Latest / UK Column Radio / The Editors Law Comes To Britain

Transcript

The Editors Law Comes To Britain · UK Column Radio

0:08
But we're going to start off with a nice light topic and that
0:10
suggests that there are significant parallels between
0:14
the UK and Nazi Germany. And so I, I realise that in a
0:20
sense that's, that's a little bit cliched, but I actually want
0:22
to be quite specific about it because I'm going to suggest
0:25
that the editor's law has come to Britain now hands up anybody
0:28
who knows what the editor's law was.
0:32
Good, right? So basically this, this was
0:37
legislation from the early 1930s that Hitler brought in to try to
0:42
control the narrative. And this was really the
0:44
beginning of everything that happened subsequently.
0:47
So let's just have a a a brief look at this involvement in the
0:52
shaping of the intellectual contents of the newspapers or
0:55
political periodicals published in the Reich, whether through
0:58
writing, news reporting or illustration, or through
1:01
appointment as chief editor, is a public function regulated by
1:04
the state through this law. This is very, very similar to
1:09
what we're seeing at the moment. The Rice Minister of Public
1:13
Engagement and Propaganda will determine which periodicals are
1:16
to be considered political within the meaning of the law.
1:19
That's a slight typo there, apologies for that.
1:22
Are we saying parallels with that as well?
1:24
With what's going on today? Editors are especially obligated
1:28
to keep out of the newspapers anything which is a misleading
1:31
to the public by mixing selfish interests with community
1:34
interests, or B tends to weaken the strength of the German Reich
1:38
in Foreign Relations or domestically, the sense of
1:41
community of the German people, German defence capability,
1:44
culture or the economy, or offends the religious sentiments
1:47
of others. We're seeing in that statement
1:50
everything that we're seeing today.
1:52
We're not allowed to weaken the Starmer regime or the Tory
1:56
regime before that. We're not allowed to criticise
1:59
foreign policy. We're not allowed to in any way
2:03
undermine the sense of community of the British people, German
2:08
defence capability. We can't criticise that.
2:11
We can't criticise what's going on culturally in the country at
2:14
the moment because otherwise we end up in prison or the economy.
2:17
And we certainly in this case they said or offends the
2:20
religious sentiments of others. We might consider that, you
2:23
know, whether that's LGBT or any other kind of similar sentiment
2:29
that that we might want to criticize today.
2:31
We can't do that. I'm just saying massive
2:34
parallels there. Editors are especially obligated
2:39
to keep out of the newspapers anything which offends the honor
2:41
and dignity of Germany. We could just replace Germany
2:44
with Britain here illegally offends the honour or the
2:47
well-being of another, hurts his reputation, ridicules or
2:49
disparages him. Hate crime is immoral for other
2:54
reasons. Well, the definition of of
2:56
immorality is something which is changing everyday.
3:00
Professional courts will be established for the protection
3:03
of the editorial profession. Now one of the features of the
3:07
Online Safety Act. It hasn't yet been implemented
3:11
because Ofcom's implementing it one step at a time and it's a
3:13
huge piece of legislation. But one of the aspects of that
3:17
that hasn't been implemented yet is the protection of so-called
3:20
journalistic content. So the Online Safety Act is
3:24
there to limit the freedom of speech of us, of ordinary people
3:29
or of of so-called independent media.
3:32
But the legacy media is to be protected and that's written
3:35
into the legislation that anything that they publish is
3:38
not allowed to be taken down by the social media platforms.
3:41
For example, the Reich Minister for Public Engagement and
3:45
Propaganda may decree the removal of an editor from the
3:47
professional list independent of the proceedings of the
3:50
professional court if he deems it necessary for pressing
3:53
reasons of public welfare. This is again is exactly what
3:56
we're saying where basically the Cabinet Office through their
4:02
various counter disinformation teams are without question and
4:07
contact without question contacting social media
4:10
platforms saying get that organization off.
4:12
Right. When we were at the Sounds
4:14
Beautiful festival, I showed a, a, a comment or a communication
4:18
from YouTube telling us that not only was our main YouTube
4:23
channel taken off YouTube, but that any platform which gave us
4:28
any kind of major coverage would also be taken off YouTube,
4:33
right? That's, that's, that's the
4:34
degree that it's going. Then if we look at the January
4:39
1933 emergency regulations, restrictions on the right of
4:45
Assembly, Charles is going to be talking about this in a second.
4:48
We have seen legislation in the last couple of years which has
4:51
put massive restrictions on the right of assembly, and we're now
4:54
seeing organizations, whether you agree with them or not,
4:57
being prescribed. And anybody that resembles in
5:01
support of that newly prescribed organization is arrested and
5:05
carted off. Restriction on freedom of the
5:09
press depends on your definition of the press.
5:12
But I would argue that there's a massive restriction on the
5:14
freedom of the press since the Leveson Inquiry, but
5:18
particularly since COVID, because as the commercial
5:22
situation of the press has has changed over the last lot of
5:25
months and years, there's more reliance on government money and
5:30
government subsidy through advertising for them to keep
5:33
going. And that makes them less free
5:35
because they feel obliged to talk about the things that
5:38
government wants to talk about. Confiscation of printed works of
5:43
this information. This is similar to to, you know,
5:46
deplatforming and various other forms of censorship online and
5:51
suspension of free speech. So I've this next one, I've
5:55
shown this before a long time ago, but we've sort of brought
5:58
it up to date. We'll just want to compare the
6:02
actual legislation that's been put in place.
6:05
So that's a Germany shut down free speech.
6:08
We've got the Online Safety Act. Everybody should be familiar
6:10
with that National Security Act. Charles is going to be talking
6:13
about that. You may be less familiar with
6:15
that one criminal criminalizing protest.
6:18
Nazis did that. We've got the Police, Crime,
6:21
Courts and Sentencing Act. We've got the Public Order Act,
6:24
and we've now got the Terrorism Act being used to limit protest
6:29
and criminalized protest surveillance.
6:33
We've got the Investigatory Powers Amendment Act.
6:36
We've got the Data Use and Access Act.
6:38
The Data Use and Access Act is absolutely all-encompassing.
6:42
It takes a Data Protection Act that we had before.
6:45
It tears it up. It basically says that there is
6:48
no restriction on the sharing of your content, your data that
6:53
that's collected by any platform that or by the NHS and so on,
6:59
and it can be exported. The Data Protection Act
7:01
absolutely said you can't export that data outside the country
7:05
that can now be exported to the United States or anywhere else
7:08
because of course that that act enables all the AI that we're
7:12
seeing. It enables the digital ID
7:14
infrastructure. It enables everything and
7:18
accountability to law judicial review Act, covert human
7:23
intelligence Criminal conduct Act.
7:25
Does everybody know what the covert human intelligence
7:28
brackets Criminal Conduct Act does?
7:32
Well, that's this When did it come into force?
7:34
2020 Sorry. 2016 Think so, Something like that.
7:39
This makes it permissible for agents of the state to break the
7:43
law in the pursuit of their activities.
7:47
And what staggered me about this was the the range of agencies
7:53
which are allowed to make use of this facility.
7:57
So you might expect that the police or who else, or MI5MI6,
8:04
these types of organizations, the military, perhaps there may
8:08
be some, I'd, I would argue there is no justification for
8:11
that. No one should be above the law.
8:12
But but you could see how some people wouldn't try to make an
8:15
argument, argument for it. But when it comes on to things
8:18
like, you know, HMRC or the Gambling Commission, you know,
8:24
this is this is starting to take things a little bit far.
8:26
And, and the point about it was there were no restrictions on
8:29
the laws that they are allowed to break.
8:32
There was nothing that says that they cannot commit murder,
8:35
nothing in the legislation that limits this in any way.
8:38
And so it was quite an incredible piece of legislation,
8:42
pretty much went under the radar.
8:43
Not very many people reported on it.
8:45
We did control of education, the Children's well-being in Schools
8:51
Bill. That's not an act of Parliament
8:52
yet. And we've included the Holocaust
8:54
Memorial Bill, which Charles, I'll explain why in a minute.
8:58
But that's, that's, you know, summing up what's either already
9:02
happened in the last 10 years or is in the process of happening
9:06
at the moment. And the thing about it is that
9:08
if, you know, if if we are allowed to blow our trumpets a
9:11
little bit here in the news program spoilers, I'll be
9:17
talking a little bit about a, a comment that the Electronic
9:21
Freedom Foundation have made about the Online Safety Act.
9:26
And the thing about it is it's too, I mean, it's never too
9:29
late. Things can be repealed, but but
9:31
in a sense, it's too late to start bringing this stuff up.
9:35
Now. We were talking about this stuff
9:36
in 2017. We were telling people, Patrick
9:39
Henningson and I were telling people in 2017 about the Online
9:42
Harms White Paper, the white paper which led to the Online
9:45
Safety Act and what they were talking about.
9:47
And the fact that throughout all this legislation we're
9:51
increasingly seeing not only them being enabling acts.
9:55
I mean, everybody hears about Hitler and the Enabling Act, but
9:58
every one of these is an enabling act because they all
10:01
say that at some point in the future through secondary
10:04
legislation, the minister, the Secretary of State can, can just
10:07
change this to do whatever the heck he likes, right.
10:10
So the point here is 2017, we were, we were warning about this
10:15
then. And really what should have
10:16
happened is that all these groups like the EFF and, and all
10:20
the other campaign groups that are out there that are sort of
10:24
campaigning on, on these types of issues really should have
10:27
grabbed the nettle at that point before it actually became law
10:30
and became legislation. And it should have been
10:32
absolutely made clear to government before it even went
10:36
to the House of Commons that Online Safety Act was something
10:39
that was unacceptable or any of these other bits of legislation
10:43
for that matter. So look, I'll, I'll hand over to
10:45
Charles then and and we'll go into a little bit more detail on
10:48
what each of these does just. Swap slides Just whilst this
10:51
slide is up, I will just talk a little bit about the the control
10:54
of education part of it, because that of course is very pertinent
10:56
considering where we are, which is in the Hope Sussex community,
11:00
which has made a big splash and massive inroads into redefining
11:05
education in the right way. Because of course, education in
11:09
many respects is not now what probably you or I may have
11:12
experienced. If we did go from through some
11:14
sort of formal system, it has changed radically and the
11:17
reaction against that I would say is entirely appropriate.
11:20
But, but particularly on these two bills here, the first one
11:23
with the with the Children's Well-being in Schools Bill, is
11:26
that it is seeking to subvert the terminology that's used in
11:31
that it is creating the conditions whereby children who
11:34
are educated outside of a school setting are made to sound like
11:39
there's something wrong with them.
11:40
So that's that's how this is being reframed.
11:43
It's as though it is appropriate for children with special
11:45
educational needs that can't be met in a school system to be
11:49
brought out of it. And the reason for that is
11:51
because when you create this idea that the child effectively
11:55
has special needs, then in comes the state to be able to surveil
11:59
and monitor what is happening in the home.
12:02
That is effectively the way in which that piece of legislation
12:05
is playing out and needs to be kept a very close eye on.
12:08
And the reason I put the Holocaust Memorial Bill in there
12:10
is you may well have heard me talking about it on UK Column
12:12
News, which I have done a number of Times Now, if not just in
12:15
summary. The plan is for the gardens to
12:18
the South of the Palace of Westminster, which is the
12:20
Victoria Tower Garden, which already has a number of
12:24
significant monuments to various movements over the years, the
12:28
notable ones being universal suffrage and the abolition of
12:31
slavery. The idea proposed by the
12:34
Holocaust Memorial Bill is that an enormous memorial would take
12:38
over the entirety of that garden and that everything else would
12:41
in effect be either destroyed or marginalized.
12:44
But the critical part is that in 1900, an Act specifically
12:49
stipulated that the purpose of that garden was never to change.
12:52
And yet the Bill is absolutely uncompromising, saying that it
12:55
will ride roughshod over that and they couldn't care 2 hoots
12:58
about the planning. Westminster Council has refused
13:00
the planning on a number of occasions, but the government is
13:03
still talking as though there's absolutely not going to be any
13:06
impediment to this. Now, if it weren't concerning
13:09
the Holocaust and there weren't the focus on Israel and
13:14
Palestine as there currently is, then perhaps this wouldn't seem
13:17
like such a talking point. But The thing is, there is.
13:20
So it is enormously relevant. The other point to bring out,
13:23
which you may or may not be aware of, is that the only point
13:27
written down in law concerning the curriculum is that the
13:30
Holocaust must be taught in schools.
13:33
That is the only thing in the entire curriculum that must by
13:36
law be taught in schools. OK, so we're there.
13:40
There is no doubt that there is absolutely A cause for concern.
13:42
And as Mike quite rightly points out, whenever a prospective
13:46
piece of legislation is drafted, you you have to look at it with
13:50
a critical eye and think why is that written like that?
13:54
What is it about those particular terms that enable
13:58
such and such a thing to happen? And an example here which is
14:01
being pushed through at the moment.
14:03
Now in the police, what will be the Police and Policing and
14:07
Crime Bill? This is the the reason I've
14:11
chosen this particular image is because it concerns in this
14:15
instance something called a respect order.
14:19
But you may or may not be familiar with the increasing
14:22
prevalence of what are described as orders.
14:24
So whether they be, for example, a public spaces protection
14:27
order. Now you might know this is the
14:29
abortion buffer zone. So this enables local
14:32
authorities to create a zone in which something may be either
14:35
mandated to happen inside it or to be precluded to be pushed out
14:40
from it. And this is under the the idea
14:43
that an order can be created in order to either make something
14:48
happen or prevent it from happening.
14:50
Now the the particular point of law that makes it so troublesome
14:54
and respect orders are absolutely case in point here,
14:57
saying they're concerning nuisance, which obviously in
15:00
itself is not yet criminalised but is soon to be it.
15:04
It allows provision for either local authorities or the police
15:10
to set conditions whereby somebody may end up becoming a
15:14
criminal without actually committing a criminal act, which
15:17
is a very dangerous thing to do. And I'll just explain how that
15:21
works with a respect order in order to avoid what they're
15:25
describing as nuisance behaviour, somebody who may have
15:28
been reported for such and such a behaviour that does not meet
15:32
the threshold of a criminal sanction.
15:35
So therefore they have there's no crime report, there's no
15:37
criminal activity, but they have a respect order imposed upon
15:41
them in order that they don't create nuisance, whatever that's
15:45
supposed to mean. If they then breach that
15:48
nuisance or that that respect order, there is then a criminal
15:51
sanction. But you see the breach, the
15:54
order might simply be to go to an area or not go to an area.
15:58
So there's, that in itself is not a criminal act.
16:01
And this, this is exactly how these sorts of orders are coming
16:04
out. The, the other one would be the
16:05
serious violence reduction order, which says that it's
16:09
designed to reduce knife crime. In actual fact, in order to have
16:13
such an order placed on you, you do not have to have ever been
16:16
involved in knife crime. I there's, there's not time to
16:19
explain exactly the details about this, but but this is a
16:22
very, very disturbing progression.
16:26
The other thing, which is again sort of in a way at a different
16:30
end of the spectrum, but the planning and infrastructure bill
16:33
hailed by Angela Rayner as being the way in which, you know the
16:36
the plan, Labour's plan for the future, sorry, plan for change
16:39
is going to be radically developing this, that and the
16:41
other. OK, but 22 fundamental points
16:45
with this and how it bears relation to the constant refrain
16:48
that we are doing this in a sustainable manner and it's all
16:51
about the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
16:54
and all the rest of it. Actually, what it does is grants
16:57
carte blanche for a number of different authorities to take
17:02
what is or could be valuable farmland and put any sort of
17:08
development that falls under the broad term of planning and
17:12
infrastructure on it. Now it gets worse because as if
17:15
farmland and farming wasn't already under enough threat, the
17:19
Planning and Infrastructure Bill specifically removes what's
17:22
called the development premium. So ordinarily if farmland was
17:27
and in my view shouldn't be, but if it were to be sold for
17:30
development of say housing, it might attract a development
17:34
premium of approximately £1,000,000 an acre, which
17:36
clearly as a landowner is a significant return.
17:39
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill enables a type of
17:42
compulsory purchase that means that they buy at agricultural
17:46
price. So therefore average maybe seven
17:48
8000 lbs an acre. OK, so, so if you think of how
17:51
that dramatically effects land owners who are told right mate,
17:56
we want to stick a wind farm there, we want to stick a
17:59
hospital there, whatever it is and they are only going to
18:02
recoup 7000 lbs an acre as opposed to £1,000,000 an acre
18:06
just gives you an idea of the weight of the devious way in
18:08
which this is done. The other point to make with in
18:11
terms of sustainability is that whilst there are many references
18:15
to the the creation of say solar energy and this, that and the
18:20
other, there is not a single reference to collecting water.
18:25
Now we're told we're in a period of drought this year.
18:27
We're told we haven't had a new reservoir for 30 years.
18:30
But what we are not told by this bill is how to catch water
18:33
ourselves. That I would say for a
18:36
government that's talking about sustainability and drought
18:38
resilience is something of an oversight or is it, or is it
18:42
entirely wilful that in fact we should be dependent upon a
18:46
failed water infrastructure that is going to prioritise energy
18:51
and data centres and artificial intelligence.
18:54
So it's very, very, it's a very, very cynical piece of
18:57
legislation. Now another thing again that
19:01
we've talked about a considerable amount is the what
19:07
became known really colloquial is the precision breeding
19:10
regulations. Again, this is sort of, this is
19:12
on the environment concerning farming, but actually it doesn't
19:15
just concern that concerns all of you because it is what you
19:18
may end up eating if you don't pay attention to this kind of
19:21
thing. So this is setting the
19:23
conditions for the production of food or at least what is going
19:27
to be called food that is produced in a sense
19:31
artificially. Now they try to sell it by
19:34
saying that this is a merely an abbreviated process of what is
19:39
traditionally known as either selective breeding or
19:42
hybridisation, which means to to try to magnify the optimal
19:47
characteristics of a particular species, whether it be plant or
19:49
animal. You would breed it over the
19:51
years in a particular way to end up with a plant or an animal in
19:54
a particular condition. And they're saying no, well, we
19:56
can do it by modifying the genetic material in order that
20:02
we simply. Abbreviate the time span.
20:05
Now that there are a number of issues with this, because Mike
20:09
will be able to recall the very specific terminology, but this
20:13
does actually not at all rule out the modification of the
20:19
gene. So this is in effect a gateway
20:21
to genetic modification. There are also not sufficient
20:25
provisions at all to prevent spread.
20:28
If this is conducted, particularly in a plant setting.
20:31
The parameters or at least perimeters that are set up to
20:35
deal with any cross pollination, cross contamination are totally
20:38
insufficient. And the other thing concerns
20:41
labelling which is going to be set out at least in the first
20:46
instance in such a way as to say right, well, we'll look, we're
20:49
going to do it in order that you don't end up with any sort of
20:53
precision bred organisms on the market.
20:55
We want to make it clear this is very separate, but actually when
20:58
you read into the legislation, it would be very, very easy to
21:02
invert that in order that the market only contains this sort
21:06
of material. And when you look at the
21:09
environmental Land Management schemes that are deliberately
21:11
taking farmland out of production, all the the other
21:14
many, many assaults on land owning the production of food,
21:17
in particular the production of meat and animal products.
21:21
It is very easy to see again how this could be wielded for great.
21:26
I'll now very quickly. I think this will also be
21:29
brought up in the in the news program.
21:32
But in so far as what can you do?
21:34
Yes, very quickly petitions by and large get thrown in the bin.
21:37
However, they do provide an audit trail.
21:40
They also enable us to look out of our window and see how many
21:43
other people think what we're thinking.
21:45
And in this instance, over half a million people have now signed
21:48
the Repeal the Online Safety Act bill.
21:50
So if you haven't done that, I would really encourage you to do
21:53
that. Sorry, Safety Act.
21:55
So there absolutely are actions. And in terms of actions, the
21:58
other thing I just want to close off by saying, and then I'll
22:01
just hand to Mike if he's got a couple of concluding remarks, is
22:04
we talk a lot about the legislation that is there, how
22:08
it gets manipulated, the stuff that's coming down the pipe,
22:10
what we have to be aware of. But how about the things that no
22:14
one ever bothers with, the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870.
22:17
Do you remember the time when Liz Truss, in her 15 minutes as
22:20
Prime Minister, said, by the way, if you want to go to
22:23
Ukraine and try and kill Russians, I will absolutely
22:25
support you. OK?
22:27
She didn't say those precise words, but she absolutely did
22:30
encourage British nationals to enter into the fray and that she
22:35
supported that. Now, the Foreign Enlistment Act
22:37
1870 absolutely expressly prohibits that kind of conduct
22:43
because technically at least, we are at peace with Russia.
22:48
So to enter into or to enlist in the armed forces of a foreign
22:52
nation that is in conflict with a country that we are at peace
22:56
with is against the law, unless you've had the express
22:59
permission of the monarch. I know for a fact, because I've
23:02
asked both the Home Office and the Foreign Commonwealth and
23:04
Development Office, that nobody has had such permission.
23:08
And yet we have people like Jack Lopresti, the former
23:10
Conservative MP promoted by all the media organisations as going
23:14
out and handling heavy weapons in Ukraine.
23:18
Actually, he has a desk job, but that's by the by.
23:21
So isn't it amazing, you know, the law is there to be picked
23:25
and chosen as appropriate. Now the other one, again
23:28
pertinent going back to the point about the Middle East, is
23:31
the International Criminal Court Act 2001, under which Section 52
23:35
makes it very, very clear that if in any way you support as an
23:40
individual or as an organization conduct ancillary to genocide,
23:45
crimes against humanity or war crimes, you by association are
23:50
guilty of those offences. So every single member of at
23:55
least the current government and the last two governments should
23:58
fall foul of this piece of legislation.
24:01
It is conveniently forgotten, I should just say, actually,
24:03
sorry. Going back to the Foreign
24:04
Enlistment Act, people have tried to say, well, that's from
24:09
1870, yes, you know, no one was around then.
24:12
Doesn't doesn't really matter anymore, does it?
24:14
Which is an interesting one because of course, the offences
24:16
against the person Act was written in 1861.
24:20
And I'm pretty sure that if someone came and punched me in
24:22
the face that that would still carry some sort of effect.
24:25
So again, this the, the, the cherry picking is perfectly
24:28
phenomenal. So that's a quick canter
24:31
through, I appreciate quite technical, but but it is one of
24:34
the things to be mindful of. And I think when we consider the
24:37
big question, which is what, what, what can we do about it?
24:41
That the, the central point is to maintain the pressure and
24:46
there are fruits of those labours.
24:49
OK, admittedly I'm not suggesting that these things get
24:51
rolled over immediately, but just as one example, Section 44
24:56
of the Terrorism Act 2000 was repealed.
24:59
And this was to do with searching without suspicion in,
25:03
in the days the the sort of early 2000s when basically
25:06
anyone with a slightly darker shade of skin could just be
25:10
searched absolutely Willy nilly, that was repealed.
25:13
OK, so so this stuff not only can be repealed, but also if
25:17
there is a groundswell of opinion against it, we can see
25:21
that other people are out there, other people are thinking what
25:23
we're thinking. So I don't for one moment think
25:26
that this is too overwhelming, too much, too big to deal with.
25:29
Absolutely it's not. But we do need to talk to each
25:32
other and inform and report back as to how we've got on and see
25:37
the pressure. As an example, look at what
25:39
Yvette Cooper has had to do in the last couple of weeks.
25:41
She's written in the Observer. She's she's written an effective
25:45
justification of why she absolutely had to prescribe
25:49
Palestine action. Now does that suggest that
25:52
somebody has made a confident decision as to home Secretary
25:55
And no, she got it right. I don't think so.
25:57
Mike, any concluding remarks? OK, well, look, we've got, we've
26:02
probably got 5-7 minutes or so for questions.
26:05
If anybody has anything that they would like to ask about
26:08
that or if that was all a bit much, then 5 or 10 minutes to
26:12
sit there in complete silence and just absorb it.
26:14
But but sort of up to you if, if anybody would like to ask, we'd
26:18
be delighted to to hear. Increasingly AI makes it
26:24
difficult to know what's the truth in social media platform
26:27
news platforms and whilst I regard highly UK column, can you
26:32
just explain where you get your information and how it's
26:35
validated? Absolutely.
26:37
I mean, in very simple terms from the source.
26:41
So if there, if there were and and and actually, that's a
26:43
really, really good point. First of all, not just about AI,
26:46
but about the sort of Chinese whispers, the use of social
26:48
media and the way in which stuff gets incredibly badly
26:52
misreported. And I'm not going down the
26:54
Mariana Spring route with this, but but this, this is a really,
26:57
really important point because it's very easy for something to
27:00
be, you know, simply referring to something as an act when it's
27:03
still a bill or, you know, just changing the wording or missing
27:06
a wording. It's very, very easily done.
27:08
And I'm not suggesting there's a, there's a deliberate intent
27:11
there. But in as far as we're
27:13
concerned, we would always go back to the source.
27:16
So if it concerns legislation, you and it's it's in draft form,
27:21
you would go to the Parliament website and you look at the the
27:24
latest iteration of that and any, any amendment that's there.
27:28
So if it can't be substantiated by the source document in that
27:33
we we can't find it, the we would request it.
27:37
And if it's, if it's potential to a government or or indeed
27:41
sort of associated agency, then to go to them to ask them as a
27:44
valid media enquiry, which again raises a really good point
27:47
because you should you would think that a response to an
27:51
organization in a media capacity should be there.
27:56
There should be no bias. But of course, sometimes there
28:00
is, sometimes one doesn't necessarily get the response
28:02
that you should or would if you were working for the Times or
28:05
the Telegraph or or whatever. And indeed, their threshold for
28:09
dealing with follow up questions, certainly in my
28:10
experience, is that you will get switched off a lot sooner than
28:13
you would if you were apparently in support of whatever it is
28:17
they're doing rather than questioning it.
28:19
But the but the, the short answer is the source.
28:22
And, and this is where AI and social media and Chinese
28:25
whispers is can be a proper disaster.
28:29
I would just add to that and say, you know, if you're
28:32
watching UK column news on the UK column website as opposed to
28:36
the other platforms, we always publish the show notes
28:39
underneath which include which include all those primary
28:42
sources that we've talked about during the program.
28:44
But increasingly, if you look at our written content, as we have
28:48
always done, by the way, News Guard and and some of the other
28:51
so-called fact checkers claim that we don't do this.
28:54
But of course we always cite the information that that we're
28:58
talking about in hyperlinks in the article.
29:01
Now on the mainstream press. Now you will see that they no
29:05
longer do this. They self reference.
29:07
So you will see that, you know, they say something about
29:11
Plymouth and they'll hyperlink the word Plymouth and that takes
29:15
you to a page that lists all their content about Plymouth
29:18
rather than taking to the information about some
29:20
information that you might find useful about Plymouth or the
29:22
references, the thing that they're talking about.
29:25
So they are removing source material.
29:27
They'll talk about reports where where such and such an
29:31
organization has published a report about such and such a
29:33
subject. But by the way, you can't read
29:34
it for yourself because we're not going to give you the link
29:36
to it and it'll be impossible to find, right?
29:38
Trust us. And that's what the BBC and the
29:41
mainstream media are all about now is trust.
29:44
And we're saying no, don't trust us, trust, trust yourselves.
29:48
We're giving our interpretation, our analysis.
29:52
We're not saying we're right, but here's the primary source
29:55
material. You decide, and if you think
29:57
you're wrong, you come back and tell us why we're wrong.
29:59
And that helps us and that helps you.
30:01
So that's the way it should be in my opinion.
30:07
The only other thing I would add just just to understand fully
30:10
this, the very, very cynical environment, which is sort of
30:13
just just outside of us, is that Twitter X, as it's now
30:17
apparently called, has a, has a absolutely a bias towards
30:24
content that does not include links.
30:27
So if something is put out there, say a screenshot which
30:31
purports to be about, you know, something that's happened or
30:34
something where you would absolutely want to check the
30:36
source, it is algorithmically much more likely to go far
30:41
further if there's not a link substantiating the particular
30:45
point than if there was. So it looks very obviously like
30:50
this is deliberately too muddy the waters.
30:53
OK, so so there are many ways in which this, you know, the whole
30:57
system is deliberately designed to throw you off the off the
31:00
sand. Any more questions?
31:03
Hi, what push back or protest can the public make that the
31:08
government will take notice of? Well, I think I mean.
31:14
Right, yeah. Look, look, the first thing I'd
31:15
say about that is this isn't about the government taking
31:18
notice. This is about other people
31:20
taking notes. Similar petition here.
31:22
I mean, petitions, we all know petitions are rubbish.
31:24
They're, you know, in a sense they're a waste of time because
31:27
the government is not going to take any notice of them.
31:29
I mean, the government has already replied to that one
31:32
basically saying, well, we're not going to repeal the Online
31:33
Safety Act, so get stuffed. It's basically their, their
31:36
attitude. We should be using every tool
31:40
available to us, whether that's through public demonstration or
31:43
pro or petition or whatever it is to help us get the word out
31:47
other people that we, we are so censored on social media and so
31:52
on. What we need is to do things
31:54
that that social media can't censor because it's too big and
31:59
they can't possibly censor it. So that's where these tools, and
32:03
we should only view them as tools, in my opinion, are
32:05
useful. So make the demonstration, sign
32:09
the petition, do everything that we can possibly do, because that
32:13
means that another person might just see that piece of
32:15
information and act on it themselves.
32:18
That would be my thoughts on that.
32:20
Yeah, All I was going to add, I mean, it's difficult to set out
32:23
a sort of particular template, but but one example in terms of
32:27
let's say direct action, which of course is what it relates to
32:29
in the 1st place, was a couple of weeks ago, Metropolitan
32:33
Police Service arrested 466 people in Parliament Square
32:36
because of the protest about Palestine action.
32:39
Every single one was released without charge.
32:42
So, so there is a point at which a system, particularly a
32:45
physical system, you know, the Mets have only got a certain
32:47
number of cells in custody, blah, blah, blah, blah.
32:50
It becomes far too onerous and far too obvious that public
32:55
opinion is, is not going to, to, to work with that.
33:00
So I think there just needs to be confidence in one's belief
33:04
and in the fact that other people exactly why I point to
33:07
petitions, confidence that other people will share that belief
33:10
and will actually support you in what you're doing.
33:13
Because I think people are there.
33:14
I mean, otherwise, crikey, we'd be talking to an empty room,
33:16
empty tent. We're not.
33:17
We know that people now are actually going up to get it in
33:20
through the through the thing. That is true.
33:22
I know people at home might think I'm bluffing, but I'm not.
33:25
So yeah. OK, One, one more.
33:28
Oh, sorry. 1st as if this works. Oh yeah.
33:32
So I fell for my first AI hoax on YouTube where Sid Starmer had
33:39
taken money that he shouldn't and the Supreme Court had ruled
33:42
that he had to step down. And I thought that sounds good
33:45
to be true. So I still put it on Facebook.
33:48
And then the other thing is all your content, the Alex Jones
33:54
has, the Infowars, he does lots of links.
33:56
And you may agree or not agree, but you know, ultimately they
34:00
said that that what they wanted to do to him was take his
34:02
content like they could take yours, steal it, repackage it
34:07
and decredit, discredit it. And if they can break laws like
34:11
that, how do you protect your copyright?
34:15
That that's a very good question.
34:16
And there is no way because as you probably know, a the AI
34:21
companies are hoovering up all kinds of copyright content at
34:24
the moment to so-called train the AI.
34:26
And this is resulting in court cases in the United States and
34:29
the UK everywhere. And so far they are generally
34:32
being won by the AAI companies on AII would just say, you know,
34:40
this is going to be something which is going to become very,
34:42
very hard for all of us in the not too distant future.
34:45
It's already hard because there's so much AI generated
34:48
content already starting to appear on social media
34:50
platforms, which is hard to identify as being.
34:56
And that's why always going back to the primary source is is
34:59
important. And so we should be sharing
35:02
material, but we should be absolutely careful about how
35:05
we're sharing material and what material we're sharing.
35:07
And it's very attractive to, you know, if if something is is
35:14
apparently really hard hitting and, and is exciting and, and
35:20
maybe it shows somebody up like Starmer up as being the criminal
35:24
that he might be, then obviously we want to share it.
35:27
But that's that's the point where we should be saying to
35:30
ourselves, hold on a second. And you know, it, it, it is a
35:32
common criticism of the column that it takes us ages to cover a
35:38
particular topic. And, and there's a reason for
35:41
that. And the reason for that is
35:42
because we're careful and, and we want to absolutely, to the
35:46
best of our ability, make sure that we're right in what we say.
35:49
Now, that takes time. And so we're not necessarily
35:52
covering the latest thing on the day that it happens.
35:55
It might be a few days later or whatever, because we we need to
35:59
take the time to just try to establish exactly what the facts
36:02
are. Righto folks, that does draw the
36:07
first session of the day to a close, so I know you've had your
36:10
hand up, but we.