Latest / UK Column Radio / When is it Okay to Restrict Free Speech? | Jerm Warfare

Transcript

When is it Okay to Restrict Free Speech? | Jerm Warfare · UK Column Radio

• 0:03
  Speaker 1: M m M. My name is Jim.
• 0:31
  Speaker 2: This is Jim Warfare, the Battle of ideas very quickly,
• 0:35
  Speaker 2: big changes on the UK column website.
• 0:39
  Speaker 3: Yes, uh, this is a response to the Online Safety
• 0:44
  Speaker 3: Act because we are refusing to comply. And and I
• 0:49
  Speaker 3: realized that for some people that's going to be a
• 0:53
  Speaker 3: difficult thing because you know, quite a little, quite a
• 0:57
  Speaker 3: bit of this remembers functionality in terms of private messaging
• 1:01
  Speaker 3: and and the ability to create new or create their
• 1:05
  Speaker 3: own posts is now gone. But that's sort of necessary
• 1:11
  Speaker 3: unfortunately because of the regime that we have at the moment.
• 1:14
  Speaker 3: And and you know, what we're absolutely kin to avoid
• 1:19
  Speaker 3: is getting into any age verification nonsense. Now, the reason
• 1:24
  Speaker 3: that we've done this in this way is because there's
• 1:26
  Speaker 3: an exemption in the Act for recognized news publishers and
• 1:30
  Speaker 3: we absolutely fall into that because the definition of that
• 1:34
  Speaker 3: was so broad that that that we fall into that category.
• 1:39
  Speaker 3: And so we're we're going to attempt to take advantage
• 1:42
  Speaker 3: of the exemptions that are in the Act for the
• 1:46
  Speaker 3: requirement to do certain things.
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: Now, I brought it up because there is an overlap.
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: I want to chat a little bit about free speech.
• 1:54
  Speaker 2: But before the forums went down, there was some comments saying, yeah,
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: but this is bending over, this is kind of accepting
• 2:07
  Speaker 2: what the government is doing.
• 2:11
  Speaker 3: Well, my argument on that would be that we have
• 2:13
  Speaker 3: to pick our battles. We have to choose our battles,
• 2:15
  Speaker 3: and you know, we could die on that hill and
• 2:19
  Speaker 3: we could say, right, this is going to end up
• 2:23
  Speaker 3: with the potential that ofcom is going to find us
• 2:26
  Speaker 3: ten percent of our turnover and which we can't afford
• 2:29
  Speaker 3: to hand over to them, or we can do our
• 2:35
  Speaker 3: best to navigate our way through it and stay on
• 2:38
  Speaker 3: our core mission, which is to stop this kind of
• 2:42
  Speaker 3: nonsense happening in the first place. And so you know,
• 2:48
  Speaker 3: I completely understand that that position. But you know what
• 2:53
  Speaker 3: did we do in twenty fourteen when the last time
• 2:57
  Speaker 3: offcome well, there's subsidiary was going after us. We effectively
• 3:02
  Speaker 3: shut down the YouTube channel at that point, and then
• 3:05
  Speaker 3: we used that as a as a launch pad for
• 3:11
  Speaker 3: a campaign effectively which which.
• 3:15
  Speaker 4: Ended up with that subsidiary being closed.
• 3:18
  Speaker 3: So you know, I don't think I don't think we're
• 3:20
  Speaker 3: going to be able to go quite the same way
• 3:22
  Speaker 3: in this instance. But the point is the time to
• 3:26
  Speaker 3: deal with this issue was in twenty eighteen, when twenty
• 3:30
  Speaker 3: seventeen when the Online Harms white paper came out and
• 3:33
  Speaker 3: we were warning people what this was going to lead to. So,
• 3:37
  Speaker 3: you know, this is this is where we're at. We
• 3:40
  Speaker 3: have to decide which battles we're going to fight and
• 3:43
  Speaker 3: and frankly, this one is not the one to be fighting.
• 3:47
  Speaker 5: Okay.
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: So then when we talk about free speech, what are
• 3:50
  Speaker 2: we actually talking about? I mean, okay, so let me
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: let me clarify that slightly. So we all have free
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: spee each by virtue of the fact that we can
• 4:01
  Speaker 2: make sounds from our mouth, so we you know, we
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: can talk. I don't think that's genuinely what's meant though,
• 4:06
  Speaker 2: when we talk about free speech. So I think it's
• 4:08
  Speaker 2: more to do with the relationship between our ability to
• 4:12
  Speaker 2: speak and the state's response.
• 4:17
  Speaker 6: Well, I think the way I see it is that
• 4:19
  Speaker 6: it's been it's been split into two things, and one
• 4:27
  Speaker 6: is where can you say stuff? So the what the
• 4:34
  Speaker 6: Online Safety Act, or at least certainly the provisions with
• 4:38
  Speaker 6: regard to user to use a content effectively, the the
• 4:43
  Speaker 6: criteria that we have had to respond to, and that
• 4:49
  Speaker 6: has specific regard to the changes to the website and
• 4:52
  Speaker 6: the way that people can comment. So that's part of it,
• 4:57
  Speaker 6: where is you know, where you can stuff. And then
• 5:01
  Speaker 6: the other part of it, which is what we've seen
• 5:04
  Speaker 6: in social media crackdowns and all this kind of stuff,
• 5:10
  Speaker 6: or at least where we see the incredibly glaring discrepancies
• 5:14
  Speaker 6: are what you can say and they are They're definitely
• 5:20
  Speaker 6: two different things. I mean, I think there's a third
• 5:23
  Speaker 6: element which has it has meant and I think this
• 5:28
  Speaker 6: is very deliberate, let's say, on the part of the authorities,
• 5:32
  Speaker 6: But the idea of where free speech begins and ends,
• 5:37
  Speaker 6: or what it should or shouldn't mean or in compass,
• 5:40
  Speaker 6: I think have been adapted, because what has definitely happened
• 5:48
  Speaker 6: is that, as I think as a reaction to the
• 5:52
  Speaker 6: narrowing or the channeling of speech full stop via the
• 5:57
  Speaker 6: social media network or indeed what's happening with the Online
• 6:01
  Speaker 6: Safety Act, in that there are fewer places where you
• 6:03
  Speaker 6: can perhaps make comment. Then of course we've got the
• 6:08
  Speaker 6: what is or isn't deemed to be within or without
• 6:13
  Speaker 6: the law, or at least the spirit of the law,
• 6:16
  Speaker 6: and then you've got all the community guidelines and all
• 6:20
  Speaker 6: the various things. But I think that the other element
• 6:22
  Speaker 6: to it, as I say, as a reaction against that
• 6:25
  Speaker 6: is that people have become more and more and more provocative,
• 6:30
  Speaker 6: let's say, in wanting to say stuff that is of
• 6:34
  Speaker 6: no value. It's it's simply offensive, and people want to say, yeah,
• 6:42
  Speaker 6: but free speech. And I think there's I think this
• 6:45
  Speaker 6: is I see, it's just a rather disappointing element to
• 6:49
  Speaker 6: it that people seem to think in the way that
• 6:51
  Speaker 6: I mean, let's okay, sorry, let let's go back a
• 6:54
  Speaker 6: few steps. So much stuff that is put out into
• 6:58
  Speaker 6: the ether, the virtual or online ether, would never ever
• 7:03
  Speaker 6: be said in person. People would not say this stuff
• 7:06
  Speaker 6: to each other's faces. And there's a good reason for that.
• 7:09
  Speaker 6: It's because it's just it's not going to create a
• 7:13
  Speaker 6: positive outcome.
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: What on earth.
• 7:14
  Speaker 6: You might hold that view privately, but what are you
• 7:17
  Speaker 6: trying to achieve by saying there's got to be a
• 7:20
  Speaker 6: better way. So I think there's this this very cloudy
• 7:25
  Speaker 6: element to it, which is where people have just gone
• 7:28
  Speaker 6: further and further and further in I don't know quite
• 7:31
  Speaker 6: how you describe it, sort of throwing their weight around
• 7:33
  Speaker 6: and then waiting to be told, look, you're just behaving
• 7:36
  Speaker 6: like an idiot. This is not I mean, this is
• 7:38
  Speaker 6: just not fun for anyone. It's not interesting, it doesn't
• 7:40
  Speaker 6: it doesn't add anything, oh right, and so you're trying
• 7:43
  Speaker 6: to shut down. It's just shut me down, you know
• 7:45
  Speaker 6: what about free speech? And I think that's a really
• 7:48
  Speaker 6: disappointing element to it. And I'm not sure if I'm
• 7:50
  Speaker 6: quite articulating that very well.
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: I mean, do you do you? I mean yeah, yeah.
• 7:56
  Speaker 2: And in fact, what you're talking about there part of
• 8:00
  Speaker 2: the tug of war that I've had for years, and
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: that is, in theory, we would all agree that being
• 8:09
  Speaker 2: a free speech absolutist is a good idea. But then
• 8:12
  Speaker 2: you get this element that decides that they want to
• 8:16
  Speaker 2: destroy what that means, and so they will deliberately troll
• 8:20
  Speaker 2: and basically create chaos so that you end up removing
• 8:26
  Speaker 2: speech and then they cry, oh but what about free speech?
• 8:29
  Speaker 2: So it's completely destructive and it derails every decent conversation.
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: You see this in YouTube comments, for example, where it's
• 8:35
  Speaker 2: it's just it just becomes a mess, and then you
• 8:39
  Speaker 2: end up defending removing comments or silencing speech because it's
• 8:45
  Speaker 2: not helpful.
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 8:49
  Speaker 6: Well, I think that's exactly what happens, and it is
• 8:54
  Speaker 6: it's hard to look at the prompting for that, as
• 8:58
  Speaker 6: in the the sadly wild stuff that swells around without
• 9:02
  Speaker 6: considering that it must be intentional in order that it
• 9:04
  Speaker 6: does provoke such a reaction. In fact, one very good
• 9:07
  Speaker 6: example which happened towards the tail end of last week,
• 9:10
  Speaker 6: and actually I haven't I haven't followed up to find
• 9:12
  Speaker 6: out whether any more has been said, but there was
• 9:14
  Speaker 6: a there was a if we're to believe even a
• 9:17
  Speaker 6: percentage of what was reported, there seemed to be a
• 9:19
  Speaker 6: very very bizarre and obviously for those involved, distressing incident
• 9:26
  Speaker 6: at a I can't remember how it's described, like small
• 9:30
  Speaker 6: family wildlife park where a three year old child was
• 9:34
  Speaker 6: apparently thrown into an enclosure that had crocodiles in it
• 9:38
  Speaker 6: and was injured I think by a crocodile. Now, this story,
• 9:44
  Speaker 6: as I say, I haven't followed it, so I don't
• 9:45
  Speaker 6: know that there might be a conclusion, but you can
• 9:48
  Speaker 6: imagine what happened immediately. X in particular was absolutely a
• 9:54
  Speaker 6: wash with the complete insistence that because the police force
• 10:00
  Speaker 6: that was dealing with it had not announced the ethnicity
• 10:04
  Speaker 6: of the suspect, that it was absolutely therefore a Muslim.
• 10:10
  Speaker 6: I mean, it just had to be. I mean, people,
• 10:12
  Speaker 6: you know, and they were even tweets saying, this is
• 10:16
  Speaker 6: what it means, you know, until such time as it
• 10:19
  Speaker 6: said otherwise this has to be that this has to
• 10:22
  Speaker 6: go down as being a Muslim. Now, obviously, what was
• 10:25
  Speaker 6: released a few hours later, again sort of seemingly to
• 10:31
  Speaker 6: provoke even greater fury, was that the suspect question, because
• 10:35
  Speaker 6: all that was released was that it was a thirty
• 10:37
  Speaker 6: year old man and the next bit of information to
• 10:41
  Speaker 6: come out was that the man was unfit for interview
• 10:43
  Speaker 6: and was released on bail, and of course, you know,
• 10:46
  Speaker 6: further outcry. So then we had people saying, oh, right,
• 10:51
  Speaker 6: you know, released because he's a Muslim and all this
• 10:54
  Speaker 6: kind of thing, and it just, you know, first of all,
• 10:58
  Speaker 6: it was so incredibly vindictive and also trid to be
• 11:00
  Speaker 6: insensitive to the family of the child, well and the
• 11:05
  Speaker 6: child him. I can't remember that it was bora girl.
• 11:07
  Speaker 6: I don't know, maybe we don't know that, but the
• 11:10
  Speaker 6: whole thing around it was just blew up in an
• 11:17
  Speaker 6: entirely fabricated, confected way based on nothing and the in
• 11:22
  Speaker 6: terms of unfit you know, whether people like it or not,
• 11:25
  Speaker 6: that is one of the ways in which police are
• 11:30
  Speaker 6: forced to operate when they're interviewing people effectively. It's because
• 11:34
  Speaker 6: if you get to the point, if you get to
• 11:36
  Speaker 6: a trial, somebody's charged and it subsequently emerges that they
• 11:39
  Speaker 6: were unfit for interview in that they were either considered
• 11:43
  Speaker 6: vulnerable therefore they didn't have sufficient mental capacity, or they
• 11:47
  Speaker 6: were below a certain age, or they were incapacitated because
• 11:49
  Speaker 6: they were on drugs or drink. Then clearly when you
• 11:53
  Speaker 6: get to the court, that's going to collapse. So there
• 11:56
  Speaker 6: are some really really sound reason.
• 11:58
  Speaker 3: Why Charles, can I just interrupt a second, because because
• 12:00
  Speaker 3: what I was I'm wondering about that a comment and
• 12:03
  Speaker 3: what you've said about the social media response in a second,
• 12:05
  Speaker 3: but just on the police response, the thing that that
• 12:09
  Speaker 3: I think probably shocks people most was the fact that
• 12:11
  Speaker 3: the guy had been released on bill because of what
• 12:13
  Speaker 3: we're talking about here is potentially attempted murder. Why why
• 12:19
  Speaker 3: would the person not be remanded to custody or into
• 12:22
  Speaker 3: some kind of medical, secure medical facility.
• 12:26
  Speaker 6: Yeah, well, well that's a very good question, and that
• 12:28
  Speaker 6: could be a technicality. I'm not in any way trying
• 12:30
  Speaker 6: to defend police. I don't know, of course, I don't know.
• 12:34
  Speaker 4: The because it seemed to me.
• 12:35
  Speaker 3: It seemed to me, and you tell me what you
• 12:37
  Speaker 3: think about this, but it seemed to me that this
• 12:39
  Speaker 3: was yet again another as you say, confected situation. It
• 12:45
  Speaker 3: just struck me as being another gang, kind of gang.
• 12:48
  Speaker 3: Insightful things were being done in a particular way. There
• 12:52
  Speaker 3: was there were trolls coming onto the the social media
• 12:56
  Speaker 3: platforms in order to wind people up. At the same time,
• 12:59
  Speaker 3: the police were behaving in a particular way, and it
• 13:02
  Speaker 3: just looked to me like another situation where a tragic
• 13:07
  Speaker 3: event was being taken advantage of to drive people to extremes.
• 13:12
  Speaker 6: Again, yeah, I totally agree. And if and it's hard
• 13:15
  Speaker 6: to ascertain exactly what may have happened, but if one
• 13:18
  Speaker 6: does read between the lines, and it seems to have
• 13:22
  Speaker 6: been surmised and it is obviously feasible that this person,
• 13:26
  Speaker 6: the thirty year old man, was in care because he
• 13:30
  Speaker 6: has certain issues physical and or mental, which means he
• 13:35
  Speaker 6: requires care and therefore was at this place with presumably
• 13:40
  Speaker 6: one or more cares. Now, the issue here is one
• 13:44
  Speaker 6: of responsibility. You can't simply say, oh, well, he doesn't
• 13:47
  Speaker 6: have capacity, so therefore no one's responsible and yet that
• 13:51
  Speaker 6: is exactly what it looks like. And to your point
• 13:53
  Speaker 6: about releasing somebody on bail, well, I mean that I
• 13:57
  Speaker 6: would totally agree. On the face of it seems completely
• 14:00
  Speaker 6: absurd unless it is known that this person is already
• 14:05
  Speaker 6: in what would be described as a secure setting and
• 14:07
  Speaker 6: can't get out of his own volition to go and
• 14:10
  Speaker 6: do such and such a thing. Again, so I think
• 14:12
  Speaker 6: there's it's not so much what we're told, it's sort
• 14:15
  Speaker 6: of what we're not told and that but again I
• 14:18
  Speaker 6: might be wrong based on what we have been told,
• 14:20
  Speaker 6: which is that this individual was belled.
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it is.
• 14:23
  Speaker 6: It is absolutely therefore possible that that is not his
• 14:28
  Speaker 6: situation and that he could be presenting further harm to
• 14:32
  Speaker 6: the public. And you see that again is irresponsible in
• 14:35
  Speaker 6: terms of communicating because what does it do in exactly
• 14:38
  Speaker 6: the same way that you put it out and just
• 14:39
  Speaker 6: say as a thirty year old man, everyone goes, oh,
• 14:41
  Speaker 6: it's a Muslim. If you put it out he's being
• 14:43
  Speaker 6: released on bail, everyone can freely make that assumption and
• 14:48
  Speaker 6: make mischief with it.
• 14:49
  Speaker 3: So yeah, and of course, if it turns out at
• 14:52
  Speaker 3: the end of the day that he is a Muslim,
• 14:53
  Speaker 3: then it's that's going to enflam things even further because
• 14:56
  Speaker 3: everybody's going to be saying, oh, I told you.
• 14:58
  Speaker 6: Of course, of course, and that's why he did it.
• 15:00
  Speaker 6: It'll be he only did it because he's a Muslim.
• 15:04
  Speaker 6: So there are a lot of issues. But just to
• 15:06
  Speaker 6: the point of responsibility, I do think this is slightly tangential,
• 15:10
  Speaker 6: but I think it does speak to the spirit of
• 15:12
  Speaker 6: the age. If he was If this was somebody mentally
• 15:15
  Speaker 6: incapacitated who is in care and was out with carers
• 15:18
  Speaker 6: and was still able to do this, then the responsibility
• 15:22
  Speaker 6: for that lies with those carers and they should be
• 15:25
  Speaker 6: in custody. Now that doesn't seem to have been touched
• 15:28
  Speaker 6: on at all, and as I say, I'm probably calling
• 15:30
  Speaker 6: for more detail than could possibly be forthcoming at this stage.
• 15:34
  Speaker 6: But so the problem is going back to the idea
• 15:36
  Speaker 6: of free speech where stuff can be said, what can
• 15:39
  Speaker 6: be said. And again this is not to defend police,
• 15:42
  Speaker 6: but it does just illustrate the minefield that people find
• 15:44
  Speaker 6: themselves in. It is blinking difficult. What do you communicate now?
• 15:48
  Speaker 6: What do you actually put out? You have to you know,
• 15:51
  Speaker 6: it was in a public place, it was a serious incident,
• 15:54
  Speaker 6: quite clearly social media is going to be a wash
• 15:56
  Speaker 6: with stuff whether or not you put a statement out,
• 15:59
  Speaker 6: so therefore you do need to put something out, and
• 16:02
  Speaker 6: at that stage you don't know everything, so.
• 16:05
  Speaker 4: I'm sorry, Charles.
• 16:06
  Speaker 3: The other thing is the police have certain criteria for
• 16:11
  Speaker 3: what gets put out when for our protection, because at
• 16:14
  Speaker 3: the end of the day, any of us could find
• 16:16
  Speaker 3: ourselves on the wrong end of some kind of prostitution,
• 16:20
  Speaker 3: and that we are all entitled, no matter who we are,
• 16:23
  Speaker 3: a free trial.
• 16:25
  Speaker 6: Absolutely, and this is it, And just to play devil's advocate,
• 16:29
  Speaker 6: it is it is possible because none of us speaking
• 16:32
  Speaker 6: here now was there, and I would wager that nobody
• 16:35
  Speaker 6: listening was there either, And as far as I'm aware,
• 16:37
  Speaker 6: there's no sort of first hand account or footage from
• 16:42
  Speaker 6: the thing, so that no one knows. It is possible
• 16:45
  Speaker 6: that the thirty year old suspect was not actually the
• 16:48
  Speaker 6: person that did what is supposed to have happened, or
• 16:52
  Speaker 6: that there's another explanation. So there's a there's a huge
• 16:55
  Speaker 6: amount to it that we simply don't know and can't know.
• 16:58
  Speaker 6: But as I say, the point is is that police,
• 17:03
  Speaker 6: and to a certain extent, any of the bodies that
• 17:07
  Speaker 6: deal with police in these sorts of matters are in
• 17:10
  Speaker 6: a terrifically difficult position. So the sort of oh, yeah,
• 17:14
  Speaker 6: you know, the police need to be doing this, that,
• 17:16
  Speaker 6: and the other sort of said by people who really
• 17:19
  Speaker 6: do seem to want to have it both ways. They
• 17:21
  Speaker 6: want to be able to attack from the sidelines and
• 17:23
  Speaker 6: absolutely stir everything up and make the police job impossible
• 17:26
  Speaker 6: at the same time as complaining bitterly when the you
• 17:31
  Speaker 6: know this, that and the other appears to have been
• 17:33
  Speaker 6: allowed to happen. So as I say, I'm not defending
• 17:36
  Speaker 6: police because a lot of the decision making processes is
• 17:39
  Speaker 6: absolutely abysmal. But still, if you want to make it
• 17:43
  Speaker 6: better at the same time as apparently acting to make
• 17:47
  Speaker 6: it worse, then I think make your mind up.
• 17:51
  Speaker 2: But that does again horseshoe us to the question of
• 17:57
  Speaker 2: is free speech absolutism something that we should be striving
• 18:03
  Speaker 2: for or is it just a utopian sort of concept
• 18:08
  Speaker 2: that actually is is pointless.
• 18:11
  Speaker 6: Oh, I mean, I'm this is not to I'm not
• 18:14
  Speaker 6: at all saying free speech, but but what I'm saying
• 18:17
  Speaker 6: is that you can't fly, you can't ride into battle
• 18:20
  Speaker 6: with a with a free speech banner flowing behind you
• 18:23
  Speaker 6: and not expect to get your head cut off if
• 18:25
  Speaker 6: you're an idiot. That that's that's what it is.
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: It's not. It doesn't make.
• 18:30
  Speaker 3: What it comes down to, it's not a question of
• 18:32
  Speaker 3: whether you can say it, it's whether you should.
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: Exactly. It doesn't make you clever.
• 18:37
  Speaker 6: Just because you have the right to say it doesn't
• 18:40
  Speaker 6: mean it is therefore valid. And I think this is
• 18:43
  Speaker 6: what people have absolutely forgotten. And this is why I
• 18:45
  Speaker 6: go back to the you would not say that to
• 18:48
  Speaker 6: somebody's face because you would get punched. And if that
• 18:51
  Speaker 6: sounds that I'm taking it to a very basic level,
• 18:54
  Speaker 6: well I'm sorry.
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: That is where I get to with it.
• 18:59
  Speaker 2: I completely agree with you, and I'm asking that because
• 19:01
  Speaker 2: on an anecdotal level, you know, you'll know if you've
• 19:04
  Speaker 2: got a child in the house, you don't want someone
• 19:07
  Speaker 2: coming in there and swearing in front of your child,
• 19:09
  Speaker 2: so you go. So it's not about it's not about
• 19:11
  Speaker 2: censoring them. It's also just about being responsible. But you
• 19:15
  Speaker 2: can't make people responsible. So what you end up doing
• 19:19
  Speaker 2: is you restrict what they can say because there is
• 19:23
  Speaker 2: a valuable consequence to that restriction.
• 19:27
  Speaker 5: So in which case, am I a free speech absolutist. No,
• 19:33
  Speaker 5: it would appear not.
• 19:34
  Speaker 2: I also don't want to go into a cinema, or
• 19:37
  Speaker 2: not that I've been to a cinema for years, but
• 19:38
  Speaker 2: I suppose the old adage of going to cinema and
• 19:41
  Speaker 2: everybody must keep quiet because you're not there to listen
• 19:44
  Speaker 2: to other people's conversations.
• 19:45
  Speaker 6: But that is an absolutely brilliant example because it does
• 19:51
  Speaker 6: deal with exactly those two things. With the Online Safety Act,
• 19:54
  Speaker 6: the way you can say stuff, and for anyone who
• 19:57
  Speaker 6: wanders into a cinema thinking, yeah, well, you know it's
• 20:00
  Speaker 6: my right to free speech to be able to stand
• 20:02
  Speaker 6: up and just start talking in the middle of a film. Yeah,
• 20:06
  Speaker 6: it might be, but you're going to get clocked. That
• 20:09
  Speaker 6: is just not what people want in that environment. It
• 20:13
  Speaker 6: doesn't matter if what you're saying is the most utterly compelling,
• 20:17
  Speaker 6: fascinating and life changing thing, it's just not the right
• 20:20
  Speaker 6: time to be saying is. And conversely, if it turned
• 20:24
  Speaker 6: out to be something fantastically dull or whatever else and
• 20:28
  Speaker 6: you said it in the foyer outside the cinema, well
• 20:31
  Speaker 6: again people might not really be particularly interested just because
• 20:34
  Speaker 6: you are expressing your right to free speech. So it's
• 20:37
  Speaker 6: just this complete.
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: Murkiness, or.
• 20:45
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's been created through social media, I would argue, yeah, absolutely,
• 20:50
  Speaker 2: of course. I mean I wonder if this happened in
• 20:51
  Speaker 2: the nineteen eighties, for example, were people this rude and
• 20:57
  Speaker 2: this destructive in conversation?
• 20:58
  Speaker 6: I don't think so. I mean, I think I think
• 21:01
  Speaker 6: that there was a very successful series, a sort of
• 21:05
  Speaker 6: comic what do you call it, a sketch show on
• 21:09
  Speaker 6: television in the I can't remember when it was. She
• 21:12
  Speaker 6: was at late nineteen nineties trigger Happy TV. This is
• 21:16
  Speaker 6: this this chap called Dom Jolly who in fact it's
• 21:22
  Speaker 6: sort of a quite curious background, and that he always
• 21:24
  Speaker 6: talks himself up as being a failed diplomat.
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: He was.
• 21:27
  Speaker 6: He grew up in partly in Lebanon. I think anyway,
• 21:32
  Speaker 6: he it was very it was cleverly done. It was
• 21:34
  Speaker 6: very cleverly done because it was observational and it was
• 21:37
  Speaker 6: what he did was was he played upon the sort
• 21:42
  Speaker 6: of slightly stiff, stiff upper lit British reaction to two
• 21:47
  Speaker 6: things that went on that were awkward, and so one
• 21:49
  Speaker 6: of his one of his jokes which was played in cinemas,
• 21:54
  Speaker 6: and this was all real. So it's like it was
• 21:55
  Speaker 6: sort of hidden camera thing, and it was very cleverly done.
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: Every one.
• 22:00
  Speaker 6: I think we'll probably remember the sort of signature Nokia
• 22:03
  Speaker 6: mobile ring tone, which was the one that became known
• 22:06
  Speaker 6: because you know, it was at a time.
• 22:08
  Speaker 5: Do do do Do Do Do do.
• 22:09
  Speaker 2: Do do so?
• 22:11
  Speaker 6: I mean, you know, let's face it, in twenty twenty six,
• 22:13
  Speaker 6: there are an awful lot of people out there who
• 22:15
  Speaker 6: still don't know how to either turn their telephone on
• 22:17
  Speaker 6: or off or turn it onto silent. And there's you know,
• 22:20
  Speaker 6: sort of go to any event and there's this kind
• 22:22
  Speaker 6: of scrabbling around panic of somebody trying to deal with
• 22:25
  Speaker 6: a telephone that rings. Now what Dom Jolly did, and
• 22:28
  Speaker 6: I say this was I think late nineties, early two thousands,
• 22:31
  Speaker 6: when people still would really not converse with these things,
• 22:33
  Speaker 6: is he would go into a cinema and that and
• 22:37
  Speaker 6: that sound would go off really really loudly, and he
• 22:42
  Speaker 6: would stand up in the cinema with a with a
• 22:44
  Speaker 6: fake mobile telephone that was about two foot long, absolutely
• 22:48
  Speaker 6: vast thing to like a scale model of a of
• 22:52
  Speaker 6: a Nokia telephone, and he would yell into it hello,
• 22:56
  Speaker 6: and and you'd see from the back of the cinema
• 22:59
  Speaker 6: everybody just round but of course it was. It was
• 23:01
  Speaker 6: this was in England. No one said anything to him.
• 23:04
  Speaker 6: He just he was allowed to get on a bit.
• 23:06
  Speaker 6: And then and then he would carry on and he
• 23:08
  Speaker 6: would shout, no, I'm in the cinema, with apologies for
• 23:12
  Speaker 6: people that have seen this, but anyway, he would say
• 23:14
  Speaker 6: in the cinema, and still no one would say anything.
• 23:17
  Speaker 6: And then and then he would pause again, and then
• 23:20
  Speaker 6: he would say no, it's rubbish, and that was it,
• 23:24
  Speaker 6: and it would carry on like this. But that the
• 23:27
  Speaker 6: the incredible thing was that nobody responded because they were
• 23:32
  Speaker 6: too shocked and it was so far beyond the levels
• 23:38
  Speaker 6: of behavior that are considered it any way appropriate in
• 23:41
  Speaker 6: the cinema that it was it was too too big
• 23:44
  Speaker 6: to deal with. And I think I think that effect
• 23:47
  Speaker 6: is in some ways what we see with this whole
• 23:51
  Speaker 6: free speech thing, so that the stuff that gets put
• 23:53
  Speaker 6: out there, you just look at it and think, what
• 23:57
  Speaker 6: are you doing? But but it's just another one so
• 24:00
  Speaker 6: to say that people understand the sort of philosophy that
• 24:02
  Speaker 6: he was testing. Another thing he did was he put
• 24:06
  Speaker 6: on a costume so that he looked like a snail
• 24:10
  Speaker 6: and he would get to a pedestrian crossing a zebra
• 24:14
  Speaker 6: crossing on a busy road, and he would stand outside
• 24:17
  Speaker 6: of it. He'd wait for a car to stop for
• 24:20
  Speaker 6: him to cross, and then he would kneel down on
• 24:22
  Speaker 6: the ground and cross as though a snail. And I
• 24:27
  Speaker 6: mean he would take minutes over doing it. But of
• 24:30
  Speaker 6: course what did people do. They waited. They absolutely waited,
• 24:33
  Speaker 6: because that was the rules. Anyway, I don't want to
• 24:34
  Speaker 6: get diverted that thing. But the point is that what
• 24:37
  Speaker 6: he was, what he did very very well, was identify
• 24:41
  Speaker 6: the ways in which people were conditioned to respond. So
• 24:47
  Speaker 6: whereas now look at what happens when just stop oil
• 24:51
  Speaker 6: or extinction, rebellion stop, you know, stop the traffic immediately.
• 24:55
  Speaker 6: And I would say, actually, quite rightly, people jump out
• 24:58
  Speaker 6: of their cars and VA and all these guys off
• 25:01
  Speaker 6: the road that you know, you can't do this. But
• 25:03
  Speaker 6: that's a slightly different thing, because that's because of the
• 25:05
  Speaker 6: purpose of it. But I do think this, you know,
• 25:08
  Speaker 6: people have completely lost sight of what it is that
• 25:14
  Speaker 6: you should or shouldn't be doing in a in a
• 25:16
  Speaker 6: given situation.
• 25:17
  Speaker 2: In point, another scenario to add to what you're talking
• 25:21
  Speaker 2: about is if you're an aeroplane, there's genuinely a rule
• 25:25
  Speaker 2: that you don't make jokes about bombs and terrorists and
• 25:28
  Speaker 2: that kind of stuff. And it's a very reasonable rule
• 25:31
  Speaker 2: because you're stuck in the sky and people can very
• 25:36
  Speaker 2: very quickly become anxious and it can be all kinds
• 25:39
  Speaker 2: of chaos if they are scared. So in other words,
• 25:44
  Speaker 2: there are justifiable restrictions on speech.
• 25:49
  Speaker 5: But this is where this is okay.
• 25:50
  Speaker 3: But but hold on a second, hold on a second,
• 25:52
  Speaker 3: charm because because the way this conversation has gone is
• 25:55
  Speaker 3: very very interesting, and I just want to I just
• 25:57
  Speaker 3: want to highlight one thing because both of you have
• 26:01
  Speaker 3: made the comment about.
• 26:05
  Speaker 4: Where it's right.
• 26:06
  Speaker 3: What was it you said, Charles, something about whether it's
• 26:10
  Speaker 3: right that's certain, whether you have the right to say
• 26:14
  Speaker 3: whatever you like on a particular platform for example. Now,
• 26:17
  Speaker 3: of course, one of the things that we have lived
• 26:21
  Speaker 3: through since twenty twenty in particular, has been the d
• 26:24
  Speaker 3: platforming of people, because you know, we went into we
• 26:30
  Speaker 3: for example, went into YouTube's home and started swearing in
• 26:33
  Speaker 3: front of the children, or we went on the It
• 26:37
  Speaker 3: didn't happen on Twitter, but certainly YouTube and Vimeo and
• 26:40
  Speaker 3: a whole bunch of other platforms kicked us off because
• 26:43
  Speaker 3: we did in there and what they would argue the
• 26:46
  Speaker 3: equivalent of going and swearing in front of the children
• 26:48
  Speaker 3: in their home. Now, are we suggesting that they were
• 26:52
  Speaker 3: right to do that, because I don't think they were
• 26:54
  Speaker 3: right to do Yeah, and where is the line then?
• 26:58
  Speaker 1: Yeah, but this is precise.
• 27:00
  Speaker 6: No, I think that that's such a good point, and
• 27:02
  Speaker 6: that is I think that is something that we completely
• 27:04
  Speaker 6: need to clarify because that's no, well, no, it's not that,
• 27:10
  Speaker 6: it's it's so clear. This is this is like, it's exactly.
• 27:15
  Speaker 6: Let's just extend the cinema analogy. Now, you go into
• 27:18
  Speaker 6: cinema and let's say you didn't have to buy a ticket.
• 27:21
  Speaker 6: You could just you could just have a look into
• 27:23
  Speaker 6: each of the screens and see whether or not you
• 27:25
  Speaker 6: wanted to go in there. And you open the door
• 27:28
  Speaker 6: to one and it's you know, it's it's ponies and waterfalls,
• 27:32
  Speaker 6: and it's it's it's people sort of singing, and quite
• 27:36
  Speaker 6: clearly that there's no, it's not gonna be any anything
• 27:39
  Speaker 6: you might describe as sort of harmful or shocking content.
• 27:41
  Speaker 6: You open the other door and it is full scale blood,
• 27:45
  Speaker 6: guts and whatever. So you shut that door. You'd open
• 27:48
  Speaker 6: the next one, it's you know, it's the swearing room.
• 27:50
  Speaker 6: It's it's sort of it's just an extended argument, and sorry.
• 27:54
  Speaker 6: The point is that you decide which of those rooms
• 27:58
  Speaker 6: you're going to get in, going to go into. If
• 28:01
  Speaker 6: you go into the swearing one and no, it's got
• 28:05
  Speaker 6: a sign above the door saying this is the swearing
• 28:08
  Speaker 6: room or this is the swearing film. And then you
• 28:10
  Speaker 6: complain afterwards or during that there was swearing. That is
• 28:15
  Speaker 6: your responsibility. It is not the fault of either the
• 28:19
  Speaker 6: cinema owner or the people that produce the film, or
• 28:23
  Speaker 6: anyone that had anything to do with what was being
• 28:27
  Speaker 6: complained about. It is it's like, and this is where
• 28:31
  Speaker 6: I always you know, with this sort of gender a gender,
• 28:35
  Speaker 6: it's like people, you know, people with squash rackets turning
• 28:38
  Speaker 6: up to a tennis club and saying, yeah, but we
• 28:40
  Speaker 6: want to play squash. Okay, it's absolutely fine, but just
• 28:44
  Speaker 6: not here because this is a tennis club. We played
• 28:46
  Speaker 6: tennis here. But people have become emboldened and convinced that
• 28:53
  Speaker 6: they can go wherever it is and just insist on
• 28:58
  Speaker 6: their point of view, you being heard or their right being. Entitlement, Yeah,
• 29:04
  Speaker 6: effectively entitlement and so that going back to Mike, what
• 29:08
  Speaker 6: you were saying about YouTube or whatever it is, or
• 29:12
  Speaker 6: the content that you're specifically putting on it, if you
• 29:14
  Speaker 6: end up there watching that that is active, you have
• 29:17
  Speaker 6: actively gone to that place to look at that, to
• 29:21
  Speaker 6: complain afterwards, I'm afraid is completely unjustifiable in my view.
• 29:27
  Speaker 6: And yet that's where we've got to. That is exactly
• 29:30
  Speaker 6: where we've got to.
• 29:30
  Speaker 3: And the same just like, okay, but but but but
• 29:34
  Speaker 3: your local cinema isn't going to show a porn movie.
• 29:40
  Speaker 3: So there's content that will not be shown in the
• 29:42
  Speaker 3: local cinema. So no matter no matter what, no matter
• 29:46
  Speaker 3: how strong the content may be in an over eighteen film,
• 29:50
  Speaker 3: it's you know that when you walk into a cinema,
• 29:53
  Speaker 3: you're not going to be presented with a certain standard
• 29:57
  Speaker 3: of content. And and so what what I'm challenging you
• 30:01
  Speaker 3: both on is whether the question is whether YouTube or
• 30:06
  Speaker 3: or any other social media platform has the right to
• 30:09
  Speaker 3: decide what they're.
• 30:11
  Speaker 5: They do the right, Yes, they do have the right
• 30:13
  Speaker 5: if it's their platform.
• 30:14
  Speaker 3: I suppose were they right there for to keeck the
• 30:16
  Speaker 3: UK colum off in twenty twenty two.
• 30:19
  Speaker 2: You see, I think maybe the questions wrong if you're
• 30:23
  Speaker 2: saying where they were? Okay, so hold on, this is
• 30:27
  Speaker 2: about language, not quickly. It's their platform and as such
• 30:33
  Speaker 2: they can allow whatever they want on their platform. I
• 30:36
  Speaker 2: guess you could argue were they right? No, I don't
• 30:40
  Speaker 2: think they were right, but they were within their rights.
• 30:45
  Speaker 2: It's no, it's not becoming a language thing. I many
• 30:49
  Speaker 2: people will argue, yes they were right. I mean my
• 30:52
  Speaker 2: videos were taken down. Also, my channel was removed three times,
• 30:55
  Speaker 2: and many people who hate me all go absolutely brilliant
• 30:58
  Speaker 2: move by YouTube. I hope Spotify does the same and Facebook, etc.
• 31:01
  Speaker 2: You know, we can't have this disinformation spreading. So I
• 31:07
  Speaker 2: don't think that they were right, but were they within
• 31:10
  Speaker 2: their rights? I suppose you could argue yes, yeah.
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: I mean I'm afraid I have to agree.
• 31:15
  Speaker 6: And sorry, I think with my rant about which door
• 31:18
  Speaker 6: you open the cinema, I think I might have missed
• 31:20
  Speaker 6: your point. Although I think what I was saying is
• 31:23
  Speaker 6: is absolutely a big part of it, because I do
• 31:25
  Speaker 6: think that, yes, you know, we wouldn't be where we
• 31:28
  Speaker 6: are if people didn't have exactly like you say, jam
• 31:30
  Speaker 6: this ridiculous sense of entitlement. But no, in my view,
• 31:34
  Speaker 6: this was the whole point of the Internet. This is
• 31:37
  Speaker 6: absolutely why the Internet was created in order that people
• 31:40
  Speaker 6: are removed from the public forum as it had been
• 31:44
  Speaker 6: historically traditionally, where you simply talk to each other face
• 31:49
  Speaker 6: to face or in a sort of plenary setting, and
• 31:52
  Speaker 6: by taking inserting the Internet into that void, suddenly somebody
• 31:59
  Speaker 6: has a ownership of that because they have the platform
• 32:03
  Speaker 6: which acts as conduit between the people that are wanting
• 32:07
  Speaker 6: to have that discourse. So somebody so a level that
• 32:10
  Speaker 6: did not exist previously in some ways. Okay, you could
• 32:14
  Speaker 6: say it always did, because if say you wanted to
• 32:18
  Speaker 6: convene at a town hall or a village hall, that
• 32:22
  Speaker 6: you could say that the function there was performed by
• 32:25
  Speaker 6: say the committee or the bookings personal or whoever. There
• 32:30
  Speaker 6: is always going to be an element of say, control
• 32:34
  Speaker 6: as to whether or not you can use that space
• 32:37
  Speaker 6: to say that stuff. But I think the Internet has
• 32:40
  Speaker 6: magnified and aptified that to such an incredible extent. And
• 32:44
  Speaker 6: exactly you know, this is the UK column predictment across
• 32:47
  Speaker 6: the piece. If it worked for our own website, then
• 32:51
  Speaker 6: we are absolutely completely, totally and utterly at the mercy
• 32:55
  Speaker 6: of other people. Are the providers and as I say
• 32:58
  Speaker 6: this to me, was the point of the Internet. And
• 33:01
  Speaker 6: this is why when we got to twenty twenty and
• 33:03
  Speaker 6: people were told to stay in their homes and do this,
• 33:06
  Speaker 6: that and the other's that was how it was done.
• 33:09
  Speaker 6: It was because but I think everybody was already off
• 33:13
  Speaker 6: the traditional mechanisms of being able to communicate, and so
• 33:17
  Speaker 6: you could shut out the voices of reason and only
• 33:21
  Speaker 6: have the voices of terrorism. And that was precisely what happened.
• 33:26
  Speaker 1: So so.
• 33:28
  Speaker 6: Whether or not YouTube in twenty twenty two was being
• 33:31
  Speaker 6: consistent with what YouTube had written down in the in
• 33:36
  Speaker 6: the minute shy of their terms and conditions, well, I
• 33:40
  Speaker 6: dare say the toss could be argued on that. But
• 33:43
  Speaker 6: exactly like you say, Jam, they are they Unfortunately they
• 33:46
  Speaker 6: and anybody else is within their rights in the same
• 33:49
  Speaker 6: way that the owner of a cinema is within their
• 33:51
  Speaker 6: rights if they say, oh, oh, you know, just we've
• 33:53
  Speaker 6: had too many ponies more to faults this week, which
• 33:55
  Speaker 6: is not going to show it.
• 33:56
  Speaker 1: They don't show it.
• 33:58
  Speaker 2: That's why I directed you the But I was going
• 34:00
  Speaker 2: to say, there is an interesting counter consequence though, from
• 34:07
  Speaker 2: all the censorship that that that was going on during
• 34:11
  Speaker 2: the COVID era.
• 34:12
  Speaker 5: It caused a rise in new kinds of.
• 34:19
  Speaker 2: Parallel mediums, platforms to to open to counter that. I'm
• 34:25
  Speaker 2: trying to think now, perhaps Odyssey, whatever they What I
• 34:29
  Speaker 2: mean is that people will creatively find a way around suppression.
• 34:36
  Speaker 5: If that's a silver.
• 34:40
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 34:40
  Speaker 3: Unfortunately though, what these platforms were created, honestly, and Rumble
• 34:48
  Speaker 3: and bed shoot and these types of platforms were created,
• 34:52
  Speaker 3: and what these effectively became was protest pants. So you know,
• 34:59
  Speaker 3: this is this is the let the latest effort to
• 35:02
  Speaker 3: try to control dissenting voices. And the first time I
• 35:07
  Speaker 3: saw it was at the twenty thirteen Builderberg meeting in
• 35:13
  Speaker 3: Watford when a field was assigned for the protest to
• 35:19
  Speaker 3: take place. So everybody was penned into a field and
• 35:23
  Speaker 3: not allowed to go anywhere else, not allowed to go
• 35:26
  Speaker 3: to any of the entrances of the hotel and so on,
• 35:31
  Speaker 3: and so bit shoot and Rumble during twenty twenty two,
• 35:36
  Speaker 3: twenty twenty three, twenty twenty four, where where the disaffected went,
• 35:40
  Speaker 3: where the people went that got kicked off the mainstream platforms.
• 35:43
  Speaker 3: But the problem was the audience didn't go with them.
• 35:46
  Speaker 3: And so for example, you know, when we got kicked
• 35:49
  Speaker 3: off YouTube and then reappeared three or four years later.
• 35:54
  Speaker 3: The number of people who said, oh, we thought you'd
• 35:58
  Speaker 3: gone completely and they had no idea that we had
• 36:03
  Speaker 3: a website or that they could come and find us
• 36:05
  Speaker 3: somewhere else. They didn't make any effort to find us
• 36:07
  Speaker 3: somewhere somewhere else. So you know that we have to
• 36:12
  Speaker 3: take that into consideration as well. People people sit on
• 36:16
  Speaker 3: a platform and and and although parallel platforms exist, they
• 36:21
  Speaker 3: don't move by default. If voices that they've been watching disappear,
• 36:27
  Speaker 3: they just find other voices on the same platform. And
• 36:30
  Speaker 3: this this is something that we've got to we've got
• 36:32
  Speaker 3: to encourage. We've got to encourage people to to you know,
• 36:37
  Speaker 3: embrace inconvenience, as we say, and and start looking at
• 36:41
  Speaker 3: some of the alternative platforms as well.
• 36:45
  Speaker 5: So sorry, go on jobs.
• 36:47
  Speaker 6: No, I was only going to say that that that
• 36:49
  Speaker 6: I would say this is an additional gift of the Internet,
• 36:52
  Speaker 6: because what it meant was that YouTube at that time,
• 36:56
  Speaker 6: YouTube has thinned out of all the challenging material for
• 37:01
  Speaker 6: people who were going to sit on YouTube, and exactly
• 37:06
  Speaker 6: like you say, Mike penned elsewhere. So it did two things,
• 37:12
  Speaker 6: or at least two parts of the same thing, which
• 37:15
  Speaker 6: was to totally marginalize the alternative voice, I mean physically
• 37:18
  Speaker 6: because it was actually somewhere else. But also the other
• 37:22
  Speaker 6: element to that was the fact that you could refer
• 37:26
  Speaker 6: to any of these other platforms in a pejorative sense
• 37:32
  Speaker 6: and look at what was done with Telegram. The BBC
• 37:36
  Speaker 6: in particular described the Telegram communications platform in such ways
• 37:44
  Speaker 6: as to leave the listener or the viewer with no
• 37:48
  Speaker 6: doubt that there was something dodgy about it, there was
• 37:50
  Speaker 6: something wrong with it. And then you know, in what
• 37:54
  Speaker 6: was it twenty four I think the Home Office. Sorry
• 37:58
  Speaker 6: to laugh, but I mean it really has gone that
• 38:01
  Speaker 6: the Home Office went so far as to prescribe an
• 38:05
  Speaker 6: organization that they then admitted wasn't an organization at all
• 38:08
  Speaker 6: called Terragram, which was just fake, completely fake, but supposedly
• 38:14
  Speaker 6: based on the use of Telegram as a messaging service
• 38:20
  Speaker 6: for extremists. So there are serious consequences to doing this,
• 38:26
  Speaker 6: and the and the sort of hand in glove state
• 38:31
  Speaker 6: with platform owner or controller issue is really serious.
• 38:37
  Speaker 5: I wonder what I mean, I'm trying to think. I'd
• 38:41
  Speaker 5: ask the question.
• 38:41
  Speaker 2: I wonder what realistically is the right way to go
• 38:44
  Speaker 2: about doing things because you can't compete with YouTube's it's
• 38:48
  Speaker 2: too strong.
• 38:50
  Speaker 5: And what do you do?
• 38:50
  Speaker 2: Do you just keep attempting to push back by uploading
• 38:54
  Speaker 2: content and wasting so much time by fighting with them,
• 38:58
  Speaker 2: or do you move to the parallel structures and promote
• 39:02
  Speaker 2: those instead.
• 39:05
  Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean this is a good question. You know, Rumble.
• 39:09
  Speaker 3: I have to say, Rumble has done quite a good
• 39:10
  Speaker 3: job of building itself up and competing with YouTube. But
• 39:17
  Speaker 3: you know, the downside to that is that it has
• 39:21
  Speaker 3: become it has built a reputation for the type of
• 39:24
  Speaker 3: content that you're going to see on Rumble. And and
• 39:27
  Speaker 3: of course, if all you want to do is to
• 39:28
  Speaker 3: speak to your own tribe, then then then that's the
• 39:33
  Speaker 3: perfect thing to do, is to is to get onto
• 39:35
  Speaker 3: a platform like Rumble, which has a reasonable user base
• 39:38
  Speaker 3: now and you're going to find an audience there. But
• 39:41
  Speaker 3: if what you're wanting to do is to actually uh
• 39:45
  Speaker 3: encourage debate, public conversation, demand that people think about about stuff,
• 39:57
  Speaker 3: then of course you need to be engaging with people
• 39:59
  Speaker 3: that I don't think the way that that that your
• 40:01
  Speaker 3: idea or whoever it is that we're talking about. So so, uh, yeah,
• 40:07
  Speaker 3: we could move to the parallel platforms. But but actually
• 40:11
  Speaker 3: you know that that's not necessarily achieving what our goal is.
• 40:15
  Speaker 3: If our goal is just to have an audience and
• 40:17
  Speaker 3: therefore some degree of income, and then find that's going
• 40:21
  Speaker 3: to work. But if our goal is to actually, you know,
• 40:23
  Speaker 3: encourage people to think, then then you know that that
• 40:27
  Speaker 3: becomes problematic.
• 40:30
  Speaker 2: Yes, but I guess still ultimately you do want people
• 40:36
  Speaker 2: to listen to you, whether it's your own trouble or not.
• 40:40
  Speaker 2: And that's why you have all the stuff, for example,
• 40:44
  Speaker 2: at your home base, which will be your own website,
• 40:47
  Speaker 2: but you don't get the traffic that that you'll get
• 40:50
  Speaker 2: on YouTube, for example. So again, do you what do
• 40:53
  Speaker 2: you do? Do you do you play with the algorithm?
• 40:56
  Speaker 2: Then you know this is what people actually do on YouTube.
• 40:58
  Speaker 2: They they speak in a way that the that the
• 41:02
  Speaker 2: system itself doesn't pick up on what they're saying.
• 41:06
  Speaker 5: And I don't know if that's worth the effort.
• 41:09
  Speaker 3: Well, I see that a lot less than I did
• 41:12
  Speaker 3: during Sorry, charge, you're going to have to you're going
• 41:16
  Speaker 3: to have to take over here because I'm about to sneeze.
• 41:18
  Speaker 6: All right, okay, And and for those of you are
• 41:21
  Speaker 6: not familiar with this process, it lasts two to three minutes.
• 41:24
  Speaker 4: Involving trying to find itself.
• 41:28
  Speaker 1: Yeah. They always look down, looked down and looked on
• 41:31
  Speaker 1: my dark Yeah. Okay, no, well good luck with with that. Yeah.
• 41:37
  Speaker 6: I mean the well, there are there are very very
• 41:43
  Speaker 6: many different considerations. But I think I mean, like you say,
• 41:46
  Speaker 6: the one, the one that we can't get away from,
• 41:48
  Speaker 6: is that is that YouTube is is the main player.
• 41:53
  Speaker 6: I mean, the only thing I was going to say
• 41:55
  Speaker 6: is that I think in addition to the rise of
• 41:57
  Speaker 6: say Rumble and the way in which things have got
• 42:02
  Speaker 6: traction elsewhere, I think a very significant change, at least
• 42:10
  Speaker 6: in the United Kingdom, has been the increase in the
• 42:13
  Speaker 6: number of events that people are attending and the face
• 42:18
  Speaker 6: to face contact that people are having to an increasing degree.
• 42:22
  Speaker 6: And also, I think our perspective, as you know whatever,
• 42:28
  Speaker 6: we are broadcasters, and therefore we sort of scrutinize statistics
• 42:32
  Speaker 6: and views and this, that and the other. I think
• 42:35
  Speaker 6: we should consider that we've only got a very fragmented
• 42:38
  Speaker 6: picture to look at. Because I'm consistently surprised by people
• 42:45
  Speaker 6: who you meet out and about in the views that
• 42:47
  Speaker 6: they do actually hold and the stuff that they just
• 42:48
  Speaker 6: chuck into conversation that makes you think that they do
• 42:51
  Speaker 6: realize exactly what they're talking about, what is going on,
• 42:55
  Speaker 6: But they would have no idea if you'd said, oh,
• 42:57
  Speaker 6: did you see such and such a video on whatever?
• 43:00
  Speaker 6: They have no idea what you're talking about. So I
• 43:03
  Speaker 6: think I think it's easy to get a slightly misleading
• 43:08
  Speaker 6: view of the situation by just looking at what appears
• 43:12
  Speaker 6: to be there in the in the digital environment.
• 43:17
  Speaker 2: Someone, well a number of people have been making this comment,
• 43:20
  Speaker 2: including I forget his name now, the guy who started gab.
• 43:26
  Speaker 2: He's very vocal anyway, you know what I'm talking about,
• 43:31
  Speaker 2: And he argues very very loudly for parallel structures, and
• 43:36
  Speaker 2: he makes the argument, don't play on their turf YouTubers
• 43:41
  Speaker 2: for example, quote unquote their turf. And I think there
• 43:47
  Speaker 2: is merit to that argument. Why must you play on
• 43:51
  Speaker 2: turf on which you're not welcome.
• 43:55
  Speaker 3: So what I would say to that drem is I'm
• 43:59
  Speaker 3: completely unfair building parallel structures. We should remember, of course,
• 44:03
  Speaker 3: that Michael Gove's definition of extremism includes this idea of
• 44:08
  Speaker 3: creating parallel structures, so that immediately categorizes anybody that does
• 44:13
  Speaker 3: such a thing as an extremist in the eyes of
• 44:15
  Speaker 3: the UK government. Now, the problem with it is if
• 44:20
  Speaker 3: your intention is simply to create somewhere for people that
• 44:24
  Speaker 3: have the same views to go and you know, yell
• 44:28
  Speaker 3: at each other and amplify each other's rhetoric, then what's
• 44:33
  Speaker 3: the point. It only works if you're going to create
• 44:36
  Speaker 3: a parallel structure. It has to be a parallel structure
• 44:38
  Speaker 3: for everybody. We've got to have absolutely, you know, the
• 44:43
  Speaker 3: ability for anybody with any viewpoint to come because unless
• 44:47
  Speaker 3: we're challenging each other, you know, it's not just I
• 44:49
  Speaker 3: mean earlier I was saying that we've got to be
• 44:51
  Speaker 3: able to We've got to be presenting our information to
• 44:54
  Speaker 3: people that don't agree with us and challenging their views.
• 44:56
  Speaker 3: But equally, we've got to have our views challenged because
• 45:01
  Speaker 3: otherwise we we actually drive ourselves into a cul de
• 45:05
  Speaker 3: sac that's very, very hard to get out of. And
• 45:08
  Speaker 3: we've you know, we've talked in the past about the
• 45:10
  Speaker 3: types of cul de sacks of people end up going into.
• 45:13
  Speaker 3: So I on principle agree with the idea of building
• 45:20
  Speaker 3: parallel structures. In practice, I think that what I've seen
• 45:25
  Speaker 3: so far is pretty wide.
• 45:26
  Speaker 4: Of the mark.
• 45:29
  Speaker 5: Sorry, my microphone was on mutube.
• 45:31
  Speaker 2: So okay, so then let's use the YouTube example since
• 45:33
  Speaker 2: we're talking about it.
• 45:35
  Speaker 5: So what do you do do you do?
• 45:36
  Speaker 2: You take portions of your content because you know some
• 45:40
  Speaker 2: stuff is not going to fly on YouTube, but you
• 45:43
  Speaker 2: you put it there anyway, but you manipulate in such
• 45:45
  Speaker 2: a way to capture the interest of the audience, but
• 45:49
  Speaker 2: then redirect them elsewhere.
• 45:51
  Speaker 5: Is that now getting the best of both worlds?
• 45:53
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean I think I think that's a good approach.
• 45:55
  Speaker 3: I mean, for example, Jarm, we have taken the editorial
• 45:59
  Speaker 3: decision to not automatically post your content to to Facebook
• 46:03
  Speaker 3: because because because you're a pain in the butt and
• 46:07
  Speaker 3: and you deal with a lot of controversial stuff and
• 46:09
  Speaker 3: and that that's so, so we're.
• 46:11
  Speaker 4: Absolutely making a choice, you know, and.
• 46:15
  Speaker 3: Take down on the Well this this was it because
• 46:19
  Speaker 3: because it wasn't and the thing was fascinating about it
• 46:22
  Speaker 3: was it wasn't just they took the video down. I
• 46:26
  Speaker 3: appealed the takedown. They didn't even watch the video. They
• 46:31
  Speaker 3: they responded within about a minute and saying no, the
• 46:35
  Speaker 3: video stays down.
• 46:36
  Speaker 4: So the reason and and it.
• 46:39
  Speaker 3: Was category categorized because of of I can't remember the
• 46:42
  Speaker 3: exact term they used, something along lines of dangerous individual. Right,
• 46:46
  Speaker 3: So so the fact that you were speaking to it
• 46:48
  Speaker 3: didn't matter what e. Michael Jones said. Nobody watched that
• 46:52
  Speaker 3: video Facebook to see what he said. It was just
• 46:55
  Speaker 3: his name was sufficient to have that that.
• 46:59
  Speaker 4: Video tape and done.
• 47:00
  Speaker 3: Now you have covered topics with people that are, you know,
• 47:05
  Speaker 3: even more controversial than Michael Jones and in the types
• 47:10
  Speaker 3: of topics that they cover. But we've had to take
• 47:14
  Speaker 3: but he is obviously flagged, but we've but we also
• 47:16
  Speaker 3: have had to take the decision, well, we've got to
• 47:19
  Speaker 3: be a little bit careful with some with some of
• 47:21
  Speaker 3: Germ's content because because you know, three strikes in your
• 47:24
  Speaker 3: eye sort of thing, the page is gone.
• 47:26
  Speaker 4: So what what's the point?
• 47:27
  Speaker 3: I would rather see eighty or ninety percent of your
• 47:30
  Speaker 3: content going out, Yeah, and then and then being able
• 47:34
  Speaker 3: to maintain that, right, Whereas there are other platforms that
• 47:40
  Speaker 3: that aren't quite so aggressive with with their their takedown
• 47:45
  Speaker 3: of certain types of content. So so it may be
• 47:48
  Speaker 3: that that's that that's just the game that has to
• 47:51
  Speaker 3: be played.
• 47:51
  Speaker 2: Yes, in other words, you have to you have to
• 47:54
  Speaker 2: play a little bit on their turf, within their rules.
• 47:57
  Speaker 5: But then but then also.
• 48:00
  Speaker 3: If you're gonna, if you're gonna, if you're going to
• 48:01
  Speaker 3: use their platforms, Unfortunately, that's what you just have to
• 48:04
  Speaker 3: do because because you know you can, you can spend
• 48:07
  Speaker 3: all your time fighting with them, and then you're not
• 48:11
  Speaker 3: doing what you're supposed to be doing.
• 48:12
  Speaker 6: Yeah, I think, I think just to go back to
• 48:15
  Speaker 6: what I was saying about the cinema, I mean, I
• 48:16
  Speaker 6: think and free speech and everything else. I mean, the
• 48:19
  Speaker 6: fact is they do that. It's their platform and it's
• 48:22
  Speaker 6: their decision. So I think I think it would be
• 48:25
  Speaker 6: inconsistent for us to try to argue that we should
• 48:28
  Speaker 6: be able to do whatever the hell we want on
• 48:30
  Speaker 6: their platform, so that it's just so.
• 48:34
  Speaker 3: So, But just just to sort of clarify what our
• 48:37
  Speaker 3: position has been in the past. The reason that I
• 48:42
  Speaker 3: was so for us that YouTube was wrong in our
• 48:45
  Speaker 3: case and that they should have reversed the decision, and
• 48:49
  Speaker 3: the reason that that I was determined to challenge them
• 48:51
  Speaker 3: on the on that was because the content that they
• 48:55
  Speaker 3: chose to use as the conjured to taking us off
• 49:00
  Speaker 3: was then covered. We covered it first, and then three
• 49:04
  Speaker 3: or four weeks later the Daily Mail covered it and
• 49:06
  Speaker 3: there were no sanctions against the Daily Mail for covering
• 49:09
  Speaker 3: exactly the same story with exactly the same people and
• 49:12
  Speaker 3: exactly the same content. So so it wasn't it wasn't
• 49:17
  Speaker 3: that in YouTube's case with respect us, it wasn't that
• 49:21
  Speaker 3: that that they objected or that they found that we
• 49:25
  Speaker 3: had been in breach if their community standards. It was
• 49:28
  Speaker 3: the fact that those community standards were not being applied
• 49:31
  Speaker 3: equally to all the players. And that that I think
• 49:34
  Speaker 3: is the key point here. That's where the line needs
• 49:37
  Speaker 3: to be drawn. And if they're going to have rules
• 49:39
  Speaker 3: and it's their platform, as you say, that's fine for
• 49:42
  Speaker 3: them to have rules, those rules have to be applied
• 49:45
  Speaker 3: equally to everyone.
• 49:46
  Speaker 6: No, that's exactly that. That is precisely know sort of
• 49:50
  Speaker 6: what I mean by extension. Sorry, just to just two points.
• 49:53
  Speaker 6: First of all, if anyone hasn't listened to the Michael
• 49:56
  Speaker 6: Jones interview that you did do with him, Germ, I've
• 49:59
  Speaker 6: really cannot recommend it highly enough. It is fascinating, But
• 50:05
  Speaker 6: it is also such a joy to listen to somebody
• 50:08
  Speaker 6: who is so well versed in their subject that they
• 50:11
  Speaker 6: can speak nineteen to the dozen and hit the target
• 50:16
  Speaker 6: every single time because they know what they're talking about,
• 50:19
  Speaker 6: and it might sound terrifically controversial and close to the
• 50:23
  Speaker 6: wind and this, that and the other, and okay, you
• 50:24
  Speaker 6: might say some of it is, but it is all
• 50:27
  Speaker 6: based in a very very deep pool of knowledge and experience,
• 50:32
  Speaker 6: and so therefore I think it comes across outstandingly well.
• 50:37
  Speaker 6: And then the only other thing I would say about YouTube,
• 50:41
  Speaker 6: let's say YouTube doesn't really matter, but YouTube being the
• 50:43
  Speaker 6: obvious one. I think a trap we all fall into
• 50:47
  Speaker 6: is the is the sort of no, no, no element.
• 50:50
  Speaker 6: You put something out there and you expect that it's
• 50:54
  Speaker 6: all about what happens to it right now, and that
• 50:57
  Speaker 6: if it doesn't do this, that and the other, then
• 51:00
  Speaker 6: and then you know it's sort of oh, it's been hidden,
• 51:01
  Speaker 6: it's been suppressed whatever. Actually I don't see it like that.
• 51:07
  Speaker 6: I think it's very important that UK Column builds up
• 51:11
  Speaker 6: or continues to build the archive, exactly like the website.
• 51:14
  Speaker 6: If you go onto the UK Column website, you find
• 51:16
  Speaker 6: you find nearly twenty years worth of absolutely incredible content. Now,
• 51:20
  Speaker 6: when you first discover UK Column, you're not going to
• 51:22
  Speaker 6: know that, but over time you will go back and
• 51:25
  Speaker 6: you will search something you'll find, Wow, that was written
• 51:28
  Speaker 6: about in twenty ten or twenty eleven or or whatever
• 51:30
  Speaker 6: it is, and I think YouTube has the same value.
• 51:33
  Speaker 1: You can't you know.
• 51:35
  Speaker 6: Obviously the assumption being made here is that the content
• 51:38
  Speaker 6: does actually stay up. But if it does, you just
• 51:41
  Speaker 6: don't know when something may become relevant and when somebody
• 51:45
  Speaker 6: may be able to refer back to it. So I
• 51:47
  Speaker 6: would say, inasmuch as possible and navigating in the way
• 51:51
  Speaker 6: that we've described, it is absolutely always worth putting it
• 51:54
  Speaker 6: there because you never know why somebody might in time
• 51:59
  Speaker 6: be looking for whatever it is and that's where they
• 52:02
  Speaker 6: find it. So I think even if you're not seeing
• 52:04
  Speaker 6: the effect now, it's always worth doing.
• 52:10
  Speaker 2: I was going to say, now, yes, there we go.
• 52:13
  Speaker 2: You said controversial. Now that's also an interesting term because
• 52:15
  Speaker 2: what is controversial.
• 52:17
  Speaker 5: It's basically just an idea that is quite.
• 52:19
  Speaker 2: Far removed from your own idea, I suppose, because Michael
• 52:24
  Speaker 2: Jones doesn't consider himself controversial, if that makes sense, right,
• 52:29
  Speaker 2: So I mean it's always the it's always an idea
• 52:32
  Speaker 2: that's outside of your own paradigm, genuinely that that you'd
• 52:35
  Speaker 2: consider controversial or very far removed from the mainstream idea,
• 52:39
  Speaker 2: I suppose, or not a mainstream but just an accepted
• 52:43
  Speaker 2: narrative I suppose. But that's I guess, a topic for
• 52:46
  Speaker 2: a different day, Like what is controversial?
• 52:49
  Speaker 5: Well, but yeah, yes, go on, No.
• 52:51
  Speaker 1: No, I think it is.
• 52:52
  Speaker 6: I think I don't mean anything by that other than
• 52:55
  Speaker 6: the outside of outside of a mainstream view. That's all
• 52:58
  Speaker 6: I mean. No, no, no, I'm not saying anything more
• 53:01
  Speaker 6: more to it than that.
• 53:02
  Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, now, I'm just I'm just making a sort
• 53:04
  Speaker 2: of philosophical remark there about the term controversial. It's one
• 53:08
  Speaker 2: of those because it's one of those weasel words that's
• 53:11
  Speaker 2: often used to suppress ideas it's too controversial or whatever.
• 53:16
  Speaker 3: But I mean, ultimately a German Yeah yeah, sorry germ FMA,
• 53:21
  Speaker 3: because because we're coming towards the end. But but I
• 53:24
  Speaker 3: just think there's one point that I think is really
• 53:26
  Speaker 3: important to make here, because earlier on there was the
• 53:34
  Speaker 3: the question of whether we had in some way capitulated
• 53:39
  Speaker 3: to the to the regime by by moving the portion
• 53:42
  Speaker 3: that we made with respect to the to the website
• 53:46
  Speaker 3: and changing the forums into a comments section. And what
• 53:50
  Speaker 3: I said to you was, you know, the time to
• 53:52
  Speaker 3: deal with with that issue was in twenty seventeen, or
• 53:55
  Speaker 3: twenty eighteen when the Online sifty or the Online Harms
• 53:58
  Speaker 3: white paper came out, and not wait till the Online
• 54:00
  Speaker 3: Safty Bill was and then even then nothing was done,
• 54:04
  Speaker 3: and then the Online Safety Act, and now we're complaining
• 54:07
  Speaker 3: about the effects of it. I just I just want
• 54:10
  Speaker 3: to get asked Charles to highlight the new legislation that
• 54:15
  Speaker 3: he was talking about on last Wednesday's news program, this
• 54:19
  Speaker 3: new Foreign Influence National Security Bill, because if we think
• 54:25
  Speaker 3: that the online sea, if the Act is bad, I
• 54:28
  Speaker 3: think that is a million times worse. Because Charles, you
• 54:31
  Speaker 3: correct me if I'm wrong, But this gives the Home
• 54:33
  Speaker 3: Secretary the par if it passes, to simply designate I
• 54:38
  Speaker 3: can't remember the term designate an organization as as as
• 54:42
  Speaker 3: one in which it will have effectively tantamout being a
• 54:47
  Speaker 3: terrorist organization even it's not, even though it's not carrying
• 54:50
  Speaker 3: out terrorism, that anybody that supports that organization would be
• 54:55
  Speaker 3: subject to criminal sanction. And and there's no doubt in
• 55:00
  Speaker 3: my mind whatsoever the UK column people like us that
• 55:05
  Speaker 3: are opposed to the Ward narrative for whatever agenda of
• 55:11
  Speaker 3: the day that the government is pushing are the ultimate
• 55:15
  Speaker 3: targets of this Charles, just give a bit more of
• 55:17
  Speaker 3: the detail on us.
• 55:18
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it is perfectly extraordinary.
• 55:20
  Speaker 6: And if anyone does want the report, it was on
• 55:24
  Speaker 6: Wednesday last Wednesday's program, which was what the seventeenth I
• 55:28
  Speaker 6: think seventeenth of June. It's the National Security Bracket State
• 55:34
  Speaker 6: Threats Build twenty twenty six, and it follows after only
• 55:38
  Speaker 6: three years, the National Security Act of twenty twenty three.
• 55:41
  Speaker 6: The National Security Act is quite a step forward in
• 55:45
  Speaker 6: so far as taking an incredibly bold approach or departure
• 55:52
  Speaker 6: into what a government may or may not do with
• 55:56
  Speaker 6: regard to its own citizens, but also those from elsewhere
• 56:00
  Speaker 6: under the guys the banner of national security. The National
• 56:03
  Speaker 6: Security Bill is completely remarkable because what it sets out
• 56:08
  Speaker 6: to do is to give the Home Secretary a raft
• 56:12
  Speaker 6: of powers which, effectively the execution of which never need
• 56:16
  Speaker 6: be qualified or justified publicly, so she or he may
• 56:22
  Speaker 6: join all the dots so she can decide whether or
• 56:27
  Speaker 6: not there's been a foreign influence at play. She then
• 56:31
  Speaker 6: decides whether that influence, or indeed the body that that
• 56:38
  Speaker 6: influence is deemed to be to be coming from or
• 56:40
  Speaker 6: going to, is to be designated. And that is done
• 56:45
  Speaker 6: on the basis of there being a potential for harm
• 56:48
  Speaker 6: to national security. Now, the gift here, as with anything
• 56:53
  Speaker 6: in this arena, is that because national security is at
• 56:57
  Speaker 6: the heart of it, you don't have to show your
• 57:00
  Speaker 6: working you say, well, it's for national security. So theoretically,
• 57:05
  Speaker 6: and I say theoretically really meaning that if this goes through,
• 57:10
  Speaker 6: this will absolutely be the way in which it works.
• 57:13
  Speaker 6: The Home Secretary will be able to take one look
• 57:16
  Speaker 6: at something or someone she doesn't like the look of,
• 57:21
  Speaker 6: decide that there is a connection to foreign influence, designate
• 57:27
  Speaker 6: the body, and then criminalize anybody that they appear that
• 57:31
  Speaker 6: they want to be associated with it. And that we're
• 57:35
  Speaker 6: talking here about prison sentences of I forget which of
• 57:40
  Speaker 6: the offenses merited which sanction, but one was with an
• 57:45
  Speaker 6: indictable offense of sentence up to fourteen years, and other
• 57:48
  Speaker 6: ones of sentences up to ten years. So if you've
• 57:52
  Speaker 6: been following the national security narrative, then you'll know full
• 57:56
  Speaker 6: well that absolutely everything, including climate change, is being brought
• 58:02
  Speaker 6: under the you know, put in the national security folder.
• 58:06
  Speaker 6: So this could grant the government, I would say, a
• 58:12
  Speaker 6: more wide ranging and completely arbitrary range of powers than
• 58:17
  Speaker 6: anything else that they've got in their arsenal a minute,
• 58:20
  Speaker 6: and it is. It is more so than I would
• 58:24
  Speaker 6: say more so, it's more dangerous than the Terrorism Act
• 58:27
  Speaker 6: two thousand because there is so little requirement for making
• 58:32
  Speaker 6: the case that such and such a person falls within
• 58:36
  Speaker 6: these criteria. You know, with the Terrorism Act, for example,
• 58:40
  Speaker 6: you've got to start with the idea that the organization
• 58:43
  Speaker 6: has been prescribed because of this, that, and the other.
• 58:46
  Speaker 6: Now we're seeing with Palestine Action at the moment, how
• 58:50
  Speaker 6: even with a serious and sustained challenge to the government,
• 58:54
  Speaker 6: how the court has actually upheld the decision to prescribe
• 59:00
  Speaker 6: Palestine Action as a as a terrorist organization. But with
• 59:04
  Speaker 6: with this state threats build the way that the way
• 59:06
  Speaker 6: the bill is written up in its current iteration seems
• 59:10
  Speaker 6: that there's there is going to be far less requirement
• 59:16
  Speaker 6: or screwed, you know, requirement to or scrutiny of the
• 59:18
  Speaker 6: decision to designate a body, and then everything else is
• 59:21
  Speaker 6: downhill from there. I mean, it's it is pretty amazing.
• 59:26
  Speaker 6: Now I've not seen anything in the mainstream about this yet,
• 59:29
  Speaker 6: to be fair, it has only it's literally just been published.
• 59:32
  Speaker 6: It had his second reading on that day, which I
• 59:34
  Speaker 6: haven't gone back to look at but but yes, I mean,
• 59:37
  Speaker 6: this is this is the direction we're going in. It's
• 59:40
  Speaker 6: it's that is really really alarming.
• 59:43
  Speaker 3: And it has to be FORTNIGHTE, not in two years
• 59:45
  Speaker 3: time when it's been, when it's had royal as sent
• 59:48
  Speaker 3: It needs to be FORTNIGHTE. So so I just want
• 59:50
  Speaker 3: to I just want to make that point everybody that
• 59:53
  Speaker 3: that is uh, you know, disappointed that we have taken
• 59:56
  Speaker 3: this particular decision. Here is something that we can organize around,
• 1:00:03
  Speaker 3: and perhaps that's something that we all need to be
• 1:00:06
  Speaker 3: considering what we're going to do to stop this bill
• 1:00:09
  Speaker 3: going through.
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 5: All right, well on the night.
• 1:00:12
  Speaker 2: I'll catch up with you guys next week.
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 1: M