, or if there has been any type of specific threat against him, which is an independently verified threat, he will receive security. What's more, King Charles offered him the run of Buckingham Palace, where he would be fully protected. He turned it down. He chose to go and stay with one of his posh, rich mates in Chelsea

in an eight million pound apartment and he ordered deliveroo which is by the way if you are at all worried about your security you don't order deliveroo it's like rule 101 so actually he doesn't give a damn he doesn't give a damn this is all about trying to destroy our government he doesn't actually give a damn charlie because straight after leaving the united kingdom he went to Ukraine. He went to a war zone. Then last week or in the past few months, he went to Mexico, a particular state in Mexico where the US State Department warns against travel there because of the kidnapping threat. He's gone to Nigeria, the ninth most dangerous country in Africa, and he's gone to Colombia, one of the most dangerous countries in the world. So this

isn't about security. It's about the destruction of our country and our monarchy. I know that this subject gets you going, but no one complained when he went to fight in Afghanistan, did they? They saw him as a hero. But now, because he's had a spat with his family, which is not uncommon, people do argue with their families. They do have arguments.

And you know what? They will patch things up. I can pretty much guarantee that because oh well why why are sources close to prince william this week telling me charlie over my dead body will there be a reconciliation why is piers morgan reporting that his sources are saying that prince william has said he would rather shoot himself than reconcile with harry let's go back to the point right brothers argue fathers and sons argue but the point is is that people don't want to protect him because he decided to leave right i think that's no no that's not true you argue you argue it wasn't about that you can

have arguments with your family it's very very different charlie when you go public and you accuse your family who have a very important national role and you accuse your family, who have a very important national role, and you accuse them of doing terrible things. Why doesn't he get protection? Racism. He does. He does. Charlie, he does get protection.

Again, Prince Hazard is really, really good at trying to manipulate the narrative. He's learned a lot from Megzi. He tries to make out that he don't get any security whatsoever. He doesn't get guaranteed security when he comes to the UK. But since Megzi, every single time they've come to the UK, by our own public knowledge, has anything happened to him? Has anything close happened to them? No, not at all. He doesn't have guaranteed security, Charlie.

He has to go through a process. And by the way, it is worth pointing out that he was always warned of the consequences of this. If you decide to go in the manner that you've gone, and his family never wanted that. It's one of the reasons why they wanted to keep him in the tent. And they worked so hard to find lots of ways, like, could we find a role for you in Canada? Could we find a role for you in South Africa? Could you find a role for you in Australia? It was because of the security issue. However, I will just stress again, this isn't about the fact that he's fallen out with his family. It's

about the fact that he has gone public to the world and tried to destroy the monarchy with lies, with lies about racism, with lies about his brother being a bully with lies about his father and that's a very different thing it's a very relevant that's so irrelevant yeah no i raised it because that's the context in which people talk about it in you know removing his hrh status and and making him no longer a prince won't change the fact that he was born a prince no one's ever going to call him harry windsor or harry wales or anything else they're going to call him prince harry for the rest of his life now one thing that i will say about the pair of you having debated

this with you for a moment is that you're both quite happy for people like tony blair to get lifelong protection but not prince harry let that sink in for a moment you're quite happy for tony blair to get protection no i think i, no, I think the current set up... No, no, no. I'm totally satisfied with the current process, which is that he applies every time he wants to come to the United Kingdom and then there is an independent decision made about whether he needs security. Does Tony Blair apply when he's called?

No, no, but he lives in the United Kingdom. And can I also say, when you're talking... You've brought up Afghanistan. You've brought up Afghanistan, right? The threat to Prince Harry over Afghanistan is because in spare, his sick money making autobiography, he decided to reveal his Al-Qaeda kill count, which goes against, by the way, all of the sort of code of being in the army and military code. And that's why he's under threat the war he was in he was under threat in a war zone let's not you know let's let's focus on talking about why he's under threat now in the bachelor v e day you would you would you're quite

happy for a prince to go and fight the war but when he comes home he still shouldn't be protected despite the fact that he could not ever not be a prince. Well, no. I mean, Princess Anne doesn't have full time royal security. Princess Eugenie and Beatrice don't have full time security. There's arguments for Prince Andrew to have his full time security removed. People need to be protected when there is a clear and present threat against them. And as Steph points out, Harry is when there is that threat. He's the son of the king. You'd never have this conversation about Prince William wherever he was.

Well, it depends. If Prince William... No, no, no. If Prince William abdicated in the same way that the Duke of Windsor did over Wallace Simpson, if Prince William abdicated, went to live in America, slagged off the royal family for years and years, was making tens of millions of dollars from a big publishing company and a big Netflix documentary, no, at that point, I wouldn't believe Prince William needed security. So it all depends on the context, doesn't it? I think the context is you're born royal and that's how you'll remain.

And that's why he deserves to be protected okay well can i just run you through these two new scandals that have emerged over the past 24 hours as well so the first is about this ongoing court case uh between prince harry and associated newspapers and the male publisher has now asked prince harry's lawyers for payment for evidence documents. The preliminary hearing said that these are relating to payments or threats made for evidence in the legal claim against Associated Newspapers, which is quite something. He asked the court in London to order the group's legal team to search for and disclose any documents that relate to payments, royalties, or inducements paid, provided, or offered, or any demands or threats made in order to obtain documents, information, or cooperation. So we've got that going on in court. And the judge, Mr. Justice Nicklin, replied to Prince Harry's lawyer,

who claimed that the documents were, all documents had been disclosed. Mr. Justice Nicklin, replied to Prince Harry's lawyer, who claimed that the documents were, all documents had been disclosed. Mr Justice Nicklin said, I find it remarkable that there are no documents. But this is actually the worst one. Prince Harry's Africa Parks charity, African Parks charity, has now admitted human rights abuses after rainforest families said their rangers raped and beat tribes people. Now, a statement from the charity says that the probe carried out by a London law firm, Omnia Strategy, have now been provided. But the charity said the board of Africa Parks has reviewed Omnia's advice and endorsed the management plan and timeframes to implement the recommendations resulting from this process. And here's the key line. African Parks acknowledges that in some instance, human rights abuses have occurred.

And we deeply regret the pain and suffering that these have caused to the victims. Yet, Steph, we haven't heard from Prince Harry at all on this. So both his African charities are in tatters. Yeah. It's quite scary that we've heard from Prince Harry straight away when it came to Santa Barley blowing up a month or two ago but this African Parks ordeal has been going on now publicly for well over a year and he stayed silent moreover he's not resigned he resigned from Santa Barley and hasn't stayed silent on that but has stayed silent on the African Parks

situation and you've got to wonder why now in that daily mail article that you've shown Dan um Survival International has responded to all of this and director Caroline Pierce has turned around and said look we still don't know details the actual details of what this report has actually found because African parks refuses to allow the findings to be made public why don't they want these findings to be made public? For me, I fear that what we know publicly is just a tip of the iceberg and much more egregious abuses have been going on

behind the scenes that we just don't know about yet. And it's really a case of how long can Prince Harry hide for? I don't think for that much longer. And I wonder who on the board is implicated in all of this now. Very true. Very, very true. And actually, and I'll get Charlie's response to this, I'm going to announce now the results of the worst Britain in the world this week. This is when your union jackass choices from Monday to Thursday go head to head. We've had record number of votes this week. Insane. I think it must be at 60,000 now, which is just phenomenal.

Thank you so much for voting on YouTube. Here were your nominees. On Monday, Lucy Powell, the Labour leader of the House for dismissing the Pakistani rape gang scandal as a dog whistle. Tuesday, Prince Harry for that despicable BBC interview. Wednesday, Meghan Markle for rubbing the salt in the wounds of King Charles with her picture of Harry and the two children. And Thursday, Norinda Kerr for a race-baiting tweet over VE Day. The results are quite astonishing. As I say, over 60,000 of you voted. Norinda Kerr is in fourth position with 9% of the vote. Meghan Markle is in third position with 12% of the vote. Lucy Powell, the runner-up, with 27% of the vote. But there you have it, 52% of the vote. Lucy Powell, the runner-up, with 27% of the vote. But there you have it, 52% of the vote.

Say the worst Britain in the world this week is Prince Harry. Charlie Sansom, what do you make of it? Well, those 16,000 people that voted. 60, 6-0, 6-0. My apologies, my apologies. 60,000 people, wow. And you guys thought Prince Harry was the worst? My God, my God.

Listen, to you guys who voted for him, give your head a wobble. The obvious champion of that disastrous poll was Lucy Powell. You know, you can't just take an interview from Prince Harry one week and then disregard 40 years of abuse and neglect on the other hand. No, no, no, no no you guys need to have a little word with yourselves on that one

brilliant brilliant stuff I fully endorse I fully endorse your choice of Prince Harry as the worst Briton in the world this week what a brilliant superstar panel thank you so much to Charlie Sansom he is of course, a conservative commentator, political commentator and free speech advocate. And Steph, the alter nerd who you can find on YouTube. So brilliant to have both of you back with us. But we're not going anywhere because coming up on the uncancelled after show on Substack,

I'm going to analyse my bombshell interview this week with Megyn Kelly, which has set the internet ablaze. We'll do so with the help of our royal mastermind, Angela Levin. So at this stage, we come off YouTube and rumble. We move to our own platform to continue the conversation in the uncancelled after show. All you have to do is sign up at www.outspoken.live. Have an amazing weekend.

I'm really looking forward to having a couple of days off actually but also excited to be back with you 5 p.m uk time monday midday eastern 9 a.m pacific hit subscribe if you're watching on youtube and rumble and most importantly i promise to keep fighting for you