Dan Wootton Outspoken - TOMMY ROBINSON’S PRISON EMERGENCY AS REFORM’S RUPERT LOWE DEFIES NIGEL FARAGE OVER ISSUE

Episode Date: February 17, 2025

VERSO - https://evening.ver.so/outspoken - Use code OUTSPOKEN to save 15% on your first order. Rupert Lowe has defied his leader Nigel Farage by pledging to contact the Ministry of Justice over the increasingly inhumane treatment of Tommy Robinson. There is now an emergency situation at HMP Woodhill, with the authorities banning visits, phone calls and even food as the political prisoner’s weight plummets and mental health deteriorates. No wonder Rupert is currently embarrassed about the state of Britain. To react live to this urgent situation today, Alex Phillips who visited Tommy before the ban was put in place. PLUS: Fury as Slippery Starmer wants to send British lads to Ukraine AND: Fraser Nelson and Konstantin Kisin clash in a shocking new episode of Triggernometry over what it means to be British. THEN IN THE UNCANCELLED AFTERSHOW: Major breaking royal news as Donald Trump reverses his position over deporting Prince Harry and Meghan Markle defies her husband to reveal her secret “children” on Instagram. Our Royal Mastermind Angela Levin covers it all. Sign up to watch at www.outspoken.live. ---------- Today’s Sponsors: GROUND.NEWS - 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. INCOGNI - Take back your personal data with Incogni! Use code OUTSPOKEN at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: http://incogni.com/outspoken SURFSHARK - Go to https://surfshark.com/outspoken for an extra four months of Surfshark at an unbeatable price VERSO - https://buy.ver.so/outspoken - Use code OUTSPOKEN to save 15% on your first order. MANSCAPED - https://manscaped.com – get 20% off + free shipping with the code Outspoken. ---------- Dan Wootton Outspoken is fan funded through monthly and one-time donations: https://www.outspoken.live ---------- Join Dan's Substack community: https://www.danwoottonoutspoken.com ---------- Find the full audio show wherever you get your podcasts: Apple — https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast... Spotify — https://open.spotify.com/show/19Ltone... ---------- Follow Dan on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@outspokendan?... Follow Dan on Twitter: https://x.com/danwootton Follow Dan on Facebook:   / danwootton   Follow Dan on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/danwootton/... #DanWootton #DanWoottonOutspoken #news #outspoken Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's Truck Month at GMC. Tackle the open road with added confidence in a 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 2 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 Live episode number 164.

Rupert Lowe has defied his leader Nigel Farage by pledging to contact the Ministry of Justice over this increasingly inhumane treatment of Tommy Robinson. So let me be clear, there is now an emergency situation at HMP Woodhull with the authorities banning visits, phone calls, and even food as the political prisoners' weight plummets and mental health deteriorates. So in my Digest Next, I'm going to argue why it's no wonder Rupert Lowe is currently embarrassed about the state of Britain. I don't particularly care if we're liked by the rest of the world. I care if we're respected, And there's much more where that came from. So to react live to this urgent situation today, Alex Phillips, who visited Tommy before the ban was put in place. Also coming up on the show, Fraser Nelson and Constantine

Kisson clash in a shocking new episode of Trigonometry over what it means to be British. And there's fury as Slippery Starmer wants to send British lads to Ukraine. Katie Hopkins certainly not happy about that. Starmer says he's going to put boots on the ground over in Ukraine. Well, I hope you're not looking at British patriots to be doing that, Sir Keir Starmer. I mean, why not use some of those illegals you've been bringing over and putting in hotels? I hear some of them are pretty handy with a knife. Then in the uncancelled after show on Substack, major breaking royal news. As Donald Trump reverses his position over deporting Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. Plus, she has decided to defy her husband and reveal her secret children on Instagram.

Prince Harry has been in tears about that at the Invictus Games. So our royal mastermind Angela Levin will cover it all. That is on Substack after the main show. www.outspoken.live is the address. Plus, the first Union jackass greatest Britain of the week. And remember, you choose the worst people in Britain today. Here are your nominees. David Tennant, nominated by Just Margaret One for his dismal Trump jokes at the

BAFTAs last night. Goodness me, it really was appalling. Prince Harry, nominated by At Vizzy Kids, and the reason is that he has shamed the UK with his whining and covert operations, giving Democrats all of the money. Then European leaders, specifically Starmer, Macron and Schultz, nominated by Karen Hanke, because they seem hell-bent on starting World War III. Quite a choice today. Get your votes in on the live chat now. Let me know why, plus post your comments throughout the show. I love receiving them and I will share some of the best at the end of today's episode. Plus Greatest Britain Revealed 2, so make sure you stick around until the end of the show. But now, let's go.

There is now an emergency situation at HMP Woodhull. The Westminster elite, well, they turn the other way. The MSM ignore the story and continue their witch hunt. The human rights lawyers are more interested in keeping terrorists, rapists and murderers in the UK. And every British politician, bar one, Reform UK's Rupert Lowe, ignores the persecution, and I would argue mental and physical torture, of Britain's foremost political prisoner, even though Elon Musk, the world's richest man and member of the second Trump administration, continues to fund his legal battle. So shame on them all. Because what the state is subjecting Tommy Robinson through in solitary for a piece of independent journalism, whether you agree with

that piece of independent journalism or not, is depraved. So here's the information, the breaking information that the MSM is ignoring direct from Tommy's official team. Urgent update on Tommy's situation. Tommy is in solitary confinement for a non-criminal offence. Now they're trying to starve him. The prison has banned him from ordering food for a week, his only source of nutrition, tinned tuna and mackerel, just because he spoke to his son on speakerphone when on a call to another family member. They've blocked visits, cut off phone access, he's lost serious weight and his mental health is deteriorating.

His human rights have been breached repeatedly. This is political persecution, plain and simple, and it's effing spiteful. If they go through with this on Monday, we'll have no choice but to call a protest next week directly outside Wilhill Prison. Enough is enough. And it really is. I actually feel some responsibility for this situation because the authorities started to crack down on Tommy after my visit to Woodhill in December.

Because after that visit, I did broadcast, and I am not ashamed to say it, the information provided by Tommy that the Southport terrorist Axel Rudigerbahn was practicing as a Muslim behind bars at Belmarsh Prison where they'd previously been locked up together. That was so clearly in the public interest, and Tommy understands why I had to do that, I know. Now, our very own June Slater summed up the situation with a viral post on X at the weekend. She wrote, there's a man sitting in a prison cell in solitary confinement, allegedly for his own good. His crime has no victim apart from offending the court. He hasn't driven into a Christmas market. He hasn't bombed a kiddie pop concert. He hasn't broken a policewoman's nose

by assaulting one. This treatment is so unique, pertaining to one individual that I don't even need to name him. I truly hope there is some compassion somewhere, be it in the prison service, politics, or the justice system that finds the courage to stand up for his basic human rights. If there is, he needs you now. And with that, something happened. Because Reform UK's rising star MP Rupert Lowe seemingly defied his leader, Nigel Farage, by pledging to lobby the Ministry of Justice over the situation. He replied directly to June Slater writing, whether you agree with Tommy Robinson's politics or not, he deserves to be treated humanely in prison with reasonable food, visits and support. I will write to the Ministry of

Justice asking to ensure that a fair approach is being taken. Now, it was interesting because there is a split in Reform UK over this. We know that. Howard Cox, who had been one of the party's stars, he was their former London mayoral candidate, but he was axed for supporting Tommy Robinson, axed from the party. And he posted to Rupert saying, Rupert, I visited Tommy Robinson two weeks ago. I signed an NDA so can't reveal details of my meeting, but I have espoused the same sentiments about him as you have shown in your media comments. The difference, however, I was threatened with expulsion by the new reform HQ. As a result, I have had thousands of messages of support from disgruntled party supporters, and you have massive respect for doing the same. Why can't the rest of the leadership

show the same grown-up response too? And I think that really is a good point from Howard Cox, because as World by Wolf pointed out, what's wild is if Rupert Lowe was not already an MP, he would no longer pass Reform HQ's social media vetting process because of this tweet. Any support for Tommy Robinson results in being disqualified as a reform candidate, a vetting process designed by Zia Youssef. And increasingly, with this crackdown on free speech going on in the UK, as we saw from J.D. Vance's scathing Munich speech last week, we are becoming an international embarrassment. Just listen to the disdain at the weekend from Donald Trump when he was asked about Slippery Starmer's upcoming pilgrimage to Washington, D.C.

I just signed a letter to him. He asked for a meeting and I agreed to the meeting. We're going to have a friendly meeting. Very good. We have a lot of good things going on. But he asked to come and see me, and I just accepted his asking. Do you have a date for that, sir? Very soon. I think he wants to come next week or the week after. And what do you hope to discuss?

I don't know. It was his request, not mine. But, you know, I've met him twice already. We get along very well. He's a very nice guy. Very nice guy. But no support there. Indeed, J.D. Vance was completely and rightfully scathing about our approach. So again, it is reforms Rupert Lowe, who I think gets the tone right, and certainly represents where I am about the situation the UK is facing. Watch.

I don't particularly care if we're liked by the rest of the world. I care if we're respected, because right now, Britain is a joke, and it has been for some time. Take this, for example. £10 million was set aside for local inquiries into the rape gangs by the Labour government. Just £10 million. This year alone, we sent £133 million to Pakistan in foreign aid.

My view? Scrap every single penny. Or, at the very least, use it as a weapon to force the Pakistani government to accept their deported rapists and criminals. I want the British government to put the British people But here's the thing. There will be no respect for the UK. While someone can be locked up and then persecuted behind bars for a piece of journalism, no matter how controversial. As Paul Thorpe put it, in the UK today, a civil offence prisoner is being denied access to his

family, his friends, general visitors and any visits from anyone with a social media presence. Now we are told he has been denied safe food while being locked up in solitary confinement 21 hours a day. Where is the outrage? Where are the MSM? Where are the celebrities? Where are our MPs? Where is the justice? It's invisible.

It's absolutely invisible. Which is why more and more agree with me that only a political and media revolution can save the UK. Now, let me bring in Alex Phillips. Alex, so great to have you, especially today, given that you have also visited Tommy Robinson at HMP Woodhill. So before we move on to the politics, Alex, obviously, the first thing I think of utmost concern is just whether Tommy Robinson is safe behind bars. Is he being politically persecuted? And why is there silence on this? Right. I just want to make clear, when I visited Tommy Robinson at Woodkill Prison, I did so because I'd done an interview with him before he went to prison, and I wanted to find out how he was getting along. I don't know him brilliantly well. We have only met in the flesh that one time. And I think that that is the approach that people should take. You know, it's important to understand all sides of the story. When I went to meet him, it is important to point out that he was essentially subsisting on the foods that he could

get in prison that weren't the prison-issued food, because he's incredibly worried about prison-issued food being tampered with. And this actually is the same reason why he's in solitary confinement. It's a damning indict on the way our prisons are. If you get inside them, they're essentially controlled by gangs, particularly Islamist gangs. So if he wasn't in solitary confinement, would he then be safe among other inmates if he wasn't having to subsist on tinned foods and packets of crisps and sweeties and all the rest of it? Is he actually safe to eat prison food if there are people in that prison who take great umbrage at what he said and might wish to do him serious harm? So I think that what we need to look at here is the state of our prisons, which are essentially

run by gangs, and that the idea of human rights in prisons is being massively undermined, as they are, frankly, across many walks of society right now, where the minority seems to have all the protections against everybody else, particularly the native born population. So that is the way I would frame this entire situation. Now, I'm not abreast, particularly of the latest manifestations of what's been going on here between Tommy, his team, and the prison authorities. But it does call into question that the fact that he essentially, he had a civic case, really, and this normally wouldn't warrant a long incarceration, that he is a particularly high profile prisoner. So therefore, that comes with its own risks. And normally, when we have

these situations with other prisoners, it's amazing how much resource is accorded to protect them. I'm talking about people who have committed the most atrocious crimes against children, or other Islamists, let's say people who, you know, were they to be part of the general prison population, may be at risk of losing their life. And I think essentially, we've got to look at Tommy Robinson within that remit. And there'll be people on one side saying, well, listen, he could eat prison food if he wanted to, that he could apply to not have solitary confinement,

but then would that be risking his own life? I think that he's incredibly important in being able to shine a light on things in society that other people don't want to talk about. And actually, isn't it ironic that his incarceration is doing just that? When it comes to the debate within Reform UK, I'm also equally pragmatic, which is to say, you know, I know, everyone watching this, I hope, would also know that there is going to be an incredibly difficult position that Reform UK will face at some point. If they were to say we're coming out to back Tommy Robinson as a party, it would be used against them to divide the vote. And so at the moment, those divisions are being potentially played out internally.

I'm not sure how divided they are as a team. I doubt that they're divided that much at all, because there's five of them. And certainly Rupert Lowe and Nigel Farage have gone back to Brexit party days. They know each other well. They respect each other. They talk to each other. And so I don't think I want to particularly attack Reform UK for having to do what is necessary to continue to garner support as what is a necessarily insurgent political force in this country. All of this needs to be used as a mirror held up against our system, whether that is the mainstream media, whether that's the legacy parties, whether that's the prison system, the courts, the judges. You know, we are riddled with essentially two-tiered justice all over the

place. And we're also riddled with this increasing censorship that actually a party like Reform UK should be able to turn around and say we're concerned about what's going on without it being used as a weapon against them to try and essentially disembowel their electoral support. So that's the facts of the matter here. I wouldn't want to sort of point the finger of accusation at any particular person other than back at the state itself. Totally. And I understand that. Can I just ask Alex, though, in terms of your experience at HMP Woodhill? Because I guess what I was shocked by was the fact that Tommy Robinson is being housed in a wing of 16 cells that was literally designed for terrorists.

Now, yes, you can argue it is for his own safety. Sure, you can. But that does raise a real point. I mean, you talk about gangs in the prison. Let's just be honest about it, right? These are Muslim gangs who specifically planned to target folk after the Southport massacre, the so-called rioters or Facebook posters who went into prison. I mean, that was even reported by Martin Brunt of Sly News. So can you forgive the authorities in terms of thinking, okay, we can't end up in a situation where Tommy Robinson ends up dead or ends up beaten up. But if that is the reason why, surely there is absolutely no excuse for cutting off contact with his family, stopping him ordering food like crisps. It really is starting to feel like physical and mental torture.

But tell me about your experience when you saw him. Well, listen, I never particularly intended to go public about the fact I went to see him. It was a private thing that I wanted to do, having interviewed him, wanting to check in and actually meet him in person, have a fuller conversation face to face rather than the Zoom call I did, which I did for my own platform before he went to prison. It was following up on that and wanting to speak to him firsthand. And I would just leave it at that. Look, I've been very clear before that, you know, the man I've spoken to now, once remotely and once in person, comes across as incredibly intelligent, very engaging, very brave. I've not a bad word in that respect to say against him, but I'm not going to be pulled into any particular

political tug of war over this. Do I think his treatment or do I think that the length of incarceration, the fact he's incarcerated at all, needs to be called into question. Absolutely. So I'm taking this sort of Rupert Lowe line on this, which is, you know, things need to be looked at without fear or without favor. When I met, and this is way before Christmas, you know, we were put into a little small room together. One of his good friends was there. He was eating packets of crisps and Haribo. And at that point, he was quite chipper. And this is going back some months. But this was very early into his incarceration.

And of course, the longer that you're prevented from being in the real world and having connections and speaking to family and friends and seeing those people in real life or just mingling with other humans, it has a hugely detrimental impact on somebody mentally. And I think those strains are beginning to show. I don't know the reasons for why he's now not allowed to see family. The signing of the NDAs, again, I'm not a legal expert,

but certainly I think there have been a number of people who have gone to see Tommy Robinson in prison in order to then broadcast certain things. and perhaps we've also I mean it's interesting what you said Dan I love the fact that what you said was I went to speak to Tommy Robinson and it was important he gave me information that should be in the public domain and I think that's absolutely right but there has been by certain elements of the independent media fetishization wanting to go and speak to Tommy Robinson to then broadcast they've gone to speak to Tommy Robinson so that they might gain more following. I think we've also got to be candid about that as well. And perhaps that has now led to a situation because Tommy will have no control.

If someone's going to speak to him in prison, he's got no control about what they say and what they broadcast after they've come out of prison. And if you're going to look at things legally and legally alone, and like I said, I'm not in any way, shape or form condoning the actions of the prison who have taken, but if people were going to meet another prisoner who'd committed another crime and then coming out and making the case for that prisoner based upon what they're saying is firsthand information, I'm fairly sure the crackdown might also happen in that instance. So I think those people who have Tommy Robinson's best interests at heart need to ask themselves if they're going to visit him because it's a personal relation, because they want to make sure his welfare is OK and there's someone who goes to support him. If there's someone who's going to visit him, perhaps for journalistic reasons, as I did, who then hasn't said anything about that visitation other than to you.

All those people who are being opportunistic as well and that this has now led to the situation that we're in now. I don't know. I haven't looked into this. I've not audited every single visit and what's being said and who's broadcast what. So I'm not in any position to criticise an individual or particularly the system. Although, like I said, I do think we do need to look at the system and ask ourselves whether it is appropriate, whether it is proportionate. institutions about Tommy Robinson, about what he might say or do, the influence he has. And this all boils down, of course, to the issues he was raising. It's very difficult for the state to handle those issues, to answer to those issues. And so they're doing what the state always does, which is to try to silence those issues. Yes. And that is the key point. That is the key point, though, Alex. And look, the problem is so many of our traditions, right, which you might be able to say in the past made lots of sense. For example, our contempt of court laws so that people could get a fair trial or the fact that

journalists are not meant to report on prison visits without explicit permission from the governor. Now, in the past, they may have made sense in the type of society that we were. But now that we have a deep state that genuinely goes to great lengths to silence people or certain issues, I think we need a revolution of that system. And it was one of the reasons why I wasn't prepared to stay silent about my visit, for example. Okay, do your worst. But I felt like there was a piece of public, a piece of information that was very, very much in the public interest. And I was clear to Tommy, I was going to share it. And I did share it on my show as soon as I could. But do you understand what I'm saying? I feel like the state is using these old rules that maybe made sense in the past.

Because look at Southport, Alex. Look at what they did with Southport. Contempt of court even made the Speaker stop Nigel Farage raising it in Parliament. Yeah. All of these things are what's so important, which is why I think we need to discuss this. The mirror held back at the state, because essentially what's happened is it's under the state's authorship that we've ended up in the mess we're in now. And they're now in mitigation. They're trying to actually prevent things from getting worse. And I think, you know, it's interesting, you mentioned in Dan's digest, J.D. Vance and the comments he made about Europe. And what he essentially said to the European leaders is, you're looking at us going, please save us from

Putin. He's such a bad guy. But you were the people who were buying his gas. You were the people who brought him back to the table. You were the people when he invaded Ukraine that prevaricated on whether you could actually apply sanctions to Russia because it might affect your own economy because you're so banged up with Russian oil and gas. Whether to be able to sell on arms or give arms

to third-party countries to use in Ukraine. Germany is blocked. That is still blocking it today because they're concerned about how this is going to affect them politically, economically. The German elections are coming up. European leaders have been totally discordant, totally weak. And this is not just the situation with Russia. This is the situation with mass migration. This is the situation with Islamism. There's a huge amount of fault in what Western European, in particular, leaders have been doing for decades now, which is burying their heads in the sand, either being, and this is what I don't fully understand, are these people delusional or are they deliberate when they turn around and say nothing to see here? Is it because they baked in the problem societally so much that only they can be held culpable and they just can't admit it? It's very hard to admit that. Or are they doing this almost deliberately because there's a broader agenda? I don't know. But there are so many things now taking place, whether it's the incarceration and treatments of Tommy Robinson, whether it's the speech made at that Munich conference where European leaders all sniveled and rolled their

eyes and got together in a group hug and said, nothing to see here is not our fault. There needs to be a massive wake up call in Europe. And that is what Trump's doing. That's what J.D. Vance is doing. That's why it's so interesting when questioned. Donald Trump kind of went, I didn't ask to see him. I don't want to see Zakir Starmer. He's basically been begging to go and see Trump because he wants his Churchillian moment as a person who can resolve matters and get Europe and America speaking again. That's a good thing, I suppose, in principle. But why is he doing it? He's doing it because he's facing flak for his own domestic mismanagement. You look at the dire straits the UK is in. He wants some sort of diversionary tactic. He wants to be seen as the hero. It comes down

every single time to ego, ego, ego, ego of the elites. And while they're playing this game and gaslighting us, they are selling our nations up the river and it is impending disaster. And that's what we need to keep our finger on the pulse of, hold the mirror up to Europe. That is what J.D. Vance is doing. That's what we need to do, not getting sort of caught up in the weeds of this case, that case, the media debating all these existential things or personifying it in the character of Tommy Robinson.

No, let's address the problems. And let's remember, of course, that that is what Tommy Robinson was doing. That is why he has faced the chop. That is why he's in prison right now, because he said, to hell with it. I am going to continue to shine a light on some of the big problems going on in society. Whatever people want to say about me, I'm going to do it anyway. Some people would say his approach has been wrong. would say well actually he was persecuted for doing this in the first place and so now he's left with no option but we need to just keep focusing on the failure of our political leaders our voices need to be heard at the ballot box the mainstream media need to be talking about

that stuff rather than saying oh trump said this shit he's spoken to Putin. This person said this at the conference. This is how they reply. Where is the mainstream media in saying, oh, my goodness, some of these baked in societal problems have been going on for decades. Why are you not doing something about it? And what needs to be done? Asking those questions. When it comes to Keirammer suggesting that British young men, and maybe some women too, should be in Ukraine, that we should have British boots on the ground, I say no, no, no. And actually, I now look at this man and see the most dangerous prime minister since Neville Chamberlain, which is a big thing to say, given that we're obviously dealing with

the heir to Tony Blair as well. Huge reaction to this interview in the Daily Telegraph or column, this written column where Starmer made this proposal overnight. From Katie Hopkins, dear Keir Starmer, twat spangle, you want boots on the ground in Ukraine? Feel free to conscript every single illegal you've been flesh trading in the UK for pounds. They are well fed in fancy hotels and pretty handy with knives. Leave our British lads alone. And watch what she had to say about that. Putin. Of course, Zelensky doesn't want peace because his Black Rock masters want him to keep pushing to join NATO because then they can keep laundering the money. So now Keir Starmer says he's going to put boots on the ground over in Ukraine. Well, I hope you're not looking at

British patriots to be doing that, Keir Starmer. I mean, why not use some of those illegals you've been bringing over and putting in hotels? I hear some of them are pretty handy with a knife. In other news, J.D. Vance turns up at the Munich Security Conference and tells them there's no such thing as democracy in Western Europe. There's no freedom of speech in Western Europe. There's no rule of law. So the chairman stood up and started crying because J.D. Vance was mean and said hurty words. Herr Flick from Germany was really pissed off. But of course, we've just cancelled the Romanian elections. They've cancelled local elections in the UK. You can be arrested for a Facebook post over in Germany. And Tommy Robinson is still in solitary confinement.

So they don't really have much of an argument. No, they don't. They don't. I mean, democracy is dying. But in terms of the troops that Starmer wants to deploy, here's exactly what he said. The UK is ready to play a leading role in accelerating the work on security guarantees for Ukraine. This includes further support for Ukraine's military, where the UK has already committed

£3 billion a year until at least 2030. But it also means being ready and willing to contribute to security guarantees to Ukraine by putting our own troops on the ground if necessary. Starmer said, I do not say that lightly. I feel very deeply the responsibility that comes with potentially putting British servicemen and women in harm's way. But any role in helping to guarantee Ukraine's security is helping to guarantee the security of our continent and the security of this country. The end of this war, when it comes, cannot merely become a temporary pause before Putin's attacks again. Well, I'm sorry, Alex Phillips, I have my head in my hands because number one, I do not trust this man at all. I find it astonishing that we are in economic dire

straits. We cannot even protect ourselves. Yet he's boasting about having committed three billion pounds a year until at least 2030. But the prospect of Starmer sending young British men to Ukraine makes me sick. Am I wrong? It's actually very nuanced. And look, I think we've got to take that particular exclusive written piece in the Telegraph by Sir Keir Starmer as two things. One is self-aggrandisement. It's written in the Telegraph. It's for an audience. It's to try and show a little bit of leg to the right wing or even centrist people who fundamentally despise him.

It's to try and show courage and sound like a wartime leader, because that's what all failing prime ministers have always tried to do. He's also trying to show a little bit of to America before he goes on his Washington visit. So in those respects, so I think I just pinged on my laptop, apologies for that noise. And in that respect, I, you know, I think we've got to look at it for what it is, which is a propaganda exercise. What I find incredulous about this situation is we know that Putin and Trump are sitting down together in Saudi Arabia. Well, not Putin, actually, it isn't him. It's Marco Rubio sitting down with Sergei Lavrov and are kicking off conversations. And everyone I've spoken to, who I think is of great credibility, have said this can't be a bad

thing. We all want there to be peace in Ukraine. We don't know what the details of that are going to be. It's my understanding as well that Zelensky will be going on Wednesday to Saudi Arabia to throw in his two bits. Again, we're getting a process moving. So for Sakhir Starmer to jump out of the box and say, we're going to send troops when no one knows to what and for what and what the conditions are and what the deal is, is just totally madness. You know, committing our soldiers to a foreign land is utterly insane. Considering especially as he was of the Be Careful Brigade, don't do this and back Putin in a corner. He might use nuclear weapons, given that Russian bears are buzzing Lincolnshire coastlines and Norfolk coastlines and Russian subs are prowling through the channel and their

Russian agents, the FSB, are setting on fire weapons makers in the UK. I mean, they use a whole load of different forms of warfare. So we are potentially inviting some form of retaliation. It seems to me not thought through. What I would say is this, because we don't know what that deal is, because we don't know what it's going to look like, because we don't know what we're entering into is way too premature to say whether or not we want to be part of it. And committing troops is a good idea. Number one, we've got about 70,000 people in our armed forces at the moment. Compare that to the 1980s. It was 120,000. They're under-resourced. The 2.5 spending commitment, 2.5 percent of GDP spending commitment on our military is not even going to touch the sides. And even now, we don't have a pathway financially of saying how we're going to

get to the 2.5%. So again, are we even able to do this? Now, all of those questions need to be answered before I can give a verdict on whether this is going to be right or wrong. Because I also want to make clear that Putin is a monster and a menace, and he will come back for more. There was appeasement in 2014, when the Western world allowed him to seize Crimea. He wants to seize that black coast of Ukraine in order to be able to control maritime routes, to war game the supply of food, of wheat, of oil, of fertilizer to the entire world to trigger global inflation. We know that that is on the Russian agenda. They've already tried practicing this. And so at the same time, you've got Sakiya Starmer trying to essentially cut off farming in the UK,

instead of giving money to foreign farmers. And then is that, you know, the result of this might be we're in a World War Two situation. But the whole idea that we can even just say, Alex, it was a good thing to do. Now, I don't think it is, but just say it was. Actually, our army is disintegrating. I mean, look at what Dan was saying over the weekend. Our army is disintegrating to such an extent that we can't even protect ourselves. And the idea that we can afford three billion pounds a year just financially to Ukraine. No, we've got to build up our own defensive. Now, look, Zia Youssef, the Reform UK chairman, he had an interesting

take on this. He clearly believes that Starmer is doing this for political reasons, which I think is really disturbing, if true. And I actually agree with what Zia Youssef is saying here. He posted on X, has anyone else noticed that political leaders start to get really keen to send other people's children to war zones after their domestic poll ratings collapse? Now, Alex, that is chilling when you think about it. I think he's right, but it's a chilling thought. Boris Johnson did the same. He loved playing the big I am and I'm going to go and save Ukraine. I'm here and fly to Kiev. Look, they do use this for propaganda purposes we know that and I think that's a very sane argument to make I do want to give a bit of a counterpoint okay and like I said I say everything

with with pragmatism because I would be an idiot to play armchair general and to say I understand the entire situation all the points being made about the diminished armed forces are very real. We actually, do we have the capabilities to go in and patrol a demilitarized zone? I don't know. Probably not. But then, you know, sometimes cynically, you've got to look at the other, the flip side to this. And actually, what we do know is our armed forces have been essentially flattered and not really being able to do much for the best part of a number of decades as they've been diminished because the European leaders have got it into their heads that we actually live in perpetual peace times when the Cold War never finished. If we were to have some people stationed over in a demilitarized zone between Ukraine and Russia, and look, in an ideal world, I don't want Putin to get a single inch

of territory in Ukraine. I do not. But we've got to be pragmatic about this. Were our armed forces to be a part of that operation, there could be some plus sides. So let me spell this out. And again, I'm just being pragmatic and putting it in the counterpoint. The plus sides would be, in some respects, this war in Ukraine has been used to, as most wars are, to advance innovations. Ukraine has become the absolute masters at being able to re-engineer drones to do things that were never thought possible on the battlefield. This is an army that has been able, so far, single-handedly, they've not been using North Koreans, just the odd weapon that Europe seems fit to give them. They have been able to hold back Russia.

They've proven themselves to be extremely talented, extremely innovative, extremely capable, using all sorts of technologies that nobody else is using. And given that they were just caught by surprise when Putin had been arming themselves up for ages, to be able to hold back as they have done is incredible. And without being cynical, actually, if some of our armed forces were going to go and be trained up by the best of the best in Ukraine to patrol a demilitarized zone, it could actually help to grow our troops to get that investment into defence that we're talking about, to get the latest technologies. So many people from the defence sector are saying that we so desperately need.

Do I think it's morally right? Do I think that it's practicable? Both of those are a massive grey area for me. But I would say this. There were similar conversations that happened in World War I, that happened in World War II, when these things were taking place on continental Europe, not on our little island. Did we send men to the Somme? Yes, we did. Did we go in and join Allied forces to hold back the Nazis? Yes, we did. And so do we want to be part of defending Europe again? I think that there's a strong argument to say, yes, that is a reasonable thing to say we should do. But the other question is, if you're treating your own people at home brutally, particularly the white working classes, if you're not funding them, if you're not giving money to defence, and if you're using the whole Ukraine thing as some sort of really cynical propaganda exercise. And then you expect people

to go over and fight in a foreign land. Don't be surprised when actually there's a lot of people saying we don't fancy doing this. What I would say, great testaments to our armed forces. Most of the men and women, I'd say by far the vast majority of men and women in the armed forces in this country are brilliant. They understand the difference between right and wrong. They want there to be a strong Europe. They want us to be strong. They want us to be capable. And so there'll be a whole number of them out there going, get us in there and we will protect Europe. And I don't think that's a bad thing. But when it comes to actually, you know, sharing praise on Zakir Starmer for popping this out in a Telegraph article, no, I don't think he does deserve the praise.

But do I want to add a more nuanced counterpoint to the debate? Yeah, and that's all I'm doing. No, and I understand that. But I guess from my point of view, this is a war that should have ended well over two years ago. The bloodshed, the destruction of Ukraine was completely avoidable. But Alex, look, I want to come to our friend Christoph Huesgen, the sort of chair of the Munich Security Conference,

who was so upset, Alex, at J.D. Vance offering some home truths about the state of the United Kingdom in Europe, he actually broke down in tears on stage. I think illustrating exactly the problem that the American vice president was talking about. Your reaction after, Alex, but watch this first. After the speech of Vice President Vance on Friday, we have to fear that our common value base is not that common anymore. I'm very grateful to all those European politicians that spoke out and reaffirmed the values and principles that they are defending. No one did this better

than President Zelensky. Let me conclude, and this becomes difficult. Alex, this is why Europe is in trouble. Yeah, that is a personification actually of Europe, isn't it? I mean, let's talk a bit about Christoph Heusgen. I don't know how you say his name. I'll probably cry if I pronounce it wrong. He was the undersecretary for European foreign and security policy in the German chancellery from 2005 to 2017. So good old, long, old time. He was described as Angela Merkel's most influential foreign policy and security advisor. Well, what decisions did Angela Merkel make during this time period?

She decided they wanted to build Nord Stream 2 and actually get loads of gas from Putin because that's what they were going to live off and at the same time decommission all of Germany's nuclear power plants. She also decided that the whole refugees welcome thing was a great way to treat people in Islamic countries where there were Islamist wars. Let them all come in here. They must all be good people. At the same time, of course, who happened to be the German defence minister from 2013 to 2019? Ursula von der Leyen, who goes down on record as being the person who decimated the German armed forces, who ransacked their arsenal. Germany put itself in a massive position of weakness, as did most of Europe so when putin

strolled into ukraine and said i'm going to take this now they took ages to react because they knew how intertwined their economy was and so he might be crying he might be crying because he's been found out it was people like him who did this to the continent of europe as people like him appeased putin it was people like him who saw the complete destruction of our defensive capabilities across Europe. It was people like him who thought open borders was a wonderful, kind thing to do. J.D. Vance has just pointed at him and said,

you, you have done this. And he's crying. And they're all clapping for him crying and coming up for a group hug. Pathetic. And this is what I'm talking about. This is the wake up call that Europe needs. People like him need to be out of a job. They shouldn't be rewarded for their failure in all of those positions by then heading up the Munich Security Conference.

You are the very definition of Christoph, whatever your name is, Huisgen, Hausgen, Huisgen, don't care. You are the definition of why Europe is insecure. Amen. Amen to that. Breaking right now. Alex Phillips has written on Substack that the UK could be primed for civil war. Her words, I cannot believe I am writing this post. Something unimaginable a year ago is all becoming chillingly real. Now, Alex Phillips, I read your substack with horror, not that I was disagreeing with you, but because you lay out the situation that actually civil war

could be coming to Europe, but not Serbia, not Kosovo, the United Kingdom. Can you outline why you have this fear? Well, it wasn't mine that I invented or cooked up. It was actually a brilliant podcast that Louise Perry had done with a guy called David Betts. Now, David Betts is a professor at King's College London, a professor in modern warfare. Part of what he does is actually go around and advise people like MI5, MI6, the CIA, other countries about trying to prevent there being mass civil unrest, trying to prevent there being outbreaks of domestic and internecine warfare. So he's not just some sort of quack academic trying to get printed in a journal. He's a very serious governmental advisor on all of this. And I listened to this podcast,

and I then read his report, because I was in disbelief myself. And when he lays out the problems that the UK faces, yes, Europe, but also especially the UK, there's none of it that I could disagree with. So first of all, you've got a backdrop of great economic insecurity, and a situation where you can't see a way out of this. With net zero, with the bloated state, with decline in manufacturing and real economic output, how you suddenly, you you suddenly get the UK rich again to make sure people can be fed and watered and heat their homes, etc., is very difficult to see. And that is always fertile ground for civil unrest. We then have a situation where

you have multiple different factions who are all becoming tribalistic fighting for their own ends and a situation where in particular a majority has been essentially ostracized and censored within their own country he then talks about the fact that when it comes to our capabilities to defend ourselves whether it's being diminished armed forces or police that aren't taken seriously all of those symbols of authority that once upon a time meant something, you know, police in a uniform instead of a rainbow lanyard, how there seems to be a lack of trust in those or a lack of taking them seriously. And then he also talks about the fact that a lot of our critical infrastructure is simply undefended. And like I was alluding to

earlier, we know that FSB agents at large messing about in the UK and other European countries, we can also look at what their mercenaries are doing in Africa, which is essentially trying to provoke conflict, they're arming certain sides of regimes, they're, you know, essentially creating mayhem to try and create uprisings across Africa, actually quite successfully. You put all of those factors together and also you then look back at what happened in Southport and the government was brutal in the crushing of rioting whether or not there was you know a degree of instigation to make sure they could play that act out to try and prevent people from taking to the streets and

protesting in future I don't know but what he essentially said is, you know, before someone has a heart attack, there are giveaway signs, there is raised blood pressure, there's a numb arm, there's chest compression, there's, you know, all these things, which should be warning lights that you are not in good health. Well, if you were a doctor looking at the patients and the patients of the United Kingdom, then you would actually have to say to yourself, okay, there are difficulties here. There are, you know, clearly we're not in good shape.

And so he's put all of this together academically. And like I said, he is the person who actually advises governments on how to prevent there being mass civil unrest. And he has been saying or shouting into a vacuum, things aren't looking good in the United Kingdom. And when pressed by Louise Perry as to a timeframe on this, chillingly, he said, unless there's a dramatic vault fast, unless things change quite radically,

we're looking at within the next five years. Oh, my God. Of course, as we've seen, Elon Musk has predicted this too. Do you think it's fair of Civil War that saw Starmer crack down so hard, Alex, on the so-called rioters, the people who were just posting on Facebook and X, do you think he knows too? And he's trying to almost terrify the population into silence? Well, that's a big question. And I don't have the answer to that.

What you can see in any other country where you have essentially tribes of people who fundamentally cannot get together around a certain principle. And when the principle in the United Kingdom is whether Britain's a great country and you want to be part of it, and that's been so wholly eroded in the public mind. You have to wonder whether Europe, in many respects, is saying to themselves, we've now actually reached a critical point. Maybe it's not a point of no return. Maybe we can buy some more time. But now we've got to manage this situation from not spiralling. I would argue that actually managing the situation isn't cracking down on the domestic population

and trying to prevent people from voicing concerns, particularly not at the ballot box. The ballot box exists as a way to temper the situation, to give people the democratic voice to change leadership, to try and solve these problems. But what we've seen across Europe is the fact that democracy itself is being bludgeoned with this head in the sand approach by most European leaders. I don't want in any way to portend this happening. It's the last thing I want to see take place in Britain. What I do want to see now is European leaders as a whole, and particularly here in the UK,

taking a really firm approach to what needs to now happen in Britain to stop things spiralling out of control. And that means essentially abandoning net zero so we can economically thrive. That means looking at the rate of demographic change, looking at levels of immigration, looking at the cultural fragmentation and saying this is not sustainable. It also means re-injecting national pride and no longer being ashamed of saying Britain is a brilliant country. Those three things are critical to averting a crisis. Whether or not

Zakir Starmer is going to be the man to deliver them, I'm very sceptical. So I can understand why this academic would be academically projecting that we're in a pretty bad state and no one's doing anything about it. Yeah, I mean, this week, for example example alex we've had kemi badenock be criticized for saying at the arc conference that some cultures are better than others but i mean as chris rose rightfully pointed out here the usual suspects are pretending to be outraged the blunt truth is any culture which allows cousin marriages a female genital mutilation, barbaric blasphemy laws, child brides, etc., should not be tolerated. And it got me thinking, Alex, back to 2001, believe it or not. And I feel like we were warned by the great lady. Because do you remember during that campaign,

and weirdly people sort of went in the Conservative Party, like Michael Portillo, were desperate to distance William Hague, the then leader, from Margaret Thatcher's comments. But she said, I don't wish to have what they call a multicultural society. I hate these phrases. Multicultural society? A multicultural society will never be a united society. She said that in 2001. We were warned. Yeah. And the thing is, we've all been told that to think that way is racist, to think that way in itself is problematic, to think that way you

are the dangerous person, not pointing out the danger in a situation based upon human reality. And, you know, if there was a magic wand to wave that humans weren't tribalistic that humans all had one religion one culture one set of values and could all rub along whatever country they're from however they've been brought up it's all homogenized and exactly the same great but you know history that is not human nature we've got to be realistic about this and so the idea that we could re-engineer society into a sort of rainbow flag of peace was ambitious, to say the least. But the problem we have now is we've got a political class who, or a legacy media class, who just champion that as the established viewpoint that

actually, you know, diversity is our strength. When diversity, sadly and tragically, and were it not this way, wouldn't we all think that was wonderful and embrace it? But pragmatically, diversity is often fracture. And there is almost a sort of tipping point, really. And when people are coming to the country because they believe in Britain

and when they want to integrate and speak our language and, you know, for a long time, you look at older generations of immigrant communities People are coming to the country because they believe in Britain and when they want to integrate and speak our language. And, you know, for a long time, you look at older generations of immigrant communities and they bloody love Britain. They've got pictures of the queen on the wall. They're the first people out during a jubilee to put out the trestle table with samosas or sandwiches or whatever it may be. And when immigration was pegged to a dream of Britain and a dream of the West that was positive, people wanted to be part of it. Then what happened is that the game changed. We opened up the flood gates to a lot of people who are coming here who despise us and don't want to join our way of life, have no intention of doing that. And that is, you know, that's not spurious to say that. You just look at the sheer number of attacks happening from asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers.

And, you know, you have to ask yourself, at what point is reality going to become clear to our world leaders that you cannot just re-engineer an entire society of people from multiple different cultures and it's just going to work? It doesn't. And we know that by now. The evidence is clear. And yet they are still blindly fog marching us off a cliff, pretending that the idealistic vision is somehow attainable. Alex Phillips, very well put. Don't go anywhere, though, because there has been an astonishing clash on the Trigonometry podcast between Constantine Kissin and the former editor of The Spectator, Fraser Nelson. It's all about what constitutes being English, being British. Honestly, I don't think you're going to believe a lot of this, but we'll watch it together and get Alex's response in just one minute, so don't go anywhere. But first, sleep quality

declines as early as when you turn 30. So when you were young, remember those days, your body was producing a good amount of sleep regulating hormones. But as you get older, your body's ability to produce those hormones decline, making it harder to fall asleep and stay asleep. And don't I know it. I have to admit, I've tried everything to help improve my sleep. Not eating or working out three hours before bed, planning blue light devices, lots of unnatural products. But nothing has moved the needle, like evening being by Verso. After three years of perfecting the formula, they created a melatonin-free drink

mix with clinically studied, patented ingredients. It's formulated to calm an active mind, help you fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer, and improve deep and REM sleep, all without creating dependencies or causing morning grogginess. I actually look forward to drinking evening bean every night, not only because it helps me fall asleep faster, but because it tastes so good too. It's actually become my new nightcap. Good, by the way, if you're vegan or keto too. So click the link in the show description or head on over to evening.ver.so forward slash outspoken and use the coupon code outspoken at checkout to save 15% on your first order. Try evening bean tonight and wake up feeling refreshed

tomorrow. That's evening.ver.so forward slash outspoken and use the coupon code outspoken at checkout to save 15%. But now back to the show. Breaking right now, an extraordinary row has broken out on the Trigonometry podcast between the host Constantine Kissin and Fraser Nelson, Times columnist, spectator, former editor, real member of the mainstream media establishment. And it's all over what it means to be English. Alex Phillips, former Brexit Party MEP and author of the That's What She Said sub stack is with me to analyze this. But first, prepare to be shocked. Here is the first part of Fraser Nelson versus Constantine Kissin.

At what percentage of the native population does England cease to be England? Is it 50 percent? Is it 40%? Is it 10%? When there are no English people left, is it still England, right? That is a thing that no one wants to talk about, but I know millions of people subtly feel, and not just English or British people, my relatives from Russia or Ukraine or Armenia or whatever, they come to Heathrow and they go, is this still England, right? Now, you could say that shows the success of our society. There's a hell of a lot of people that don't agree with you. That's right. I mean, do we regard Rishi Sunak as English, for example? I've always said this is a very unpopular thing that I'm not English.

I will never be English. I don't think Rishi Sunak is English. We're both British, but we're not English. You weren't born here. You were an immigrant. No, but my son was born here. I don't think Rishi Sunak is English. We're both British, but we're not English. No, you weren't born here. You are an immigrant. No. Well, my son was born here. I don't think my son is English. He's born to a Russian immigrant. Again, that's the definition. I would say that Rishi Sunak is as English as Tizer and Weiferns. He is absolutely English. He was born and bred here. And I wouldn't say that the color of his skin makes him any less... He's a brown Hindu. How is he English? Because he's born and bred here and um i wouldn't say that the color of his skin makes him any he's a brown hindu

how is he english because he's born and bred here so by being born here you become english in your opinion yeah english because there's a difference right i don't think english is national look look to take i'm a scotch right yeah and now are are my kids english i would say they are. How? Because they were born here. They're Scottish? Nope. By blood? No, they've hardly ever been to Scotland, unfortunately. So what? By blood, give me this. My son is born to a Russian and a Ukrainian, right? How on earth is he English? Because he was born here. Do you think that being born in a country makes you that, makes you of that? So if your children had been born in Japan, would they be Japanese? If they were born there? Look, you get white Caribbean people, for example. Hold on. Just the Japanese example. Would they

be Japanese? If they were born there and lived their life there, then yeah. But he didn't want to answer that, Alex, because of course, it's only when you insert a white English person into a different culture like Japan, where people like that think, hold on, my argument falls apart. Fascinated to know your reaction. Yeah, well, it is ridiculous. It's almost like saying essentially that if I happen to be born in, I don't know, Saudi Arabia, because a parent of mine was over there working on a project, and all of a sudden I'm Arabic. Again, it is denying statehood and denying identity to anybody who is Caucasian or anybody who is native born European, because in doing that, oh, I don't

know, is that white supremacist? It's sort of suggesting that whiteness cannot be identified, Englishness cannot be identified, the erosion of the nation state. The thing is, this stuff has been drummed into Western European populations for so long, for so long that people actually fear, they're fearful. They're actually afraid to turn around and say, I'm white, I'm British, and there's nothing wrong with that, that I think that that's perfectly okay. And what a horrible situation to be in when you have to have this sort of baked in, inbuilt, original sin, shame of being born to a certain nation or within a certain skin colour. But those people who have managed to get where they are in the world of legacy media or politics have had to cut out of that set of beliefs. They've never really analysed or scrutinised them because it's felt far too dangerous to do so.

And yet at the same time, if you had someone who was mixed race or somebody who was, you know, multiple heritage saying, you know, I'm black and I'm proud or I'm whatever and I'm proud. And this is cultural appropriation. If you happen to have this particular dress, or if you celebrate this particular festival, we go to great lengths to actually worship, idolize, and fetishize every single other culture, and anybody with even the most sort of, you know, remote connection to it from identifying as it.

But if you bring that back to Englishness or whiteness or europeanness then it is utterly taboo to flag that up and say that this is allowed and this is permissible and and again this is the sort of narrative the corrosive carcinogenic toxin that has been woven now throughout our entire establishment that is leading to the social divisions that are so perilous going forward there's absolutely nothing wrong with being English now other people can say does that mean a skin color in this day and age when we have had generations of people who have come to settle here and like I said seeing God save the queen in a turban and in our rugby team or whatever, then, you know, fine. I think that we can open this up to, you know, to anybody who is,

you know, proven themselves or is baked in and, you know, inculcated within our system so heartily. If you're going to do that, then you've also got to say that the white farmers in South Africa who are now, you know, the boars of the generations in South Africa that they are Africans and they also too deserve to be treated with respect the problem is it's a two-tier system white means that you don't get to have any sort of stakeholder in your own heritage and your own cultural legacy whereas every other culture gets to be hero worshipped while we're not allowed to critique it or, you know, attach ourselves to it at all. And again, it's this sort of constant corrosion that is now proving to be so divisive. Indeed, as Vaughan Newton posted on our live YouTube chat, if a dog

is born in a stable doesn't make them a horse. And interestingly, Alex, I have a really personal take on this because I am an Englishman who was born in New Zealand. And very often folk on the left try and say to me, you're not English. How can you be English? You were born in New Zealand. It's like, of course I am. My mum was born in Essex. My dad was born on a British Army base in Malta. Very similar to your circumstances, I believe, Alex. And the point is, Englishness is just in me. It is in my blood. And yes, I am also a proud New Zealander.

New Zealand is a nation of largely immigrants from the UK. But I've always been English. I've always been English. I've always felt English. And it is more than just the fact that I have carried an English passport since before birth. It's because it is in my blood. Now, what's interesting with Fraser Nelson is that when he is asked to define Britishness by the trigonometry guys, he initially says that is impossible to define, which I think is another indictment on the elite class. Watch this.

What is the concept of Britishness? The concept of Britishness? Yeah. Well, one of the funny things about it is that it's almost impossible to define. Because we don't have a national day really of Remembrance Sunday. We don't have a little list of mission statements or values. If I came to you and I said, what is the mission of the spectator? And you went, well, the thing about the spectator is it's really difficult to define. And, you know, we don't have a national, we don't have a this, we don't have a that. I think this guy doesn't know what he's doing. I would, look, I, of course, and I could tell the spectator is there to inform, entertain, delight, bring humor, whatever, right? Now, my point about Britain is that people can define it different ways. I don't think there's a right or a wrong way.

But I would regard it as the world's first and most successful multi-ethnic state through empire, number one. Number two is we are the country that pretty much invented the notions of liberty and democracy and exported them to the Western world. I would say it's the home of democracy. Although when you look at how few young people actually are into democracy, you wonder if it's going to stay that much longer. But I would say that's a fundamental part of it. Rule of law, I think, is importance, tolerance, and also defending liberty, which we've done pretty much better than any other country in Europe. Now, hopefully, we will not have to do that again. But it's the kind of place, I think, where Britain as a country is the cradle of opportunity. It's a place which is recognised

world over as being the place where, if it's done properly, then you can make whatever you want off your life but alex he was shamed into coming up with what it meant to be british because did you notice to begin with he said that's impossible to define when put on the spot by constantine he could immediately list off all of the values of the spectator magazine i find it so depressing well he actually listed up all the values of britain and then said brit Britain doesn't have any sort of uniting values. It is kind of weird. He also said that, well, you know, we just have the odd jubilee and that's it and nothing else. We're not allowed anything else. I mean, we're not allowed St. George's Day. We're not allowed to fly the cross of St. George.

We're not allowed to have all these jingoistic symbols of nationality because they're white theft. So it's been sort of drummed into Britain that we're not allowed to have a celebration of our own culture. And then he turns around and says, well, there isn't any. I mean, what absolute nonsense. There always has been.

And actually what we need to see is a resurgence in some of those things. You know, the striking difference, he talked about as being one of the most successful multi-ethnic societies. He has a point here, right? Now, what's changed is back in the era of imperial Britain, there was the sort of idea of the queen under Victoria, this is, and then actually going up to our own Elizabeth before she died. We had a royal family which represented

that. And when people came to this country, they knew what being British was it was tea drinking it was God save the Queen it was going to church on a Sunday it was mowing the lawn it was roast dinners it was all of those things and yet all of that stuff we've been told no that's not Britain anymore Britain is a vindaloo oh no that's not Britain anymore Britain is actually celebrating Eid so all the things that were British, we've been told we're not allowed to do and don't represent Britain because we've moved on from that now. And then he says, well, you know, Britain doesn't have a uniting thing. The difference is when you go to America, right? The American flag flies on most buildings. Americans always put their hand on their heart and sing the national anthem. You know, the tokens,

the gestures of America and what America represents are still bolstered and promoted. And that actually has helped America really sort of sell itself to the world about what it is. Britain has done the opposite. Instead, we said, I'm sorry, all those things we were of the past, a country that at one point dominated one third of the globe that actually did export all the things he listed there, democracy, rule of law, so on and so forth, the English language, Christianity, cricket, you know, all of those things, we're being told it's shameful, and we're sorry for doing them, and we shouldn't have done them. And actually, we're over them now, they don't matter anymore. So you know, this is this is the big problem. And actually, we're over them now. They don't matter anymore. So, you know, this is

the big problem. And people in elite positions have been so brainwashed into the idea that Britain is synonymous with shame, that now we're turning around grappling for a sense of national identity. And going back to what David Betts was saying when he said that, you know, Britain could be ripe for civil unrest. One of the points he made was that the glue, the unifying element that actually brings people together, regardless of sexuality, regardless of skin colour, a sense of belonging to a thing that has been so chipped away that it's left us so fragmented. He actually labels that as one of the critical pre-warning signs of becoming a broken society. Goodness me. I just want to play you one more little bit from this interview, Alex, because I think to me, it shows, I mean, look, Fraser Nelson, he's absolutely part of the elite class, part of the establishment through and through.

And I think he's completely lost as to why ordinary folk like you and like me are so concerned about what's happened to the United Kingdom. Now, perhaps if you've grown up in a country, you can't really see it, however, see it. But I think the British light has never shone brighter than it does right now. And that, of course, every successful democracy is self-critical. So we're living in this country, we're going to point to these problems, and we're never going to shut up about them quite right too. But we should ask yourself why it is that so much of the rest of the world holds Britain in such high regard, which across all opinion polls that they do.

And why, of course, the reason that we are, for the foreseeable future, going to be trying to manage down the number of people who want to come here. This is very different to the European situation, where they're going to be crying out for immigrants and not able to get enough in quite a lot of other countries. Alex, your thoughts? Well, it's just, it's sort of one concerning sentence after another. And I like Fraser Nelson, and I respect Fraser Nelson. He's an intelligent man. He's a good journalist. He's articulate, all the rest of it. He's always done a brilliant job in putting forward a lot of viewpoints that 10 years ago were not being made. But he just seems now to

be in the outdated class. And this obsession with immigration, always good, always brilliant, a positive, a drum to beat, it's just, you know, like I said, we need to actually address the hard truths that this isn't necessarily always the case and saying that doesn't make you a racist, that we don't need to erode our own culture, we don't need to forsake our own heritage and our own identity at the altar of just being a sort of newly defined, I don't know, nothing. I mean, you know, you look at the statistics, for instance, in London, 60% of people in London now living in London were born abroad. And we're not talking about first generation, second generation, we're not even talking about skin colour, okay, let's make that very clear. We're just talking about people who were born abroad. And so when push comes to shove, if anything happens, you know, who's going to be defending London? Because're using Britain as your international playground because of the city of London, you come and work hard here, play hard, you know, in our bars.

And then every holiday you're back in Italy and eating in every Italian restaurant in London and not really mixing outside your community. Then you also are not integrated. So we have this sort of strange notion that the idea of having a monoculture is somehow bad. And the idea that we've gotten rid of the idea of having a monoculture is a positive. And that, oh, look, all these people are coming to Britain as a result of doing this. They're coming as economic units. And, you know, in the long term, they're making money to fill up their own pockets and go back home they might be paying tax here but you know they're not contributing to the heart of the land and we're told that all these wonderful things that are you know all these different restaurants and

festivals are all cultural enrichment yeah me like everybody else loves going to wherever and enjoying the fact that we do have a really sort of interesting makeup of things in London to enjoy most of the rest of the UK now but it reaches a tipping point where you start losing your own stamp on your own country that it's very hard to regain that it's very hard to build that back Alex Phillips you are absolutely brilliant i could listen to you all day that's what she said is the sub stack i really really recommend it and thank you for being here today alex as ever on outspoken so much feedback from you throughout the show today uh nadia smith this is on the issue of tommy rob Robinson and this emergency situation

Nadia Smith points out Yvette Cooper has to sign every two weeks to keep Tommy in solitary without any doctor's advice so shame on her Big V posted I'll never vote reform while Farage is there Rupert referring to Rupert Lowe as PM Alan Sh Shepard wrote, Tommy is there for telling the truth and those people are pulling Starmer's strings to cripple Tommy. And Janet Blackford said, enough is enough. How can they be getting away with this treatment of Tommy Robinson? It is inhumane. It would appear they are trying to drive him insane or even indirectly waiting for his demise and that is just a terrifying horrendous thought and then fusing two of our big topics today charlotte dixon posted nigel needs to get behind rupert and stop these idiots killing tommy and stop starmer being a warmonger and you're with me on this whole idea of the fury and the disgust over Starmer talking about putting boots,

British boots on the ground in Ukraine. Joan Cooney said, Dan, I am so ill with worry for my family and our country. Our soldiers should be in their own country and we should be with the USA. Kath Lissenden wrote, my son just left the forces after 18 years, served two tours of Afghanistan. I hated him being there on the word of the liar Blair. No British troops should be on the ground. There are already some there. And Angela Broome posted, well, I hope Starmer sends his boy on the front line. He can't expect British lads to go to fight for him. Starmer can't control his own borders. Why does he think he can control any other country? So, wow, a lot of passion today.

You heard it from Alex. You heard it from me. Goodness gracious me. So let's come to Greatest Britain and Union Jackass now. A reminder of the nominees. David Tennant, who gave that dismal performance as the host of the BAFTAs last night, including making very unfunny jokes about Donald Trump. Prince Harry for shaming the UK with his whining and covert operations in terms

of giving money to the Democrats. We've got Angela Levin up on that in just one moment on the after show. And the European leaders, specifically Starmer, Macron and Schultz, who seem hell-bent on starting World War III. They are meeting in Paris right now, of course. Let's get to the votes. David Tennant, 11%. Prince Harry, 12%. But with an overwhelming 76% of the vote, the European leaders who seem to want World War III. Today's Greatest Britain, though, nominated by Karen Hankey, J.D. Vance, an honorary GB. In recognition of his brilliant speech at the Munich Security Conference on Friday afternoon. He gave Europe's and our own leaders a brutal wake-up call, change now or be replaced. Karen says whether they heed the call is another matter.

Now, please make sure you subscribe. If you're watching here on YouTube, just hit the subscribe button, turn on the notification bell, then you'll be alerted to our new episodes. But coming up in the uncancelled after show, which moves to Substack, major breaking royal news as Donald Trump reverses his position over deporting Prince Harry and Meghan Markle defies her husband to reveal her secret children on Instagram. Angela Levin is going to be up to cover that all. So at this stage, we move off YouTube and Rumble, move to Substack to continue the conversation in the uncancelled after show. But don't worry, we're back tomorrow, 5pm UK time, midday Eastern, 9am Pacific. Hit subscribe, turn on the notification bell. I promise to keep fighting for you,

but I hope to see you on Substack with Angela Levin in just one moment. We'll be you next time. you