TRIGGERnometry - “The Biggest Scandal You’ve Never Heard Of” - Charlotte Gill

Episode Date: October 16, 2024

Charlotte Gill is an independent journalist and the creator of ‘Woke Waste’, a project that exposes the misspending of public tax money on woke initiatives and studies. Charlotte also writes for the Sunday Telegraph. Charlotte’s articles and Woke Waste updates can be found on her website: https://www.charlottecgill.co.uk/ Follow Charlotte on Twitter/X: https://x.com/charlottecgill Follow Woke Waste on Twitter/X: https://x.com/WokeWaste Join our Premium Membership for early access, extended and ad-free content: https://triggernometry.supercast.com OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here: Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Music by: Music by: Xentric | [e-mail] | https://www.xentricapc.com/ YouTube: @xentricapc  Buy Merch Here: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/ Advertise on TRIGGERnometry: [e-mail] Join the Mailing List: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/#mailinglist Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media:  https://twitter.com/triggerpod https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod/ https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod/ About TRIGGERnometry:  Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ryan Reynolds here for MintMobil. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same premium wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities, so do like I did and have one of your assistants' assistants assistants switch you to MintMobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do at mintmobile.com slash switch. Up front payment of $45 for three-month plan equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available.

Taxes and fees extra. See full terms at MintMobile.com. What are the most egregious nonsense that my hard, my hard-earned money is being used to pay? The Europe that gay porn built, 1945 to 2000. So we're spending 700 grand researching pregnant men. Gay pig masculinities. There's a lot of weird footage that came out of the study in the webinar. Really? That's a surprise.

But what does that mean, the colonising contraception? Some of these are unbelievable. Bedwetting and incontinence in 1870 to 1970. It's an insult to taxpayers. I call it the biggest scandal you've never heard of. Charlotte Gill, welcome to Trigonometry. Thank you for having me. I'm a mega fan, so I'm very excited to be here.

Well, we're big fans of yours because you're actually doing some very important work. You're doing a lot of research into how taxpayer money is being spent on some very interesting projects. Yeah, so for the best part of the year now, I've been running my substack on what I call woke waste. I call it how the taxpayers funding their own demise, essentially tracking huge numbers of projects that most people have no idea are on the go that are woke and extremely expensive altogether. Like what? So the first bit of evidence I stumbled upon to realize how bad this was. was when I was looking into, I'd actually been ticked off about a study in higher education, about non-binary inclusivity.

And I was looking into the academics that did that study. And one of them had worked on a project about pregnant men, exploring the pregnant man. And so obviously I googled that, had a little search for what that was all about. and it took me to a website called the UKRI, which I'm sure we'll touch on later. And I saw a price tag attached to it, which was altogether it was just under £700,000. I thought, what is this price tag? Discovered that we were paying for it. And that was really the beginning of my work waste project.

And, yeah, it hasn't stopped since then. So we're spending $700,000 researching pregnant men? Yeah, so this was a study that's in the past now, but it went on for several years. It was led by someone, Professor Sally Hines, who's quite infamous on Twitter for hounding gender-critical women. And her own research is about gender identity. And she's had, I think it was into the millions of taxpayer money. Meanwhile, this is someone who is pretty rude to taxpayers, which gender-critical feminists are, much as any other people on Twitter.

So, and quite politically active is in general, but she's completely representative of the type of person that we're funding a lot of in higher education. Look, I'm going to get angry. This is just going to happen. And so let's just delve into it. Make me angry. What are the most egregious slash bonkers nonsense

that my hard, my hard-earned money is being used to, pay? Shouldn't have had that third coffee. Where does it be? It spans a number of areas. It's charities, Arts Council, England, so that's a sort of theatre section, and universities, very, very badly.

So the one that I published that everyone gets upset about or frustrated about is the Europe that gay porn built in 1945 to 2000. What? Yeah, it's looking at how, yeah, the Europe, the gay porn bill.

I don't know, 9 to 45, I don't really understand the logic, but, and this is by the academics on the project. One of them has a long history of doing studies on gay porn. It really seems that there's no end to academia on this subject. And the other one, he has had another taxpayer grant. It comes to about a million, the taxpayer money that's gone towards him. and his previous one was on gay pig masculinities, which I don't, I still know why.

I know what he says it is, but I don't know how popular pigs are among the gay community. So what does that involve, gay pig masculinity? So from the abstract, the gist is that some gay man, this is what he says, not me, find, they have a sort of pig fetish. They like acting like pigs. And part of his research, because I watched webinars of him explaining the research,

there were pictures of men meeting in a stable with hay around them. Actual. I thought it was like, you know, you get otters and beavers and whatever, like, terminology for gay men. Actual pigs. No, no, not actual pigs. They, like, pretend it, you know, getting in the farm yard, the two men. this is what he said

Look, it's a free country But why are we researching that? I've got a note one of the worst There's a lot of weird footage That's a lot of weird footage that came out of the study In the webinar Really? That's a surprise And it resulted in a film at the end

Which I've seen a bit of footage from With hands and lubricant moving around them One of the worst bits is A gay porn actor is interviewed as part of the research and I don't know how crude I can be on the podcast. You'll be pretty crude. You'd be pretty crude. So he's this American actor and he's just interviewed about what he likes when he's doing porn.

And he talks about men lining up and how he likes pigs. And he's like, yeah, wham, bam, bam. Like, it's really explicit. And it's disgusting about hearing anyone's sex life like that. It's not a sexuality thing. But yeah, this was part of very important research that cost 170,000 pounds. So this man's had a lot of taxpayers' money. And I think the thing is, yeah, also he's Portuguese.

And I mentioned that because he lives in Sweden. And I don't think, especially when there are a lot of debates about international students, I don't think Brits are going to be particularly happy to know that this individual is now in Sweden, voted recently at the elections there I saw on his Twitter. and is part of an 840,000 grant to study gay porn. I... We're both lost for words in a little bit. I don't...

So, what is the value of this? How is this justified? Good question. I don't know. It's all part of the diversity obsession at universities in pretty much every publicly funded sector. also it does just seem that you can get a grant for anything if you just embed social justice terms into your proposal

that most of them are complete nonsense there's a study about decolonising the city of york for instance there are hundreds of studies about decolonising things and all they're doing they just think of anything and they just embed those words into the abstract I'll be like, I'm going on the trigonometry podcast to scrutinize two cis, hetero, white males. I'm going to see if I can unpick their gendered privilege through my eco-poetry, through a forecordian analysis involving decolonizing Westminster Abbey where we're near.

Yeah, that would be the kind of lexicon that we use. I don't know you get any money for that. But what you can get money for is, some of these are unbelievable, bedwetting and incontinence in 1870 to 1970 researcher. And you can get paid 40 grand as a researcher for that as part of a quarter of a million pound research project. It's true. Yeah, I saw that. And obviously it sounds ridiculous. And it's from a certain period of time as well.

I can't remember what the decades were, but I think it's 1870 to 1970. Yeah. And what they do to try and make it sound relevant, there are two things, because obviously you just think that's ridiculous. Why do we need that? We need medical doctors, but we don't need bedwetting expert from that era. But what they do to try and make it sound relevant is they say, oh, I'm working with these current charities.

They're working with a few in that project to make it sound like they're going to help patients now, and that's why the research is needed. Yeah, so, but ultimately it's just, when we're hearing about austerity all the time in the news, why do we need that? Right. Look, it's a very good point because actually what you talk about very articulately

is the corruption of the charity sector. Let's talk about that because... No, no, let's not talk about that. Let's talk about the Tipuna Project, intergenerational healing, settler accountability, and decolonizing participatory action research in Eoteroa, 310 grand mate. Or alternatively, let's talk about £1,180,000 on the cultural legacies of the British Empire, reasonable, classical music's colonial history.

There's quite a lot of studies that involve travel to get to the bottom of what's going on in these. places. One of the most, often you do find, and this is why I bring up international students, there is, I found a bit of a correlation with international students that come to study in the UK, but somehow are posted at their home countries to conduct the study. So one example I found is a Bolivian PhD researcher, so she's going to get a doctorate who's gone back to Bolivia to decolonize museums in Bolivia, and we're paying for that. The British taxpayer is paying for this woman to decolonize museums in Bolivia. Yeah.

While the government is taking winter fuel allowance away from pensions. It's really a crazy situation. I mean, call me controversial. It doesn't sound appropriate to me. It just goes on and on. Yeah, charities are equally bad. We even gave government money to one, decolonising contraception. What? I know. It's, yeah, it's really...

So this has just become one giant scam, basically. Yeah, I mean, I don't want to lie, but I'm always worried about I'm going to get sued, you know, because I'm coming, I'm making a lot of enemies, but I call it the biggest scandal you've never heard of. Because what does that mean? Let's look at it. He's really struggling. I'm really struggling. I'm really struggling. But what does that mean de-colonising contraception? Well, I went through

a lot of studies about decolonising. I mean, there are hundreds. Some really are about decolonising. There's something to do with the plant world and a good opportunity to say that not everything we start with taxpayer fund is bad. We do a lot of proper science as well.

Decolonising, after looking at Yeah, tens, hundreds of these studies. It just means nothing. Like, we're decolonising folk music, for instance, for 1.5 million pounds. That's one that really annoyed a lot of people. And those studies, the researchers delving into the white centricity of folk music. All it means is de-whitify. It's, the terminology is very vague, but it will be, the gist of it is, yes, it's a bit white. So we're, going to bring in our special healing, you know, sort of like an exorcism to remove the white spirits from the city of York or folk music or whatever else contraception that they're decolonising. Because what's interesting about this is if that, if your criteria for getting approved for research is hitting all these particular things that you talk about, race, gender, diversity, then obviously that's what you're going to get. So whilst I think it's awful, incentives work.

If you incentivise a particular type of behaviour, that's what you're going to get. And so it's a system that's incentivising this, isn't it? Yeah, you should say there is an argument for that, but the system is run by people in the system. It's academics. No other academic. It's all just very cyclical. But I do take your point.

One example of what you're saying is the Arts Council England. I don't know, have you heard, you've heard of Arts Council. Yes. So it gets 445 million of our money a year to spend. And it also gets about 170 million for national lottery funding, which is a whole new Woke area as well. And Arts Council England does incentivise Woke. It has four investment principles.

Essentially, if you apply for funding with Arts Council England, you've got to embed these investment principles into your funding pitch. Two of those are about the actual work, is it any good? The other two are environmental responsibility and diversity, and the site has huge numbers of documents to help you embed these investment principles into your, funding and it even has a note, like, we'll be looking to make sure that you embed these investment principles, winky wink. And one example that I saw that I think was someone trying to do this

was a non-binary dancer who was converting their dance moves into renewable energy. And when I first saw it, I thought, no, like, what are you doing? But then I thought, that's not a thing. But then I was like, Clever. See, he's got rounded because he doesn't have to, you know, to meet environmental targets, it's quite expensive. You're not going to get a carbon capture machine. So why not convert your dance moves into renewable energy? But how are you going to convert dance moves into renewable energy?

What is it? You use kinetic energy, which then converts into heat, so because you're moving, you're inadvertently heating the building. Is that the argument? I don't know. You'd have to ask Prance of the dancer who was playing at South Bank Centre, which is another taxpayer-funded.

Prance of the dancer. Yeah, it was called, it was part of, I mean, South Bank Center is woke central, so they had, yeah, they had a bit of his dance. Or his dance, like the woke stuff is obviously everyone's not what we think about it, but people are allowed to be woke, people are allowed to have these opinions.

But to me, this just seems like an obvious waste of people's money. And to be serious about it, you know, if I'm a pensioner living in poverty somewhere and I'm hearing that we're spending, you know, 50 grand here, some guys getting paid 200 grand to watch gay porn all day, I'd be pretty irritated about that, do you know what I mean? This is just a colossal, it's not just a waste. A waste is like, you know, we bought too many tables, we had to throw one away.

This is actually misspending of taxpayer money. Yeah, it's shocking. When I first started covering it, obviously some of it is. funny. You know, you have to laugh. There was even someone that got taxpayer-funded funding who called himself a green like being, like that actually painted green as if it's a gender identity and they were called oozing gloop by the way

but the more I write about it and I always read the comments when I write for the Telegraph about it and at first people are like, ha ha what a joke and now they're like what? You know, the rage is growing and fair enough because it is a massive, it's, yeah, it's really bad what's going on. It's an insult to taxpayers, especially when you see people that need funding for illness, cancer care in this country isn't great. There are lots of rare diseases, motor neuron disease, for instance, pensionists having their fuel allowance. We know there are lots of things lacking in the UK that could do with investment. And we have a political class talking.

to us about austerity and there was none, at least not how they make it sound. Do you think also the problem is, is this is what happens. Let's use Arts Council England. This is just what happens with state-sponsored art. You get this nonsense because you're insulated from the reality of having to sell tickets and make a profit, which you have to do on the West End. I think there's an element of it attracting a certain kind of person who wants, who, who, I don't want to say this about everyone in the public sector. There are lots of publicly funded people whose work I really appreciate it. Duffman men, you know, policeman, nurses, things like that.

There are a lot of people that there's an entitlement to it. They just think, we're so brilliant, we should be state-funded. And a certain type of person is attracted into that public sector for that reason. It is very much to do with a bloated state. some of the people run, Arts Council England, for instance, is run by a positive psychologist who is a bit too positive, in my opinion, about arts, and retweets all sorts of stuff that other people would find woke and contentious, so it does attract that sort of person. But also as well, I mean, I think that, look, if you're putting on a West End musical,

you've got to make sure that you can pay the venue, you've got to make sure you pay directors, the dancers, the actors, all of this stuff, you best make sure you get bums on seats. Yeah. Because if you don't get bums on seats, it's closing and you lose your money. Yeah. No, this is a really good point.

Yeah, sorry, I should answer that in the fact, but this is a really good point because the one number you never hear about is ticket sales and how much money they make. They only want to talk about money when they want more of it. For instance, the Guardian has some ridiculous articles about, it's called its own austerity section. And there's a few talk of cash-strapped entities.

And one is the South Bank Centre, which receives near like 20 million sort of around that rate. So it's a huge amount of money. And, yeah, the CEO was in an article headlined cash-strapped South Bank Centre. And she was upset because the National Theatre got a bit more funding. a few more million. And you know, you think there was a little violin playing, but it's tens of millions, and they are putting on crap. South Park Centre, for instance, puts on the trans voices choir for children for 5 plus,

or you can come and see transgender people, you know, and those other... It's like a medieval circus. Yeah, loads of kind of woke things. And then you've got the globe, for instance. You're always going to hear, like, oh, the globe, the arts are on their knee, you know, it's on their knees. The Globe had I Joan a play about non-binary Joan of Arc. Does anyone want to see that? I had friends that went, who genuinely love Joan of Arc.

They're like huge fans and went seriously and they just said it was completely awful. So you think who's going to that? There's one, have you heard of the Battersea Arts Centre? Yeah, I know the BAC. I used to love... Yeah. Dismarant, I used to, 20 years or so, I used to love going to the BAC. They always put on really new, interesting new work.

It wasn't always great. You know, there was hit and misses, but there was a lot of people who got their start at the Battersea Arts Centre of really, an example of this, was Jerry Springer the Opera, which then went on and became a huge hit. And that started at the BAC.

Yeah, it's gone downhill. So the CEO, I've seen him, do a few tweets about austerity and how the arts needs more funding. And they've definitely had a decent amount of funding. I can't remember what the trouble, but it's in the good level. And the shows they put on, there's a non-binary person or whatever doing something called Blood Show. And it's a female originally.

And they've just got blood. It's even on my website, I think, but they've got blood coming down their face. And they say on their website that they won't work with. like a team of all white men's, that sort of thing. And then the other one is that was at the Battersea Art Centre. So yeah, you wonder how many want to go and see Blood Show. And then the other one at Battersea Art Centre, which I wonder how many people wanted to go and see was called First Trimester.

It was by a trans woman. No, I don't know. Someone who was trying to get pregnant, a female. and searching for a sperm donor on stage. What? With National Lottery funding 64,000 of it. And who know? And the worst thing about it,

this person had a moustache and, you know, on the stage, sort of looking for Mr. Not so much Mr. Wright, but Mr. Plastic Cup. And the worst thing, as in the, the worst thing is I went on their Instagram a while later and they're not even pregnant. So what was the point of that? Not only did we spend a lot of money,

well the National Lottery spent a lot of money on this woke thing. Didn't even get the result from there. How day you be so insensitive to their infertility? Have you tried to reach out to any of these organisations and ask them any questions about why they're doing this or question any particular projects? Not really.

I did try that there were some, I mean, when I wrote an article, do you have to get in touch with them to tell them, to give them right of reply? And there are typical trends in how people reply. A lot of professors don't really want to talk because you have to say

what you're going to say in your article and you have to be quite explicit. And other than that, a few of them wanted to have a go at me, actually, about the charity. But other than that, yeah, I just view it as a sort of hostile environment because for them to be saying those things anyway, we're never going to have a constructive conversation.

In general, I always say, you know, people get told off about sticking in their echo chambers and we're meant to get out of them and talk to people we disagree with. Whereas I think, actually, I like my echo chamber. I don't want to go out of it. I don't want to talk to, other than the legal requirements, I don't want to sit and have a conversation and try and understand someone that thinks non-minory is a thing

or that women can have a penis, you know, any more than someone who thinks the earth is flat. But what we're also talking about here, and this is the other element of it that I find very, very troubling, is that, so you've got this ideology, which is completely dominant, and what it is doing is it's strangling free speech in the arts. So if you want a type of performance or a play which is going to be heterodox, which is antithetical to this ideology, that simply isn't going to be produced, is it? No. Everything comes down to identity. It's everything's view, the product is, what are that, what's that identity first? And then we'll look at the product. Whereas you want to, you know, the way you want it around is that the identity is incidental to the product. and good art shouldn't be limited to a certain identity. It should naturally come through.

And I think the arts, okay, the class is the biggest barrier in the arts, but music especially has always been fairly diverse. But yeah, there's one theatre called Soho Theatre. We're well familiar. Yeah, oh, okay, really. The comedy, yeah. So I used to love that theatre. I mean, it's great.

It's great date venue I was found to go and have it. sound to go and have a drink at Soho Theatre. And you remember they hounded. There was an anti-Semitism scandal there where people got hounded out. But I found, I mean, yeah, they've got this, it's called Femmes of Color. They've got a comedy night on there. So every woman taking part on it or non-binary person is an ethnic minority. Or sometimes they're calling it global majority now.

and it says white people need to check their privilege when they come through the door. And all of the other shows are, is a lot of trans, ethnic minority. It's just, yeah, it's just kind of, it's so reductionist as well. It's quite humanising. It's just doing exactly what the far right do. The other way is the progressive version of that because we're all being reduced to our parts. And if they intersect, oh, well, that's brilliant, especially, you know, if your global majority and you're transgender, oh, brilliant.

Like, we really want those kind of people. Oh, white and straight and a mat and c-etre. Oh, God. No thanks. So, in other words, this ideology is really permeated this sector, as we know. I mean, we knew that that's one of the reasons we started the show when we were in the comedy industry. This was already happening back seven years ago whenever we started.

But it just sounds like this is the dominant world view now. And that's fine, except I don't understand why the British taxpayers paying for it. Yeah. It's strange. It does feel like we're not living in a secular society, that there is a dominant religion and that art and publicly funded institutions now serve to perpetuate it. It does feel quasi-religious, you know, because all the... the artist is telling the parables of woke.

It's there to, you know, you kind of know what pillars there are in woke. It's racial identity. White is the original sin. And there's a sort of pyramid of race that's meant to be more oppressed than the other. It's transgenderism. They're not so much interested in feminism now. It's more that sort of thing. Environmental movement as well.

There's Noah's Ark vibes to it, to be honest. the idea that we've hurt the earth and God's going to punish us. And all our money is just being used to embed this. And if you don't like it as well, say you don't like the film that came out a few years ago about the Me Too movement, I was a bit silly. I don't, you know, I didn't really like that.

That's a bad example. But, like, say I Joan of Arc, oh, she wasn't non-binary. That's true. If you insult the parables, you could be blasphemous and told off But yeah, it is ridiculous, especially because it all happened under a conservative government. That's the punchline, really, isn't it? Because, and this is something you've spoken about.

And I find it actually quite powerful that, on the one hand, you have the conservative government going, you know, we don't agree with this, we don't agree with this. And then they're just shoveling a lot of money to these organisations who are just producing this nonsense. Yeah. In my experience, they're always saying one thing and funding the opposite.

For instance, they were, Liz Truss and Kemi Badernock were great on gender identity. They were really, really tough on it. But then I looked at funding for, say, hate crime charities and ones that endorse all that terminology, all the gender identity, and that got government grants. In fact, this hate crime charity I found

was funded by my own council and Camden Council. So they were getting hundreds of thousands over the years. And in addition to perpetuating all this terminology that the central government were trying to oppose, they were also funding rainbow paddling sessions. It's called Camden Pirates. You can go canoeing there.

They were just funding jollies for, you know, gay people and LGBT. And they even had film sessions. Sorry, are these like euphemisms, like paddling and canoeing? No, they genuinely were going to this place called the Pirates. Yeah, it's not like pig masculinity is again. Okay. Sorry, I'm just, you carry on, Charlotte. Yeah, so this was my, yeah, and this brings me to another point. So yeah, so central government, I don't know what the hell they were actually.

And then local government as well, they always go on about austerity. You're always hearing them in the news saying, oh, we're on our knees. We're about to go, many of them have gone bankrupt. Yeah, Birmingham Council have gone bankrupt. I know. They hired food justice consultants. And they had this food justice online event. Some of these online events are hilarious as well.

It's like four views. And you'll see the council, they'll be like, I'm so excited to be here today. You know, and the guy, one of the guys leading it, I just found him saying he introduced his talk about food justice by saying something like food, it's really important. I mean, we all need it to survive. You know, like, why are we paying for this?

But you'll just find huge numbers of examples of councils that, yeah, For, yeah, the LGBT Rainbow Paddlers, and they also had like queer creative art sessions, they were getting, it was something, 100,000 of thousands each from Camden and Islington, while they were saying they actually, my council actually said it was prioritising frontline services, and I was like, no or not,

because they are going, they're going kayaking. Yeah. Because coming from a background in education where you were there going, we do not have enough money. We do not. Class size is a huge. We've got kids who have got special needs and not getting the support that they require. And you go, these are things.

And we've also got especially post-COVID. There's so many kids now who are struggling with mental health issues. All of that, you go, this is where we require funding. This is where we require money. This is what's important. The next generation. And then we're going, well, there's a lot. no money for that. There's no money cams, the children's, children in mental health services.

That's, uh, they just, you know, they're on their knees. You can't get an appointment there for the kids. However, yeah, we can get some gay people to go paddling. It's, honestly, it's crazy. One, the amount of things that we now fund while the government is telling everyone that we've got no money left. For instance, I saw West Streeting the other day. He did a talk at the Labour Party conference for something called the IPPR. It's the Institute for Program. I can't remember the exact title, but it's one of these think tanks. And so many of them have really innocuous sounding name.

So no one ever looks into them, whereas they're like, oh, Tofton Street. Sorry, I went a bit northern there, but yeah. So I thought, I thought, this is often how it happens. I went, who else is this IPPR? And why is my streeting talking for them? Talking, doing talk for them. And I went on to their funding. Obviously, we're paying for it, aren't we?

I went on to the, it's another, there are a lot of charities that you wouldn't actually think were really charities. But the IPPR is charity. And I looked onto its accounts and I saw there was something like £300,000 in taxpayer money. And this is a charity that gets funding from lots of other sources as well. Huge numbers of different ones, like found it. So it's not really badly off, but it puts out very contentious stuff to a lot of taxpayers. It loves, like, it's promoting electric vehicles.

You know, a lot of people don't like that idea. It was talking about how to combat the far right. It had this really funny. I thought it was quite funny the blog it had about it because it just had this, it just had this man who looked like he shops in JD Sports with a skinhead fighting the police. You know, it's as if they think Hitler would have. like been in a, what's that show? Yeah, just shocked in JD Sports, basically.

They just think. The Nazis had taste. They had Hugo Bostics. Yeah. They wouldn't do that. I know, right. But I just, yeah, I was just shocked that we're funding this IPPR. We're funding, have you heard of the universities UK?

No. This is the thing. Whenever I, no one ever says yes when I asked them, have you heard of this that we're funding with all these projects? So universities UK gets about, it's had about 17 million in taxpayer funding over the years. And it basically lobbies for universities. It's the, all of its content is saying they're really great. We need to spend more on them, like more than we are currently, which is just under $9 billion a year from, from one grand go.

And so, yeah, so they're just putting out lots of let's fund universities. and we're paying for them to be a rap, whereas some taxpayers don't want to pay more for universities, which they are. Do you know what I mean? Like, we're paying for a lobby group for universities because it's deemed a charity. There's just so many instances of this.

We should be able to vote on their proposal, not have to fund their making the proposals. So the good news is we've got labour and power and they're going to do something about this. this, right? I really don't know what's going to happen. I mean, I do kind of know what's going to happen with labour, but I think I always joke that we're going to have another

peasant's revolt because the conditions are that. Stop using Kirstarmer's language. But I think a lot of people, there's real growing awareness, even woke waste, the views are growing by 10,000, like tens of thousands per month, now a lot of it's getting out on the papers. And especially with the interests, the registered interest that came out about the Labour Party, people are becoming aware of just how bad problems with funding are.

If you look through, I don't know if you've looked through the MPs register of interest. So it's about, I don't know if I need to explain to listeners what it is. They should. Yes. It spells out every MP in Parliament. It shows who they've received funding from, if they work for anywhere, unpaid or otherwise,

if they have any shares. And it's about 780 pages long. It came out a few weeks ago. And for the media, the main story was Nigel Farage. You know, because of his salary, he had a really good, something like 100K per month from GB News. So that was a story. They're like, done, he's the baddie, dark funding, Russia, whatever they want to say, you know, oh, he gets paid a lot.

That must be really bad. Let's just do loads of stories about that. I have been looking at this. I'm still on B, right, out of the whole alphabet. There's so much gold in it. People are generally more aware now that there's a whole lot of unions in there. So all of the Labour MPs, it's like you could just find out who the real prime minister. is in that document. There's someone called Gary Lubner. He just funds absolutely everyone.

People know about Dale Vince that he puts a lot of money into the Labour Party. So we've got this double issue of we've got all the woke stuff that they want to spend more money on anyway, but we're also having to look at the funders and what the funders want to try and ascertain what policies we're going to get because they make it quite clear a lot of these funders what they like. And when you're looking at labour policies, you just think, well, it's probably just them rather than you. So, I mean, let's take these two. Do you know who they are? These Gary, Gary Lubner and Dale Vince? Who are these people? So Dale Vince is, do you know the ecocentricity founder? He's in the news quite a lot. He's been at the Labour conference. He runs several energy companies.

He used to fund Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, and he's given $5 million to the Labour Party. I don't know that much yet about Gary Lubbner because I only really clocked his name, actually, although there are quite a few stories about him in the press. Another one's Lisbet Rousing. She's, I think she's Swedish. She's philanthropist, and she has funded Labour very generously.

But of course, that means that you end up having to look into them and what they want because there's no such things as a free lunch and they're all really into the environment quite a lot. Obviously they want wind power.

Things that might not necessarily be good for Brits, as a lot of people have said, but it might be good for other people that have shares because they've put them in renewables. I mean, one example to go into the whole eco thing

is, do you know what the climate change committee is? No. So we have a committee. This is part of the reason, by the way, that we have all these funding holes because to pan back a bit, Tony Blair splintered democracy a lot. He exported it into quangos. He had devolution onto him.

His whole approach was splintering everything. So that government, even though we have a central government, its powers are so much more weakened. So the Climate Change Committee was one of these Blair-Rite institutions and it's meant to help us reach net zero. So it's the task force rather like the Migration Observe Advisory Committee and the OBR Office of Budget Responsibility. It's a task force designed to help us meet net zero targets.

Now, we don't vote for it. Most people have never heard of it. and the people involved have shares in renewable and energy companies. And I think that creates a really big problem. Obviously, if they had shares in oil and they were deciding energy policy, that would be a really big problem. But I think because it's green, it must be good. And also when things are in plain sight, people don't,

plane site is the biggest hiding space for things. Another example is, do you know the MP Chris Skidmore? Great name, though. Yeah, he's kind of, he's a bit of a Tory wet, I would say. He was, I think he was the person that signed net zero into law. And he's kind of how I got into researching environmental funding, actually, because I just saw him post a lot about net zero. I thought, well, he's a bit enthusiastic about this.

and I just thought money, money. And I went on to his registered interest, and he was getting paid 80,000 per year by something called the Emissions Capture Company. He also got 40,000 a year from an education, some sort of education, higher ed company. And Kell's surprise, he was very enthusiastic about higher education and net zero.

He's written a book on why net zero is great. He's now left, an MP. I don't think that's cool at all. I don't see why he should. I think that is a really big registered interest issue. And sorry, because I've gone on a real round circle, but Labour are going to be awful because they have a lot of green funders and things that you can't even really find, I find in the document. I can't, there's one company I couldn't find, but I could find it without going on a whole spill but it just means the electorate

it's not like they see something in front of them and they're like yeah we're voting for that they would have to go through 780 pages look through all that do what I'm doing basically go to the UK all right go to the charity commission go to Arts Council England and work out what they're voting for and paying for at the same time

sorry that was a bit that was a bit happy So, I mean, again, I use that word corruption, but it sort of is, isn't it really? Because it's these politicians who are being financially incentivised to then carry out the wishes of the people funding them. Well, you know, one has to be careful using the word corruption. I actually come from a family of lawyers, so I always avoid using that word. Well, all of this is legal, right? They're not breaking the law, any of them.

It is, yeah, all of it is legal. I'm not saying it's right. I think it's more, yeah, I think it's wrong, yeah. Yeah, so take corruption back, otherwise you'll get sued. Yeah, okay, I'll take corruption back. He didn't mean corruption. You mean you're all crooks. I mean, you're morally corrupt.

No, but it is wrong, but they get away with it. And it's Tory and Labor, by the way. This should be every side. It's, yeah. Tory Labor Greens, Jeremy Corbyn as well. What is, what are Jeremy Corbyn's interest? So he gets about 15,000 from, actually has quite a few,

but he gets about 15,000 from an organisation called We Deserve Better. And I think Jeremy Corbyn, we deserve better than me finding it really hard to get all the details of We Deserved Better when I Googled it. And also Carad, Carly Denia, you know, the Green MP.

So she also gets funded by them about the same amount. And, yeah, so I did Google, we deserve better. The main thing that I, even saying Google, you know, I feel a bit, because Google has funding in our democracy, so I don't want to give it a plug even. But the main... I think Google's pretty big as it is. Yeah.

Wow. Yeah, I mean, it funds Sadie Kahn, you know, this element. So I, yeah, I typed in, we do. deserve better. Long story short, it was the address that I, that took me to some interesting things on company's house. I essentially found what looks like left wing Tufton Street. It's that the address linked to the company that funds Carla Denia and Jeremy Corbyn, is also associated with like the four day week, loads of other woke projects going on at that address. And you just end up going down more rabbit holes

because they'll have had events at that address that are really woke. Yeah, so I'm still trying to work out what we deserve better is, but that's the issue because when you don't know, when people say, what is we deserve better?

Then you wonder when Carla Denia and Corbyn are saying, we need this, you think you or someone in the background that wants you to push this message. And they're going to want something in return, you know, and a lot of these groups have, they have crossover. They will have people that have spoken for one route

and then you can find them in another campaign group, a lot of links to green industry. It's, the worrying thing is, is that what you're doing is highlighting a very real, very important issue, joking aside. And the worry is, for me, it's a waste of public funds, but even more worrying than that, I don't think this is going to be sorted and it's just going to be a continual drain

on our finances. And if anything, under Labour, which prefers big state, it's going to get worse, surely. Yeah, I think it's going to be an interesting. I really don't know what to expect, actually. Normally I'm quite confident in my predictions, but I think it's going to be the most bureaucratic revolution

of all time because what I'm trying to do, with Woke Waste's audit as much as possible, which is not possible for one person. There's so much. I do get a lot of offers of help, but we can only fight the system, you know, once we've got our spreadsheet. But we have to get it all out

because people haven't known what's going on. And they talk about the blob. That's the word that they give this beast. And I'm trying to de-blobify the blob and bring it to the surface because then you can set about saying, we don't want this. But I do think, this is why I joke about the peasants to revolt, because I think there's a point where it tips over and people say,

no, you're not, we cannot. I don't know how you actually do this to VALC, but they're going to say, no more. You cannot have any more of our money. And the democracy that we're seeing is also farcical. You know, we have rights in a democracy. Your warped version, I don't think people are going to be that much happy with for that much longer. and without Kirstama putting me in jail,

he's not going to have that much space eventually if people really do get fed up. But the thing is, yeah, the reason why I say it's going to be a bureaucratic revolution is there's no use, I think I saw Thomas from the apprentice, Thomas Skinner saying, like, all right, I'm going to go out to the street and there's no use doing that. You have to unpick it.

You have to go to the underworld and get it all up and look at it and then say what systems we need, you know, you need a Javier Millet, you know, from Argentina, Fuerre type movement to get it all out. But, yeah, just going around the street going, it's not going to work. And I actually think that's one of the worst things about it, because it feels like we've been screwed over by, it's like lawyers from Islington that went to universe, you know. It just feels like the intel, they're not even the intelligentsia,

but sort of horrible, educated elite. conspired to create all this horrible legislation and quangos that would be very difficult for a lot of people to try and unpick. Well, Charlotte, thanks for coming and talking to us about it. Keep up the research. Before we move over where our audience get to ask you their questions, what's the one thing we're not talking about that we should be? I think, oh, God, there's so many different things, but I'll go with one a bit rogue. Genetic sexual attraction. I am. I, um, I, um, um, um, I, um, um, um, um, um, So we know that it's, yeah, very tangential. So we know that a lot more people are using technology to have children,

say sperm donation and egg donation and things like that. But not many people know that there's a really big risk of incest from it in the past. In terms of when adults meet, close relatives meet in adulthood, there's something that can happen called genetic sexual attraction. And it's when they're just powerfully attracted to each other. because you're meant to desensitize as a child to close relatives as romantic prospects. And because we've had such an explosion, I mean, there's a Netflix documentary at the moment about a Dutch guy that fathered hundreds, maybe thousands of kids,

you know, just enjoyed it. But people doing it on Facebook. There are these clinics. I think we're going to have a real issue of it in the future. And I think that's something people are being really naive about. But maybe not if they watch trigonometry. That's right. There you go.

No, we're all aware of inbreeding. Excellent. Well, head on over and get answers to your questions. Mokos says, how do you think this woke crusade through the institutions of the taxpayers' expense is going to end?