Dan Wootton Outspoken - WHITE & BLACK EX-FRIENDS & CONSERVATIVE STARS CONNOR TOMLINSON & ALBIE AMANKONA CLASH ON RACE

Episode Date: September 11, 2026

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

No spend, no bias, no censorship. I'm Dan Wooden. This is a special edition of Outspoken episode number 582. To tackle one of the most heated and taboo subjects being avoided in the British mainstream media is criticism of the Notting Hill Carnival and Jason Arde's suicide, really racism. During this episode of The Clash, going head to head for the first time, a former friends and conservative thinkers, Connor Tomlinson, of Tomlinson talks on YouTube and Substack and Albiahman Kona, the head of Conservatives Against Racism, and a member of the LGBT Plus Conservative Strapin. Nothing is off limits today. Let's go. Today, an important conversation between two friends on the right. A centrist, conservative party member who is black and a member of the party's LGBT Plus group,

and a white, more firebrand member of the conservative movement, They have, I think, it is fair to say, been divided by the culture war. It kicked off specifically between Albi Amankona and Connor Tomlinson over the Notting Hill Carnival, or as I call it, much to Albi's horror, Notting Hell Carnage. As Connor posted, you could tell me this was a scene from the next Batman film, and I would believe you. Notting Hill Carnival brings no. nothing of value and causes whole streets to be boarded up or else be used as toilets or gladiatorial

arenas by urban youths. Bannis immediately. That prompted this response from Alby, who wrote Connor and I used to be friends. But he stopped talking to me as his views became more hard line. I can only but wonder why. Has it ever occurred to the mostly white people who snare at Carnival and complain endlessly about Caribbean culture, that their own white European ancestors help create Caribbean culture. I've noticed a pattern this summer. Many of the people who were most vicious about Jason R. Day are also the people most sympathetic to race realism, and now among the loudest voices demanding Carnival be cancelled. I'm not Caribbean, I'm West African and English by heritage, but that is precisely why I say how. Both sides of my ancestry are bound

up in the history that produced the modern Caribbean and the wider Atlantic world. And what Caribbean people created out of slavery, colonialism, displacement and poverty is extraordinary. We rightly admire Jewish resilience after centuries of persecution and the horror of the Holocaust. Yet some of the same people who understand perfectly well why Jewish survival, culture and achievement deserve respect seem incapable of extending the same principle to Caribbean people after slavery. Why? Caribbean culture is not perfect. No culture is. Carnival is not above criticism. But the idea that Caribbean culture is some alien contamination of Britain is historically illiterate. We help create the Caribbean. The Caribbean helped create modern Britain. Europeans and Africans are not historical strangers who can now retreat into separate corners. Empire, trade and geography intertwined us centuries ago. And this is irreversible. They are part of our story because we helped write it and find it. vice versa. Conner responded, You have my number. If you really did only, but wonder why you could have just texted me and asked.

My views haven't changed and neither has my disposition to be polite and friendly to people when I see them. I haven't seen you in ages because I don't socialise in Westminster much. I stopped drinking, got married and spent most of my waking hours working to cover the cost of the two children I have on the way. There are often far more pedestrian explanations for these things than you think, which again, you would have known if you had texted me rather than play the race card in the quote retweets. Alvey, it is interesting you jumped to playing the race card. I didn't. I did just wonder why.

Thanks for confirming and congratulations on your wedding and children on the way. Very best of luck. And now we are going to have this conversation between these two former friends. Albi, great to have you back on outspoken. I have to be completely honest. When I was reading your post on X to Connor, reading between the lines, and you may say I'm wrong, but reading between the lines, you seem to be suggesting his view and his reason for cussing you off, was in some ways connected to your race.

You said, I can only but wonder why. Is that true? I think you're a bit obsessed with race and identity nowadays, to be honest. And I see you, Dan, I thought it was a bit woke of you to introduce me as a gay, black, conservative. I've never thought of myself on those terms. But if that's how you want to introduce me, you're more the welcome to. But I normally go by broadcaster and financial analysts. So maybe remember that for next time.

But look, you can read between the lines if you want to read between the lines. But if you just read what I wrote, I didn't mention anything about my race. I just said, as his views became more hardline, we stopped talking. I've got absolutely no idea why Conner decided to stop. speaking to me, perhaps you'll explain a little bit more now. But Alby, just to clarify, you said, I can only but wonder why dot, dot, dot. And then your next line was talking about the fact that the people who criticise Carnival were mostly white. So, I mean, I do think race is part of this discussion. I don't think I'm woke for being honest about that. I described Conner as a

white conservative too. But why are you saying it's wrong for me to describe you as black? You were talking about mostly white people criticizing Carnival. And by the way, there are a lot of black people criticizing Carnival, too, Albi. I focused on some of the him on the show. Well, most of the people coming up on my food criticizing Carnival were white people. Look, I don't cast any aspersions on that. I'm just making an observation. And I don't really understand why you chose to introduce me as a black, gay conservative,

if you're supposed to be the type of person that rails against identity politics. Nobody else introduces me in that way. In fact, I think you're the first person. ever to introduce me like that onto any media that I've ever done. I do quite a lot. So I was just a little bit surprised. When I was on G.B. News show, I would always point out that you were the head of conservatives against racism. You'd use my title. You wouldn't say I was a black, gay, conservative. Yeah, you can use my titles. That's fine. But I just didn't like the way I was introduced. That's all. But we don't need to have a debate about that. The debate we're having is about

a fallout, a supposed fallout that Connor and I have had. And I wouldn't say it was a fallout. We just stopped speaking and I wondered why we stopped speaking and then he got back to me and told me why that one. But you thought it was because of racism though? You very kindly read it out. I don't know why it was. Now I know. Okay. So just to clarify, there's two big questions here, I guess.

This is a personal debate between you and Connor. But on the macro, are you suggesting that people like me who criticised Notting Hill Carnival, which is a disgustingly violent event that would be cancelled if it was, for example, the Unite the Kingdom Rally. You know that. You know that. Are you suggesting that that criticism is in some way racist? Because that's what I felt looking at your tweet. No, I don't think all the criticism of Carnival is racist. I think some of the criticism of Carnival is racist.

I don't hear many people making the same criticisms about festivals like Glastonbury, for example, but lots of people like to talk about the drug taking at Carnival. Like it's the only place where drug taking disorder takes place. I've been going to big events like Redding Festival, Glassonbury Carnival, Gay Pride for years since I was a teenager. And it's only really the Notting Hill Carnival that people speak in this way for. Maybe it's because of the race of the people that are in attendance. Maybe it's because of the amount of people that are going.

Maybe it's because of the way that it's covered. But I have noticed of all the different events that I go to, the Nottingill Carnival attracts a special kind of criticism that not many other similar events in my view attract. It's just because it's completely out of control. I mean, it is completely out of control. The crime and the violence at this event is completely out of control. And a lot of us are sick of a mainstream media portrayal of, for example, the Unite the Kingdom rally,

Albi, which had a handful of arrest, a tiny number of arrests. And the mainstream media was Trumpetian. Trump, well, millions, actually. And you'll probably deny. Yes. I went. At the one that I covered. At the one that were not millions of people there.

Which one? The most recent one. Well, no, there were not millions at the most recent. one, but the one that I was at in, I believe it was October 20, 25. My belief is that there were millions of people there. Tommy Robinson says the same thing. Leftists like to say there were 100,000. I mean, it was ludicrous. Look at the aerial shots. I mean, I don't want to sound like Donald Trump here arguing about crowd size. But it was absolutely ludicrous, the prediction of the crowd number. But the point is, even if you look at it on a per capita basis by how many people were there,

the crime at Unite the Kingdom was tiny. Yet the mainstream media were talking about it been some absolutely violent out-of-control event that should be cancelled. So we're sick of the total... With respect, people would make exactly the same argument about the carnival. There's a population of two million people over 48 hours and how many arrests and assaults are we talking about? Oh, hundreds now. Hundreds and hundreds. Record numbers. Record numbers. Sex assaults, we're talking about stabbings we're talking about. Slashers, we're talking about... Out of a population of 200 of 2 million people. It is a revolt. A capital. It's not that hard. I'm sorry. It is a revolting bit, and it's getting worse.

That's the problem. But look, Connor, let me bring you in. Was your first read of Albi's post on X the same as mine that he was suggesting that you have become more hardline? As a result, you have cut him out because he's black. It seemed like there was some type of suggestion of you being racist. I don't know, maybe that was an incorrect read, but did you feel the same thing?

Well, okay, I'm not going to clutch poles down. I just thought it was unnecessary because, as I said, you could have just texted me. And it was conspicuous. okay, if you want to accuse other people of having a racial tint to their criticisms of Carnival, fine, but you quote which is in my post, and then the following line, as he said, you don't need to read between the lines, it was literally the following line, from going something personal about me, which was then an insinuation,

that it was somehow connected to then the lengthy post which was saying, well, you wouldn't criticise a white event the same way as you would a black event, and this is why actually Carnival is the product of European and British colonialism, and therefore, if you object to it, then it's... basically the fault of colonialism. I didn't use the word colonialism once. You said colonisation. You actually did.

I don't know that I did. I think I said that the Caribbean culture is as much a product of white European people as it is of black African people. Because the reason black people are in the Caribbean. And what Caribbean is the people created out of slavery, colonialism, displacement and poverty is extraordinary. So you did use the word.

colonialism. Yes, in that one context, in that one sentence, not in the way that Connor just used it as if this was a whole spiel about colonialism. I think what I said, what was unreasonable about what I said? Okay, if we're going to be slippery about world choices when I say you used a word and you said, you didn't use a word, and then you go, yeah. Well, you're just making it sound like I've written a whole load of woke nonsense when I haven't. I'm not making it sound like anything.

I'm summarizing the essence of your post using the words. I think you're summarizing it incorrectly. Okay. You, you, I accurately quoted you, then you denied that you used the word, and then when it was brought up on screen that you used the word. You did not accurately quote me. You paraphrased in a way that was not an accurate reflection of what I said. Okay, you denied to use the word, and when it was brought up on screen,

you then said, yes, but, so can we not shift the goalpost and just be consistent here? Okay. Dan's original question was, did I think you accused me of racism? I don't care. I care about the substance of my critique, and my main response to you was not to pearl clutch about whatever you may or may not have insinuating your original post. It was more so, if you thought we'd stop talking for a reason, then you could have just texted me and not made a show of it on social media

for whatever reason. Like, I don't know why. You could have just texted me. There are more anodyne explanations for this kind of thing, which was just that I don't really socialize much in person, if at all, anymore. Don't drink. I spent a lot of time looking off my wife and eventual kids. And being frank, like, I don't always text the best man.

from my wedding. My wife is to remind me to text him. I'm actually kind of bad when it comes to WhatsApp. So there was no personal animus here. So this entire conversation is, I'm not saying the entire debate is pointless, but the reason for the conflict was pointless. If we want to get into the substance of the actual debate, I'm happy to do it. Well, it's interesting to me. I don't even think we're in a conflict. I just noted that you stopped talking to me and you did. Well, before we get to the Notting Hill Carnival, though, I think there is a really interesting argument, which is that Albi, you are saying it does still, well, you're criticizing me for pointing out your race in the intro, but you are saying it is still completely necessary to have these

groups, right? The last time you were on outspoken, we clashed over the fact that you were part of the LGBT plus Conservatives group, because I made the point that I didn't think it was conservative for there to be any such organisation. Connor is now saying that actually that accusation of racism is something. It's just like, you know, water off a duck's back. It doesn't matter. Whereas you did form and launch an organisation, which was all about conservatives being against racism. Dan, if I wanted to call someone racist, I'd call them racist. And you know, I'm not scared of doing that. So I was not calling, Dan, I was not calling Conner racist in that tweet. I was making observations about the types of people that criticize Carnival.

But I'm not making that observation. I'm making the point that you still believe that identity politics matters. That's the point that I make it. Well, you're the one that introduced me as a black, gay, conservative, and no one else. Because that matters so much. Yeah, but that matters so much to you, LB. Not even the people that Navarra media introduced me in that way. I'm not, I'm just not used to being introduced in that way. It really doesn't matter.

Okay, let's move on from the intro. Move on from the intro. But it matters to you. You know that it matters to you. You literally are part of these organizations. The debate that we had last time was, and if I remember correctly, a conversation. My point was, these are groups of people who socialise with each other, campaign with each other, and they just so happen to be gay. We have that in common. We're conservatives. That's what we do. That's it. You know, I don't think people begrudge Jewish groups.

How do you feel about someone? I'm Connor now, though, who rejects that and just says, actually, I don't care that there's an organisation, conservatives against racism. If you want to call me racist, that's fine. Does that disturb you? Does it worry you? How do you feel about it? Well, first of all, I didn't call Connor racist, and I wouldn't be scared of calling a racist if that's what I've thought. If that is what Connor thinks, and he's not said, that's what he thinks, I don't particularly care what he thinks on that. I enjoy being part of the LGBT plus conservatives. That's why I'm on the executive. We throw brilliant events.

We're very good at campaigning. And we actually have a good track record of getting people from our candidates fund into the parliamentary party. So at the end of the day, we're a political group of people that just so happen to be gay and just have to be conservatives and we enjoy each other's company. And I believe in freedom of assembly and I hope you do too. Conan, what do you think about these groups? Considering they're not my groups, I have very little sympathy with them. When Albi says, oh, people don't oppose Jewish groups, for example, it's not that I oppose them is that they're not.

tactics clearly work and okay you you assemble along the lines of a shared identity shared interests fine and essentially you take your own side and you recognize the um petitioning power confers advantages onto you okay fine that's that's the way the game's played i'm not going to hate the game um i just want the ability to do that for my own group and so i do i disagree dan with the idea that um identity politics is ipso facto bad all politics is form of identity politics brother scruton recognize this, you have to define who the we are, who you represent before you go into politics. And so you need to have a group with shared concerns in order to make those demands. And I just think that the groups that Albi's are of, I don't have anything in common with them. And I probably don't agree

with many of their aims, even if I think individual members might be nice people. But I don't hate the tactics. It's just how the game's played. Okay. And then Notting Hill Carnival itself. So LB suggests that there is some type of racism in terms of the criticism by pointing out that it does seem to be mostly white people who have a problem with the carnival. It's just an observation. Well, okay, my complaints about the carnival are twofold. One, as you've already mentioned, the behaviour. I mean, arrests are still going up every year. It was like well over 550 this year.

Record numbers actually this year. There you go. And the nature of the crimes is just disgraceful. So, look, when Alby mentioned, there are very few people that criticise Carnival and also criticise Glastonbury, for example. Okay, so I'm one of those people. I think almost every person in Glastonbury, their behaviour is not just incomprehensible. I don't know why you'd want to sit in a tent for three days, take drugs, and have piss thrown on you personally. But there you go. I think a massive waste of money. But I also think that the people that gather at that festival typically have politically reprehensible views only see last year when Bob Villain was chanting her, you went your country back, and shut the F-up, and like half the civil

service and Green Party voters were there nodding and bopping along. I think that they're absolutely disgraceful. The kinds of crimes they commit, though, I mean, they're taking drugs, which again, I think is awful for a person and society. They're not hacking each other's death with machetes. There probably are quite a lot of sexual assaults that go on at these festivals. The scale at Notting Hill Carnival was significantly larger, and I haven't heard yet, I'd like to be corrected, this is the case. Of instances, of police officers being bitten as if it's a zombie film at Glastonbury and the other festivals,

that has happened recently at Notting Hill Carnival, as well as all sorts of other things that, you know, using people's downstairs flats as toilets. And the fact that, as well, for Notting Hill Carnival, the local council has to spend thousands on evacuating the pensioners for the duration of the carnival and sending them to the seaside holiday and boarding the area up,

otherwise the businesses and houses get defaced, and smashed and the like. I just think it's a massive waste of money because of reprehensible behaviour on the part of some people who clearly have no impulse control and behaving like that's appropriate. And then my second objection is just, it's optional, actually. You say it's sort of inextricable because of historical events from British culture and, you know, Ireland's story and all that. But actually, no, it isn't. It's not particularly desirable. It's not the indigenous to Britain. It's something that has been created because of the tense ethnocultural settlement that happened in the mid to late 20th century and the advent of the wind rush.

But I think a lot of people are sort of raising eyebrows at whether or not that was a good thing. And so I think we can afford to assert our own cultural standards, our own preferences, and turn around and say, okay, insofar as people with other heritages can live here, you live according to the way that we would like to live. And funny enough, dressing up like you're a Batman villain or a goblin from the battle in labyrinth, slathering yourself in oil, wearing a Viking hat, dry-humping someone in the middle of the street and using a machete to cut up jerk in one minute

and then your postcode gang rival the next. Probably the way we should behave and so we should just ban it. I mean, when you actually look at the stats, Albi, it's getting worse, right? So this year there are a record 636 arrests across the two days.

242 on Sunday. That is the family day. 394 on Monday. That is up 20% on last year's already grim. 528. The offences included drug possession and supply, assaults on emergency workers, weapons, sexual offences, public orders. There were two knife attacks, one stabbing and one slashing, 68 weapons seized, including a handgun and a man died fleeing the police.

That's just the facts about this carnival. Yes, there's other facts, and I condemn all arrests and any criminality associated with carnival. one arrest is an arrest too many, but 636 arrests out of a population of 2 million people in a 48-hour period is not actually that dissimilar from the crime rate on a per capita basis than the crime rate in a city like Liverpool, which is about 500,000 people. So if we're actually going to talk about the numbers properly, we have to talk about them in context of the entire population size and the amount of time. not to say it's okay for there to be 636 arrests, handguns, stabbing, sexual assault, that is all

terrible. But you have to talk about the full context, which is this is an event, which lasts for 48 hours, involves 2 million people. And actually, the crime rate, when we look at it on that basis, is not that different to the crime rate over a similar period in a city like Liverpool. Connor? Okay. It's all in good making the per gapser argument. I'm glad we've reached that stage of discourse. There's quite a few people struggling with that particular question. I've never struggled with it.

I'm a financial analyst. I was saying quite a few people I wasn't saying you. I was merely making a joke. Okay, it's all fine. The point I would return with is, okay, let's say, yeah, one arrest, one crime is too many. Agreed. You have to make the affirmative case for why we should put up with it then. Because if it is optional whether or not to have this event,

and we know this event reliably results in escalating levels of course. criminality. And we know this event is a foreign import, right? And we know that it caters to the preferences of a foreign community, as you said in your post. You have to make the case to the majority population who don't like it, why we should keep tolerating it at great expense to taxpayer funds. Why should we allow this to go on? Well, it's the biggest British cultural event. It's been going on for 60 years, it was a 60th anniversary this year, there's this argument about how much it costs and you've made some points and throughout some figures. There's also another argument that it generates about 400 million pounds in economic output, so that more than covers the

costs of actually throwing the event. That is not to say the crime is not to say the crime is acceptable, but to talk about it, to talk about it as an event which has absolutely no benefit whatsoever and just brings crime and disorder. You ban football matches on that metric. You would ban sports matches on that metric. You would ban, you would ban drinking at the weekend based on those metrics. You ban pubs on those metrics. So are you just wanting to ban all fun because it leads, it could lead to more disorder and coronality? Because whenever people drink, whenever people get together in large groups, whether or not it is for football matches or for things like the Notting Hill Carnival,

similar things happen. So why do you apply this standard only to Carnival and not to England finals, for example? Three things. First of all, similar things don't happen because at England finals, people don't get hacked to death of machetes, a very different kind of crime, which is domestic violence goes up when England loses and when they win.

Okay, okay, I've heard that... They should be banned football. I've heard, hang on, hang on, I'm trying to get there. I've heard that statistic before. I need to see it, because as with... previous statistics like that, I mean, Christina Hoffsum has debunked a bunch of those in the late 90s, so I would raise an eyebrow. But let's take it as given. Okay, let's take it as given that domestic violence goes up during football. Number one, that's a degree different to people hacking each other to death with machetees. So those are different things, substantially different crimes that belong to one community rather than another. The second is about the point about economics. Given the social housing bill and benefits bill for the number of attendees, again, per capita basis, I would, I would wager that the presence of these people who attend carnival is far more costly than the benefits they confer upon the country. Third one, no, we shouldn't be banning football matches and things like that.

They're in a different category because they're not foreign event, as in England football matches are attended by England fans who are English. Carnival, you said it's British cultural event. It's not. It's foreign cultural event. As you said, it's Caribbean. It is called the Notting Hill Carnival. Yes. And events, and hang on. and events like this where criminality happens on this scale. You go to the Caribbean.

There's a festival like this in Barbados every week called Oystons. Crime and disorder does not happen at Oystons on the same way as we see at the Notting Hill Carnival. It is the way that people conduct themselves, I would say, in the Notting Hill Carnival, is a uniquely British way of behaving at these kinds of Caribbean carnivals. This is not how they happen on a weekly basis. in countries like Barbados? Not really? Jamaica? They're not famous for standings?

Are we making that claim? Seriously? I didn't mention Jamaica, you just did. No, I was not making that claim. I was not making that claim. But I think the fundamental question before getting obsessed about crime rates and various Caribbean islands,

the fundamental question, I think what everyone at home will be either nodding along or disagreeing with is this key question. And I think this is where the split is. Connor says the Notting Hill Carnival, a celebration of Caribbean culture, is not celebrating British culture.

Albi, you say it is. And isn't that the fundamental debate that we're having about what is British culture? The Notting Hill Carnival is the largest British cultural event and has been for nearly the last six years. Connor seems to think the only people that can call events British are people that look like him. Is that what you think of people that look like me, any of our celebrations in this country,

and the uniquely British way. But how can you say Caribbean culture is British culture? Hang on. Hang on. And the uniquely British Caribbean way that people behave, or British Asian way that people behave, or British Chinese way that people behave, which is not replicated in China, in India, in Africa, or the Caribbean is not British.

I say it is. Because it is uniquely British, the way that events like the Notting Hill Carnival happen. And as I mentioned before, this is not how these events play out in countries in the Caribbean, like Barbados, where I have actually been to some of those events. It's quite different entirely. So that's why it's British, Connor. The violent behaviour is not unique, unfortunately.

No, violent behaviour is not unique to anyone, but you seem to think it is. No, but on a per capita basis, it's much larger, as we've already established. And it's much larger. We've already established that the crime rate is as high as in Liverpool, over the same period on a per capita basis. So that's what we've established. Okay, but you've said crime break. We haven't spoken about specific type of crimes,

and now we're shifting the goalpost. And also, if we're speaking about specific type of crimes, these same populations across all the countries that they exist in do commit these types of crimes. So it is a community issue. Now, moving on from that, you can't say it is a uniquely British thing and then hyphenate it. Asian British, Caribbean British,

black British. It is not indigenous. It is at least some element, a foreign import and a foreign imposition. and it has been done against the wishes of the native population. The native population often do not attend these events because it is not for them. I've seen plenty of white people at the carnival. Those of the people that I go to that I've been to carnival with are white. Have you ever been?

No, why would I want to go? How can you criticise an event you've never even been to? You just look at all the coverage online. You look at your friends who bitch about it and you suddenly have an opinion about something you know nothing about. Yes, I don't want to go to an area that is notorious because of the arrest rate for drugs, gang crime,

violent crime and people getting killed. I would rather stay home. Weirdly enough. Weirdly enough, I think you should have knowledge of what it is that you are discussing. And I don't really think you should be commenting, you should be commenting on. events that you have never been to.

Do you know what, Connor? You and I should go to the Nottingall Carnival next year and we'll see if you get stabbed or killed. You won't. You won't even see it happen. Because the majority of people that happens to are involved in gang culture and most of the people at the carnival

don't even see it happen. We are talking about a population of 2 million people and a couple of hundred people being arrested in getting involved in this nonsense. And everyone there condemns it, everyone thinks it's stupid. But the idea that all 2 million people that go to the carnival are unsafe or involved in some sort of crime, violent crime, is a nonsense.

And you don't know what you're talking about because you've never been. You would know what I was talking about if I could finish a sentence. The other thing I was going to say is the reason I don't want to go is because it's not my culture, Alby. It's not my culture. I don't want to participate. Yes, it is. You'll be more than welcome. You be more than welcome.

It's not about welcomeers. I do not like it. And neither do most people. People find it alien. And it's because it is a foreign import. Just because it takes place in a place that has a British name, does not make it British. If you had a Somalian festival in Highbourne, for example, where we've just got this by-election going on, it would not suddenly become...

Hulburn. Hulburn. Misfonononononononononononononon-pronish. It would be the establishment of a Somali colony on British soil. And the same thing is happening with Notting Hill Carnival. It is clearly foreign people, people of foreign descent, doing foreign culture in a British city, and having to board up that city and have the elderly residents leave the area for their own safety. And so this is why, again, you haven't made the affirmative case for why we should put up with this.

If people do not like it and it is optional, the presence of the festival is optional, why should we tolerate it? Okay, well, let's pause there because this is a special edition of Outspoken. We are clashing between Conradicts, Tomlinson of Tomlinson talks on YouTube and Substack and Alby Ammancona, the conservative commentator, financial expert over the whole issue of the Notting Hill Carnival, what it means about

British culture, but also Albi, I noted that in your criticism of the coverage of the Notting Hill carnival, which you suggest may have been racist, you decided to invoke the suicide of the late Cambridge Professor Jason Radee. Writing, I've noticed a pattern this summer. Many of the people who were most vicious about Jason Radee are also the people most sympathetic to race realism. And now among the loudest voices demanding Carnival to be cancelled. Now, you've been on quite a journey yourself about Jason Rade, it's fair to say. Following the Cambridge Professor's suicide, you became one of the most prominent mainstream media figures,

slamming people for, especially people on the right, actually, for criticising him going too far. Your posts on X included, last weekend, people bit my head off for showing Jason Radee even a little compassion while condemning the allegations against him. I specifically said I was worried about his mental health and fed he might do something irreversible. Today, he is dead. Condem wrongdoing, demand accountability, but never lose your humanity. We have to do much, much better than this. RAP, Jason R. Day. You then went on the attack against Talk TV's Julia Hartley Brewer, who had discouraged people donating to Jason R. Day's funeral fund, writing, it's pretty unpleasant to discourage people from supporting Jason Rade's family after his death by donating to a fundraiser,

and that is putting it mildly. I have donated to the fundraiser proudly, and I have no regrets. And I do want to have an honest discussion here about Jason Rade, the coverage of Jason Rade, because it's something actually a lot of the conservative media has shied away from. But Alby, I am a little bit intrigued by your own personal position, and you know I adore you, but you were certainly on a holier-than-thou path, okay? Others were wrong, and I was right in my positioning, because I'd shown a little bit of sympathy to him during one particular Times radio interview that you pointed to. But Alby, you like many others, had also been highly critical of Jason Radee before his

death. And by the way, I'm not criticizing that. You wrote this on the 5th of August, 2026 in Spiked Online. The Jason Ardei farce is an embarrassment to Black Britain. The progressives who circled the wagons put tribal loyalty above the pursuit of truth. But within that article, you did make lots of direct criticisms of Ardei writing the tragic reality is that Jason in our day has potentially done far more damage to Black Britons than any racist agitator ever could. External critics and bad faith actors can only ever attack from the outside. Their prejudices are expected, discounted and easily identified, but Ardei's unchallenged rise, if the allegations turn out to be true,

has handed our harshest detract as the ultimate weapon. It provides a silver bullet to anyone looking to roll back, equality legislation or widening participation schemes, or to question every rightful appointment and call professionals like me diversity hires. No external opponent could ever be. ever inflict as much damage as this case potentially has. So I mean, as a black man, writing that before our day's death, you could argue that would have been one of the pieces of criticism that may have impacted him most significantly. So I just wonder, I just wonder, Albi, I'm imposing the

question, we're going to debate it, if you are conveniently now using Jason Ardei as part of your little race war without actually acknowledging what you wrote yourself on the 5th of August 2026 before it. I would have hoped you, I would have hoped you would have been a little bit better research than this. Do you want to get and read the first paragraph? What have I got wrong? Do you want to go and read the first paragraph of my article or have you decided to admit what I said? I've read the entire, I've read the entire article, Alby. I've read the entire article. I've read the entire article. Could you understand my issue with the way that you have? Well, your first paragraph, I've got it up. I've got it up on my iPad.

No, go and read it. I'd love you to read it. I've got it here. I've got it here because I thought you might want me to refer to the article. You say, I'll admit it. Initially, I pulled my punches. I felt pity. I feel pity for Jason our day. It must be awful to have every detail of your life picked apart by the media class during silly season because there is nothing else to write about for me. To have to add to the commentary is a matter of profound regret. But you did. I did also say that I felt pity for him from the beginning. And in all of my subsequent commentary, I said I both felt pity for him, but I also thought he had questions to answer. So actually, if you want to try and make out that my position has been inconsistent, my position was the same throughout.

That I felt pity for him, but he had questions to answer. And I don't appreciate the way that you are paraphrasing my position of Jason Arde when actually it was consistent throughout. Well, I've literally read your own words, I've read your own words. It's a very long article, but I've read your post. on it. I've quoted yourself and I've quoted from your spiked online article. And I'm just saying I think it is a little bit

rich for someone who was writing that type of commentary about Jason Ardae which don't get me wrong I agree with to post his death, use him as part of a race culture war because what on earth does he have to do

with the criticism of the Notting Hill Carnival? Why have you decided to lump these two things together? in this conversation that we're having. I stand by everything I've said about the Notting Hill Carnival and Jason Ardee because I think it is right. No one else linked them, LB. I don't. No one else linked them.

I made an observation from what I had seen with my own eyes that many of the people who I had seen criticized Jason Ardee in the weeks before the Notting Hill Carnival were the same people who were the most critical of the Notting Hill Carnival. But you criticised Jason Arde and you love the Notting Hill Carnival. Carnival. I have criticized a Notting Hill Carnival many times. I think you need to go and look back and do a little bit more research. We could have more than one position at once and have a little bit of nuance, just like I had on the Jason Ardee situation and just like I have with Carnival. I just think it's low. I just think it is low. I think it is low. I think it is low. I think it is low. I think it is low. I think it is of the Notting Hill Carnival. What I think is low is selectively quoting me and trying to suggest that I had a change of heart. You asked me to read out the first paragraph from the article and I did. You asked me to read out the first paragraph of the article I did.

But why don't you read out on the first place, Dan? Because it's very clear that you attacked Jason Ardey before his death and then after his death, tried to act holier than thou. And you're now using him as part of a race war by raising him in relation to the Notting Hill Carnival. What have I got wrong? What have I got wrong? You've got a vivid amount. A race war.

God, you must have a very exciting mind because I don't know how you come up with this stuff. I'm not in a race war. I'm making observations about the things that I see. I'm writing about them. And I'm talking about them in the media. And that's what I do. It's what you do.

I'm not doing some sort of race war. You're the one that introduced me as a black. gay conservative commentator. You're the one that seems to be obsessed by people's identities. Not me. I'm just making observations based on what I see, writing about it and talking about it. But don't misquote me and selectively quote things that I say in my articles

and in my media interviews. Because I know what I say. Okay, but explain then how the death of Jason Ardei has anything to do with the criticism of Notting Hill Carnival. Explain that to me. I said I made an observation. Because that many of the people who were most critical of Jason Arde and showed absolutely no sympathy after he died were also similar kinds of people as the people who were most critical of the Notting Hill Carnival. I made an observation.

Do you disagree with the observation? What is it that you want to ask me here? Because that was my observation and I express an observation. So I guess what I disagree with, if I'm honest, because I've seen this happen before. trust me, I've been up close to this. It's very, very easy once someone takes their own life for that person to be used by others in a whole load of ways to make points, culture war points, which actually have nothing to do with their death. And what point do you think I'm making? Well, I think you're making the point that people who criticised Jason R. Day were racist

and that people who criticise Notting Hill Carnival are racist and that they are in some ways linked. And what I'm saying to you, Albie, is that I saw you criticise Jason Ardei before his tragic death. And then I saw you do a bit of a U-turn. I did no such U-turn. I think you did. I did no such U-turn.

I was critical before Jason Rade died and I said I felt pity for him before he died. But you were definitely trying to shut down people like Judy Hartley-Bruer. And I criticised him after he died. like what is the inconsistency there? You really need to pay attention to what it is that I say before you make points

about me doing U-turns. I was critical before and I was critical after. I felt pity before and I felt pity after. More pity after because he's now dead, naturally.

But I felt pity before and insane. Genuine question, not a loaded question, genuine question. Do you think it was more acceptable for you to be critical

of Jason Ardae as a black man before his death than it was for a white person to do so because you were criticizing him sort of from the place. My reading of your spiked article is you were basically criticizing him from the place as a black man that he has now made your life more difficult as a black man because as you point out more people will say, oh, Albi's only there, not because of his great talents, but because he's a diversity hire. Is there in some way where you are, it's more acceptable for you to criticize Ardea as a black man. Is that the point you were trying to make?

No. I would never make that point. Do you agree with that? I would never make that point and I don't agree with that point. I was making a criticism at Jason Ardei, also his publisher, Simon & Schuester, also the University of Cambridge from my perspective. And I actually found the response of some in the black community. Again, this is in the article. You can all read that on Spiked Online. I didn't feel that my point of view was being adequately represented by the black voices I was hearing in the media when it came to Jason Ardee, and I felt it was important that I put my point of view across, which was a point of view that was shared by many other black people I knew, no, and also people within my own family. I don't think my point is any more valid on Jason Ardee because I'm black,

but I think that it is important that all the different viewpoints of the black community are put across in the media because we don't all think the same way. Okay, Connor, I want to ask you, is Al be fair to say that this pattern is correct, that the people who were most vicious about Jason Radee are also the people most sympathetic to race realism and are also the people who are demanding, like you, that Notting Hill Carnival be cancelled. Well, first of all, Danny, anything I'm offended about is involuntary exposure to spiked online. I can't believe you did that to me.

The other one is, I don't know what, what does Alby mean by race realism? Because if we're going to talk about the term, I want to understand that we have a shared definition of what's objection. You're the one that has a question, Conner, say, what do you understand race realism to do? No, no, because you used the term. So I wanted to know what you meant by it,

because it's being used in discourse around Jason Radee to attack, why is his name? Nathan Coughlin. Nathan, yeah, attack Nathan Coughness. And of course, Diane Abbott. used it at the rally for Jason Ardeh after he died and the crowd booed it. I don't think anyone there has read any of Koffness's output or read a Poirier magazine or anything like that. So I wanted to know what you meant by race realism is in the post. So I know what we're discussing here.

Well, my understanding of race realism is from what I've read and I have actually read a lot of Nathan Koffner's work, is this idea that the way that people behave is solely hereditarian and can be drawn across racial lines. Is that what you understand race realism to be? Well, I don't think that's what Kauffman says. I don't think he says it solely. And clearly there are ethnic differences between people. I mean, I think you've written before about sick or cell anemia, for example. So we know that we're predisposed to different diseases. So there are differences between ethnic groups. So I don't think recognizing those differences is itself a moral judgment. And so I don't know why it was lumped in there.

It seems in that sentence that you could have just substituted race realist out for racist, which would be a moral judgment of races. But race realism, as Nathan Koffens has written about, and other people have written about, doesn't say that one or the other race is morally inferior or superior. They just said they're different. Well, my reading of Nathan Koffner's work when it comes to intelligence is that he puts groups at the bottom, and those tend to be black groups or sub-Zaharan African groups,

and other groups at the top. And I would probably say, if you're going to put one group at the bottom of an intelligence hierarchy and one group at the top of an intelligence hierarchy, you are saying one is better than the other. But we don't need to get into that because I can't, it's not.

I don't know if it's relevant to the conversation. And the point that I was making was is that the people who I saw on social media interacting largely with my posts about Jason Arde about the Nottingill Carnival, about another article I wrote for Spiked on race realism were the same people and the same profiles who were being highly critical of things I was saying

that I thought were eminently reasonable. And these were observations that I made based on my Twitter feed. And so we can have a conversation about what I saw, but that is what I saw and that is what I spoke about and that is what I also wrote about. Yeah, that's why I wanted to get to the bottom of what you meant because I haven't read your article on Spike

about race realism. And there wasn't a further explanation. there, so that's why I asked the definition. But, I mean, first of all, in terms of intelligence scores, I mean, those are the numbers. We can debate about the reasons for the numbers. It might be education, it might be nutrition, it might be ethnic differences, who knows. I'm not qualified on that. But you are making a moral judgment about that position. And so saying that people that criticise the Notting Hill Carnival are commonly the people who engage in race realism which you have defined as making moral judgments as one race being inferior

or superior to another, which is bad. And also they're the people who heavily criticised Jason Ardei because presumably if they believe in race realism, they have a racist critique of Jason Ardei rather than the critique that you had in your spiked article. So the idea is that you were observing that many people who criticised Nottingill Carnival and criticised Jason Ardei did so

because they thought black people were inferior rather than they had a principled stance like you did. There are some people quite clearly from what I've seen in my... experience, especially on social media, who do think black people are inferior, and they tell that to me on a daily basis. And so, yes, that is my observation of some people, but not all people. There are other people who I would consider to be my friends, who I would put in the same category, by the way. The simple fact of the matter is, I was making an observation based on what I saw.

You're coming up with all of these ideas as to why I made that observation and what I may think, but I don't know, I don't think any of them were accurate. I was simply making an observation. and noting my observation down. And you can come up with all these theories about what I thought about it. I just made an observation. But it's not a theory. I'm just, I'm extra... Well, they are theories.

You just came up with the theory. No, I was extrapolating the moral judgment that you think race realism in as far as it is racist is wrong, which is not an unfair thing to attribute to you, right? So it's not a theory. It's to say, this is the moral judgment you made in that post. And if you think that's the case, And if you think that it's like not all people that criticise Notting Hill Carnival or Jason

Ordey's fraudulent appointment to Cambridge, are your definition of race realists, which is a moral, if you think that's the case, then why did you attach the observation to my post, which had nothing to do with it? What do you mean? I was making an observation and put it in a post. Why was the observation

related to me at all? I made an observation based on a post that you posted and it made me think about something. What did that have to do with my post? What did my post have to do with your post? You were critical of Carnival, and I wrote about, I wrote a post about people that are critical of Carnival.

About things that I haven't said, yeah. So what, what do you mean? I, Connor, I quote tweeted your tweet. Yes. And I wrote something that I thought. What point are you trying to make? I'm saying the point that you made was completely beside any point that I made.

And you're, you're sat across from me. So what would, okay, what would, if I were to say, for example, that I do not have sympathy for Jason Rade at all, because he got himself in that position. He was an utter fraud, a congenital liar, and actually his suicide, of course, you know, pray for everyone's soul that takes their own life, because I had a family member that does that. But beyond that, he chose to leave his family behind, rather than, you know, admit fault. So I don't have sympathy for him. What would you make of that position? Because that position is not any of the positions that you listed in your

quote retweet in my original post. I would say I thought it was unchristian. Well, that's not the case. Well, we'll agree to disagree on that. Well, you're not a Christian there. I am a Christian. Okay. Well, again, I'm not going to be rude as the only straight man on the panel,

but I would perhaps visit the Bible's writings about sexual morality as to whether or not that. Yes, and it would appear that we both do un-Christian things. I think, as I mentioned before, I think you're, opinions on Jason Arde and not having any sympathy for him whatsoever are unchristian. Christ calls us to pray for our enemies. It's one of the things that the priest in my church says almost every week. And I actually mentioned in my commentary on Jason Arde that I did several times go to church to pray for Jason Arde.

That's what I just said though. I just said we pray for the souls of anyone who's committed suicide, but I don't have You don't have any sympathy for them whatsoever. Yeah, I don't have sympathy. I think I think that point of view is un-Christian. I think your lack of, I think your lack of empathy for a man who was clearly in a very terrible state. Yes, even if it was of his own accord, people sin, you're supposed to hate the sin, love the sinner. And you have not demonstrated that whatsoever.

So that is why I say, I thought your position, think your position is unchristian. And that clearly we both do unChristian things. And I know you've done unChristian things in the past. You may have repented for them now, but you certainly have done them. So let's not talk about sexual morality. That is the point. The injunction is to repent, go forth, sin, no more. You're meant to show contrition for the wrongs that you've done.

Jason Arde didn't show any contrition. Well, how do we know what he did in private? We know nothing about what he did in private. We know nothing about, we know nothing about his final movies. We know nothing about what he may or may not have told his family before it happened. You are just speculating and coming up with theories like you have done in this entire discussion. Just making things up. I'm not making things up.

You are. You're just making things up. I'm not. To the things that I have said. Okay. All right. Stop making things up or reading between the lines you will say. Anyway, the point is, Jason Arde's scandal was a matter of public spectacle because he was

in a very prestigious position in one of the best, well, formerly best, but most well-renowned universities in the world. It was international headline news. We don't disagree on this, so what is your point? So what I'm leading up to is when you're saying, oh, we don't know if you repented in private, if your sins are a matter of public spectacle, then you must repent in public. He didn't. At no point, did he?

Instead, he actually, previously, the Times journalist that tried to get the scoop before Nathan Kaufner, he sent the police around to his door. So it's clearly not repenting for your wrongdoing before he exited this neutral court. Connor, you can both feel sorry for someone that you're highly critical of. and that was my point of view from the beginning and that was my point of view afterwards I had absolutely no idea you had such a lack of nuance

I always remember you to be quite an intelligent and thoughtful young man you don't seem to be anymore it's not an insult it's an observation okay well let's pause there but you are one dimensional that was an incredibly one dimension argument

and I'm sorry if you don't like me observing that it's not it's just catty and petty and okay if you want me to trust me I am not being catty Okay, well, let's pause there. Let's pause there for one moment. This is a special edition of Outspoken with two former conservative friends, Connor Tomlinson and Albi Ammancona going head to head on what is also the 25th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks. And we all have that moment, don't we? We all have that moment in our life,

if we are of a particular age, where we know when our life. We're in our life. life changed. And for me, it was particularly crazy, actually, because as many of you know, I was born in New Zealand, spent my first 21 years in New Zealand to British parents. And as a result, the 9-11 attacks happened while we were all asleep. And it was 2001. I was in my first year of university. And a guy experiencing the world for the first time, studied. And it was in. And I was in my first year. And for my political science degree at Victoria University of Wellington but still living at home. And my mum knocks on the door at 7.30 a.m. in the morning. And it's before smartphone alerts or anything like that had been invented. I mean, I think I had a brick phone where you could play

snake at that point. And she brought into my room the physical copy of the Dominion newspaper, which had been thrown into our front yard in the plastic bag, and she pulled it down and I've got a photo of it here. The first I knew of what had happened in New York was that physical newspaper front page, America under attack. But we all knew. We all knew that our lives had changed that day. Many of us learned for the first time, me as an 18-year-old,

about the true horrors and the true aims of ismism. And of course, for a generation, it has dominated our lives in so many ways. And it did cause a fallout between Connor and Albiam and Kona, specifically over airport security, which is one of the ways that we all remember 9-11 on a daily basis. because of course before 9-11, it was pretty easy to get on a plane with very limited checks. Connor posted on X. Just endured a pre-departure extra security screening at Heathrow Airport. My bags were unpacked, suit, jacket belt and boots removed,

and everything swabbed by two Muslimun in hijabs, and a man who barely spoke English. I fly a lot. And most airport staff are not British. How is that not a security risk? Why are these people subjecting me to the procedures put in place because of jihadist attacks? Why are foreign people working at passport control? We should not have to suffer these daily indignities.

We had a high trust, safer country before multiculturalism. It doesn't have to be this way. Albi Amman Kona responded. White guy gets searched at an airport and this is his response. Lord have mercy! I rarely use the phrase wide privilege, but honestly, what else explains this? I support tight airport security, random searches, intelligence-led searches, more stop-and-search, and I wouldn't complain if I was searched.

It's giving secure our borders and keep us safe so long as it doesn't impact me. What does that then mean, Albi? I'm young. I'm not young. Gt, F, O H. Get the F out of here. Alby! Oh my God. Okay. But it's meant as a kind of jockey. Okay, a little bit of swearing. It's something that a real house wide might use. It's meant to be quite fun.

That's showing my age. That's showing my age. Yes, I didn't realize you were at university during 9-11. Yeah, it was first year. First year of university. I was 18 years old, 2001. I'm 43 now. You went on 9-11.

The reason for extra tight airport security happened in 2001, long before mass migration and probably before Conner's living memory. It reminds me of Zoomers talking about asylum seekers. Like it's a brand new. issue. It isn't. I'm not much older than them, but I remember the early 2000s. None of this is new. Forgetting history doesn't bode well. FFS. Oh, Alby, you were on a rude one there. Buy a history book. All their acronyms, Dan, stop clutching your purse. No, I swear, sometimes on this show when I get wound up. Or look at the BBC News website, Librarians, all there online and free to access. Enjoy your holiday and put a sock in it.

Connor replied 9-11. The reason for extra tight airport security happened in 2001, long before mass migration, and probably before Conner's living memory, yes, Albion, who did 9-11, have any Christian Englishmen hijack planes and killed thousands lately? No, it's Islam. Why am I being subjected to prison conditions by people who barely speak my language and who share the religion of the terrorists that these measures were introduced to stop? Why are any foreign people in charge of the security of my country? This is all a choice. We could have a better country, but any time someone points out how horrible a no-trust civilization has become because we imported and accommodated people who hate us, you dive in, front of it like a bullet, and level accusations of racism.

It just makes you look like you want this awful state of affairs to continue. Do you? He asked. Albi replied with a question, are you saying we should not have tight airport security? It is a global standard. How do you propose we lose to airport security in line with what you'd prefer whilst maintaining Heathrow as one of the leading global hub airports? Put down the call aid. And they're now here to debate this conversation on the 25th anniversary of 9-11.

So, Connor, what are you saying? What are you saying? Are you saying that anyone foreign should be banned from working at a British airport, at a Western airport? Explain how you would like to see this play out. Because I obviously totally understand the point that you were making. But in practice, Albi, I guess, is talking about the need to keep airport secure. No, and look, I get the need for tight airport security. However, we could not allow people into the country, let alone working at airports, border control, or airport security,

from the nations that reliably commit these kinds of attacks, and so drastically less than our likelihood of them. And we could also, you know, having recognized that difference, we would, if we recognize that difference, we wouldn't have to subject ourselves to so many of these inconvenient checks, conducted by people who come from the groups who represent this unwelcome change, right? So I resented having been searched inconvenienced by someone who, one, couldn't speak English. Guy was retarded, right? I don't put that mildly. And two, two Muslim women who, at this point down, I see such people as sort of like brand ambassadors for the unwelcome demographic and cultural changes as making the country writ large a worse place.

So it's additionally annoying atop the fact that it's just a security risk to have said people here in those roles. I mean, a parallel example to that. One near and dear to my heart, a couple of years ago, there was a Taylor Swift concert in Austria and there was a thwarted ISIS attack happening. And one of the reasons they knew the security schematics

of the arena was because one of the collaborators was working security for the arena. Now, any time you walk around, let's say the O2 or something, you see what Max 10, is called urban scarecrowes, right? Indians or Somalis in these sort of high-vis vests that have been hired as cheap security by the firms. And I'm sorry, if a population poses a disproportionate, per capita,

security risk to these kinds of events or airports, then they just shouldn't be hired. What are we doing? Okay, that's Connor's point. Alvi, yours? I think it's extremely distasteful to be having a debate about 9-11. and the consequence of 9-11

on the 25th anniversary of 9-11. I will say that first. I wasn't quite sure what this segment was going to be, but I think it's extremely distasteful to be having a cultural... To be having a cultural debate on an anniversary of 9-11, there's just something just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe I'm being a bit of a snowflake about it, but it doesn't sit right with me.

But I think we've got to discuss... But we will... Obviously, we care about the victims of 9-11, right? Of course we do. But there's been a hell of a lot of Islamist terrorism since then. And I think we also have to talk about the wider themes. Yeah, I think we can talk about the wider themes, but I just want to keep it respectful.

People died, thousands of people died. It was a huge loss of life. I remember it vividly and being shocked by it. I was obsessed with aeroplanes as a child. I'm still a bit obsessed with them now, to be honest. Sometimes I think I might retrain as a pilot every time I get sick of doing this sort of thing. Having the thought now, actually.

But so this this was an event that I remember so vividly and it having such a profound effect on everything. I mean, everything changed after that. We went to war with Iraq. There was the war on terror. We would get onto public transport and people would be concerned about sitting next to people who were visibly Muslim.

It was an awful time. Everyone was scared. Everything changed. And I just think when we're talking about events like this, we've got to do it with a certain level of respect. And I do think we need to get into some cultural debate about it. What happened was terrible. It was an Islamist terrorist attack that should never have happened. The intelligence should have prevented it from happening before.

And there have been too many Islamist terrorist attacks since then. And last migration has been far too high since then, yes, from parts of the world where people hold these sorts of jihadist views that I think are fundamentally incompatible with Western and British values. I think that's probably something that we rule would be on. Isn't it terrible then that in your entire life, I mean, how old were you, I'll be in 2001? I was 5 or 6 at the time. Okay, so as a 5 or 6 year old,

the government had a choice. The government had a choice. Did they protect British people by securing our borders? And I'm not just talking about illegal immigration. I'm fundamentally talking here about legal immigration, because an eagle immigration has got a lot worse in recent years. But they had a fundamental choice.

And what they did is they talked tough. You know, Tony Blair led the so-called war on terror, while at the same time, literally importing these people by the millions into our country to then plan attacks from 7-7 to Lee Rigby, to Ariana Grande, to London Bridge. I mean, the list goes on. and we have been disgustingly betrayed. And I do just wonder, because you are on the softer side of the right,

but do you at least agree with me that there has been an Islamist takeover of the disunited kingdom, that we are at threat and that something desperate needs to be done to avoid our country becoming an Islamist hell of whole. I don't think we need to be talking in these really over-dramatic terms. I don't think there's been an Islamist takeover. What about scenes like this? You know, I mean, come on. This is ridiculous. What you are, what you are showing, as I am saying,

and I think it's extremely bad faith, as I'm saying, there's not been an Islamist takeover of the United Kingdom. I mean, you're showing a picture of people praying in a street for crying out loud. Why don't you show a picture of Wiltshire? Go to White Chapel today. Go to White Chapel today. Why don't you get a picture of Wiltshire or the Cots, Cotswolds?

It would be about as relevance of what I'm saying. So stop with these bad faith. Stop with these bad faith interpretations of what I'm saying. When actually what I've said, you have not disagreed with. I asked you a question. I don't disagree with what you said previously. The point is those people are here now because they were reported over the course of prior to and during our lifetimes. You know, I was three when 9-11.

I couldn't exactly get a say on the response. What did any of this have to do with 9-11? Why is there a picture of a small boat and then a plane flying into a building? Well, I think the two things are completely linked. And I think we are at risk every single day. Every single day when we leave our house, we are at risk because our governments, Albi, talk tough. A small boat. Got involved in foreign wars.

Got involved in foreign wars that actually destroyed our economy, killed lots of people. I mean, let's not even get into those wars today, Iraq, Afghanistan. While at the same time, literally importing those enemies of our Christian culture into our Christian culture into our country so that they can now plan and plot to blow us up in mosques on our high street. And it is happening every single day. And if you don't think that's relevant to 9-11, then I'm sorry, I think that you are being naive. I do not think small boats. I'm sorry, I don't think small boats, 20, 25 years after 9-11. I didn't say small boats. I did not say small boats. I said legal immigration.

What I'm responding to is what I'm seeing on the screen. And when I'm talking, I'm seeing pictures of small boats and then a picture of a plane. You're also seeing pictures of mass prayer and Trafalgar Square. What the connection is. We agree. Yes, Conner. Come in. We agree that mass migration has been too high.

We agree that Islamist terrorism is a problem. Why are you trying to manufacture some sort of cultural debate about 9-11? This is what I mean by distasteful. Well, you two had to say. what I did not want to happen. You two had the debate. I think it's disgusting. Well, you, you responded to Connor.

I responded to the pictures you put on screen. That's what irritated me. But I'm talking about your initial debate. Connor, come in. Yeah. The difference between a photo of Wiltshire and a photo of Whitechapel, for example, or wherever those black-clad lads were preying in the street, is that if you took a photo of Wiltshire

and you photoshopped out all of the new arrivals who are, you know, visiting the Colts Wales as well you would see England that is not England this is a foreign import which is What is this to do with 9-11? Because hang on

People like a pro-Palestine march and a protest If you allow me to finish a sentence I might be able to tell you okay seriously Okay these people have been brought here Despite knowing by our treacherous government Despite knowing their propensity for terror

Right despite knowing their incompatibility With the values or culture or whatever That we both agree exist and they have been brought here by a home office that has been wholly ideologically captured, including the counter-terror apparatus prevent, by a 700-strong Islamic network of Islamic activists who liberalize immigration laws for Muslim asylum seekers, deny entry to Christian asylum seekers from Muslim lands, fleeing forced conversion,

and have said any monitoring of Islamic terror is itself institutionally racist, despite the same person in the seminar who said that recognized a school friend in an ISIS propaganda video. So when Dan may be using hyperbole, when he says Islamist takeover and things like that, but if you have, jihadist sympathizers in government, according to Sir William Shawcross, who says, you know, Prevent has been watered down

by Hizbert Trier, a now prescribed terror organization, who were celebrating the aftermath of the October 7 massacres, and they are responsible for the presence, the continued presence of Muslim asylum seekers, Muslim legal migrants in the country who are preying out in the open, who are forming said jihadist groups, then there is a symbiosis here. It's that we didn't learn the lesson of 9-11

and all of the other terror attacks. They could be prevented if these people were not here. And that's why a difference of... The picture of Wiltshire is different to the picture being shown on screen because the picture being shown on screen doesn't need to happen. It's a choice. If we learn the right lesson, through a debate about these things, we can make a different choice and not have to see these images.

But these images, honestly, don't bother me. It's not something I would get involved in, and it's not my cup of tea, I do not get aggrieved by seeing Muslims in the street at pro-Palestine marches any more than I get aggrieved at people at Unite the Kingdom. We live in a country where there's freedom of assembly. People are allowed to go and protest. I celebrate that.

It doesn't bother me. But I just want to bring this back to the disagreement that we had in your tweet, because that's what I thought we were going to talk about. And your core argument seems to be that if we get rid of Muslims in Britain, we are no longer at risk from a 9-11-style terror attack. Is that your position? Significantly less, yes. Right.

So one of the reasons that airport security first started existing was because planes were being hijacked in the latter half of the 20th century. I didn't say we should have a problem. With being subject to airport security yourself. But let me finish the point. Hang on. No, no, no, there's no.

Hang on. I've not finished the point. I've not finished the point. We have airport security to keep people safe when they're in the air and when they're on the ground. There is nothing that would stop if we did not have this airport security. An airplane being hijacked from a mainly Islamic country where you perhaps hate everyone, flying over to the United Kingdom and crashing it. We have airport security for a reason.

I support tight border control, tighter border control that we've seen. I support airport security. I support people like me getting service. stopped and searched at airports. I support people by you getting stopped and searched at airports. I don't know what your problem was with these people who were searching you specifically at this airport. If you look suspicious, you should be searched. It's not conducted by British people.

That was my problem. I could have saved you the lengthy. So you just want white people to work at the airport. I want British people to do it, yeah. You want white people. You just want to say white people. No, I want the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish to do it. It's very different.

Right. You want white British people to conduct airport security. Is that fair? As long as you have British heritage, sure. Right. So you're saying that those people, you were upset. So I'll be as someone who's half white, is that okay? Yeah, go on. Could I search you? Would I be, would I get the privilege of patting you down? Well, buy me a drink first. Sure. You don't drink anymore. Yeah, I was making a joke, obviously.

I know. I was making another joke. God, used to be fun. Oh, look. Well, that is, do you know what? Let's leave it on that note. Let's leave it on that note. I found it really fascinating. I found it really fascinating.

Alby, I know you may have found part of it offensive, but personally, I think it is completely wrong to separate 9-11. I'm sick of this. I am sick of, oh, on these particular days, we can only sort of go along. along with a narrative, which is that Islam is the religion of peace and harmony and the fact that it's been important to this. No, but that is what a lot of people say on 9-11. They almost, they almost go the other way. It's like Stella Creasy this week. What has frustrated me is that

lots of things in throughout this discussion have been attributed to me that I simply hadn't said. Well, I've only quoted from me. I didn't say. I've only quoted from you. I've only ever quoted from you. Electively quoted things that I have said. Anyway, the point is, well, I've only quoted you. I mean, come on. I'm literally reading your posts on it and I'm reading your articles. You selectively quoted an article and tried to construct a narrative that I've committed a U-turn when I did nothing of the sort. And anyone actually engaged with my content properly would see that. Well, look, I recommend people go and read the whole article on Spiked Online and they can judge for themselves. But I mean, you can completely understand Alvi that I am producing a show here. I'm not able to, I mean, how many words was it?

1,500 words. You know, I had to choose a segment which I believed represented the thrust of the piece. But then when you requested that I read out the first paragraph, I had it immediately. I had it immediately and I was able to pull it up. So I think it's really unfair to say that I have in any way tried to mischaracterize you. I've literally started the discussions. In every other broadcast interview, in every other broadcast interview I've had on my interventions on Jason Ardee, every single broadcaster has been able to represent. the nuance of my position. Well, that's crap. And I know, good morning, Britten. That crap.

I know that you are better than what you have done this evening. Good morning, Britain. Yes, I was there this morning. I had a lovely time. Well, I'm sorry. The idea that you think that they are doing better journalism about a subject like Jason our day, I think is quite, quite delicious.

I think they represented what I said in a more nuanced way and how I said it. And they never put anything in my mouth like you have. during this episode. Okay, so you're saying I've misrepresented you on Jason Arde. You're entitled to do what you like on your own show, but I didn't like it. And I'm just making that new to you. Well, I just find it quite astonishing because I read out your ex post and then I quoted from

and then I read out your two of your ex post. I mean, after Ardae died, there were a whole load of posts. I had to choose them. So I chose two of them. One which was on the day of his suicide. one that was criticising Julia Hartley Brewer, which was part of the wider culture war, showing that you had got involved in that. You had used the death to attack other people in the media who you didn't like the way that they were dealing with it. Julia Hartley Brewer being that particular target. And then I showed the headline for the spiked online piece. You must acknowledge that a headline is very important. It is used by editors to represent the overall tone of a piece. And I presume if you had any reservations about it, you could have said to spiked online you weren't happy with it. And then I read out one of the key paragraphs from the post. But I literally had the article here, right here, so that you wanted me to read other part of it, I did. So none of this is about trying to

misrepresent you. The whole premise of the Jason Rde discussion that you, you tried to make it out that I felt no pity for Jason Rade before his death. And then after the death had a change a position. And that's simply not what took place. No, I think. And that is what I, and that is what I didn't like. I think you turned. I think all of a sudden, you acted as if you had. And you had a had been holier than now before his death. Again, you're doing it again. I've actually proved to you how that's not the case. Well, it's an opinion.

It's annoying me. Yeah, it's an incorrect opinion. And I know that you're more intelligent than that. Okay. I only used your words, Alby, but thank you so much. Yes, you use them incorrectly. How am I going to, how are I meant to plug you? Because I know I got in trouble for that.

You do it however you like to. Well, no, you tell me where can people find you? Where can they follow your work, Alvey? They can follow me at Albi, Ammonko now, and you've got it on the screen. So thank you for doing that. But yes, this has been a fun and fiery debate. It's just like old times. I always love having you.

And of course, Connor Tomlinson is the host of Tomlinson talks on YouTube and Substact. Thank you both so much. Now, I am away on Monday. And so we have a very special edition of Outspoken. coming, if you thought that was heated, just wait until you see, based and bushy, the right-wing firebrand, up against a leftist and an Islamist. Here is a sneak peek of what's coming. If you constantly mock, if you constantly insult, and if you constantly have nothing positive to say about the British people, about British culture, about British history, you should be deported. You want people

just to be like, you know, like literally North Korea. Can you just name, I have good things about the British Empire. I can't really think of anything right now. Not one. There's something mentally wrong with you because you have to be mentally ill to continue to remain in a country that you have nothing nice to say about.

Go to a country where you would never see an English flag or Union Jack. You're talking to a certified mental health practitioner here. You don't seem very happy. Someone who was a mental health practitioner would go into a country where we'll make her happy. I am happy here and I'm happy to speak my truth. You don't seem very happy here

because every time I see you on an interview, You have something negative to say about the country. Reparations don't have to be necessarily financial. They could be a formal apology in Parliament. I'm telling you as a black woman, I don't need an apology. Can you give me 50 pounds? Because you're a Muslim and a lot of Muslims actually enslaved a lot of black people. So because of that, you owe me 50 pounds.

You have a chance. Sir Lenny Henry, a man who I think was given everything by this country, has demanded for the UK government to pay 18 trillion pounds in. slavery reparations. This bitch was to bankrupt the country. 250,000 pounds per person, we don't have their money. They want our cold hard cash. They don't give a shit about an apology. Black Britishisms don't deserve a penny from anybody. But it's all your ancestors. My ancestors are dead.

The point of the Pride Festival and the parades and the celebrations is to make sure that they are seen and heard. So if they want to be seen and heard, how come the only thing I see in here is just penises? What I see is people grind. Well, you just a few. Well, your leader was literally grinding on a stage with half-naked men's choice. Would I be okay with what Zach Palanchi did? Do you condemn it yes or no? I don't think when it comes to sexualization in public, exposure for children, I would be against that.

I've never scored. I'm not saying that. It's jet-degenerate then. No, I'm not. Oh my goodness. It kicks off. It completely kicks off a special edition of The Clash Take Down coming on Monday because I am away for a wedding.

So I'm just like praying that the news got. Odds don't, you know, start World War III or something like that. Hopefully not. But we still have the Royal Arm cancelled after show running over on substack. You can head there now at www.outspoken. In the meantime, I hope you have a wonderful weekend. Please do subscribe to Dan Whitten, Outspoken as a podcast too. You can find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your podcast.

You can subscribe on YouTube to. Turn on the notification bell. Have a wonderful weekend. Thank you for your company all weekend. I promise to always keep fighting for you.