reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @LozzaFox
@LozzaFox - Laurence Fox
Without this platform you would never get to hear the other side of the story. Free speech is the greatest of all gifts. https://t.co/IlLTVGhEvg
Video Transcript AI Summary
This conflict didn't begin recently; it started in 1990 with the promise that NATO wouldn't expand eastward if Germany reunified, a promise quickly broken starting in 1994 with plans to include Ukraine. Expansion began in 1999, and despite initial Russian complaints, Putin initially sought cooperation, even suggesting Russia join NATO.
Key turning points included the US withdrawing from the anti-ballistic missile treaty in 2002, placing missile systems in Eastern Europe, and a US-backed regime change in Ukraine in 2014. Despite Putin's repeated requests to halt NATO expansion, the US refused, maintaining an "open door" policy. When Putin proposed a security agreement in December 2021 to prevent NATO enlargement, the White House rejected negotiations. After the military operation began, Zelensky was open to neutrality, but the US and Britain encouraged continued fighting, leading to significant casualties.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is not an attack by Putin on Ukraine in the way that we are told every day. This started in 1990. February ninth '19 '90, James Baker the third, our secretary of state, said to Mikhail Gorbachev, NATO will not move one inch eastward if you agree to German unification, basically ending World War two. And, Gorbachev said that's very important. Yes.
NATO doesn't move, and we agree to German unification. The US then cheated on this already starting in 1994 when Clinton signed off on a, basically, a plan to expand NATO all the way to Ukraine. This is when the so called neocons took power, and, Clinton was the first agent of this. And the expansion of NATO started in 1999 with Poland, Hungary, and Czech Republic. At that point, Russia didn't much care.
There was no border other than with the Konigsberg, but other than that, there was no direct threat. Then, The US, led the bombing of Serbia in 1999. That was bad, by the way, because that was a use of NATO to bomb a European capital, Belgrade, Seventy Eight Straight Days to break the country apart. The Russians didn't like that very much. But Putin became president.
They swallowed it. They complained. But, even Putin started out pro European, pro American actually asked, maybe we should join NATO, when there was still the idea of some kind of mutually respectful relationship. Then nine eleven came, then came, Afghanistan, and the Russians said, yeah, we'll support you. We understand to root out terror.
But then came two other decisive actions. In 02/2002, the United States unilaterally walked out of the anti ballistic missile treaty. This was probably the most decisive event, never discussed in this context. But what it did was trigger The US putting in missile systems in Eastern Europe that Russia views as a dire direct threat. In February, 04/05, we engaged in a soft regime change operation in Ukraine.
But in 02/2009, Yanukovych won the election, and he became president in 02/2010 on the basis of neutrality for Ukraine. That calmed things down because The US was pushing NATO, but the people of Ukraine on the opinion polls didn't even wanna be in NATO. They knew that the country is divided between ethnic Ukrainian, ethnic Russian. What do we want with this? We wanna stay away from your problems.
So in 02/22/2014, the United States participated actively in the overthrow of Yanukovych, a typical US regime change operation. Have no doubt about it. And the Russians did us a favor. They intercepted a really ugly call between Victoria Nuland, my colleague at Columbia University now, between her and, The US Ambassador to Ukraine, Jeffrey Pyat, who's a senior state department official till today, and they talked about regime change. They said, who's gonna be the next government?
All of this is to say, The US then said, okay. Now NATO's really gonna enlarge, and Putin kept saying, stop. You promised no NATO enlargement. It's been by the way, I forgot to mention in 02/2004, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovia, Slovakia, Slovenia, '7 more countries in the not one inch eastward. And then okay.
It's a long story, but The US kept rejecting the basic idea, don't expand NATO to Russia's border in a context where we're putting in goddamn missile systems after breaking a treaty. Twenty nineteen, we walked out of the intermediate nuclear force treaty. On 12/15/2021, Putin put on the table a draft Russia US security agreement. You can find it online. The basis of it is no NATO enlargement.
I called the White House that next week after that, begging them, take the negotiations. Putin's offered something. Avoid this war. Oh, Jeff, there's not gonna be a war. Announce that NATO's not gonna enlarge.
Oh, don't worry. NATO's not gonna enlarge. I said, oh, you're gonna have a war over something that's not gonna happen? Why don't you announce them? And he said, no.
No. Our policy is an open door. This is Jake Sullivan. Our policy is an open door policy. Open door for NATO enlargement.
That is under the category of bullshit, by the way. You don't have your right to put your military bases anywhere you want and expect peace in this world. They turned down the negotiations. Then the special military operation started, and five days later, Zelensky says, okay. Okay.
Neutrality. And then The United States and Britain said, no way. You guys fight on. We got your back. We don't have your front.
You're all gonna die, but we got your back as we kept pushing them into the front lines. That's six hundred thousand deaths now of Ukrainians since Boris Johnson flew to Kyiv to tell them to be brave.
@LozzaFox - Laurence Fox
Look at the desperation in the snakes eyes as their carefully crafted narrative crumbles. @SkyNews @BBCNews @GBNEWS all the @Ofcom regulated news channels are just regime mouthpieces whose licences depend on the ideological leanings of the regulator. https://t.co/dzrymmZg6Z
Video Transcript AI Summary
Had the necessary actions been taken regarding this individual in recent years, those girls would still be alive.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: No doubt in my mind. Had people done their job better in the last few years in relation to this man, those girls will still be alive.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’ve witnessed a disturbing pattern of violence linked to Islamist extremism, including attacks on Jews in Amsterdam, the rape of British girls, and stabbings of gay men and a British MP. Innocent lives have been lost, including young girls, and there have been horrific incidents like the Borough Market massacre and a bombing at a children's concert. I feel that these events highlight a serious threat to our society and values, leading me to believe that we must resist and take action to protect our way of life.
@LozzaFox - Laurence Fox
Jews being attacked on the streets of Amsterdam by gangs of violent Islamists. Thousands of British girls raped and abused by gangs of violent Islamists. Gay men stabbed in the park by a gang of violent Islamists. A British MP stabbed to death by a violent Islamist. 3 innocent young British girls stabbed to death by a violent Islamist. Borough market massacre committed by violent gang of Islamists. A children’s concert blown up by a violent Islamist. Weekly marches on the streets of London glorifying a violent Islamist terror organisation. Islam is an existential threat to western liberal democracy. There is no place for a child raping, first cousin marrying, child bride celebrating, sharia law demanding death cult in the United Kingdom. Resist and remove, or be conquered.
@LozzaFox - Laurence Fox
He’s absolutely right. The children abused by #HuwEdwards were not taking part in “child porn.” They were not “pornstars.” They were not willing participants. They were the victims of child rape by paedophiles. The @bbc is a national disgrace. https://t.co/HQYUGAVOQL
Video Transcript AI Summary
A person confronts someone, asking if they referred to child abuse imagery as child porn and questioning if the victims in those images were porn stars. The person accuses the individual of mitigating damage to the BBC and enhancing their own career, calling them a "pedophile lover." They claim to have protested outside the BBC for 7 and a half months and that the BBC made up lies to remove their protest before news about Stuart Jew Edwards broke. They question why it took BBC Corporate Security less than 24 hours to inform Tim Davy about their tent protest, but six weeks to inform him about serious allegations against Hugh Edwards. The person suggests the BBC's lack of comment indicates guilt.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Excuse me. Are you seeing, mister Tinder?
Speaker 1: Okay. We just want to go live. So my name is
Speaker 0: Did you just refer to child abuse imagery as being child porn? Did you refer to child abuse imagery as being child porn?
Speaker 1: Excuse me? Excuse me, sir?
Speaker 0: Were the victims in those images were the victims in those images porn star said, don't touch me again. Over. Don't touch me. I'm trying
Speaker 1: to push over the barrier. Shouting.
Speaker 0: You're trying to push over the barrier. I'm having to shout.
Speaker 1: I know the barriers are
Speaker 0: Why do you call it child porn?
Speaker 1: Are you able to intervene as a Spluttering on me.
Speaker 0: Get out of the way then. Get out of the way. Why did you call it child porn in your interview? Because that's what the BBC thinks of it, isn't it? It's pornography.
Sorry. Can I help you?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Just stop chatting.
Speaker 0: I don't
Speaker 1: know if you can.
Speaker 0: But she's not answering. Maybe she's a bit deaf.
Speaker 1: Shouting, isn't it?
Speaker 0: Maybe she's a bit deaf.
Speaker 1: There's no bitch out.
Speaker 0: Okay. Alright.
Speaker 1: She's shouting a lot. Okay.
Speaker 0: I'm talking to her. Okay. She knows exactly what she did. Child pornography from the BBC. Your job here today is to mitigate the damage to the BBC and enhance your own career and enhance your own career, you selfish idiot, you pedophile lover.
It's what you are. Yes. You are. I was outside the BBC for 7 and a half months in a tent, and then they made up lies to remove my protest before the news about Stuart Jew Edwards broke. I'm with you.
Speaker 1: Good on you, mate. We are. Yeah. Thank you.
Speaker 0: You're absolute disgrace. Are you BBC Corporate Security? You protect child abusers if you are. Tell me something. Why did it take BBC Corporate Security to inform Tim Davy less than 24 hours to tell him I was in a tent protesting outside BBC Broadcasting House, and yet it took 6 weeks for Tim Davy to be informed by BBC corporate security that there were serious allegations about Hugh Edwards.
Explain. The BBC does not wish to comment. Take that as you will. It looks like a sign of guilt.
Speaker 1: Good on you. They're just hiding their phone. Oh, no, mate. They're just hiding in that phone. They're hiding in your phone.
Speaker 0: I'll show them. The BBC.
@LozzaFox - Laurence Fox
Share this film EVERYWHERE. #FreeTommy https://t.co/aRmhPNYJiC
Video Transcript AI Summary
This documentary explores the weaponization and politicization of court buildings, focusing on the Royal Courts of Justice. It discusses how these buildings have been used to silence individuals who speak out against the mainstream narrative. The video raises questions about the accountability of the media, the effectiveness of the legal system, and the treatment of dissidents in the UK. It also highlights a case involving a school fight and the biased reporting surrounding it. The speaker criticizes the manipulation of truth to fit a certain narrative and the severe consequences for those involved. Additionally, a man named Tommy Robinson accuses a journalist of promoting violence against him and his family, expressing distrust towards the legal system and media. He emphasizes the importance of free speech and urges public support.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The documentary you're about to watch is the most important documentary I've ever made. This story is far bigger than Tommy Robinson. This is about the weaponization and the politicization of these buildings. Court buildings across the west. The Royal Courts of Justice, ironically named.
These buildings have been weaponized and used against members of the public to destroy them if they speak out. From Donald Trump to Steve Bannon, to Gert Wilders, to Marie Le Pen, to Katie Hopkins. That's what's happening. My job as a journalist, I stand for freedom of speech. I stand for freedom of press.
And I failed. Because 3 years ago, when I lost a court case in here, then they banked me to the tune of £1,600,000. On a documentary, you're gonna see the entire story was a lie. Okay? I failed because I should have come out of court and I should have played you that film.
Why didn't I play you that film? Because I was given a gagging order by this building, by this judge. I was silent and I allowed them to silence me because I was scared. I was scared of 2 years in prison. I was scared of the effect that solitary confinement for that length of time would have on me.
I was scared of jihadi gangs in jail and I was scared of the effect it would have on my family. I failed me and I failed you. I'm not gonna fail myself again. You're now gonna watch the best citizen journalism and the most incredible expose of the establishment you've ever seen. The news is how we find out what's happening in the world.
It's how we form our opinions. Opinions based on facts. That's the key. Facts. Facts should be delivered to you by journalists based on the truth.
But what if what they're delivering you isn't the truth? What if it's stories that are manipulated to make you think a certain way, to follow a certain narrative, different people's agendas? And what do they do to those who go against that mainstream narrative? Those who try to expose the truth. This is a documentary about the lengths they will go to to shut down and silence anyone from bringing you, the British public, the truth.
Alright. Smell me off. Obviously, not me.
Speaker 1: I lost my job over this. No. I'm just kidding this.
Speaker 2: He's a nasty little piece of shit.
Speaker 3: He's won the hockey stick over his head and hit me in the spine with it.
Speaker 2: Well, it's all very liberating.
Speaker 4: This kid was out unconscious already. That's just malicious. I'm not
Speaker 5: standing.
Speaker 0: You're not going, but No. Because no. Because what yous are doing, I know what yous are doing.
Speaker 6: Tommy, I am gonna mince your kids, aye. This is a documentary
Speaker 0: about the a documentary about the unholy alliance between the media, the justice system, and our politicians. How they conspire to suppress free speech, how they pervert democracy, and how the truth and your freedoms are just 2 of the casualties. We will show how the mainstream media deceives people, how they ignore the truth, how the lies of the virtue signalling, BBC, IT Fear, and Channel 4 are all about their poisonous agenda, no matter the cost to innocent people. It's also a documentary about how an everyday playground incident between 2 young lads was spun into global news at a terrible cost to so many people, not least the 2 young lads themselves. We will show how the law is being abused, how people driven by hateful ideologies attempt to intimidate and silence anyone who dares to challenge the so called progressive, so called liberal narrative.
We will show the foolishness of our fear driven political leaders who jumped on a story, took a side without knowing the truth, or worse still, knowing it but hiding it because the truth didn't fit their narrative regardless of the human cost. And we'll ask 3 important questions. Firstly, is the media accountable to anyone in any way for what they report? Years after the Levinson inquiry, has anything changed, or do they continue to act with impunity? Secondly, is our legal system still fit for purpose?
We will show how lawyers who hate Britain but love jihadi warriors have weaponized the law system against us and how the legal system really only works for the rich. And finally, how do we keep our politicians accountable? If the police, the cause, and the state can silence anyone for speaking inconvenient truths, truths that may raise questions about government policy? Is the UK any different from China, Russia, or Iran in their treatment of dissidents? And, of course, for Piers Morgan, for Jeremy Fine, for the BBC ITV, and channel 4, it's a tutorial on journalism.
Keep watching it. You'll learn. Our story appears to start and end in a brief playground incident at Ormondbury Community School in Huddersfield. A playground scuffle. One boy poured a bottle of water on another child.
The school dealt with it and that should have been that. 3 weeks later, however, a video clip of the incident surfaced and within hours, with the help of lawyers and the ignorant rant ins of ITV's Piers Morgan and the BBC's Jeremy Vine, it was made into global news event. And the lives of so many people were turned upside down. Such playground incidents happen every day. So why was this spat between 2 boys transformed into global news?
Well, one of the boys was white and the other a Syrian refugee, at which point the truth of the matter was buried beneath an avalanche of agendas and opportunism. Within hours, the race hate brigade was sharpening their blades.
Speaker 7: But clearly when somebody comes from Syria fleeing Assad's regime, coming to a place like this, when they get treated that way, that's an issue, and the whole world is looking at us.
Speaker 0: Where are we? We're in Almunbury. Do I say the scene of the incident? Is it a scene in it's the incident? It's the scene of the great lie.
I call it the great lie because this lie was pushed around the globe. Yeah? This here is the school where the world was told a Syrian refugee was waterboarded by a racist English bully. It was in a playing field here, and do you know what? This is the first time I've been here.
Because when this blew up on the news, it's a child's school. Kids are in school. I didn't come outside here. You see the scenes outside here where the imam was here with mobs of men. Yeah?
Mobs of Muslim men. Extremists traveled up from London such as Ali Dua to cause a scene outside this this kids' school. Anyway, but I'm here. Why am I here? I'm here because I faced a court case.
I'm being prosecuted. It's gone it's gone to the high court, and I have to prove I made a video stating that it was a lie, stating that Jamal wasn't innocent, and telling some facts about Jamal beating up girls, an instance that I've been warned about by the members of this community to tell the truth about what happened at this school. I've gotta prove it in court, so I've come to Huddersfield. I'm now gonna knock. I need to find witnesses.
I've got addresses for many. I need to knock and talk to them and see who I can get to come to court to help me prove to you, the public, this is about as much as proven in court as proving to you, the British public, that I was the only journalist in the country who told the truth about what happened in this community. The story you were told. You were told a vulnerable Syrian child refugee had been bullied and waterboarded by a nasty white boy. You were told it was a racist attack.
You were told of the dangers of Far Right extremism. You were invited to agree that this kind of intolerance could not be tolerated. Was he vulnerable? Was it a racist attack? Our evidence shows the answers to both these questions was no.
Was the Syrian lad waterboarded? Why was this word used? What about this? No. Was that waterboarding?
Take a look at this. It shows a group of non white children beating up a white girl. It went viral online, but it wasn't touched by the mainstream media. It wasn't made into a global story. Why not?
Meanwhile, the usual suspects had lit the fire and were gleefully stoking the flames.
Speaker 8: Everybody was exposing the scumbag that did this, who I hope gets severe retribution.
Speaker 0: And of course, the politicians. They're always quick to jump on the bandwagon. Theresa May, Sajid Javid, Naz Shah, Nicholas Soames, Winston Churchill's grandson. Such moral outrage. And it's not just the media and the politicians.
In today's Twitter and Facebook driven worlds where celebrities and groups compete to virtue signal, most of them driven by the warm feeling they get by expressing their moral outrage or by fear. The fear of what might happen to them if they don't. Everyone who's anyone pumped the Bailey Jamal story. Boxers, Lennox Lewis, Huddersfield Football Club, celebrities from across the globe. Let's have a look at all of the celebrities and Blue Tick Brigade who pumped the Jamal story.
And here are some of the people who pumped the story you watched earlier of the white girl getting beaten up. Sadly, whether it's politicians, celebrities, or other groups, None of them are wise enough or pause long enough to ask whether they have the whole story, to check the facts, to find the truth. But why let the truth get in the way of such a good story? And this story was just too good a story. 2 lads in a playground scrap is not international news, but racist white thug water boards helpless Syrian refugee.
Boom. Racism can't be tolerated. Beware of the far right. That's their kind of story. We'll hear more about the militant left later but they clearly weren't gonna miss out on this.
Speaker 7: Well, we well, representing might be too harsh a word, but I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm here as as a concerned citizen.
Speaker 0: Mohammed Amin Pandur, a Mufti on a mission. He rushed to Ulman Bire from his mosque in Bali, a town at the far end of the district. In fact, there's 40 mosques closer to this school. But perhaps Mufti Pandor had his own agenda. You see, his little brother, Councillor Shabir Pandor, is the leader of Kirkland East Councilman Huntsfield.
And they were having some pretty bad news days at that time. By the way, Mufti Pandor, he's the same guy who ordered the Islamic mob to come to the school in Batley and demand the second of the RE teacher who showed a cartoon of Mohammed in a discussion about free speech.
Speaker 7: Look look at what we do as a community, and you'll understand our stance. So what has happened is totally unacceptable. Yeah? And we have made sure that the school understands that. The teacher has been suspended.
The teacher has been suspended.
Speaker 0: You may recall the teacher had to flee, and he's still in hiding under police protection. Luckily, he hasn't ended up like Samuel Patti, the French teacher who's beheaded for having a similar discussion in a classroom about free speech. You see, free speech is essential for any society wishing to maintain intellectual and social progress, but not all societies are bothered about intellectual and social progress. Should we be silenced by the demands of Mufti Pandor and Sharia Law? Should we sacrifice our freedom of speech?
Should we sacrifice the free and open exchange of ideas? Should we sacrifice the cultural inheritance of which we are all custodians? But back to the bad news days in Kirklees and the playground incident in 2018. There was also Kirklees counselor, Masood Ahmed.
Speaker 9: I'm not aware of there's a problem at the school. That's something I obviously need to find out in terms of that there is a problem at this school, and that is something I will definitely be picking up.
Speaker 0: Now some of you may remember this.
Speaker 10: Michael, are you gonna explain what's gonna happen next? Right?
Speaker 0: Are you being arrested?
Speaker 7: You won't be arrested.
Speaker 0: I am being arrested.
Speaker 11: A breach of peace.
Speaker 0: I'm of course.
Speaker 5: Of the I'm of
Speaker 7: course a breach of peace.
Speaker 0: I'm being arrested. The content of what
Speaker 5: you're Can
Speaker 12: we just
Speaker 5: say streaming The content of what I'm streaming told. I'm being
Speaker 10: arrested for breach of peace. The game. I've been
Speaker 0: Can you
Speaker 13: just turn off your
Speaker 12: life, please? Yeah.
Speaker 5: Do you want to someone just What's that?
Speaker 14: Can you
Speaker 0: just explain it again? You want to
Speaker 14: rest in suspicion
Speaker 5: following the breach of the people?
Speaker 0: What what does that mean? What what does that mean? At the same time as this playground spat between 2 young lads, 20 Huddersfield men were being jailed across Yorkshire at Leeds Crown Court for what would be the biggest grooming gang Britain has ever seen. Ultimately, 35 almost exclusively Muslim men would be given 380 years in prison for grooming, trafficking, and raping young children, most of whom were known to counsely Pandora's Kirklees Council. Mufti Pandor traveled for half an hour to rabble rouse a gang outside the school gates over this playground incident.
When within a couple of mile radius in Batley, police have arrested a further 99 men in relation to historic sex crimes. So far 32 have been charged including 1 Ibrahim Pandor, 41 of Batley. That makes it the highest destination of grooming gang arrests anywhere in the UK. We Googled to see what Mufti Pandor has said about these grooming gang atrocities. Nothing.
We Googled to see what counsel and sued Ahmed's condemnation. Nothing. In fact we can't find the condemnation from the of these brother either, Councillor Shabir Pandor, leader of the council. Just one statement from him reported in June 2019, telling the National Working Group of Child Sexual Eratiation Response Unit that his authority had moved forward. That's it.
They've moved on. Never mind grooming gangs, gang rape of young children, all these men seem to be far more concerned about what happened in a playground at Ormerbury Community School or about cartoons of their prophet Mohammed. I think I now realize how difficult this is gonna be because everyone we've spoke to today,
Speaker 1: they're all confirming what I
Speaker 0: said was true. Everyone's confirming what Jamal was like, including school staff. But as soon as I mention this camera, as soon as I mention court, I need someone to come to court, they're just totally silent straight away. No. We no.
No one can have said that. No one can have said this. You jump in. It's raining. But I'm realizing how difficult it's gonna be but I have got an idea for that now after today.
So but first stop, McDonald's. Yeah? Let's go to McDonald's because I'm starving. It's been a long day.
Speaker 14: Yeah. I'll see you on a YouTube.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 5: Nice to
Speaker 14: see you.
Speaker 0: Smaller in real life. Nice to see you.
Speaker 5: Nice to meet
Speaker 0: you, mate.
Speaker 14: Sorry. I'll put your interview.
Speaker 0: No. I'm fine. Thank you. Cheers, though. You're good.
Yeah. Thanks, man. Oh, man. Very nice to see you. Oh, thank you, bro.
Hello?
Speaker 2: Steve, how
Speaker 0: are you, mate? It's Tommy. How
Speaker 12: are you?
Speaker 0: I'm good, mate. Doing good. Bro, mate, have you still got all those hidden cameras?
Speaker 5: Yeah. Of course, I have. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Could I borrow them? You need Yeah. But when I say borrow them, can I borrow I'm gonna need to take them for weeks because I've got so much to do? It's a long story. I'll explain when I see you.
But, I'm in a bit of a situation. I need some hidden cameras.
Speaker 5: This is not a problem. I have put some kit together for you.
Speaker 0: That's it. So that's the idea. The idea is I've got a friend there, secret Steve, who has all sorts of cameras, yeah. He's a he's a private investigator. I need to show the public everything I've heard today.
I need the public to hear and know the truth. I need them to know how much they've been lied to by the media about what happened in this town. And, the only way, unfortunately, the only way I'm gonna be able to do that is with hidden cameras. Because today, I've heard the truth, but I need everyone of you to know the truth, and everyone's too scared. That's why I said Project Fear.
Everyone is too scared to speak the truth or to come to court. So I'm gonna end up getting I'm gonna end up getting hammered in court. The whole world told I've lied when I haven't. I was the only journalist in the UK who told the truth. So we need to prove it.
So we'll shoot down the motorway now. We'll go get these hidden cameras. These are all so this is a tie. There's a camera in that. That's the camera.
Mad, isn't it? There's a camera there. You've got everything here. Cameras, glasses. I don't wear glasses.
That's gonna be awkward. That's the bottom of a cup coffee cup. So you put that on the bottom of the coffee cup. I feel like James Bond. This today, that's the camera.
I'll have to take this off, but it doesn't matter because apparently this records all the audio, records everything. That's the camera and I feel a little bit dirty doing this. But it is the only way I'm gonna get people to speak. And then I need you to hear what I hear.
Speaker 1: The idea that people would move over the streets looking for him was appalling. The fact that the video itself, although it showed the accumulation of things that built up to that, did not deserve what happened to him or to anybody else in that situation. We knew that I'm afraid the media, I call it a perfect storm. I was getting, emails from Pakistan, from Australia, from America telling me to resign. So it went worldwide, and I'm afraid I came into teaching to help poor people, and they got me today.
I've got a problem here. I lost my job over this. And as a result, the council has told me that I cannot speak to anybody ever about it. So unfortunately When you asked to go over to me about anything? I was there when it happened.
I was there when I dealt with all the situation. And then, Ofsted came, then Trevor wasn't there anymore. That's that's all I can say. Well, I can't get a job. So that's where it's left me.
And I can live with that, but barely only 15. I'm not with her. That's different.
Speaker 12: It's got a
Speaker 1: pretty good man. It's a young man with No. No. If I do,
Speaker 5: I think
Speaker 0: you get
Speaker 1: myself into
Speaker 12: real trouble. No. Okay.
Speaker 1: I thought really serious trouble. Little trouble because partly cancels You signed an NDA or something? Correct. So they've said, you can't be split free. I'm not with the NDA so you keep the pension.
So you get pension? Yeah. Fucking hell, bro. I have to be very careful about what I say to it. I'm not allowed to talk about it.
I really am not. So I can't discuss it. I can't discuss it with the media. I always wanted to have my say against it, which I've never had, Never been allowed to have. Never be allowed to say goodbye to my staff.
They're just told to leave. So I've worked there nearly 30 years. Actually, 20 years and never got a card, never got a goodbye. This whole thing was just used. The whole thing was used.
Yes. Could push him in over there. And hijacked and by by by the right of it politic I'm quite a political person by the right and the left. It was hijacked and spun all out of the position and now we've got problems. That's interesting.
What? I thought she looked 1 more meters of all the silence. What a mess. It is a it is a mess, but but it's a tragedy. It's a tragedy for Bailey.
I'm not sure, Jamar, will get anything out of this ever in his life, positive out of it either. Necessarily, might have he might have got a few, silver coins from Julius, but that's about it. You know, that that's it. The thing is that they haven't 6 weeks, prior or weeks prior. And then in the same day at the same time, if you look for the to go fund me up, the site was released.
Yeah. Now you see your full picture together?
Speaker 0: Already, that's gold. Yeah. I know that's gold. All I hope, I hope that's recorded. I can't turn a computer on.
So I just pray that's got the audio and the visual and it's not pointing up there that we've got it because that was the head teacher and that's the first visit. And I know this is gonna work. So I now need I know just off that, I didn't think he'd talk before he shut the door on my face. He didn't. He seemed like he wanted to talk.
There's a lot he wants to say. So but, yeah, let's go. Next stretch. Yeah? It's exciting.
Was there a racism problem in the school and
Speaker 5: Well, no. I don't I don't I don't think there was.
Speaker 0: What about other Syrian refugees? Like, do you think what happened to Jamal in the school was because he was a Syrian refugee?
Speaker 5: No. Not at all. I told you before That that would have happened
Speaker 1: No, ma'am.
Speaker 5: If the child was white, big, blue, whatever color.
Speaker 0: They're all scared.
Speaker 5: Yeah. A lot of careers on there. I work for operation service now.
Speaker 0: You do now?
Speaker 5: Yeah. So I don't know where I stand with it. If I go, I could lose the job.
Speaker 0: What about if you know, I don't want You
Speaker 5: know what someone said? I work
Speaker 0: I get it, bro.
Speaker 5: I work for probation service now. You see, if
Speaker 0: I didn't work for You see, if you're someone
Speaker 5: If I didn't if I didn't work for the fucking public sector no more, I'd say, god, they can go fuck themselves. They can't. You know what I mean?
Speaker 0: So they seem to be pretty keen on these NDAs.
Speaker 1: Who is that?
Speaker 5: That is counsel. But I can't disclose that with you.
Speaker 0: That's what?
Speaker 5: Lords. I'm saying I can't disclose it because I Yes. Assigned it.
Speaker 1: That incident was talked about by Theresa May at a g twenty summit. He asked her a question about it. We were then offsteaded by 5 of the top inspectors in the country. We'd only send 1 registered inspector. We have the head of safeguarding.
We are I had a member speaking to me about it. If you want my opinion, they said, get up there. This is I don't know who they is. Get up there and shut that school. Get up there and get rid of this.
Speaker 0: Get rid of the problem.
Speaker 1: Over to the Bailey.
Speaker 0: Correct. Over to Mal.
Speaker 12: Correct. Get rid
Speaker 1: of the problem. Over to Mal. Correct. Get rid of the problem. Get rid of it.
But why do you think that is? Do you think because I'm not Jamal. Jamal, because he come here 2 years ago. I've got so many negative things said about it now for so many people. Well, I mean, so many.
You in a few before. We have non Syrian children. Non families. Yep. We're not one issue.
Speaker 0: Well, Well, my my view is
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: That you won't get much of an answer out of all because you work there and it's bound by various confidentiality. So
Speaker 1: Long disclosure of business.
Speaker 0: Do you get paid as well? Not been to me. They all have. Every teacher got paid not to tell the truth. But the head teacher can't even talk about Jamelle at all.
Speaker 2: No. No. They cannot.
Speaker 1: Both, can you? Shouldn't it?
Speaker 0: Well, if you work it out, it must be a good one.
Speaker 1: Mustn't it? Did
Speaker 0: you work there as well?
Speaker 2: No. I was the chair of goodness there. But so it's it's not What my issue
Speaker 0: is is
Speaker 2: you're not gonna get anywhere.
Speaker 1: No. No. No. Yeah.
Speaker 2: And Rob wouldn't talk to you either. So it's
Speaker 0: They're trying to
Speaker 13: It's pointless me even giving you I told but
Speaker 0: I told the truth. Your contact details Okay.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't work with us.
Speaker 0: I told the truth about what happened that day.
Speaker 10: I am not even arguing.
Speaker 0: His life was destroyed.
Speaker 2: Well, that's not fair either, is it?
Speaker 0: As a racist bully, and he won't. And he wasn't. I know. And
Speaker 2: I both know that.
Speaker 15: Truth is just
Speaker 1: How much money is it?
Speaker 5: I can't see the figure because if I see the figure, it goes out.
Speaker 1: Because, mate
Speaker 0: 18. 18. I've just found out. Well, the head teacher's told us already that he was blackmailed and threatened. I've just found out of Kumar.
He was paid £18,000. Paid he said, I can't take I signed. I I was paid. So paid what? He was paid money by the local council, so he can't tell the truth about what's going on in that school.
Then they've they've give everyone non disclosure agreements from school staff to governors to and and Paul Coomar to get £18,000. He's not even involved. If you live here, if you live in this area, your tax money he's got 18 grand what must the head teacher have got? He must have got 6 figures. How much money have they spent on this lie?
We put in a freedom of information request to Kirklees Council to find out exactly how much they had spent of taxpayers' money to get the silence of their staff. They didn't answer the first request. They avoided the second. Only when we sent them legal letters because they have to, by law, answer these questions, did we get our answer. They had spent over a quarter of £1,000,000.
£275,000 of taxpayers' money was spent making people remain silent. But they've they've they've spent money silencing everybody, so no one can ever this is for ever, once you sign that agreement, no one can ever tell the truth While they push this manufactured lie that destroyed lives, schools, communities, everyone's life. I've seen life after life after life, person after person's life destroyed, while the council, your local council, Kirkley's council, give away 100 of £1,000 to make sure that the truth can never be told. I can't believe it. I knew from day dot, I asked myself the question, when this was blowing up and I knew the truth, I kept saying, how come no teacher is telling the truth?
If all those teachers know what's going on in that school, how come none of them are coming out and saying? Well, now we know. Now the whole world's gonna know, because corporate council paid them not to. Unbelievable. Unbelievable.
Jamal was in India?
Speaker 3: Yeah, he was in the same
Speaker 12: well. What was his what
Speaker 0: was Jamal's attitude about in school?
Speaker 3: He wasn't very nice. He called female teachers bitches. He just didn't really have respect for the female students, to be honest. Yeah. Basically, we were in a p lesson, and we were playing hockey with a teacher called Mr.
Cattell. And I had taken the hockey puck off of Jamal, because I was on the other team, and sent it to the other side of the room where my team mates were. And I then turned around and just felt a really sharp pain in my back, and he'd swung the hockey stick over his head and hit me in the spine with it.
Speaker 0: Is there do you think there's any way that could have been an accident?
Speaker 3: No. It knocked me to my knees.
Speaker 0: It knocked you to your knees. How how long have your mom been in school when this happened?
Speaker 3: About 2 weeks. I've had lasting injuries from it. It's caused me to have severe pain in my top in the top of my back and, I'm on medication for the pain.
Speaker 0: Still now?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Did
Speaker 0: Jamelle get in trouble for this?
Speaker 3: Not that I'm aware of.
Speaker 0: First, I wanna apologize to anyone I've been forced to record with a hidden camera. Sadly, people are terrified to tell the truth because of the potential consequences, but the truth still needs to be told.
Speaker 1: Do you know if you do remember of any any incident specifically with tomorrow with those?
Speaker 2: Well, do you remember that one there, it it got go with octetick, won't it?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Charlie.
Speaker 2: Charlie. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Don't get the name there. Yeah. You must go. Lovely little girl. Yeah.
Speaker 2: It just
Speaker 0: wrote to him
Speaker 2: of not sure to bloody nasty. No
Speaker 10: he was, like, to the side of me. So he tried, like, pushing me and, like, so I quickly moved out there because obviously I knew what he would like. He would have actually hit me and stuff. Mhmm. So I moved and then he, like, moved his arms if he were gonna try and stop my face, like, back.
Okay.
Speaker 0: And he dropped but he did, but on that day, he spat
Speaker 1: at you. What was on? Where'd the spit go?
Speaker 10: Like, literally, all on me and if I'm outside and all down the school bag. Because when I went home, I told mum and mum we were disgusted in it. But the school said that that because it was outside of school time, so can't really do much about
Speaker 5: it. Okay.
Speaker 2: He's a nasty little piece of shit.
Speaker 1: Was he?
Speaker 2: Yeah. And dad.
Speaker 1: 2.
Speaker 2: Everybody and anybody. It does it has no respect for women at all. None. Did he even snap? No response from
Speaker 12: him? No.
Speaker 2: I told I told his father to all this on phone.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 4: Jamal grabbed him by his tie and was just threw him against the wall, cracked his head up and he gets back at wall and just kept throwing against the wall. This kid was out unconscious already. That's just malicious. That's just intent to kill.
Speaker 1: Were they?
Speaker 10: They had, a young lad and a girl. And they were absolutely they were horrendous. The kids, they were just horrific. The the kids that they are, they used to bully the kids.
Speaker 1: Oh, Jamal. Yeah.
Speaker 0: See, what was
Speaker 12: what
Speaker 5: was Jamal like though? The dickhead.
Speaker 0: Was he?
Speaker 5: He spent he he came to isolation a few times. He want he want perfect child?
Speaker 1: No. No.
Speaker 5: He was the same. Well, you know what Joe Biden did, don't you?
Speaker 0: He was in isolation? Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 5: That's what he's in other times.
Speaker 0: Was he?
Speaker 12: Yeah. What
Speaker 0: was he like, though?
Speaker 5: Troublesome, Charles. Yeah. He's a makeup fucking star, he's
Speaker 0: He used to make up stories.
Speaker 5: Yeah. At at one stage, I think you see something to do with your sister. Somebody said something to his sister that I was in isolation. I just go come out and he was waiting outside isolation. I wanted to be the girl or for someone.
I can't can't remember.
Speaker 0: He want to be here. Yeah.
Speaker 5: They did ask someone to his sister. Just one second. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No problem.
Speaker 5: Yeah. No problem. Well, you you you you want you want he used to lie lie a lot.
Speaker 0: But this whole thing was built with what he said. And if you lied a lot, light, it's a big problem.
Speaker 1: What was that over?
Speaker 5: Him. Oh, no. It's whatever. Oh, no. It's whatever.
Or we want this or not. Did you
Speaker 0: like that with lots of kids? Not really. No. Just certain kids?
Speaker 12: Yeah. I would
Speaker 0: say I'm like, he's got an insurance group. So he thought he could? Yeah. Yeah. So he just randomly attacked you?
Yeah. Yeah. What about, your mom your mom just sank about he puts anything between his hands?
Speaker 16: Oh, yeah. It was a compass.
Speaker 17: I remembered it yesterday. It was just as you went.
Speaker 16: It was a compass. He got he got a compass, and he was going around like when
Speaker 0: he got to be
Speaker 16: with proper hearted to be able to be believed in everything. And I think it was miss Ennis that proper gave him a top telling off
Speaker 0: Okay. You know, you said so so say say like that instant there. You said some girl said something to my sister, and he walked away outside to beat her up. Well there are testimonies from several children who alleged they were being bullied by him. Younger children.
Little girls. Mostly girls. Is Jamal the innocent victim? You've been told. I gathered these testimonies over just a few hours filming in Huddersfield.
I could have carried on.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I was waiting outside my pleasure to be the yellow.
Speaker 0: And about the noise. Yeah.
Speaker 5: I'll say about Juwani used to tell fibs. There was several times he got investigated, and it just fucking turned out to be fucking lies.
Speaker 0: The fact he always lied is a big point. The fact that you know that the police the the school investigated incidents where he said things happened Yeah. And they turned out to be made up. Yeah.
Speaker 5: It was thieves. They couldn't have happened. It could happen because of of the one. The child were even in school that he accused.
Speaker 0: I can remember. Oh my god. Yeah. Oh my god.
Speaker 5: So I'm sure he accused us another guy called Jaden. I can't remember his last name.
Speaker 0: Called what?
Speaker 5: Jaden.
Speaker 0: Jaden.
Speaker 5: He accused he accused Jaden or someone. I'm a mean miss any investigative of complex.
Speaker 2: Not very likable, really.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 2: You know, about what we're gonna do to sisters and what have you bury aunt's office.
Speaker 1: I'm toddlers.
Speaker 2: But not a very nice boss.
Speaker 1: When you say what are
Speaker 0: you gonna do to your sisters?
Speaker 2: Well, I told Betty, wouldn't it?
Speaker 0: Tell Betty is your baby sister? Mhmm. Alright. And I'd
Speaker 1: try to argue that it was in the public's interest for them to know the truth about Jamelle.
Speaker 12: I know.
Speaker 10: Yeah. Unless they They were just retaliating. Yeah.
Speaker 2: You know, which most people know is from the side in the world's history.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Jamelle seems like every kid I spoke to that he attacked was younger.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Bullock.
Speaker 0: Jamelle. Hey, Jamelle. Yeah. Yes. That's what I'm fine now.
Yeah.
Speaker 5: That's what I remember. He said he would have stabbed him or something with a science or something. I remember. He said, yeah. So he goes to come and then what he's saying now.
Speaker 0: Because that thing of him getting caught with a knife in school. It's like, what? What with a knife and screwdriver? Bailey gets his tail thrown in a bottle of water. Yeah.
What the fuck? Surely he gets
Speaker 5: a statement on that?
Speaker 0: No. Because it there's things missing.
Speaker 1: But I've got I've got his dad mentioned it in
Speaker 0: the minutes in the meeting. His dad mentioned it in the meeting with the school. His dad mentioned about them catching him with a knife and a screwdriver. His dad
Speaker 5: his dad bought it up. I've got it I've
Speaker 0: got it in black and white.
Speaker 5: Yeah. You got good case there?
Speaker 1: I've got
Speaker 0: I've got it. Yeah. He got caught with a knife. They they can't deny it. You see, the truth was there for the media.
It was there for celebrities and politicians to see. They could have told you the truth at the time before some of you gave over a £160,000 of your money to the poor victim, Jamal. Well, not so poor anymore. But none of this was true. A key part of this case is that I reported what I was told.
Before my involvement in this story, a mother went online and said her daughter had been attacked by Jamal. I contacted that mother. She sent me images of her daughter. She said her little daughter was beaten by 3 Muslim girls and that Jamal jumped in and bit her daughter on the head. She sent me the images of the bite marks on her daughter's head.
I said, can I speak to you? Can I interview you? I rang the mother, but the child was too scared to talk to me.
Speaker 2: Too scared?
Speaker 0: No. No. Everyone's scared. A girl went online and said that she had been attacked by Jamal. Both of these victims deleted their comments why.
Both of these victims had gone online and reported this before my involvement at all in this case. I simply reported what they were saying. We revisited the mother's house to try and get confirmation as to why she backtracked on the story she had put out and the story she had told me.
Speaker 10: I got car if you're driving. Tony Robinson's there.
Speaker 0: Tell her not to worry, don't worry.
Speaker 13: He said don't worry. Yeah.
Speaker 0: So when you when you put online about Jamelle, what what what happened? Like what did you What happened, what was the response to that?
Speaker 5: What do you mean?
Speaker 0: I mean, did you receive did you receive
Speaker 15: I don't receive threats. Yeah, I did.
Speaker 1: What sort
Speaker 0: of threats?
Speaker 5: We all thought. All thought. Don't let all thought. And I'm just
Speaker 0: because I'm trying to understand this. Is that, and is that because and it because what I've what I've looked at and then because Jamelle's solicitors are using a statement that you made saying that, Jamelle had nothing to do with it. But was that I'm asking is that was that in response to the re reflects your seat that you received?
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: It was. Okay.
Speaker 5: Liar. Straight. Is this a symbol just a liar? Jamal telling fibs all the time. There's several times investigated.
Fucking who found out that he's talking fucking shit.
Speaker 12: I don't
Speaker 0: think the whole but then I read Jamal reading reading was slightly a prepared statement on the news.
Speaker 18: I don't feel safe at school. Sometimes I say to my dad, I don't want to go to school anymore. I was just crying and I didn't do nothing because I respect the school rules.
Speaker 11: He used to break rule
Speaker 5: all the time. Yeah. He used to lie. He used to lie a lot. He lied several times.
He lied he lied several times. I caught him several times lying.
Speaker 0: He's suing me for defamation for what I've said about him. And I'm finding out after teacher after teacher after teacher he's far worse than what I said. Far worse. I mean, like, far worse. He was put up on a pedestal by every single media outlet, politicians, footballers, celebrities, boxers, everybody.
They're suing me for defamation for what I've said about him. All I'm knocking on the door and asking teacher after teacher after teacher is what was Jamal like? And it's just flowing. It's just boom. And he was far worse than anything I said.
Far worse. I find it insane because no there is no way that all the things I'm now finding out, the neither journalists has found this out. They must have known what it was like because it hasn't been hard.
Speaker 10: The Isle of Portrait, Port Bailey, the the spin. He was
Speaker 1: and that Jamal was an innocent woman in London too. He wasn't.
Speaker 10: Not far from that.
Speaker 0: So you were told Bailey was a bully and he was a racist. He wasn't a saint in school, he'd be the 1st to admit that, but he wasn't a bully or a racist. Police concluded there was nothing racist about the scuffle, yet you were told he was vermin. You were told he needed to be dealt with. He was vilified by the media, by politicians, and by celebrities.
Bailey a bully, Bailey a racist. Not according to his teachers and other children. Not according to his head teacher of his school. Who is this? He was
Speaker 1: a 15 year old kid Yeah. And it it would have been, could be, have a great future. He's a very articulate lad. He's got a lot of issue about justice. Yeah.
I think, you know, I could've seen him in a row or something like like that because he has that in him. Really? Yeah. And he would stand up for his peers in school where he felt things were. Yeah.
Yeah.
Speaker 12: You know, he would do that. I just wanna tell the truth
Speaker 1: about Vaden. Well His life was destroyed.
Speaker 2: Well, that's not
Speaker 0: fair either, is it?
Speaker 2: As a racist bully, and he won.
Speaker 14: And he wasn't.
Speaker 0: I know. And I both
Speaker 1: know that. I know. Unfortunately, the
Speaker 0: truth is just I know. I know. But Bailey didn't even get to sit his GCSEs because of this campaign of hate, this perversion of the truth. What about Jamal's broken arm? Which the world was told was because of bullying.
That was a like. School incident reports record that he had been punching a much younger child in the face while holding him in a headlock, and he was pushed off him, fell, and broke his arm. The police considered the incident to have been dealt with it properly.
Speaker 5: You were picking you were picking I think you picked I've got an old somebody pushed him to get him off.
Speaker 10: He started calling me my white fat bitch and stuff, and then he like Is
Speaker 0: that what you're my mate?
Speaker 12: I'm a
Speaker 10: white fat bitch.
Speaker 0: White fat bitch.
Speaker 10: And then, I went up to him, and then he like, I took I took the bottle and then he put me in a headlock, and then my mate pushed him off me. And I believe that's how he broke his arm. Yeah. So he had you in a headlock.
Speaker 12: And I
Speaker 0: believe that's how he broke his arm. Yeah. So he had you in a headlock? Yeah. So he he physically assaulted you?
Yeah.
Speaker 5: You said
Speaker 0: he called you mama white bitch.
Speaker 10: Yeah. Is
Speaker 0: that the sort of terminology he uses a lot? Yeah.
Speaker 1: There's all sorts of misconceptions like the fact that he had a broken arm.
Speaker 0: Oh, I've got 2 independent witnesses now.
Speaker 1: He he had a year 8 kid. And another kid in year 11 stepped in and said, what are you doing? Pushed him over. Poked him off.
Speaker 0: Who he had in the headlock?
Speaker 4: It was must have been just start of year 11, put this kid in a headlock. One of my friends, one of my friends, didn't like how he was behaving, grabbed him and just threw him off him. Like anyone do break up a fight, they just, like, throw him off him, but this wasn't a fight. This was an all out brawl, one-sided, completely one-sided, because this kid had no match against Jamal, just threw him off him and he landed on the curb.
Speaker 0: How did was he did? Jamal was in year 11?
Speaker 4: Yeah. Half half the size of Jamal, easily.
Speaker 0: Okay. You know, I know he was 12 and Jamal was 15. Mhmm.
Speaker 4: But he was like, kind of like half size ish, kind of like, up to shoulders kind of thing. Yeah. But he still had no match against him, And my friend just grabbed him, threw him off him, he landed on a curb, and that was like it.
Speaker 0: So I've read it reported in by Jeremy Biden and in the newspapers that that was an incident of Jamelle being bullied.
Speaker 4: No. Exact opposite. He was bullying this kid.
Speaker 1: So you see people thought that was all part of it.
Speaker 0: But that's do you know why somebody destroyed it
Speaker 1: for all your broken arm.
Speaker 0: But do you know why they
Speaker 12: do you know
Speaker 1: why they thought
Speaker 0: it was part of it? Because the solicitor said it was.
Speaker 1: No. Well, it's not it's not true. I'm telling you, it's not true. I could even name it I won't. But I could name the child in year 8 that he did it to.
Speaker 12: And I
Speaker 1: could name the child in year 11 that stepped in.
Speaker 0: So someone stepped in?
Speaker 1: Because basically, school school is a pretty good place. Kids have good values. So if you saw a bigger kid, you'd see a little kid. He said, oh, he stepped in and said, what are you doing? Yeah.
And we even had it where
Speaker 0: Do you know what he said to the year 8 kid? No. Called his mom on white slag?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Now I've got that on camera, isn't it?
Speaker 1: Now you say it. Yes. He would have done that, and that would have been incredibly provocative for them.
Speaker 0: Even in his statement to court, Jamal claims they were forced to relocate from Huddersfield for their own safety to a different part of the country. Really? Because the records say there was no most racial motivation and there was no threat at home. That's what the records say. And this is why the authorities, they refused to move them.
And while all this was going on, records also show that his dad Jihad Yeah, his dad's name is Jihad. He'd threatened to kill himself if the rest of his family weren't brought in from Syria. It's not surprising that some authorities expressed concerns that Jihad Hijazi was trying to manipulate the system to get what he wanted, including their housing. You were not told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You weren't told anything approaching the truth by the mainstream media.
And in Jihad's holy war statement to the court, Jihad said that he wished he had died in the war with his family, rather than go through what happened at Almanbury Community School. Really? He wished he was dead and all his family were dead rather than go through this school playground instant. Listen to the clip again. Listen to what Bailey's saying.
He's asking Jamal repeatedly. What are you saying now? It wasn't a random attack. It wasn't a racist attack. Bailey didn't threaten to stab Jamal.
The playground incident was not the beginning of the story. It was a culmination of many events. Not least, it was a response to Jamal's alleged threats to rape Bailey's younger sisters. They're about 9 years old at the time of this. So how's it going at that school when you saw the portrayal of what happened with Bailey and him.
Because he was painted as this innocent little kid.
Speaker 10: He was an innocent.
Speaker 12: He's out
Speaker 10: in there for a while. He's out in there. I used to see him bully Bailey's little sisters
Speaker 0: and stuff.
Speaker 8: Everybody was exposing the scumbag that did this, who I hope gets severe retribution. Hope his parents take action. Right? Never mind anything else. What what what what are you producing here with this vermin doing what he's doing here?
Speaker 17: That's not Britain. That's not what
Speaker 8: we do as a country.
Speaker 0: You can hear him there describe Bailey as vermin. Words are important when you're on a daytime platformer and people listen to what you say. What do you do to Vernon? You exterminate. You kill it.
Low life, called him a thug. But worst of all, he demanded severe retribution against this child. At the same time as this, Jeremy Vine was reporting. He didn't tell people the bully's name, although he was finding it hard not to name a child. Instead he told his followers where they could find that name.
Now this is a direct response of both of your reporting, because when you reported, you can follow the timeline and the repercussions of what that bore. What I've done here, in 2018 there's a charity called Tell Mama that records Muslim hate incidents. Even though they've been in the past penalised for exaggerating the figures, let's go, let's work off their figures. They say there are over a 1,000 hate instances with 325 of them being online. Some of them are Islamophobic, which means criticizing Islam as well.
Here, I've printed a piece of paper for each one of those hate incidents. 327 hate incidents online against the entire Muslim community of the UK in 2018. The 325 Islamophobic comments, they're the ones you read about on the news every day. They're the ones people are in jail for. They're the hate incidents the media keeps shoving down your throat.
So each piece of paper here represents a hate comment aimed at a child after a playground dispute. I want to read these now, and peers, you demanded severe retribution, that's what you demanded against this child. Let's see if you're happy with some of this. I pray someone rapes you and your whole family while you watch. Fuck your mother.
Fuck your love. The Syrians will rape your family. If I saw you, I would rape you to death. You'll be raped by the Volusian group. I hope your mother will not be racist when she is raped.
I'm going to bum your nan alive then dead her again. And the threats of rape, all of these threats of rape, imagine being these children, imagine being a 15 year old child living in Huddersfield with your little sisters. Muslim men are jailed in the biggest scandal in the history of our country for mass rapes in that town. And then you're receiving and you're reading these messages. You're going to die, you're going to fucking die, we're going to strangle your mum, your dad, your friends.
I'll kill your whole family. I can't wait to find you so I can slit your throat. You're the person who should be killed in those ISIS videos. You, your parents and your whole family have to be burned. Do heaven a favor of fucking off yourself.
Looking at you makes me want to commit suicide. Go commit suicide your your oxygen thief. Jump off a bridge bro. Do humans a favor and kill yourself. We don't want you and you don't belong in this world.
Again, imagine being that child reading them. Piers. Is that severe enough for you? This is a mental health record for Bailey McLaren. Bailey was referred to Luton CAMS by Luton and Dunstable Psychiatry Liaison on the 31st December 2018.
Reason patient involved in incident in Huddersfield and has been relocated to Luton with family. Patient unable to cope with not returning home and has taken an overdose. So this lie, this narrative, this agenda which comes before anything else by the politicians, by the media that was pumped. This child, it doesn't matter. His life didn't matter.
You know if he killed himself, no one would have cared. We wouldn't have heard condemnation from any of the politicians or from any of the media. No one cared. Because everyone from start to finish in this story is collateral damage so long as they have the narrative. And peers, you have a son, you have children.
Demanding severe retribution against a child for a school playground dispute is unforgivable. You sit there and you preach. You preach against us. You make your accusations against me. Never have I labelled Muslim children as vermin.
Never have I demanded my followers to commit severe retribution against anybody. And this is what the media, the politicians, and the celebrities created, aided and abetted by the left wing activism and the selective indignation of Islam. Hypocrites out there might say, who cares? That's what he deserved, right? Imagine for one moment if I had incited violence against young Muslim lad in the reversal of this situation.
And you see, in a district where a generation of young girls have been raped, these threats are far from empty. What do you think, if you were working in the school at that time, what do you think what the media done?
Speaker 5: I think the media fucking blew out of fucking proportion of what the fucking world body got off.
Speaker 0: I know. But in the media run that Jamal was being bullied,
Speaker 5: like You see, he used to complain that he used to be bullied. There was a there was another, I think, Kirklees Kirklees guy that came that Jamal that Jamal said somebody bought a knife or something? I think that that be that be that that should be on record. Yeah. Yeah.
I don't think when we we we we have to get I think it were a lot of bollocks.
Speaker 0: I'm I'm gathering that by reading the school records. They made accusations and then when they're investigated.
Speaker 5: Yeah. And there were a lot of bollocks. It lied.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Now ITV, Piers Morgan. You used your platform to incite hatred of a young child. No time for facts or the inconvenient truth. Surely you must have known the truth because within a few hours of the story breaking, I was receiving dozens of messages from parents, pupils and staff saying there was much more to the story than met the eye.
So I did what any journalist could have done, should have done. I asked questions. Were you just being lazy? Was it willful blindness? Or are you just incompetent peers?
And the BBC's Jeremy Vine, to you personally, was it clinical cowardice? After all, you didn't reveal the white boy's name. You just told everyone where to find it on Twitter. Were you afraid of being sued? Although it wouldn't have been the BBC licence fee payers picking up your legal bills, would it?
Or was this your Pontius Pilate moment? Condemning a child whilst washing your hands of any responsibility? Because that's what you did and you didn't seek the truth either. Piers, Jeremy, your lazy inept reporting was not without consequence as we will see. You incited hatred, you succeeded.
And that's contempt. Your actions, not Bailey's, led to Bailey and his family being driven from their home in the middle of the night. Like the very refugees you claim you care about. The hate you incited was off the scale. Then when machetes had arrived at the school, gangs were roaming the streets looking for bait.
West Yorkshire police told Bailey's mum that terrorism threat had been raised to writ. They had intelligence of people coming from Bradford to get Bailey and his family. Rather than deal with the threat, they moved Bailey and his family to a place of safety. So whilst one child had the support of the whole country, had the support of the prime minister, Sajid Javid, the local football club. Everyone rallying behind this child, £160,000 donated to him.
The other child in this incident, his family were driven from their home. Fret. Groups of men looking for him, ready to commit violence against him. And the police the police stopped their mom. So the police took the family.
The police went and got the family to get them out of their house through imminent danger, and they were taking them to relocate them here. Let's have a look. The night in. This is the accommodation that Bailey's mother with 2 9 year old sisters and children were being relocated to. This one star hotel where rooms are rented by the hour next door to a brothel.
The imam who brought a mob of men up to the school, he has 3 mosques within a stone's throw of where we're standing now. Bailey's mother, through her sense, looked up this hotel, saw it was owned by Muslims, read this read the reviews that it's a prostitute racket drug hole, and got out of the police meat wagon with her children to take them to safety herself. But this is where Kirklees Council were housing those children and that family. This is the most Muslim populated area of Leeds. That family were taken to so called safety, yeah, Surrounded by mosques in what is a Muslim ghetto.
Yeah? Which is why I'm getting bibbed. I'm gonna get some cause a scene now. We went to see from neighbors what it was like at the time of the incident.
Speaker 17: I think it was a a BMW
Speaker 16: the fire down the house.
Speaker 0: God. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 5: So it was
Speaker 17: it was meant to shoot,
Speaker 5: the 7
Speaker 0: To shoot the mum?
Speaker 17: The mum. The 7 2, to the it's
Speaker 0: Well, they come outside and under there. It's shouting and screaming. Shout and screaming.
Speaker 10: Well, I
Speaker 3: saw the video because the neighbor had shared it. And then I saw in the Yorkshire live, them making Bailey out to be really horrible, and that Jamal was a poor little victim, and it it wound me up. So I commented on it. The victim wasn't a victim. He hit me in the back with a hockey stick.
And then within the space of 2 hours, I had about 250 comments saying that I was lying, that I must have been excluded from the school because I'm a liar. Just horrible comments like that. None of them believe in me.
Speaker 0: And did you take this did you take the comment down?
Speaker 3: Yeah. I didn't want to, but my mom was worried for repercussions, so she asked me to take it down so I did.
Speaker 0: This is the area that Kirklees Council thought it was the right place to send a child and his family, who were wanted at the time, the main imam outside their school with mobs of Muslim men looking for them, and this is where they decided to send them. They basically dropped them in their backyard. That's what they were doing. This is the hotel. This is, I believe, a 4 star hotel.
It's totally full of illegal immigrants. This is across the country. So the point to make is that illegal immigrants come here, young fine age men, not families, not children, and this is where council would help them. Let's have a look. Hello, boys.
Hello.
Speaker 5: How are you doing?
Speaker 0: Can I do you mind if I ask, what what country are you from, though?
Speaker 1: I I do not know speak English.
Speaker 0: You do speak English. I do. This is what
Speaker 14: country are you from? Mine
Speaker 0: yeah. Iran? Yeah. Iran. Okay.
Speaker 14: Yeah. Iran.
Speaker 0: Kurdistan. Iran. Okay. Nice call, man. I'm just seeing.
Is the hotel full? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Full.
Enjoying it here? Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 14: Nice hotel. Nice food.
Speaker 0: Nice hotel. Nice food?
Speaker 14: Yeah. Healthy food.
Speaker 0: Healthy food. It looks like a nice hotel. Yeah. How many people are in here?
Speaker 14: I think there's 200.
Speaker 0: 200? Lots of children?
Speaker 14: So my iPhone, I think it has a little children.
Speaker 0: No children?
Speaker 14: Oh, my mom's children. No.
Speaker 0: Not many children. But it's a nice hotel.
Speaker 14: Nice hotel.
Speaker 0: Nice hotel. It is a nice hotel. And if if you look at if you look at where the other family were being housed in Beeston and you compare it to this 4 star 4 star hotel, nice food as our friend says.
Speaker 1: Healthy food.
Speaker 0: Healthy food.
Speaker 12: Yeah. Alright.
Speaker 0: Hello, bro. Hi. How you doing?
Speaker 1: Hey. Do you want to come back in?
Speaker 0: Yeah. We're off now, mate. We're only we're only we're only we're done now.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 12: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Do you know what they have in here? They have a full time doctor and nurses. Full time, stationed in there.
Speaker 14: In, buddy.
Speaker 0: Full time. So you know when you come my dad tried to get a doctor's appointment earlier. Couldn't get one. Full time. Full time.
Full time.
Speaker 1: You're very bad.
Speaker 0: The food's bad? Yeah. The food's bad? Yeah. Is it free?
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's free.
Speaker 5: They called our school. Soon as the media media and all that died, they sent in chief inspectors chief inspectors of fucking off state. We knew they're gonna fail and every fucking thing they can think of.
Speaker 1: I have goofiness, There's a lot more changes. All of that and yesterday. And, you know, they're only in the bank, but it was never picked up.
Speaker 0: Apart from my reporting, there was not a single media statement given the other side of this story. The staff knew. Other pupils knew. They could've exposed the lie. Why didn't they?
Speaker 1: The incident I always quote the incident. Yeah. The incident has reoccurred. It's come to my door. They said you can't talk about it because you've got an undistclosure agreement.
They're not satisfactory. So that was the reason they triggered it.
Speaker 0: They were even not free to tell you the truth or they were terrified of the consequences. And that's for so called journalists. Some can't find the truth, some won't tell the truth, and some they're afraid of the truth. But me, as a journalist, it's my job to present you the truth.
Speaker 1: If you want my honest opinion, they said, get up there. This is I don't know who they is. Get up there and shoot that school. Get up there and get rid of this.
Speaker 0: You see, when the media and politicians decide to kill a story, when they decide to hide the truth from you, they'll do whatever it takes. They shut down the school. It's gone. Everyone lost their jobs. You see, once this Live Our Racist attack had gone global, the truth would never be allowed to come out.
The real truth, that a young Syrian refugee was struggling to fit into his new environment was problematic. His allegedly abusive and violent conduct towards teachers and children was allowed to run unchecked. Why? Did the school authorities turn a blind eye rather than be accused of victimizing the boy, of being racist towards him? They stayed silent.
The truth may have triggered accusations of racism or sparked discussion about immigration policies. The challenges of achieving the successful integration of migrants we welcome into United Kingdom, and the need to take those challenges seriously. You see, Jamal was one of 20,000 Syrian refugees who come to the UK as part of the United Nations resettlement program. The government could not allow their policies to be examined and the consequences and their incompetence to be exposed. And if you don't think the government is incompetent, you ain't been paying attention to anything.
Priti Patel's been talking tough, really tough on controlling our borders for years. And yet we have boatloads of illegal economic migrants being escorted across the English Channel and put into these luxury accommodation at your expense. This ineptitude does nothing for the refugees who come here legally, who we welcome into England, refugees who are trying to integrate and make a new life here. And who was the community's rage directed at? All Syrian refugees.
That's who. When in fact, there are many families of Syrian refugees in the area, we're told, all of them delightful, working hard to settle and integrate into the country they can now call home. I spoke to multiple refugee families. In the school, Gremlin, my children. No.
Any Gremlin. No problems with your children? No. That's it. And you've had a you've had a good experience in the school?
Speaker 10: I used to have 2 friends and they don't Bali and they don't care where from country I can't move anything.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 10: And when I spoke English, like, I was we was about 1 month we've been in here, and I used to not speak English very much. So they used to tell me how to speak all that thing. And now I'm in year 8, and I know how to speak English. And I made more friends, and now I am fine.
Speaker 0: And you're fine? And then no problems?
Speaker 18: I don't feel safe at school. Sometimes I say to my dad, I don't want to go to school anymore. I was just crying and I didn't do nothing because I respect the school rules.
Speaker 0: Who told Jamal to go on camera and say this? Who arranged the media tour? Who encouraged him to take legal action? He was originally going to sue the school for not looking after him and then decided to sue me instead. Who told him to put this in his statement to the High Court?
You see, Jamal doesn't like to break the school rules. Here's the problem. This is his behavior record. Almost a 100 codes for bad behavior. Truancy, verbal abuse to teachers, physical violence towards pupils, and lying.
Yeah, there's plenty for lying. You see, I haven't got all of Jamal's school records. Large sections of documents I was given were blacked out. We tried to get access but we weren't allowed. And the lawyers wrote to the court to explain they had misplaced documentation.
And finally, as you can hear, the lawyers decided what they were gonna allow me to see. Whilst I was preparing my defense, Jamal's lawyers decided what I could see. And this global news story wasn't an accident. It was all carefully planned. You see, the day before the video went viral, a GoFundMe page was set up for Jamal and the video went viral the day after a criminal record check come back on Jamal.
Why would his lawyers do a criminal record check? Well, they had to make sure this was financially beneficial exercise. Wasn't going to be derailed by an unhelpful pass. 15 Rold Jamal, his record was clean by the way. Mohammed Akanji, the jihadist lawyer of choice, was immediately on the global media blitz.
Speaker 19: Listen. I'm very conned to himself. I'm after him for my own reason.
Speaker 8: Right. Okay. Nothing sinister though, is it?
Speaker 19: Oh, fuck. No. No. Journalistic. Oh, journalistic.
Well, that's good.
Speaker 1: Oh, no. No. No.
Speaker 19: No. Fucking totally journalistic. I wanna get all the background on him. You reckon he Yeah. You reckon he was a member of that?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Al and Midrgharun are a prescribed terrorist organization. Almost 60% of terrorists in British prisons are ex members of this organization. They kill. They murder.
They slaughter. That is the organization that Mohammed Khanji and his brother were allegedly, according to this, top mainstream Muslim British journalist who are members of it. How does a Syrian lad find himself working with the jihadist lawyer of choice before this video even went out? Before anyone has seen this viral video. Within 2 weeks, the lawyers have been made the beneficiaries of the GoFundMe page of £160,000.
A plan to sue the school? That's put on hold. And a plan to sue, moi, for libel was launched. What riches had these lawyers promised Jamal and his family? School records were edited.
Migration Yorkshire clamored to make this playground fight about race and hate. They contacted the Home Office as soon as they heard about this playground fight. Yeah. The home office, a playground scuffle. Why are they contacting the home office instantly?
Someone went further. You see, we had this school incident report analyzed by a graphologist. Someone who analyzes handwriting. It appears to show that a second person with very different handwriting doctored the report to allege that Bailey had threatened to stab Jamal. Even though all the witness reports mentioned there was only one teacher there, so only one teacher could have done an instant report.
So, with the careful planning, the jihadist favorite lawyer and the enthusiastic support of some useful idiots, it was possible for the lies to go round the world twice before the truth had had a chance to put his pants on. I now need to mention other repercussions of what happened in Ormondbury. I was being sued for reporting the things that were said to me about Jamau. I had to defend myself. The judges already already ruled that I was not allowed to argue.
It was in the public's interest for people to hear a different perspective of Jamal. I had to prove that the information reported to me was true. That's not the kind of burden placed on Piers Morgan or Jeremy Vine. Piers can describe Bailey as vermin without being held to account. And who is behind propagating this deception and the lawsuit against me?
You see, this is where we get to meet the most sinister part of the unholy alliance. All sorts of people are helping out, but leading the posse from the front is the jihadist lawyer of choice. He represented Shamina Begman, you know the jihadi terrorist that's out in Syria. He represented, I think, Michael Adeballajo, Lee Rigby's killer. I think he's even had to change his name because he's got such a terrible track record.
So this is the lawyer who's suing me and who the media celebrated that he had served me papers even though I wasn't in the country. If you're pillaged, if you've plundered, if you've raped and you're beheaded, and you say you've done it in the name of Islam, well these are the lawyers for you. The lawyers who stepped forward for ISIS by Shmina Begum, who've been fighting to get her back into our country. Who defended Michael Adeballaju who beheaded Lee Rigby. This is Mohammed Akanji and his colleague, Faruk Bajwa, who's been banned from claiming legal aid.
Yeah. Banned from claiming legal aid for putting in fraudulent expense claims. Let me rewind a bit. Let's go back a few weeks. There's an important piece of background information to this.
Speaker 16: Don't know the full ins and outs of it, but, basically, to inform the group call themselves Antifa UK. Yeah. Over there? Yep. To be honest, I kind of haven't, and Antifa Dundee.
The base he says are planning to help possibly kill Tommy Robinson, because they know where he lives and want to silence him. They've got their hands on it says they've got hands hands on to make a 40 sevens, make ketchup bombs and stuff. And allegedly, instead, wherever the foot, these petrol bonds through your door when he sleeps. They say they're also friends with a few MPs.
Speaker 0: Now at the heightened tensions with multiple osmond warnings, they now take back the radar phone, the one option we have to go direct to the police, and they are removing it at this current moment.
Speaker 1: Where are you from? I'm from
Speaker 0: So, look, what did you just say, basically, the the the radar phone or whatever it is? Yes. Yes. The phone, the emergency phone that you Will will be taking that back. You'll be taking that back.
Yeah. But those those phones are They're used for a aren't even for real. Like, so so when there's a heightened threat and people have come to the house and the address has been put out where my kids are, you're then gonna take the panic phone back. It's Christmas 2018. The police come to my family's home to tell me that people in Antifa, file a violent and extremist organisation, are planning to kill me and my family.
See who were the first to comment on this video? Well, Mohammed Akanji of Farooq Bazrunko, of course, the jihadists lawyers of choice, but also Mike Stoodsbury, an independent journalist, an Antifa activist. So the jihadist lawyers knew Antifa were planning to kill me, then actually commented on the video of the Ozmen warning. You see, what happened next is interesting, although not interesting to the solicitors regulation authority or the law society. The people who should be interested in the integrity of our lawyers.
Speaker 17: It will be live streamed. I'm not in charge of the
Speaker 4: filming or anything like that.
Speaker 17: That's, down to the
Speaker 4: the guys over here.
Speaker 17: And you literally know we wanted to do this, so we thought, what mug can we probably do with a creep for this?
Speaker 0: So 2 lawyers who know Antifa are planning to kill me, seek out an Antifa extremist, hire him for one day, just one day, and send him to live stream the servant of papers to my home, my family's home. Papers which had already been served by the way, with a gang. When my wife and children were there, when they knew I was abroad, lawyers commissioned the Antifa Extremist to broadcast my home address in order, as they put it, to cause a spectacle.
Speaker 11: The law firm or the lawyer who has been, you know, sort of taking the lead on the Tommy case wanted to make sure, doubly sure that that, a, Tommy got the, the the letter. It actually went out 2 2 two different ways, and he wanted to make a bit of a spectacle out of it. This this is all very they're very amusing.
Speaker 0: A group supported by Mike Stitchbury came to the home that my wife and children were in on a Sunday afternoon when I wasn't even in the country. So let's have a look at Mike Stitchbury, who calls himself a journalist, who promoted this event, who shared it and encouraged it, who found it amusing that my wife was so scared she had to ring the police. My wife has been sat down and told in her home that Antifa are planning to kill her. They're planning to kill our family and harm our family. She's been told that she may get acid in her face.
Well, how do you think she felt on a Sunday afternoon whilst my children are playing outside on their bikes? To be told that Antifa were on their way to our home. Let's have a look at Mike Stuxbury, the man that sent them. Here he is self admitting that he is part of Antifa. Here he is promoting violence against his opposition.
Punch them, punch them, punch them. Here he is hoping that buses full of Antifa get shipped in to smash people's skulls in. Here he is calling for white genocide. Mike Stitchby is an extremist. He's a far left extremist who currently is playing a victim.
He encouraged people to come and he sent people and was part of an organization that communicated together, to send people to the home where my wife and children were when I wasn't there. He even crowdfunded to support them in their action.
Speaker 11: He, you know, he was looking at various people and eventually he sort of came on to Dick Coughlin. Dick Coughlin? I can't say it properly. Who is a a a YouTuber who has made videos about Tommy for, god, almost 10 years, I think, who's a who's a real critic. He's a I don't know if you've checked him out, but he's a he's a funny guy.
Speaker 5: Check out. Yeah.
Speaker 11: He's, sort of, you know, got red hair, x he calls you know, he's he's an ex crackhead, basically.
Speaker 0: And who is this antique extremist hired to come to my kids' home? Keep watching. I went up to where and they said, right. We'll take that from him. We'll make sure he gets it.
And later that night, the Antifa Extremists hired by their lawyers had a message for me and my children.
Speaker 17: And on that note, see, on that on the happy note,
Speaker 6: oh, by the way, Tommy, I am gonna mince your kids, mate.
Speaker 0: So look at the man that they sent. The man that you can see, the Muslim lawyer, handed privileged documentation giving this man my children's home address. That's what he's done. Fully aware of the serious danger my family are in, and he hands them my children's address. They then come to my children's home, my wife gets a phone call, my children run off the drive, they lock themselves in the house, they ring emergency, the emergency 999 call for the police to come, they press panic buttons, they need support because Antifa are coming.
They came, they told the Muslim lawyer, he's fully aware they're coming to live stream where my family are. They live stream and dox the name of the road. They dox the door number. I went up to where and I'm and I said, right. We'll take that from him.
We'll make sure he gets it. The man's specifically chosen. He was chosen. He says in his own video.
Speaker 17: The lawyer in this case was a guy called Mohammed Sunimi Akundra who works for a solicitors in London called, I shit you not, Farooq Bajwa and Co, solicitors of London. I get asked by this guy that, they've decided that they're going to Tommy Robinson is going to be served legal papers, so he can be sued by this family. And they asked, me, do I want to be the one to go along to serve legal documents?
Speaker 0: Let's have a look at who Dick Coughlin is. Let's have a look at some of the things he said. Here he is promoting hatred against black people. Serious, this is a crime. The comments he makes are a crime.
Here he is promoting hatred against Pakistanis. Here he is singing a song promoting anti semitism, singing a song about lampshades being made out of Jewish people's skin from the hollow. Yeah. 3rd black, 3rd black, you're a good killer kite. We're white, far right, and we're gonna have a fight.
We're in the A self confessed racist anti semitic crackhead was sent to my children's property. He talked about raping my wife in her skull socket. He talked about my children being fed for a meat winder. He talked about burning my house down and whilst masturbating with my family in it. Now other than to terrorize my wife and children, why would any sane person do this?
It worked, okay. Tipped off by a friend who saw the gang on livestream approaching, my ex wife hit the panic button and barricaded herself and our children in a bedroom. The police thankfully responded in time. And these are exactly the same tactics being used against the unbelievably courageous children in Ombre. Threats of violence and rape against children who are willing to stand with me in defence of the truth at the High Court of London.
The video release, media, GoFundMe, Antifa, it all happened at the same time. It was coordinated, and it was about hate and making money. And how that far left activist, who appears to be an antisemitic, Jew hating, black hating racist, came to my home with his gang and threatened to kill my children. These lawyers, the mainstream media, they don't care about refugees. They don't care about Jamelle.
They don't care about the truth. Say that bloke who made the video saying he's gonna kill the kids. Yeah. Can you if you didn't do it, I know 100% give a statement. I know.
I was there.
Speaker 1: Okay. Give a
Speaker 0: statement about that. She complained about it. She contacted Paul, remember, it would have been the liaison officer at the time, to Okay. Ask if he was arrested. I found out his address, and I gave you all the information for him.
So even now Right. Say now, looking at that, can he be arrested now then?
Speaker 16: I don't know what happened with
Speaker 20: the previous report because when we search on our system that we currently use
Speaker 0: You probably got very good.
Speaker 20: See any crime report that was linked to it.
Speaker 0: You see, the next day, knowing I've been provoked with threats against my ex wife and my children, no doubt thinking they would catch me conspiring to commit violence and lock me up on a conspiracy charge. Here, outside my ex wife's house, men in a car that has never been registered, check the registration plate. So presumably from the security services, we've listing devices recording what's being said in my home. The involvement of the security services may explain why Dick Coughlin, the man who publicly threatened to murder my children, has never even been spoken to or arrested despite my wife's complaints. What are you doing?
Is there any reason the back of your glove? There's no
Speaker 5: one in the back of your glove.
Speaker 0: So what are you doing? We're not here. Anything to do with you. What are you doing now? Well, who what do you think we're doing?
I think you're starting to do me.
Speaker 16: No. No. It's a pissy.
Speaker 0: Who's this with? What are you doing? And there is someone in the back. I'm at
Speaker 12: Can you
Speaker 1: tell me what you're doing now?
Speaker 0: Because essentially, I've got threats against me. I'm not. Yeah? So what are you doing? I don't know what you're doing, bro.
That's all everyone knows what you're doing. I've got police officers sat with a recording in a recording van. In the back of this van is a recording station. I'm not standing. You're not going.
No. Because I no. Because what yous are doing I know what yous are doing. I know what yous are doing. I know what yous are doing.
They're sat in the back of their van. This is recording devices. The whole of this back thing because he just opened up when I got him out. The whole of this back thing is recording where they're pointing it because they what this is has been a setup. These people are set these police officers are setting me
Speaker 1: up.
Speaker 0: They're setting me up. It's a setup. They're setting me up by sending people to my house because they think I'm gonna react and do something, and they're recording it with listening devices. We checked the vehicle registration plate outside the house on the government website and there's no such vehicle. Let's not forget the politicians are fearless leaders.
It was only when I went alone to the home of self declared journalist, Mike Stuchby, to ask him why he had done what he had and why he thought it was funny to intimidate my children. Some of you may some of you may have seen that people have been outside my home. Timberland, my family. The difference is when they come to my home, 5 men come to my home. I'm on my own.
I've had to move my children who are scared and upset. And people encouraged people to participate in coming to my address. One of those such people
Speaker 14: who
Speaker 0: It was only then that the fearless then deputy leader of the Labour Party, Tom Watson, steps forwards. Ignoring reality completely.
Speaker 21: Every major social media platform other than YouTube has taken down Steven Yaxley Lennon's profile because of his hateful conduct. Late on Monday night, Yaxley Lennon turned up at a journalist home banging on the doors and windows demanding to be let in. And after being escorted away by the police, he returned at 5 AM and continued his intimidation. The incident was live streamed. He later warned journalists in a YouTube video to expect a knock at the door.
Does the secretary of state think that is right that YouTube and the parent company Alphabet continues to give this man a platform, sir?
Speaker 0: It'd be funny, you know, if it wasn't so insidious. The hardly honorable mister Watson totally misrepresented what happened, and from behind his shield of parliamentary privilege, bravely declared but I've been terrorizing a journalist. Journalist. Stokesbury's an antifa activist who incites violence and wants to kill white people. Terrorizing.
Was I terrorizing? Mister Watson bravely demanded that I'd be removed from YouTube. YouTube had now had only recently confirmed that none, not one of my videos had broken any of their stringent guidelines. And my videos hadn't broken any laws. It was clear I hadn't harassed anyone, certainly not Mike Stutchbury, if indeed he is a journalist.
But none of that mattered. My wife and children left their family home that night. They never went back. Perhaps having their lives endangered by their jihadist lawyers. See my wife started legal action against Mohammed Akanji and Farooq Basra's firm.
But Mo and Co, Mohammed Akanji and Farooq Basra, see they weren't so keen on facing the law as they were on abusing the law to persecute others for financial and ideological reasons. On the 31st March 2019, they promptly collapsed their law firm. They'd never be involved in the case. That's what they said. And doctor Farooq Basra, well he's no longer gonna be a lawyer.
He'd been living in Pakistan. That's it. That's what they said. That's how easy it was for Mo and Co to escape justice. Interestingly, they're still signing documents on the case on the 6th June, months after saying they're not involved.
Several other law firms have reported them to the Law Society, the body that is supposed to make sure lawyers behave ethically. Nothing's been done. I wonder why. In fact, all the lawyers working at Fruit Basement and Co just moved across to a new law firm called Burlington's. And guess what?
Yeah. Burlington's took on Jamelle's case against me. FruitBazwa now works for Burlington's. FruitBazwa's son now works for Burlington's. Fruit Basra is Burlington's GDPR expert.
Pretty ironic, no? Fruit Basra and Co leaked my children's address to an antifa activist to put it online for everyone. And if we've been stupid enough to expect more ethical behaviour from Birlingtons than from Faruk Bajwa and Mohammed Akanji, well, we'd have been disappointed. I just really, which I've been trying to do, I need all of the disclosure, which I haven't had. I haven't had a full disclosure of his school records.
Speaker 13: Therefore, to make sure, that we have it, that that some documents haven't been lost in the transfer of the bathroom through Bourgeois to to Burlington's, we have done another subject access request to the council for
Speaker 0: July. And how long would that and how long would the council take for that?
Speaker 13: I I don't know. I I don't think they gave us time frame, did they,
Speaker 12: Luke? No. No.
Speaker 16: They didn't, unfortunately. So you're asking
Speaker 0: so what what you're saying is you believe there may be things that I that I haven't been disclosed. You don't know how long they're gonna take, but you won't agree to an adjournment?
Speaker 13: No. No. Our position is that we're not agreeing to an adjournment. Those are my instructions.
Speaker 0: Because my my my concern and serious concern is the safety of the witnesses. And and it's a genuine and and if you I don't believe for 1 minute that Mohammed al Khemji or Farooq Basra give a shit about any of this or Jamelle. Yeah. I I generally don't think they do. And this is I'm
Speaker 13: just gonna say Farooq Bajwa and Mohammed Dukunji have nothing to do with this case. This is my case.
Speaker 0: How how how come how come how come then
Speaker 13: to anybody from Fruit Bajwa
Speaker 0: How come then Fruit Bajwa
Speaker 13: have Burlington started with me.
Speaker 0: How come Fritbajwa signed a form 3 months after he left then to do this case?
Speaker 13: It's absolute it was, if if that was the case, it was before I gave the undertaking, and he wasn't involved in this case before.
Speaker 0: He signed a he signed a form dated June in June. He signed a form, and the date on that form that he signed is June. He left this case in March, apparently. How come?
Speaker 13: Well, I I I if you explanation as to why. I'm not quite sure what the formula is about.
Speaker 0: No. You'll see it you'll see it you'll see it on my documentary. Okay so when you when you send me what you decide is relevant yeah, how am I going to know what you've cut out?
Speaker 16: Well I suppose you wouldn't.
Speaker 0: I wouldn't. Does that seem fair? If the info if the if the information is not relevant, then what harm could it do in me hacking it?
Speaker 16: But it's not about harm Stephen, it's about privacy.
Speaker 0: For the last for the last 3 days, since I gave you, since you received videos so that you become aware that I have video evidence that's going to prove my case, since that point my ex wife and my children for the last 2 days have had police at their house because they've been receiving threats. On top of that pictures of my ex wife have been put online by the same people who were in bed with Mohammed Okanji. Then 2 days ago Mohammed Okanji doxxed my mother and father's house. Last night, that house at 1 o'clock in the morning was smashed to pieces with bricks through the windows, yeah? This is all going on in the background of it.
I've been trying to get my stuff ready, but just so you're aware of what's going on as to why I don't trust the words you say. When you have Farouk Basra's son working for your, working for your company and Farooq Basra is the man that sent people to threaten to kill my children, I'm wondering why in the last 48 hours or last 72 hours, since I disclosed information to you, Why why my family and loved ones have come under persecuted harm? Of which is all detailed with police records and video footage of everything that's been going on. So I'm super concerned and don't trust you or your party to decide what's relevant in this case. I don't trust you.
So where, how, if this should be fair trial about getting out the truth, if that's what you're working for, you need to give me your disclosure. Instead of reviewing it and taking bits out, which is what you've already done with the school records. You'll say, because I know that's not the full school records, so and you've covered up things which, and Luke, Francesca told me, I have a recording of her telling me, that your, that Burlington's did not retract anything, redact anything, yet in court you had to admit you did. I've got the recording of that telling you. Everything was redacted prior to coming to you.
Everything was redacted prior to coming to you. And then in court you sit and admit that you have been redacting things. So, forgive me. It's just lie after lie. This is Burlington's lawyers losing documents that they're supposed to send to me and deleting things that they don't want me to see?
Misplaced. How do you misplace documents that were electronically filed on their case management system through Basra and Co, then passed over to Berlin's? All of this is because they're sharing it. And all of this is to put pressure on me in the weeks before it. And all this, and this is a kanji, I guarantee you this is a kanji, a kanji working with resistant hay.
The the account that's put put it on is is resisting hate, yeah? Resistant hate who a country hires with Dick Coughlin to send to the house before. They're like his little minis. So now he knows that it's coming, it's going to land on his lap. The whole lie that they've told, and this is the actions they use.
They can't play the man so they play the kids and the family. You don't need to be scared, Sanya, because, they're doing this
Speaker 10: you guys just told me he's a good boy.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I know, babe. But they're purposely just doing that. But when they're doing this, they're just doing this to try and get cause me shit and make you worry. So I know it's easier said, but you don't need to worry.
Yeah? They're doing this so they're doing this so that I don't beat them in court. That's why they're doing this. Yeah? The mad thing is the whole time this goes on, the media and all of the, we're the bad guys.
That we've been on. But like I'm the one persecuting people or targeting them. And they're such cowards. They're such cowards, man. I just got a phone call, and they said goodbye.
I'm so scared. I've told the police, but I'm so scared.
Speaker 10: Yeah. Hello?
Speaker 0: Jenna, who's just wrong with Spencer?
Speaker 10: We don't know at the minute.
Speaker 12: What are
Speaker 0: the police then?
Speaker 10: I'm just making a statement.
Speaker 0: Okay. But just quickly, what are they what are they are they getting that account? Let's put a picture of you online. How who's who showed you that picture, Jenna?
Speaker 10: It's on Twitter. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Who saw it?
Speaker 10: I saw it myself.
Speaker 0: You saw it yourself. Okay. Yeah. Are they gonna are the police sorting out to get rid of it?
Speaker 10: Yeah, they've taken the address of the Twitter person to put it out.
Speaker 0: If you can say I give them 50 addresses of people who have done exactly this over the years, including the redhead man who what about the redhead bloke who friends come to kids? What do they say about that?
Speaker 10: Well nothing really.
Speaker 0: No? It's a crime. Do you know what I mean? If I make if I make a video threatening to kill some kids, I'll be arrested. So that the point where you need to ask them specifically and say to them you made a complaint, someone threatened to murder your children, you had to leave your home yeah, Those threats have now followed you to where you're now living.
Yeah. And they're coming from the same people, the same organizations, the same people they done fuck all about last time. They didn't lick them. They didn't speak to them. They didn't.
The solicitor is still acting with impunity, doing it to my mom and dad yesterday. See, you need to specifically ask them, then I want our answer, Adam. When you made a complaint against Richard Coughlin, Dick Coughlin last year, why have they not done anything? And give us and get you a follow-up and an answer as to why they haven't
Speaker 16: done anything, if you can.
Speaker 12: Just get
Speaker 13: it up. You've got time?
Speaker 0: I mean, the kids are right. Am I right that you managed to track the number? Yes. So you know who made those phone calls to her and the
Speaker 15: We know where the number it came from
Speaker 5: Yep.
Speaker 15: And who who that phone was registered to. So that's all obviously, we cannot prove well, I I at that time, I wasn't able to prove who. I only could say where the number came from.
Speaker 0: As in as in as in whose phone is?
Speaker 15: Who the phone is registered to.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Because because, obviously, for me, this was this was threatening phone calls a week before a high court trial trying to prevent the court trying to prevent the court to justice. How come no one's been arrested?
Speaker 15: I can't see any again on the crime report.
Speaker 0: If I send you evidence, which I'm going to anyway because it's all going to the judge, if I send you evidence of Mohammed Akanji doxing my mum and dad's address, if I send you evidence of criminal damage and attacks in the middle of the night at an old pensioner's old pensioner's home, and I show you evidence of pictures of my wife being put on, ex wife being put online, and my son. They've hung my 11 year old son's phone. The police were all involved. They've been threatening my 11 year old son. Yeah?
This is what's going on. If I send you evidence of that, do you think you'll support an anonymity order to protect the children in this case?
Speaker 16: Steven, I I I can't answer that because I don't have instructions to answer that. I don't have conduct of the matter. But what I can clarify for you is some of the issues that I can give answers on. One of those of which I heard you made reference to, Farooq's son working. He is not involved in the case in any way at all, has no access to any files whatsoever.
Speaker 0: You've heard how Luke hack here. He couldn't explain why they were adapting and deleting information from documents before handing them over to me. Information I should have been given. He couldn't answer the simple question, who decides what's relevant? Unfortunately, in terms of integrity, bowlands don't appear to be any better than Fruit Bajwa and Mohammed al Kanchi.
You see, I was told he'd violently attacked a girl. I was told he'd attack someone as part of a gang. And I was told he'd threaten to stab someone. In fact, Jamal would violently attack more than 1 girl and we presented the evidence to the court, including the testimony of courageous children who came to court. These children weren't Tommy Robinson fans, but they came to the high court to speak the truth.
So let me just look at one of the pupils that come to court and testified. This young girl wasn't a supporter of mine, didn't support my politics, but she still came to court and testified. Let me have a look at her school record and read what her teacher says about her. Charlie is a very mature and hardworking member of the form. She has been an absolute pleasure to have in the form.
She has represented the form in the school council and in various events across the school throughout the school year. She represents all that is positive and exciting about studying studying at Almunbury. Charlie is now currently studying law at university. Why would this girl lie, randomly lie, before I was involved? Why would she then travel to the high court of London and commit perjury?
Speaker 12: Because
Speaker 0: that is what the judge has found, that she's made it all up. And Jamal, the Syrian refugee, the one with multiple lies in his school records and behavioral discipline reads everywhere, well, he was telling the truth. That is what he found in this case. Why would a mother post images and send me those images of her daughter being black and blue? Why?
For what reason? Why would the staff lie? Why would the head teacher lie? Why would every single person who was recorded covertly lie about what Jamal was like. 12 different people lying about what Jamal was like.
Why? See, the judge has really helped us out here. The judge says people can lie for reasons that make no sense. Sometimes for no reason at all. He could not readily identify any explanation for why some of these people were prepared to do so and lie.
He concludes the alleged assaults, they never happened at all. Despite Jamal's school record, which you've seen, the judge states the Cayman's record is overwhelmingly positive. He acknowledged Jamal has a record of lying, but decides on this occasion, it is Jamal who's telling the truth and everyone else, everyone else is lying. Really? We waited 10 weeks for this?
That's your conclusion? That's the logic from the highest liable judge in our land? There was no jury. That's right. There's no jury.
All of these people were lying, But Jamal, he was telling the truth. Jamal, who could only find his dad Jihad to speak for him. Not a single teacher. Not a classmate, not a friend, not a neighbor, or a support worker came to court to support Jamal's version of defense. Jamal, who said he only broke the rules a few times at school and even then it weren't his fault.
His school records suggest something very different. I wanna be clear and fair to Jamal. He denies every accusation against him, completely and utterly. On the day the 5 courageous children appeared in the dock, giving testimony against Jamal. Jamal didn't even show up in court that day to face his accusers.
Neither did the press. The press actually left court when the witnesses stood up to give their evidence in my defense. It's alarming to think we have this kind of intellect at the top of our judiciary. The story of these 2 children is actually a story about free speech or the death of it. It's a story about how the mainstream media is more interested in pushing an agenda than giving you balance and truth.
How it continues despite Levenson to act with impunity. Is the media held to account for what they report? Have Pierce Morgan or Jeremy Vine been held to account? No. It's a story about how the the law is being manipulated and exploited by the far left and Islamists to destroy the lives of anyone who speaks out against the accepted so called progressive, so called liberal narrative.
Or about the poisonous influence of Islam's Sharia law in our society. Is the law fit for purpose? No. And it's a story about our government and judiciary's disdain for free speech and the truth, and the lengths that they will go to in order to silence dissent, especially with its new and increasing powers. Is our government being held accountable for its actions?
No. Is the judiciary independent of political influence? You've seen all the evidence. You decide. Whether you agree in my politics is irrelevant.
When dissent is crushed, free speech dies and governments move one step closer to tyranny. The lawyers know the truth. Even Jamal's father Jihad, he knows the truth about his son. They all knew the truth and were using Jamal to further their agenda, regardless of the consequences for Jamal. They continued to pursue the case, which incidentally, has caused my divorce and bankruptcy.
My ex wife had to choose between her marriage to me, and the safety of our children. I'm glad she chose our children. We're still best mates. You see, Jamal's lawyers told me very early on, if I apologized and paid them 50 grand, they'd drop their case. If you're watching this, you know the decision I made.
I might apologize for reporting what I was told, for what I believed to be true, for standing up for Bailey, a young lad unjustly vilified by pretty much everyone. But in silence and dissent, are the media and our government any different to the governments they criticize so much? China, Russia, Iran. Immigration, COVID, Brexit, if it doesn't fit the narrative, you will not hear the alternative view. And where else have we seen this?
Where else has the media, politicians, police, and social services hidden for truth for decades, fearful of being called racist, grooming gangs. That's where a cover up of such horrific cost to 1,000 of young girls in towns and cities across our country. And nowhere worse than under the stewardship of counselor Shabir Pandor's Kirklees Council. You see, hiding the truth doesn't protect communication. It does the total opposite.
It undermines trust in public institutions. It stokes resentment and conflict in our communities. Tragically, those who lead us don't seem to have the moral clarity or courage to speak the truth. They cause the division that they're trying to prevent. People ask me, was it worth it?
Yeah. It was worth it. The truth is always worth defending. I'm still here. If you were born in the United Kingdom, you've already won the lottery your life.
An inheritance from our parents and grandparents of freedom, equality under English law, and democracy. If we allow ourselves to be silenced, that inheritance is rendered worthless. What legacy will we leave for the children and grandchildren who come after us? None of us can afford to let free speech die. We cannot and we will not be silenced.
So you've seen. I'm being sent to jail. I'm being prosecuted for showing you the truth. Nothing else. I didn't lie.
Okay? They've lied, continually lied. Now for the attorney general to bring a charge against a member of the public for contempt to court, it has to be in the public interest. I say to the attorney general, this is not the police prosecuting. In fact, the claimant in this case is not asking me to to be prosecuted.
His lawyers are not asking me to be prosecuted. The Labour government's attorney general is the one attempting to send me to jail. Now for it to be in the public's interest you remember the public. You've just watched this expose. Is it in your interest to lock me up for 2 years?
How can it be? Let the government know. Let the attorney general know by signing the petition at www.truthontrial.co.uk to let them know you don't support the imprisonment of journalists for reporting facts to you, the British public. Who knows what the future now holds for me? The one thing that gives me a peace of mind if I'm in prison or if even if the worst happens is knowing that my family have stability and have security.
If you can support them during these times, the link is at www.helptommy.com. I really appreciate your support.
@LozzaFox - Laurence Fox
This doesn’t seem like a big reveal. I’d assumed the little scumbags hadn’t been set upon for no reason already. One still got kicked in the head after being tasered and incapacitated. What am I missing? How do two wrongs make a right? https://t.co/fNhY8o9SD4
reSee.it AI Summary
The @metpoliceuk is criticized for being racist, anti-Semitic, and politically biased. Concerns are raised about their support for terrorists. The safety of Jewish people in London is questioned. The post suggests voting for @SadiqKhan and mentions "woke racists."
@LozzaFox - Laurence Fox
The @metpoliceuk are not fit for purpose. They are a racist, anti semitic, political police force. How we got ourselves into this pickle, god only knows, but the public should know that they side with terrorists. London is not a safe place for Jewish people. Keep voting @SadiqKhan in. Woke racists.
@LozzaFox - Laurence Fox
Watch this documentary from @Martin_Durkin Then share it with a friend. It may change the way you think about the “Climate Crisis” https://t.co/OyLWTbbOIk
Video Transcript AI Summary
This video discusses the skepticism surrounding climate change and the influence of money and politics on the climate change industry. It explores alternative factors that may contribute to climate variations and challenges the notion that extreme weather events are solely caused by human-induced climate change. The video suggests that the climate change industry has become a lucrative business, with financial interests influencing research and policy decisions. It also highlights the pressure to conform to the climate alarm consensus and the political motivations behind it. The video concludes by emphasizing the growing skepticism and anger among the public towards the climate alarm and its impact on their lives and freedoms.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you?
Speaker 1: This is the story of how an eccentric environmental scare grew into a powerful global industry.
Speaker 2: It's a wonderful business opportunity. Okay? You want climate, we'll give you climate.
Speaker 3: There's a huge amount of money involved. This is a huge big money scam.
Speaker 4: There are not just now 1,000,000,000, but there are 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars at stake.
Speaker 1: It's a story of self interest and big government funding.
Speaker 5: People like me, our careers depend on funding of climate research. This is what I've been doing just about my whole career. This is what the other climate researchers are doing with their whole career. They don't want this to end.
Speaker 6: If CO 2 isn't having the huge negative impacts that we claimed it was having originally, how are we going to stay in business?
Speaker 3: A lot of people's livelihoods depend on it. They're not gonna give that.
Speaker 1: This is a story of the corruption of science.
Speaker 7: There's no such thing as a climate emergency happening on this planet now. It's there's no no evidence of 1.
Speaker 8: The climate alarm is nonsense. You know? It's it's a hoax. I've never liked hoax. I I think scam is a better word, but I'm willing to live with folks.
Speaker 1: It's a story about the bullying and intimidation of anyone who dares to challenge the climate alarm.
Speaker 6: To speak up against or about climate change in any sort of skeptical way was essentially career suicide.
Speaker 9: Activists are even calling for any skepticism to be criminalized.
Speaker 1: It's the story of an assault on individual freedom.
Speaker 8: It's a wonderful way to increase government power. If there's an existential threat out there worldwide, well, you need a powerful worldwide government, you know, to cope with it.
Speaker 9: We see all these kind of, authoritarian measures being adopted in the name of saving the planet.
Speaker 8: You've suddenly got the population under control all over the world.
Speaker 1: We called it industrial progress. Since the industrial revolution, the development of free market capitalist mass production has made ever more goods ever more affordable to ever larger numbers of people. Mass production marched hand in hand with mass consumption. In the modern age, ordinary people enjoy a level of prosperity never before achieved in human history. But all the while, we are told, we were destroying the planet.
Computers have calculated what is in store for us as we produce and consume evermore. The weather will get worse. The planet will boil. We, greedy humans, must accept limits on our lifestyle, consume less, travel less. Those who deny the climate crisis are not just wrong.
They're dangerous, spreading the poison of doubt among a gullible population. These deniers should be shunned and shamed and censored, for these climate deniers are flat earthers. They are anti science. Teaching at New York University is one of these climate deniers. Professor Steven Coonan is one of America's leading physicists.
He was a science adviser to president Obama and both vice president and provost of Caltech, one of the prestigious scientific institutes in the world.
Speaker 2: I teach climate science to my students at NYU, and I always tell them check the data or the papers yourself. And they all come out of that course with their eyes wide open.
Speaker 1: Professor Koonin's best selling book, unsettled, argues that mainstream scientific studies, accepted by official agencies, do not support the notion that there is any kind of climate crisis at all.
Speaker 2: Of course, I've been called a denier. And my response is tell me what I'm denying because I'm quoting from you directly from the official UN Scientific Reports.
Speaker 1: Dick Lindzen also dismisses the claims of climate alarmists. He's one of the world's leading meteorologists, who's professor of meteorology at both Harvard University and MIT, and has served on the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change or IPCC.
Speaker 10: Even the intergovernmental panel on climate change, if you go to their section of working 1 group 1, which is the science, they don't support any of these claims. And I assure you having served on it, it's biased, but you couldn't get any real scientist to agree some of the nonsense that's being promoted.
Speaker 1: Will Hapa is also a denier and is another of America's leading physicists. He has been science adviser to 3 presidents and professor of physics at both Columbia and Princeton University.
Speaker 8: There's this mischievous, idea that's promoted that scientific truth is determined by consensus. In real science, you know, there are always arguments no science has ever settled, you know. It just is absurd when people say the science of climate is settled. It's not there's no such thing as settled science, especially climate.
Speaker 1: Doctor John Clauser is one of the most respected scientists in the world. In 2022, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics.
Speaker 4: The science that's being done is appallingly bad, in my opinion. There are a large number of scientists who are in violent disagreement. They refer to themselves as skeptics. Since I am no longer worried about losing funding or a job, whatever, I call myself a climate change denier.
Speaker 1: These very eminent and respected scientists and others like them are not flat earthers. They do not deny science. So what's the evidence that has caused them to dismiss the climate alarm as nonsense? We are told that current temperatures are unprecedented and dangerously high. It's possible to check if this is true because we have evidence of Earth's climate history dating back 100, 1000, even 1000000 of years.
The desert of Judea by the Dead Sea. Professor Nir Shaviv from the Raqqa Institute of Physics has come here looking for clues. 1000 of years ago, this place was underwater. And etched into the rocks are lines which, if you know how to read them, tell the story of Earth's climate history.
Speaker 11: And here's the climate. We're at the, lake bed of, what used to be Lake Lisan. It's a lake that existed until, the end of the last ice age. Back then, the lake level was maybe a 100 meters above where we were located. When we want to reconstruct climates of the past, we have to, look for evidence, for clues.
And when the, lake existed, it had the deposits. And by looking at these, layers here, we can actually reconstruct how the climate has changed.
Speaker 1: Warmer water means more life. The accumulation of more shells and bones from sea creatures, and other changes that are reflected in the ancient layers of the lakebed. The lines act as a kind of thermometer, and this is just one way geologists can reconstruct past climate.
Speaker 11: In other places, we can go to, stalagmite caves and see the annual rings that you have in the stalagmite. Or we can drill, cores from the, bottom of the the ocean, and then, look at layers there, or many other places. But here, I think this is one of the nicest places because you can actually see you can actually see how, the climate has, changed.
Speaker 1: So when we look back in time, what do we find? For 200000000 years, dinosaurs roamed the Earth, an Earth marked by fertile dense forests teeming with light. And at no time during those 200000000 years were temperatures as cold as they are today.
Speaker 2: If you go back, let's say, 200000000 years, it was maybe 13 degrees warmer than it is now. So on the geological perspective, this is not at all unprecedented.
Speaker 12: For the
Speaker 1: last 500000000 years, temperatures have varied greatly. But for almost all that time, the Earth was much, much warmer than today. Compared to the last half 1000000000 years, the Earth right now is exceptionally cold. In fact, there are very few times when it's been this cold.
Speaker 2: We're relatively cold. Maybe not quite the coldest it's been in 500,000,000 years, but pretty close to it.
Speaker 6: We are in a remarkably cool period if we look over the last 550,000,000 years. In fact, only one other time period in that last five 50000000 years was the temperature as cool as it is now.
Speaker 1: The mammals who now inhabit the earth began to evolve around 60000000 years ago when the world was much warmer than today.
Speaker 6: We just look at the last 65000000 years. So this is after the dinosaurs go extinct. Mammals really start to take over and our evolutionary ancestors start to live on the land. Any time period within the last 65000000 years was warmer than it is essentially today.
Speaker 1: The Earth's mammals, humans included, appear to thrive when it's warm, warmer than it is now.
Speaker 7: There is no doubt that warm is better than cold in geological history. We are a tropical species. A human being in the shade naked dies at 20 C from hypothermia. We evolved on the equator in Africa, and the only reason we were able to get out of there eventually was fire, shelter, and clothing.
Speaker 1: Over the last 50000000 years, temperatures steadily declined, plunging the Earth into what geologists call the late Cenozoic ice age. We are still in that ice age.
Speaker 7: The reason there's all that ice on the poles is because we're in an ice age. Everybody knows that. Who knows anything about the history of the Earth? This is an ice age. We're at the tail end of a 50,000,000 year cooling period, and they're saying it's too hot.
Speaker 13: If we zoom in
Speaker 1: on the past few 1000000 years, we see temperatures sinking, and as they do, fluctuating between extremely cold periods and slightly milder periods. The extremely cold periods are called glacial maxima, when the planet is mostly covered in ice, and the slightly less cold are called glacial minima, when there's just ice at the poles. For the past 10000 years, fortunately, we've been in a slightly less cold glacial minimum known as the Holocene. With milder weather, humans began to emerge from their caves. And several 1000 years ago, we see the rise of the first great civilizations in a blissful period, which, according to many studies, was considerably warmer than today.
This is known as the Holocene Climate Optimum.
Speaker 2: It was called an optimum because people thought that warmer was better.
Speaker 1: Since then, temperatures have declined and begun to fluctuate. In Roman times, there was a blissfully warm period, followed by a brutal cold period in the dark ages.
Speaker 13: Then came
Speaker 1: the Barmen medieval warm period, according to many studies, as warm or warmer than today, followed by especially cold period known as the Little Ice Age, possibly the coldest in the last 10000 years. And here it is, the Roman warm period, the cold dark age, the medieval warm period, and then the very cold little ice age, from which, for the past 300 years or so, we've been recovering. The longest instrumental record of temperature in the world comes from Central England, and this is what it shows. Since the worst of the little ice age from 16 50, the temperature has risen gently by little more than 1 degree Celsius.
Speaker 8: The Central England record of temperature is a is a world treasure. You know, it's the longest continuous record that we have, and it's certainly not a very alarming record. It began in the depths of the little ice age, and so you can see the slight warming that followed the little ice age. And there's certainly nothing very alarming that's happening today, at the very end of the record. Most of the warming that we're observing today is the recovery from the little ice age, whatever caused that.
Speaker 10: Well, you know, we're talking over the entire industrial period of about 1 degree centigrade.
Speaker 1: To put this one degree in perspective, let's look at New York Central Park. Records show that there has been no overall change in temperature here since 1940. But from 1 year to the next, the average temperature can vary by 3 degrees Celsius without many New Yorkers even noticing. In fact, between the warmest year in the 19 sixties and the coolest in 2000, there's a difference of 5 degrees Celsius.
Speaker 2: The average temperature on this day, in this year, might be 5 degrees different from the average temperature a year ago or 2 years.
Speaker 8: You know, when I hear people pontificating about 1 and a half degrees leading to the end of civilization, I think, what have they been smoking? You know? Are you crazy? Right? So
Speaker 1: According to thermometer readings since 18/80, there's been a very mild increase in temperature. Only by stretching the y axis on this graph is the increase noticeable. This is the rising line used by official agencies as proof of global warming. But is it accurate? Professor Ross McKittrick is an expert in statistical analysis at Guelph University.
He noticed something odd about modern thermometer records. Thermometers, even in the same region, give out very different readings depending on where they're located.
Speaker 12: I was interested in the question of how do you explain the spatial pattern of warming? So some places warm a lot, some places don't warm much. And it turns out it's highly correlated with the spatial pattern of economic activity.
Speaker 1: Where there are more people and there is more human activity, there's more heat. This is known as the urban heat island effect.
Speaker 13: Urban heat island effect is essentially London. Right? You pick London. With buildings, with a lot of activities, tends to be a a few degree. I mean, we're talking now Celsius.
Right? Even 4 or 5 degrees Celsius, warm and then our skirt. This is a phenomenon of urbanization. These days, the obvious effect is actually concrete retaining retaining heat.
Speaker 1: This can be illustrated with a satellite heat map of Paris. The center of Paris can be as much as 5 degrees Celsius warmer than the surrounding countryside.
Speaker 13: Paris, London, Beijing, Shanghai, you name it. New Delhi, all of them absolutely demonstrated the effects.
Speaker 1: So how has this affected the official temperature record? In the early part of the 20th century, it was normal to erect weather thermometers just outside towns, close enough to check every day, but away from the heat of urban life. But over the 20th century, those towns have expanded. Suburbs have spread. There are more roads, more cars.
Thermometers, which were once outside towns, are now surrounded by shopping malls, offices, factories, and houses.
Speaker 5: These towns and all the locations where thermometers are located, on average, they've all grown in population, let's say, since 18/80. You've got buildings, growing up around the thermometers. You've got parking lots. So you've got all of these non climate influences, which are affecting the temperatures, which raises questions about the quality of thermometer data for monitoring global warming.
Speaker 1: To correct for this corruption of the data, an obvious solution is to use only records from rural weather stations, which have been less affected by urban development. This has now been done by a team led by doctor Willie Soon.
Speaker 13: We combine all the best rural station. Any anything that we can correct for, we correct for. And we show, if you just don't use this data set and use only rural, you you get a very different kind of picture.
Speaker 1: According to rural temperature records, temperatures rose from the 18 eighties but peaked in the 19 forties. Then there was a marked cooling until the 19 seventies. After that, temperatures recover, but are still today barely higher than they were in the 19 forties.
Speaker 13: What we see is that, basically, you have a warming from the 1900, 18, you know, fifties or so to 19 thirties and forties and started to warm and then cool in a substantial way to the seventies, about 76 or so. Instead of a long term systematic warming trend, it has a variability. Multi decade or like every 50, 60 years or so kind of a variation.
Speaker 1: It's not just rural thermometers that show little warming. Merchant ships and other naval vessels have been measuring the temperature of the sea since 19th century. In red, we see the land temperature record since the 18 sixties, which has been inflated by urban thermometers. But in blue is the ocean temperature record. From around 1900, the 2 begin to diverge.
Ocean records show far less warming in the 20th century, and the pattern more closely resembles the rural temperature record.
Speaker 13: Sea is not supposed to be, quote, unquote, contaminated by urban heat island effect. Am I right? Yes. So when we compare the two record, within the range of uncertainty, this behavior actually fits.
Speaker 1: Scientists have also studied temperature change by looking at tree rings, which again shows very little warming. There's a gentle rise till the mid 20th century, a cooling to the 19 seventies, followed by a mild recovery. Once again, it shows temperatures today are barely different to those of the 19 thirties and forties, and the pattern closely resembles rural temperatures. Satellites too seem to be telling a different story. Our ability to measure global temperature accurately took a leap forward when satellites began to orbit the Earth.
One of the scientists who pioneered the use of satellites to measure temperature is doctor Roy Spencer, who in the 19 eighties was senior scientist for climate at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.
Speaker 5: We were discussing over lunch, isn't there some way we can use satellites to monitor global temperatures? Because as you know, the temperature network of thermometers is pretty skimpy around the world. So it's kinda hard to get a global temperature.
Speaker 1: Doctor Spencer's development of weather satellites was revolutionary. He and his colleague, professor John Christie, have been awarded NASA's medal for exceptional scientific achievement.
Speaker 5: Our satellite data begins in January of 1979. That's when we have complete global coverage, and we have it right up to the present.
Speaker 1: There was one critical question about temperature that satellites were singularly well equipped to answer.
Speaker 5: Has there been a spurious warming that has crept into the global temperature record over land, that's just a result of an increase in population. And that's something that we've been analyzing and working a lot on lately and we're finding that, especially in urban areas, it's large. I mean, since 18/80, most of the warming, it looks like, is due to the urban heat island effect.
Speaker 8: We're lucky to have a few independent scientists like John Christie and Roy Spencer with their satellite measurements of temperature. Before they started releasing this, ground based temperature records were going wild. They were going up you know, like crazy with no no bounds. But now they have to contend with the fact that there's this independent and probably better way of measuring the whole globe's temperature, which is not alarming at all.
Speaker 1: Evidence from multiple sources now agree that the official global temperature record, as used by world governments and reported in the world's media, is showing far too much warming over the last 120 years, artificially inflated by urbanization.
Speaker 12: You look at the weather record, the satellite record, the rural record, the ocean record doesn't warm nearly as much as land. All of these indications show that the, like, the big warming pulse in the record is the northern hemisphere land record, and that's also where most of this data contamination is happening.
Speaker 1: But if the mild warming that has taken place in the last 3 to 400 years, can any of it be attributed to human emissions of CO 2? Professor Henrik Svensmark is visiting the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and taking a stroll in the evolution garden, dedicated to preserving the oldest surviving plant geological past.
Speaker 14: What we have here is a a ginkgo tree, and it's actually a living, fossil in the sense that this type of tree, first appeared about 270,000,000 years ago. On the underside of the leaf, there are what we call stomata, the cells where they can uptake c02. So they're actually measuring how much c02 is in the air, and then they adjust the number of the stomata to how much c02 there is. And by looking at fossils and measuring how many there are at a different time, it says something about what was the level of c02 back in time.
Speaker 1: So when we look back in time, what do we find? Over almost all of the last 500000000 years, the level of CO 2 in the atmosphere has been far, far higher than it is now. Even with modern industry's contribution to c o two levels, by geological standards, the level of atmospheric c o two today is close to being as low as it has ever been.
Speaker 14: At present, we have about 400 parts per million. 50,000,000 years ago, it might have been 2,000 parts per million. So a much, much higher concentration of CO2.
Speaker 6: I think current estimates of global CO2 is 423 or so parts per million today. If we look through the Phanerozoic the last 550,000,000 years we would see a CO 2 on the order of 7,000 parts per million.
Speaker 1: CO 2 is plant food and the result of much higher levels of atmospheric CO 2 in the past was a much much greener world.
Speaker 6: Periods of elevated CO 2 tend to be time periods of of of a huge biodiversity on on the planet. In fact, we're in a c o two famine if we look over the last 550,000,000 years.
Speaker 1: At the depths of the most recent glacial maximum, the amount of CO 2 in the atmosphere sank so low, all life on earth came close to extinction.
Speaker 15: They say CO 2 is higher than it's been for a 100000 years, but what they don't tell you in that period they're talking about is that c02 sank so low that all life on earth nearly died.
Speaker 7: 20000 years ago, c02 is at the lowest level it has ever been in the history of the Earth, a 180 parts per million. If it had gone down another 30 parts per million, we'd all be dead.
Speaker 6: There is a low point of c o two where photosynthesis becomes so inefficient that plant life would die, then everything else starts to perish after that.
Speaker 8: During the last, glacial maximum, there's good evidence that in many parts of the world, there was plant starvation from not enough CO 2. So, we should be very grateful that CO 2 levels are beginning to go back up. We're still far from the historical norms, which would be several 1,000 parts per million. There's not enough fossil fuel to get there, but at least we're making a start.
Speaker 1: But has the small recent increase in CO 2 affected the temperature? We would now show you a picture of CO 2, but we can't because it's invisible. C o 2 makes up a tiny fraction of the gases in the atmosphere, just 0.04 of a percent. It is just one of 25 different greenhouse gases, which, taken as a whole, form only one part of Earth's complex climate system. So what evidence is there that this trace gas is having any noticeable impact on the climate?
If it were true that higher levels of c o two caused higher temperatures, we should be able to see that in Earth's climate history. Here, scientists are drilling into ancient ice cores. These cores tell us both about past temperatures and c02 levels. Scientists have indeed found a link between temperature and c02. The trouble is it's the wrong way around.
Speaker 8: Though it's true over the last few 1000000 years of the ice age that we're in now that CO 2 and temperature are correlated. But if CO 2 is the driver, it has to change first, and the temperature has to change second.
Speaker 6: In fact, when you start to look at the data very specifically, you see the exact reverse. Temperature starts to rise first. And then on the order of a century to a few centuries later, we start to see a rise in CO2.
Speaker 12: It's long been known that, the temperature actually moves first. So temperature goes up, CO2 goes up after that. Temperature goes down, CO2 goes down.
Speaker 3: Ice ages start when carbon dioxide is at its maximum and ice ages and when carbon dioxide is at its minimum, which is the exact opposite of what would occur if carbon dioxide was controlling the temperature.
Speaker 15: The question of whether CO2 drives the climate is easily resolved. You can look back in time over 100 of 1000000 of years. CO2 levels have changed radically many times. Did this cause temperature change? No.
Absolutely not. CO 2 has never driven temperature changes in the past. Never.
Speaker 1: Nor is it clear in recent times that c o two is having any effect on temperature. Here, we see industrial output of c o two since 17 50. From the mid 19th century to the mid 20th century, there was only a slight increase. It's not until the 19 forties that industrial production of c o two begins to take off. But this doesn't match the temperature record.
According to rural thermometers, most of the warming in the past 200 years occurred before the 19 forties and have barely changed since then.
Speaker 2: One of the embarrassments that IPCC doesn't like to talk about was that the 19 thirties, when human influences were much smaller, were particularly warm.
Speaker 13: That's the puzzle that the first early part where we have such a sharp, warming from the 1900 to 19 thirties and 1940s, c o two could never cause the temperature rise.
Speaker 1: But the 19 thirties and early forties were so hot is puzzling. More puzzling still is what happened next.
Speaker 8: By the end of World War 2, CO 2 was really going up, and yet the temperature was going down.
Speaker 13: From 40 to 70, while the CO 2 continued to rise, these things started to cool. What happened?
Speaker 7: Journalists were writing about the coming ice age. It was on the cover of Time Magazine.
Speaker 3: 19 seventies, the new ice age was the big story.
Speaker 1: And how about since the 19 seventies? According to computer climate models, over the past half century, rising c 02 should have led to this increase in temperature. But according to multiple satellite and balloon measurements, what actually happened was this.
Speaker 5: Well, what we found from the satellite data is that the global atmosphere is not warming up as fast as the climate models say it should be. There's a couple dozen climate models now that have been worked on for decades. You know, 1,000,000,000 of dollars, tens of 1,000,000,000 of dollars have been invested in these climate modeling efforts, and we find that generally speaking, virtually all of the climate models produce too much warming over this period since 1979 up to the present. Now, even if we say the surface thermometers are correct, they still don't produce as much warming as most of the climate models say there should have been, let's say, in the last 50 years.
Speaker 2: The models individually and even collectively when you average over all of them in so called ensembles, they don't get it right.
Speaker 8: You can already see that the main, support of the climate alarm movement, which are these enormous computer models, they're clearly wrong. They don't agree with what we observe. They're all running much too hot. They don't get the geographical distribution of temperatures anywhere close. They don't get El Nino, La Nina cycles.
They're they're just nonsense.
Speaker 1: All climate models are based on the assumption that c o two drives temperature change, but actual observations and historical evidence clearly suggest that it doesn't.
Speaker 4: Yes. I assert that there is no connection whatsoever between c 02 and climate change. That's all across a crap in my opinion.
Speaker 7: There is no truth to the idea that the earth is warmer now than it has been in the past. It's a lie. There is no truth that c o two is higher than it should be. That is a lie.
Speaker 1: Earth's climate has changed many times over the course of its long history and will continue to change without any help from us.
Speaker 8: Climate always changes. You know? Who denies climate change? It's always changing.
Speaker 1: But if c o two doesn't drive climate change, what does? In Earth's atmosphere, there are powerful forces at work, and perhaps the most powerful of all are clouds.
Speaker 4: C02 is quite unimportant in controlling the earth's climate. What is important is clouds. Clouds don't absorb any energy at all. They simply reflect all of the sunlight back out into space, big bright white clouds. If you look at the earth you see lots and lots of them and they vary dramatically from one day to the next.
That is 100 of times more powerful than the trivial effects of c02.
Speaker 1: But what controls the number and density of clouds on Earth? Professor Henrik Svensmark from the Danish National Space Institute is in Jerusalem with the astrophysicist Nir Shaviv. Together, they've been exploring cloud variation and its effect on climate. And strangely, they found a link between clouds and exploding supernovae far off in our galaxy.
Speaker 14: When we have big stars, they don't live very long, relatively only maybe a few 1000000 years up to 40000000 years, but they end their life in a huge explosion, which we call the supernova.
Speaker 1: An exploding supernova sends out vast quantities of debris, tiny charged subatomic particles known as cosmic rays, traveling almost at the speed of light. And as they hit Earth, they develop into seeds which attract water vapor and form clouds. Professor Shevive noticed that the amount of cloud cover on Earth is related to our journey round the Milky Way. As our solar system orbits the galaxy over 1000000 of years, it passes through the galaxy's spiral arms, dense clusters of stars. As it does, we are exposed to more or less cloud forming cosmic rays, and this corresponds to historic temperature changes on Earth.
Speaker 11: The really mind boggling thing is that using geology, you can reconstruct the climate on Earth over the past 1000000000 years, and you can reconstruct our galactic journey, and both tell the same story.
Speaker 1: But what about temperature change on shorter time scales? The sun, our source of heat and light, a seething mass of gigantic magnetic storms, which vary in strength and number over time and which affect Earth directly and indirectly. When it is very active, the sun sends giant gusts of solar wind through the solar system. The solar wind warms us indirectly by acting as a barrier, limiting the number of cloud forming cosmic rays reaching Earth.
Speaker 14: So from the sun, we have the solar wind. It carries the sun's magnetic field, out to a large distance, and it works like a shield against cosmic rays. When the
Speaker 11: sun is more active, you have a stronger solar wind. You have less cosmic rays reaching the inner solar system and reaching the atmosphere. And the clouds, which are then formed, are less white. They reflect less of the sunlight, which means that it's going to be warmer here on Earth.
Speaker 1: Here is a proxy reconstruction of ocean temperatures over 1000 of years. And here is one of solar activity over the same period. What is causing the ocean temperature to change is clearly variations in solar activity.
Speaker 13: Because IPCC is determined to go on a narrative that only c o two can drive the climate system, they turn off the sun essentially. Right? Because the sun is just a background thing for them. That it doesn't do anything.
Speaker 1: Astrophysicist Willie Soon decided to look again at the rural temperature record for the past 150 years. Then he looked at a record of changes in solar activity over the same period. To doctor Sun, it was obvious that it was the sun, not c02, that was driving temperature.
Speaker 13: As of 2023, IPCC says is that the sun have absolutely zero chance in to explain the changes of the climate system on broad scale, let's say global warming on Northern Hemisphere. We say no. We can easily deperate the sun. Can I explain all of it? There's 0 for the c o two, 100% for the sun.
How's that?
Speaker 1: Why are these and other studies never reported in the mainstream media? And if climate change is natural, what are we to make of the alleged terrifying increase in extreme weather events, of the heat waves and hurricanes, of forest fires, droughts, and the rest.
Speaker 2: My first instinct as a scientist and what I teach my students is, well, let's look at the data. And when you do that, you discover, as you can read in the IPCC reports themselves, that it's pretty hard to find trends in extreme events, much less attribute them to human influences.
Speaker 12: You've now had decades of putting the idea in people's heads that anytime the weather is bad, it's climate change and greenhouse gases. So I think people at this point can't help themselves. If you have a heat wave, immediately, everybody's thinking, oh, what have we done to the weather?
Speaker 2: If somebody says in the news this is the warmest day since 1980 or something, well, you can look up the temperature records and see for yourself whether it was in fact warmer in the 19 thirties as it often is.
Speaker 1: US temperature records are the best in the world, and here is the official US government record of heat waves in the US over the past century. It shows very clearly that the 19 thirties were far more prone to heat waves than we are today. Not only were there more heat waves in the 19 thirties, the heat waves then were much hotter than those of today. Likewise, official figures show that the number of hot days in the US has markedly declined.
Speaker 3: United States was much hotter in the 1930. North Dakota reached a 121 degrees. South Dakota was a 120 degrees. Wisconsin was a 114 degrees. These sort of temperatures are just completely out of range of anything people experience now.
Speaker 1: A common mistake is to suppose that higher average temperature will mean more hot weather, but this isn't true. Here again is the Central England temperature record, the longest instrumental temperature record in the world. Summer temperatures over the past 3 to 400 years since the end of the little ice age have barely changed at all. It is winter temperatures that have been slightly rising. The earth's climate has not been getting hotter.
It's been getting milder.
Speaker 8: That's certainly being observed all over the world. If you look at temperature records, high temperatures are almost unchanged. But cold temperatures at night or during the winter are are going up a little bit. Not very much, but you can measure it.
Speaker 2: When the average goes up, it's really more due to the coldest temperatures getting warmer. So the temperature's getting milder rather than getting hotter.
Speaker 1: What about the increasing number of wildfires we're often told about?
Speaker 2: If you look at the actual number of forest fires from satellite observations, the actual number's going down.
Speaker 1: Here is an estimate of global wildfires since 1900. It shows a clear decline. And here is a record of areas affected by wildfires in the US. It shows that wildfires were far, far worse in the 19 thirties.
Speaker 13: From 19 thirties and 19 twenties when you have data, it was huge. Five to 10 times bigger than the current level.
Speaker 1: How about hurricanes? The US has by far the best record of hurricane activity in the world. Over the past 120 years, there is no overall change. In fact, the trend is slightly down.
Speaker 2: When you look at the data for hurricanes, technically tropical cyclones, you see that there is no long term trend.
Speaker 1: How about the rest of the world? Here is a chart of global hurricane activity over the past 40 years.
Speaker 8: The hurricanes have been around forever. You know? We've got good proxy records of hurricanes, and, there's been no change in their frequency. Even the IPCC admits that.
Speaker 1: How about melting ice caps and drought? Here's a satellite record of temperature in Antarctica since the late 19 seventies. And here is a record of global drought since 1950. There is no And here is a record of global drought since 1950. There is no observable increase at all.
Polar bears are meant to be going extinct, but studies suggest their numbers are growing. The Great Barrier Reef too has recently reached record levels.
Speaker 7: There's no such thing as a climate emergency happening on this planet now. It's there's no no evidence of 1.
Speaker 3: Yeah. The extreme weather event story is is just absurd. There there's no basis to it at all. It's just based on propaganda. The actual data shows the opposite.
Speaker 2: I've shown you the official data, the official science. Tell me what I'm denying.
Speaker 8: The climate alarm is nonsense. You know, it's it's a hoax. As as a I I don't I've never liked hoax. I I think scam is a better word, but I'm willing to live with hoax.
Speaker 1: But why are we told again and again that man made climate chaos is an undisputed scientific fact beyond question, beyond doubt. To answer this, we must examine the so called consensus on climate change.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Until the 19 eighties, global warming was little more than an eccentric scare story put about by radical environmentalists. But then the cause was picked up by an ambitious young senator, Al Gore, who would soon become vice president. A $1,000,000,000 a year of public money was made available for research into climate change. This quickly rose to 2,000,000,000.
Speaker 4: Up to that level.
Speaker 1: Academic researchers in various disciplines began to apply for this climate funding.
Speaker 2: If you want to qualify for money that's labeled climate, well, you take whatever you're doing and you add a little bit, of climate speak to it and away you go.
Speaker 10: You're dealing with the sexual habits of cockroaches. You'll add and the impact of climate.
Speaker 12: So all I have to do is add a little wrinkle to my grant application to explain how, well, I'm worried that climate change will mean the death of all the maple trees. And so right away, you qualify for funding.
Speaker 1: Academics of every kind lined up for climate funding. Climate became an exciting new area of interest for sociologists, biologists, professors of English literature, lecturers in gender studies, and many more.
Speaker 10: And it also served to create a community. I mean, you know, you've become a climate scientist now even though you know nothing about the physics of climate.
Speaker 1: Thousands of papers were published on climate change and prostitution, climate change and beer, climate change and the black death, climate change and disability, climate change and video games, and everything else imaginable.
Speaker 12: There's an almost comical list of studies out there. Just do a Google search on climate change and and and everything comes up.
Speaker 1: Few of these papers ever questioned whether climate change was actually true.
Speaker 2: After you've done the research and you write the paper up, sometimes you find there's no effect at all from climate, but you still have to say in your papers, oh, yes. Climate change is real, and, we just need to study this some more.
Speaker 1: Since so few of these so called climate studies challenged the idea of climate change, it was declared that there was a scientific consensus. Climate change must be true. Climate also became a new focus for government funded research bodies.
Speaker 4: Scientific research in the United States tends to be dominantly funded by, government grants. And so whatever government grants are offered, sort of determine much of the science being done.
Speaker 1: It was during the Cold War that many government research bodies were set up. But the end of the Cold War and pressure on government spending has left many of them struggling to justify their continued funding.
Speaker 5: United States Congress only funds problems. Okay? Research into problems, whether it's money that goes to NASA or NOAA or National Science Foundation or Department of Energy or any other alphabet soup, you know, organization.
Speaker 8: It's always been a problem to support your research or your existence or raison d'etre. And so climate was a godsend. If Congress is willing
Speaker 5: to pay you to find evidence of global warming, by golly, as a scientist, we're gonna go find evidence of it because that's what we're what we're being paid to do. And guess what? If you don't find evidence or say the evidence suggests it's not a problem, your funding ends. This totally corrupts the way we look at the science.
Speaker 4: Who the famous gangster asked, why do you rob banks? And he said, well, because that's where the money is.
Speaker 1: The climate alarm brought funds. And the bigger the supposed threat, the more funds seem to flow. The publicly funded science establishment now had a direct financial interest in playing up the alarm.
Speaker 6: So there's a huge incentive to over exaggerate or to speak in hyperbole, even if the data doesn't support exactly what you're saying, because that's what brings the funds. I was in that boat. I was someone that was defending climate change as a grad student, quite a bit, because the truth is I didn't give it too much thought, but I, I thought well, it's getting a ton of attention. It brings a ton of money into the earth sciences. Even if I don't buy all the hyperbole, what's the problem?
Speaker 1: By the late 19 nineties, what had started as an environmental scare story was gaining momentum. Western governments and their senior civil servants were more than willing to address the climate problem. Green taxes were levied, green regulation expanded, and this in turn generated more climate related jobs and activity.
Speaker 12: Take the banking sector, for instance. Say to a banker, we want you to file reports with the the regulatory commission on how climate change is gonna affect your bank. Well, the banker doesn't know anything about this subject, so then they have to commission studies from academics. And, of course, the academics are happy to come and tell them, well, it's gonna be terrible for your bank. It's gonna cause all kinds of problems, and you could you need to give us money to research this.
Speaker 1: Green subsidies and regulation meant there was now money to be made in climate. Renewables firms sprouted. Consultancy firms offered advice on what they called sustainability and climate compliance.
Speaker 2: It's a wonderful business opportunity. Okay? You want climate, we'll give you climate.
Speaker 1: The renewables industry alone now turns over a $1,000,000,000,000 a year, and that's expected to double in the next few years.
Speaker 4: What used to be a cottage industry has is now blossomed to become a major part of the world economy.
Speaker 1: The growth of this climate industry has seen an explosion of highly paid green jobs. Chief sustainability officers, carbon offset advisors, ESG consultants, climate compliance lawyers, and countless others.
Speaker 6: Students started to come into our departments as earth science departments with a focus on climate. That never happened before. But they started to look at their career prospects, and they were smart, and they were looking at who's hiring. And the fact of the matter was is that everything in the hiring pool had climate somewhere attached to the name.
Speaker 12: I started a few years ago seeing programs like, a master's degree in climate finance. And I just what on earth is is climate I don't understand what a master's degree in finance is. Well, now you need a university that's going to teach this program. You need professors of climate finance.
Speaker 9: Every single school or university or business will have a climate officer or climate officers and a climate program. And you look at any of these institutions or businesses, you will find they all are signed up to it, and anyone who hasn't signed up will come under pressure.
Speaker 1: At the last gathering of the publicly funded UN's IPCC, 70,000 delegates flew in from around the world. Government bureaucrats, green NGOs, carbon sequestration consultants, environmental journalists, heads of renewables companies. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Many hundreds of thousands of jobs worldwide now depend on the climate crisis.
Speaker 12: When you start building this enormous population whose job is to manage the crisis and, and also, explicitly to make sure that people are alarmed about the crisis because this whole industry depends on the existence of the crisis.
Speaker 1: But therein lies the one great threat to this multi $1,000,000,000,000 industry. All the jobs, all of the funding are totally dependent on there being a climate crisis. If
Speaker 6: c o two isn't having the huge negative impacts that we claimed it was having originally, how are we going to stay in business? How do we justify our existence if climate change isn't this existential threat that we claimed it was over the last 4 decades or so?
Speaker 5: People like me, our careers depend on funding of climate research. This is what I've been doing just about my whole career. This is what the other climate researchers are doing with their whole career. They don't want this to end.
Speaker 2: If NASA
Speaker 3: said global warming is not a problem, where does their funding disappears? Right? So they can't say that. I mean, you've got the United Nations intergovernmental panel for climate change. If they said the climate isn't changing, they'd have no reason to exist.
Speaker 6: The IPCC has a self preservation instinct to show that climate change is an existential threat. Otherwise, there's no reason for them to be collecting the money and doing the work in the first place.
Speaker 4: There are not just now 1,000,000,000, but there are 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars at stake.
Speaker 3: There's a huge amount of money involved. This is a huge big money scam. A lot of people's livelihoods depend on it. They're not
Speaker 2: gonna give that up. If suddenly the notion becomes apparent that this is not such a problem, you're gonna see that as an existential threat.
Speaker 1: Scientists who studied the natural causes of climate change began to be viewed with suspicion as 2 Harvard astrophysicists discovered.
Speaker 13: How much does the sun change, and how does it change, and why does it change? And then we didn't even want to get into the temperature record. The climate thing immediately, they will come after because when we started to estimate that the sun changed by quite, you know, significantly in terms of climatic sense, immediately the attack is there. Because it's not following the narrative because they need the c o two to be the only one, the only dominant player.
Speaker 16: When you try to say, well, see, we're just looking for the background of natural variability, which the response would be we can't have natural changes as an effect. It has to be human caused. And some of that was directly stated, but most of it was indirect. Your funding for this kind of project will be dropped. This kind of project doesn't go anywhere.
Speaker 10: By that time, anything that contradicted the narrative of global warming as a serious problem was not going to get funded.
Speaker 1: Editors of academic journals came under pressure not to accept papers, which were deemed to be skeptical of the climate crisis.
Speaker 10: We will not publish anything that questions this. I mean, it's not something surreptitious.
Speaker 1: Scientists who dared to point out in public that there was no climate chaos began to be sidelined and shunned.
Speaker 12: If a scientifically qualified person stands up and says, we don't see an upward trend in the data on Pacific typhoons, well, suddenly they lose standing to address the topic of Pacific typhoons, not because what they said is wrong, but because it's off message. They can marginalize any kind of criticism of the narrative by saying you're not qualified to talk about this because you don't support the narrative. That is then and then having marginalized everyone who doesn't support the narrative, they can turn around and say, well, everybody who counts supports the narrative, so we must be right.
Speaker 1: Journalists ignored skeptics and instead offered headlines to anyone prepared to make the most outrageous claims and predictions
Speaker 5: doesn't come true. You're still gonna retain your status as an expert, and the media is still gonna come and ask you for your opinion even though you were crazy wrong about your predictions.
Speaker 1: But the consensus on climate is not only enforced by those in the climate industry. To explain the broader appeal of the climate alarm, we must look at the politics behind climate. From the start, the climate scare was political. It came from the environmental movement, the sworn enemy of free market industrial capitalism.
Speaker 9: Finally, we've got them. We can claim that it is the free markets who are destroying the planet, and we need big government to save us.
Speaker 1: The climate problem, it is said, stems from the irresponsible actions of greedy, feckless individuals who have too many babies and drive too much and consume too many products, and of the capitalist corporations who pander to their whims. The solution is for government to have greater power to regulate private companies, but also to guide and reshape the lives and habits of individuals. The
Speaker 12: policy agenda has sprawled into micromanaging everybody's lives on the most minute detail, what kind of stove you can use, what kind of heater you can have, how much you can set the thermostat out, where you can drive, what kind of car. You can't according to the the planners, we're not gonna have internal combustion engines an hour from now.
Speaker 5: All of these things require the government to get involved. Right? Because the government has to sort of force changes upon the public. If it was up to the public, we wouldn't be buying electric vehicles because, you know, they're impractical.
Speaker 1: Support for the climate alarm is now virtually synonymous with disdain for free market capitalism and a
Speaker 5: yearning for bigger government. It's liberals versus conservatives in the United States. And generally speaking, liberals are worried that we're destroying the planet, and they're also, of course, for big government. And then conservatives are are at the other end of the spectrum where they a lot of them don't believe that we're destroying the planet and they don't want government involved in their personal lives.
Speaker 1: Paying lip service to the climate alarm has become almost universal among those who depend on government for their livelihoods. This includes those in the publicly funded education, arts, and science establishments. Tony Heller recalls his time at Los Alamos Labs.
Speaker 3: The entire county of Los Alamos was kept going by government money that we we had the highest incomes in the state. So naturally, people who lived in Los Alamos supported big government because that was where their livelihood came from. That was where their good schools came from. You know, every everything good unless all of us came from the government. So, of course, they were all believers in big governments.
Speaker 1: Among the largely publicly funded Western intelligentsia, support for more government spending and regulation is almost a defining moral badge. In these circles, to question the climate alarm is socially unacceptable. To be a climate skeptic is taboo.
Speaker 6: Somebody that goes against it, it really does get met with a lot of anger and vitriol and you know, you're called a denier, a science denier, and a heretic. Your colleagues won't engage
Speaker 2: with you anymore. You don't get invited to conferences. Your students, may desert you. This is all really terrible.
Speaker 1: Professors Henrik Swensmark and Nir Shaviv describe what happened when they published their results on the climatic effects of solar activity.
Speaker 14: It was like all hell had broken loose because of this work. I had no idea that things would, escalate as they did, and it completely changed my life.
Speaker 11: Once we said that, people didn't like hearing it, and we became a persona non grata.
Speaker 14: I mean, I have so many instances of people doing really nasty things. When I applied for a job, a group of scientists writes to the university say they shouldn't hire me. And that's a typical story,
Speaker 11: unfortunately. If you don't agree with the standard, polemic, you become an outcast. You'll shun as if you have leprosy.
Speaker 1: For professor Sally Balayounas, the personal attacks became too much.
Speaker 16: I retired early, and my family said I should have retired even sooner, years sooner. So they noticed the toll. It took a toll on them and me.
Speaker 1: Doctor Matthew Wailicki was an assistant professor of geology at the University of Alabama when he decided to speak out about the climate scare. As a result of the backlash, he has decided to leave teaching.
Speaker 6: To speak up about climate change in any sort of skeptical way was essentially career suicide. Absolutely. There was no possible way that I would publish in quite a few of the mainstream journals that I was required to publish in. I essentially isolated myself from many of the funding institutions. This is one of the reasons you can build a consensus in a community is because anybody who is skeptical of that consensus essentially gets kicked out
Speaker 2: of the community. Speaking out in scientific ways that go contrary to the consensus, I would say is a career killer for people at the early stage of their careers.
Speaker 8: If I were 30 years old in a university trying to make a career, I I would certainly keep my mouth shut. And in fact, I I went to some effort to keep my mouth shut when I was younger. I I knew climate was nonsense then, but I was a little bit careful.
Speaker 10: If a young person is questioning this, they can't put that in a proposal. The proposal will be denied, and they can't effectively publish because the gatekeeper will keep them out. And so it it would end their career.
Speaker 3: You have to go along with with the global warming story. If you don't, you're gonna get cut off. You're gonna lose funding. You're gonna get your career ruined. You're gonna be trashed by the community.
You'll be despised by your coworkers.
Speaker 1: The so called consensus on climate has itself become a weapon, a form of bullying, intimidation, and censorship used against those who refuse to conform.
Speaker 6: It's a it's a tool that people use to bludgeon their opponents and the skeptics and to attack their character.
Speaker 1: According to its critics, far from being scientific, the militant intolerant climate consensus represents a devastating assault on free scientific inquiry.
Speaker 2: I see my job as a scientist as just laying out the facts and letting people decide what they wanna do. When you can't talk about the facts, things become corrupt.
Speaker 16: If you shut the door on ideas, if you say you're not allowed to test it, you're not allowed to have that idea, you've left the realm of science.
Speaker 5: I don't think climate researchers will ever back down from their claim that increasing c 02 is the control knob on today's climate system. I I don't think they will ever back down from that no matter what the evidence is.
Speaker 10: It's clear it's now a cult completely divorced from science.
Speaker 1: But the apparently unstoppable climate scare does not just represent an attack on science. It is starting to shape for us a new kind of society. Environmentalists like to pose as anti establishment, but their demands are well received and piously echoed by King Charles and the archbishop of Canterbury, the BBC, the UN, the EU, by heads of government, the World Bank, and World Economic Forum, in fact, by the entire state funded ruling establishment.
Speaker 5: Global warming is like the perfect problem that government can get involved in to grow the influence of government.
Speaker 8: It's a wonderful way to increase government power. And, if there's an existential threat out there as worldwide, well, you need a powerful worldwide government, you know, to cope with it.
Speaker 17: If you're a climate activist, you're actually facilitating a huge, validation of the government running our lives.
Speaker 18: Many environmentalists, most environmental, all environmentalists who consider themselves to be radical progressive alternatives are in fact simply reinforcing the mantras and the mainstream arguments of the entire establishment.
Speaker 17: The demands on the government mean that the government suddenly gains the authority to interfere into every nook and cranny of our lives and how we live.
Speaker 6: Everything has a climate narrative attached to it. How much you consume, where you spend your money, how much you travel, who you interact with, what types of food you eat, whether you eat meat. Everything has some sort of aspect that can be controlled with a climate lens.
Speaker 12: Suppose 20 years ago, somebody had hatched the idea that I would really like to ban cheap energy. I'd really like to control everybody's appliance purchases. I'd really like to tell everybody where they can go. And, basically, I'd like to have dictatorial control over everything. Well, it's not gonna fly.
I know everybody would think you're a knot and would ignore you. But fast forward 20 years, that's what's happening.
Speaker 1: The publicly funded establishment in the west is so large and powerful that it's able to impose and enforce the official consensus on climate through its control of schools, universities, government, and much of the media. State broadcasters like the BBC exclude climate skeptics. Broadcasting regulatory bodies forbid private stations from disseminating skeptical views, threatening them with having their broadcasting licenses revoked.
Speaker 9: What normally happens in an emergency is that all normal forms of openness and democracy have to be suppressed because how else to deal with an emergency? So we are facing a situation, not unlike lockdown, where basically all normal forms of behavior, normal forms of social communication, and normal forms of democracy are essentially ruled out. Activists are even calling for any skepticism to be criminalized.
Speaker 1: In certain jobs and professions, it is now dangerous to express dissent on climate.
Speaker 9: It's no surprise that people, who are more skeptical will think twice before voicing their concerns because they might risk their careers, they might risk their business, they might risk being sacked.
Speaker 7: If you're a professional of any kind in science or law or medicine, if you belong to a professional association or you are in a university, you can be fired for saying what you believe.
Speaker 9: The consequence is a censorious authoritarian regime that has to control every move, every word, everything you want to do because everything you do is a potential risk to the survival of mankind.
Speaker 1: Climate protesters condemn capitalism, but at their anti capitalist rallies, it's hard to spot anyone who looks like a worker, like a docker or crane driver or steel worker or a beautician or a trucker. The workers, it appears, are totally absent from these rallies and for very good reason. Today's climate alarmists complain not that capitalism isn't producing enough, but that it's producing too much.
Speaker 17: The modern capitalist system has led to prosperity. More and more people have more and more things. The modern anti capitalism of the present time is a critique of capitalism that it gives us too much.
Speaker 19: They think that the problem with capitalism now is actually that it's giving out too many rewards en masse to ordinary workers. And what they want instead, and this is often very explicit actually, is a much more austere, simple kind of lifestyle in which the mass consumption, the consumption choices of the great bulk of the population are controlled or even prohibited.
Speaker 9: You have to consume less. You have to holiday less. You have to drive less. You have to eat less, and so on.
Speaker 1: It seems that what upsets many environmentalists is not the failure, but rather the success of capitalism in producing an abundance of affordable goods for the masses.
Speaker 17: Ordinary working people, for once, we've arrived at a point in history, in the Western world at least, where mass manufacturers allowed them cheap clothes, cheap food, cheap furniture therefore you get a clash when affluent environmentalists express their disdain for mass consumption. People going on those big huge cruise ships. It's like thousands of them. It's like what are they doing? Oh my God.
And all those cruise ships are like ruining Venice, you know, ruining all our beauty. We own them, don't we? They're not what are they going there for?
Speaker 19: What you have here is a classic example of class hypocrisy and self interest masquerading as public spirited concern. You could take these kind of green socialists much more seriously if they lived off grid. They cut their own consumption down to the minimum. They never flew. Instead, you get constant talk about how human consumption is destroying the planet.
But the people making all this talk show absolutely no signs of reducing their own.
Speaker 1: What environmentalists call degrowth is being achieved by the trashing of our conventional energy and transport systems and the forced introduction of expensive and unreliable alternatives. Already, this is having the desired effect on industrial manufacturing, which is straining under the burden of punitive green taxes and regulation and higher energy prices.
Speaker 15: The people behind the climate alarm couldn't give a damn about manufacturing. They have nothing to do with it. They don't know people who work in manufacturing whose jobs and lives depend on it. They're not excited by industry or industrial progress. They explicitly wanna shut it down.
Speaker 1: Kisii, Kenya, East Africa. According to many leading environmentalists, the world's poorest people should not aspire to the lifestyle of people in the first world. The planet will not cope. Grace Nyakananda is one of the many Africans who do not have electricity or gas to cook with or heat their homes. The resulting indoor smoke from burning wood and dried dung is the deadliest form of pollution in the world.
For millions, the cause of lung disease, blindness, and early death. It's not just cheap, reliable electricity that Africa needs. Agricultural productivity here is incredibly low. Increasing it takes fossil fuels to make fertilizer and drive tractors and other farm machinery. Jasper Mashogu is a farmer.
Speaker 20: Each and every African wants to develop and increasing, improving agriculture is one of the easiest ways
Speaker 1: to
Speaker 20: do that. Agriculture is tightly tied to fossil fuels. Fossil fuels that the western nations are saying we should not have access to.
Speaker 1: Around a third of the food produced in Africa rots before it ever reaches the mouths of consumers. To prevent this terrible waste, Africa needs plastic packaging, refrigerated lorries, and good roads. All are opposed by Western environmentalists. All come with industrial development. All rely on affordable fossil fuel energy.
Diarrhea from drinking dirty water still kills 100 of thousands of African children. But clean water requires large industrial water purification plants and a modern water supply network. And this will come only with cheap energy.
Speaker 20: I think it's pretty obvious that the West has got what it has because of fossil fuels. When people say Africa doesn't need fossil fuels, I wonder. I don't think they want what's best for us. They don't want us to develop, and that means we continue being starving. We continue being, poor.
Most people don't know what climate change is. They don't care. They just they want food on their table. They want to beat poverty. They want to beat hunger.
They need money to better their lives. They want to flourish. That's just it.
Speaker 18: When they use the word sustainable development, they're talking about no development. Exactly. I mean, it's the point is is that, you know, to develop sustainably means not to use too much energy, not to use too much carbon, you know, net zero. The idea that you mustn't use too many resources, the fact you mustn't produce enough consumer goods because consumption is bad. So ultimately, you know, the idea of development is out the window.
Speaker 9: The greens think the Africans should never use their resources the way the Europeans
Speaker 1: or the Americans or the
Speaker 9: Canadians or the Australians have used theirs. They are also in favor of punitive taxes, border taxes on any African country that wants to export their goods to Europe if they do use their resource. So that sums up the ethical ruthlessness and depravity of the green agenda.
Speaker 1: The climate alarmists have a problem. Many countries in Africa and across Asia are simply ignoring the environmentalist demands of Western governments and international agencies. Communist China is estimated to be building an average of 2 new coal power plants a week. China now uses more coal than the rest of the world combined.
Speaker 9: Which is one of the reasons why this whole climate agenda is falling apart because the rest of the world is not cutting emissions, is not moving to renewables.
Speaker 1: In the west too, for many people, climate alarmism is wearing thin.
Speaker 15: Ordinary people are not stupid. They have seen one ridiculous claim after another fail over and over. What this does is leave people with a profound and justified cynicism about what the scientific establishment says and about what the government says.
Speaker 1: To fix the climate crisis, we're told we must give up our cars.
Speaker 13: Cars is like fracking.
Speaker 1: We must pay more for fuel, heating, clothes, food, fly less, limit where we go. This attack on mass travel, mass tourism, mass consumption holds little appeal to the masses.
Speaker 17: People have started to realize it's going to cost them a lot of money to simply live the lives that they weren't leading, that they want to lead. And as soon as that started to happen, I could see people in the United Kingdom, who had previously been indifferent to environmentalism, suddenly think, how dare they do that, right? How dare they try and take away what we consider to be not luxuries, but necessities.
Speaker 18: The whole policy of sustainability is about restraint. It's about restrictions, it's about doing less, and that obviously for most people is anathema to their everyday needs.
Speaker 17: The fact that there is actually an ideological movement of people who think that cheap mass production, whether it's houses or anything else, is a problem. I mean, for god's sake, no wonder people become disdainful of the kind of middle class outlook of environmentalism. But that is literally what people say. How can we stop people buying cheap things in shops?
Speaker 1: When climate protesters climbed onto an underground train in London's East End, they were not cheered on by working commuters. They were heard abuse, pelted, angrily dragged off the train, and received rough treatment on the platform.
Speaker 19: If you were to go into a pub, frequented mainly by what the Americans call blue collar workers, you will find that being skeptical about climate change policy is not going to get you thrown out. Quite the contrary, some people will probably buy you a drink. They can tell that behind all the talk about climate, emergency climate crisis, what there actually is, is an animus and a hostility towards them, their lifestyle, their beliefs
Speaker 1: Anti establishment politicians and movements are gaining support.
Speaker 17: What they what they underestimated was the fury that this would meet, with ordinary people who just say you can't do this, so you suddenly get this new movement.
Speaker 1: Many working people are not merely skeptical, but positively angry about the climate alarm and all that flows from it. There is a suspicion or perhaps realization that climate change is an invented scare, driven by self interest and snobbery, cynically promoted by a parasitic publicly funded establishment, hungry for ever more money and power, an assault on the freedom and prosperity of the rest of us.
@LozzaFox - Laurence Fox
An absolute belter from @thecoastguy Who definitely did not kill himself. https://t.co/xU9jvigHuE
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker criticizes the British government for making decisions without consulting the people, such as bombing Yemen and neglecting border security. They also discuss the influx of immigrants in the US and the UK, questioning whether it is intentional or a result of corruption. The speaker highlights the silence of authorities regarding the high death toll from various causes and accuses Pfizer of profiting from diseases like turbo cancer. They mention the lack of concern from leaders worldwide and the recent scandal involving wrongly prosecuted sub postmasters in the UK. The speaker concludes by condemning the elites gathering in Davos and their agenda to rebuild trust.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Saying that the lunatics have taken over the asylum used to be a joke. Now it's our day to day reality. The British regime, and I phrase it that way deliberately to take account of the fact the rot goes much deeper than just the government. Those empty sock puppets playing the parts of elected representatives took the decision last week to bomb Yemen. It goes without saying nowadays that we, the British people, were not consulted in halted in advance, far less our blessing, sought for the making of more war on more people we don't know.
Without any recourse to parliament, that hollow charade, supposedly comprising those sent by us to do our bidding and so take care of our best interests. What nonsense. But which in reality is a mob of self serving frauds who, if integrity was dynamite, couldn't blow their own noses. Without consulting that confederacy of Dunces, unelected prime minister Rishi Sunak and unelected foreign secretary David Cameron and the rest of the goons dispatched warplanes to Yemen in our name. According to our government's own website, quote, on 11th January, Royal Air Force aircraft joined coalition forces in striking a number of facilities used by the Houthi rebel faction in Yemen to attack shipping in the Southern Red Sea, end quote.
Thanks for telling us, lads, all encompassing war in the Middle East, anyone. And so in addition to helping underwrite the slaughter of generations of Iranian men and boys in the name of non existent democracy and creeping NATO expansion and the carpet bombing of babies and the rest of the civilian population of Gaza, our taxes, the nation's wealth, as yet unearned and only added to the Himalayan mountain of debt, is being spent, you might say, securing the Red Sea. The Red Sea is more than 3,000 miles from London. RAF aircraft are dropping bombs on people there to help secure that waterway, and yet the British regime is incapable or rather prohibited from queuing, the English channel that you can practically see from the roof of the Palace of Westminster, that's what we supposedly pay our taxes for, remember, at least in part, the security of our borders. I shouldn't need to say I'm not here calling for the bombing of the channel, but in this time of lunacy, I will make clear, I don't think it's too much to ask for a bit of effort to maintain a border.
But while our unelected, did self promoted, self described leaders rub their hands with glee at the prospect of further investing in the dividends payable by the military industrial complex. The southern approaches to the United Kingdom are spread wide for the pleasure of all comers. Roll up, roll up, get your British tax bear funded free life here and help yourselves to whatever catches your eye while you're at it. Like us, the citizens of the US have no meaningful southern border. Millions of new people have arrived in recent years.
New York City mayor Eric Adams, who declared the big apple a sanctuary state for immigrants cheerfully enough, now says it will cost $12,000,000,000 to house and care for the tens of thousands flooding the streets for the next 3 years. He said this year, New York must spend $5,000,000,000 on its immigrants, more than it spends on police, fire, and sanitation combined. Those on the move are victims too. It's the decisions by our so called leaders to repeatedly bomb the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan, ban Libya, Syria, and on and on and on that provokes the 1,000,000 into moving elsewhere, including here. Is it a deliberate flooding of the West, a deliberate destabilizing of the West, or just the byproduct of greed and corruption?
Said at the top, the lunatics have taken over, but at best, they're lunatics because if it's not madness that drives them to drive the rest of us off a cliff, then it must be pure and simple badness. Hardly a soul in authority is prepared to talk about the excess dying every moment of every day here and in countries all around the world, 100,000 extra dead in the United Kingdom since January 2022, 30,000 more than all the British civilians killed in six years of World War 2 and yet the official silence on the matter blows like tumbleweed down the corridors of power. And while young people drop dead and otherwise healthy people of all ages are harvested in hitherto unheard of numbers by heart disease and turbo cancer. Our old friend, Pfizer, has been spending some of its recently acquired massive wealth buying companies that develop drugs to treat heart disease and I'd never heard of turbo cancer. For me, the c word alone had always been scary enough, 4 cylinder, 5 gear kind of cancer already capable of moving at lethal speed.
All of a sudden now though, we've got turbo cancer, fuel injected, maybe with a bottle of nitrous oxide on the eyed for that sudden terrifying burst of speed across the line to unexpected death. And dear old Albert Bourla, multimillionaire boss of big pharma giant, Pfizer, that made 1,000,000,000 pushing something they called a vaccine, but there was actually a gene therapy, boasts now about his company spending $43,000,000,000 to snap up Seagen, a small outfit specializing in treating turbo cancers making Pfizer, overnight, the unchallenged global leader in cancer treatment. Bordler has been all over the media predicting turbo answers will affect a third of the world in the years ahead, even declaring that entire families will be affected. No one asks him why, obviously, just a new fact of life. He delights in informing us that Pfizer will be able to produce Cgen's drugs at unprecedented scale, much like it was able to do with those mRNA based injectables during the so called pandemic, Pfizer have also spent more 1,000,000,000 snapping up Arena Pharmaceuticals, another small company that specializes in treatments for immuno inflammatory diseases, including myocarditis, the condition that has, oddly enough, in the past few years, stopped the hearts of an unprecedented number of otherwise fit and healthy youngsters, including elite sports people on the field of play, quote, we're excited to add the impressive experience and pipeline of Arena Pharmaceuticals to Pfizer's inflammation and immunology therapeutic area, helping us further our purpose of developing breakthroughs to change the lives of those with immuno inflammatory diseases, said Mike Gladstone, global president and general manager of Pfizer Inflammation and Immunology.
The southern borders of the UK and the United States lie undefended. Millions of citizens spend sleepless nights fearful about the future, about paying bills, heating their homes, and feeding their children. And yet, in another stunt at our expense, prime minister Rishi Sunak skips out of beleaguered and broken Britain to hug fellow homunculus Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and hand him another £2,500,000,000 we haven't even had the chance to earn yet. Quote, our support cannot and will not falter, he declares. Britain is with you for as long as it takes, open brackets, regardless of how many British lives must lie in tatters or cold in the ground on account of my unelected, unasked fought an unwanted contribution to the state of the nation, closed brackets.
If insanity is, as Albert Einstein said, endlessly repeating the same in expectation of a different outcome than the British electorate, is collectively as mad as a cut snake for continually trusting more of the same politicians to care a jot whether we live or die, far less to act in anything approaching our best interests. The madness is all around the world. The scaffolding of nations is buckling under the weight of the lunacy and the wickedness of those in charge. In Germany, thousands upon thousands of farmers and other citizens have gathered to protest the spending of their taxes on endless wars, while those tasked with feeding the nation cannot afford to buy fuel for tractors. Instead of admitting mistakes, German politicians fall back on more name calling, tossing around the far right label in a doomed bid to silence the righteous.
The truth is our so called leaders have no concern for the peoples of their countries. It's true in the United States, in Germany, all over Europe and it's true here. In recent days, we've been invited to consider what happened to more than 900 British sub postmasters wrongly and shamefully prosecuted for theft, jailed, humiliated and otherwise destroyed when in fact, it was technology trumpeted and installed by Tony Blair's government that made the mistakes and unleashed the mayhem. The truth has been available in every way that matters for years, but it was denied, denied and denied again by all those responsible. A TV drama, aired and all at once, the guilty were falling over one another to shed crocodile tears.
Sir Ed Davey, now leader of the Lib Dems, but then the government's postal minister under prime minister David Cameron, trousered the better part of a third of a 1000000 quid while also serving the law firm that so aggressively and effectively targeted those sub postmasters. Even as the evil was at its height, he refused to meet, far less to listen to those suffering the wrong of it all. Also turning a blind eye was Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer, longtime boss of public prosecutions. Prime Minister Sunak has had the unmitigated gall to take it upon himself to describe the destruction of nearly a 1000 lives as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in our nation's history. Without doubt, those people are the victims of an obscene and unforgivable wrong.
But to have to listen to more serenity devoid of a grain of genuine empathy from the man presiding over so much else that's terribly amiss. The ongoing horror of excess dying of undiscussed, unexplained causes in the aftermath of the so called pandemic, ruinous lockdowns, the handing over of our unearned 1,000,000,000 to perpetuate the profitable slaughter in Ukraine, the slaughter in Gaza, attacked Yemen in our name without our consent is nothing more than salt rubbed in open wounds. At Harvard University, the very summit of aspiration in the US, the self righteous intelligentsia of diversity, equity, and inclusivity are running for cover, exposed like bed bugs from under a flipped mattress by a bright light, alleging plagiarism, which is what educated people call cheating. If the ideologues of woke, those demanding enthusiasm for, among other pursuits, the surgical mutilation of children are stripped of their claims of expert status, on on what other grounds could they possibly insist on lording it over us mere mortals armed only with common sense and truth. And so here we are in a lunatic asylum governed, at best, by lunatics, at worst, by cheats, liars, and sociopaths.
Here's the thing. Next week, the usual suspects, the billionaires and the bosses of transnational corporations and their assorted hangers on will gather again in Davos, in the mountains of Switzerland. We have to plot more of the fate they have in mind for the pesky human race. The published agenda this time is about rebuilding trust, trust in those mad clowns. What they need up there in Davos with their heads in the clouds are well tailored straight jackets and padded cells.
@LozzaFox - Laurence Fox
For the last eight years I have been gagged from talking about something very important. My patience ran out yesterday. Today I am going to start writing it down and I won’t stop until it is done and in the public domain. Threats do not scare me anymore.
@LozzaFox - Laurence Fox
The Dutch have had enough. I don’t think people should be deported for their religious beliefs, if they are held in a moderate manner and don’t infringe on the freedoms of others. I do 100% believe in his 5th point, though. We should do the same here. https://t.co/I0Do1qudAh
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker expresses the belief that Islam is an ideology that brings hate and terrorism, and therefore does not belong in the Netherlands. They suggest closing the borders to asylum seekers and immigrants from Islamic countries, ending the Schengen agreement, and reinstating border controls. They also propose dismantling Islamic institutions such as mosques, particularly those receiving foreign funding. The speaker advocates for imprisoning or deporting individuals who threaten or use violence, including supporters of jihadist movements. They call on schools, newspapers, and media to display images of Mohammed to demonstrate a refusal to yield to threats and violence. The speaker concludes by telling Muslims who do not respect freedom, democracy, and Dutch laws to leave the country and go to an Islamic nation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Erken dat de islam een geweldige ideologie is die haat en terreur met zich meebrengt en dus niet bij Nederland hoort. Twee sluit onze grenzen onmiddellijk voor asielzoekers en immigranten uit islamitische landen zeg schengen op en voer weer eigen grenscontroles in. Drie. Begin met het ontmantelen van de instituties de islam zoals moskeeën. Begin bijvoorbeeld met het sluiten van al die moskeeën die buitenlandse financiering krijgen, waar bijvoorbeeld Diane het Turkse ministerie van godsdienstzaken de basis en niet wij.
Fluor sluit iedereen op die met geweld dreigt of geweld gebruikt of zetten ze ons land uit en pakt die honderden aanhangers en die duizenden sympathisanten van de jihadistische beweging in Nederland als het moet preventief op. En vijf voorzitter: vraag alle scholen, kranten, media om een Mohammed-katoen te tonen, niet om te provoceren. Maar om te laten zien dat wij nooit wijken voor bedreigingen en geweld en dat wij trots en fier achter onze vrijheid staan. Voorzitter. Tenslotte hebben we nog een boodschap aan al die moslims in Nederland die onze vrijheid, onze democratie en onze kernwaarden niet respecteren, die de regels van de Koran belangrijker vinden dan onze circulaire wetten.
Dat zijn toch veel? 700-duizend blijkt uit het onderzoek van professor Koopmans. Mijn boodschap aan NS is wegwezen. Van trek naar een islamitisch land dan kunt u genieten van islamitische regels dat zijn hun regels maar niet de onze dit is ons land niet uw land maar ons land dit
@LozzaFox - Laurence Fox
For taking a correct and principled stand against this vile behaviour, @SuellaBraverman lost her job. https://t.co/RWhUmNMD6F
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions why the West sympathizes with Israel but doesn't offer them a place in Germany or occupy Hitler's Baghdad. They suggest that the Zionists have faced repeated slaughter throughout history, implying that Hitler knew how to deal with them. The speaker also suggests that the creation of Israel came at the expense of Palestinian Muslims' blood.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If the west feels so sorry for the Israeli, why don't they give a place in Germany? Why don't they go to Hitler's Baghdad and make an occupation there, then they will know what kind of people these are. Why every so many 100 years, the Zionists get slaughtered because Hitler knew how to deal with these people? They probably made a program so they can create a a state of Israel in the expense of Palestinian Muslims' blood.
reSee.it AI Summary
Reason, debate, discussion, and polite conversation have all failed to address the issue at hand. It's time to adopt the tactics of those we oppose. Cancel them, expose their faults, shame them publicly, and make them fearful. Turn off their channels, even those pretending to be on our side. Hunt them down as they hunt us down. Our duty is to defend our country like our forebears did. Find and destroy them utterly. When they send a crowd, send a bigger one. Silence is not an option. Take your country back.
@LozzaFox - Laurence Fox
Reason didn’t work. Debate didn’t work. Discussion didn’t work. Polite conversation didn’t work. Desperate appeals for common sense and compromise didn’t work. Against this mob. I say it’s time to use their tactics back at them. It’s time to cancel back. Hound them out of their jobs. Find their intimate faults and expose them. Over and over again. Shame them publicly. Harass and intimidate them. Make them fearful. For once. Turn off every channel they operate on. Including those one who pretend they are on your side. Hunt them down. As they hunt you down. Force them back under the rock they came from. Our forebears defended this country. It is our duty to do so too. Find them. Destroy them. Utterly. When they send a crowd, send a bigger crowd. Make them scared for once. That’s the only way. There is no political solution to this cultural problem. Stop being silent as your country goes down the drain. If you are the majority. Then show yourselves. Take your country back.
@LozzaFox - Laurence Fox
Non crime and Punishment.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses being arrested for inciting criminal damage and expresses frustration with the state's infringement on freedom. They criticize the political system and the obsession with net zero carbon, arguing that dissenting views are not allowed. The speaker mentions the confiscation of their electronic devices, including their children's phones and iPads, which they believe is a form of political intimidation. They also discuss their termination from GB News and the lack of support they received. The speaker expresses concern about the imbalance in consequences for different viewpoints and the potential erosion of free speech in the country. They emphasize the importance of organizing and fighting for a better future.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, guys. How are you doing? A little bit to talk about today. First of all, haircut. Okay.
Where do we start? Let's start with yesterday first. On the roof of the old Bailey is a is she called Lady Justice? And, she's She's got her arms out and she's holding 2 scales, implying that justice is equal, and for justice to be done and seen to be done, that it has to be applied equally to everybody. So yesterday, as I'm sure some of you know, Morning.
I, got a loud knock at the door. I opened the door and, 6 coppers came barging into my house quite aggressively to tell me that I was being charged or, no, I wasn't. I was not being charged. I was being arrested. I'm thinking of being charged yet or if I will, who knows?
But I was being arrested for, inciting people to commit criminal damage and Other things like that, sort of pre crime, if you know what I mean, saying that I may even commit criminal damage, as after what I said on a podcast with Martin Luaz. I'd look well, at this juncture, definitely like to say that's my view. It's not the policy of the Ukraine party, it's just my view. I watch The digital bars go up on the surveillance state and it concerns me hugely. So My support for freedom fighting to increase liberty, individual human liberty, far supersedes my desire to restrict it.
And I believe it's the state's job to protect our freedom, not take it away. And I think that's what the state are doing and have done repeatedly and my frustration with them grows ever more every day. Anyway, in a sane world, COPPA might have phoned up, seeing as I'm not, you know, wielding machetes, for example, Perhaps what those 6 coppers could have been investigating, the machete wielding London archive problem. Nevertheless, you know, they were given a mission to do, which was to come and get me. In a sane world, I think they probably could have phoned out and said, you've said these comments.
We would like interview under caution. I would have gone, 'Sure, when do you want to see me?' And I would have gone down, but no, they needed to make a big fuss of it, which they did. I'm grateful my children weren't there, because that would have frightened them and, that was that was not right. So they took every single electronic device I have. Now, that's fair enough if they're investigating a crime that's regarding to electronic devices.
But as everyone knows, I say what I think online, so their evidence is social media posts. Their evidence isn't content of my personal electronic devices. But the bit that is a bit worse than that is they took my kids' phones and my kids' iPads. So Regardless of what you think about, what I said, whether you agree or disagree with me, I think to do that is a malevolence restricted solely to, the political intimidation of somebody who stands against them. And my frustration at the difficulties we have here is we have just 1 party in this country.
Both versions of this party, those iterations of this party are separated just by the color of rosette. Both are obsessed with the carbon heavy fear porn that we see and the obsession with this idea of net zero, net zero carbon. The last time we went for net zero, anything, it was net zero COVID and we destroyed the world economy for it and it didn't work. So the idea of Dissenting views towards the weather or the climate, as people call it, is completely not allowed and we have, being built around us, a way of stopping us. Eventually moving would be my guess.
Eventually being able to do anything without being surveilled by the people we pay to protect our freedom. Now, if that's as comfortable with you and you're okay with it, then fine. My view is that, Armijer consulted on the benefits of The projects that he's got involved in, I'm not allowed to say any of those things as a result. My bail conditions, my restrictions on free speech there exist as well. That our mayor consulted on this stuff and he then, when he was told it would make no difference whatsoever, he buried that and went ahead with it anyway.
So if there is no, in a world where we're told to follow science or have been told to follow science for the last 3 years, It seems that when he was told that science wasn't worth following, he went ahead with it anyway. So to me, Some of the schemes are just about money and, again, the restriction of fundamental human freedom, something I stand very much against. Taking it back to the 2 party system or the 1 party system, the problem is no one has an opportunity to vote against this. There is no mainstream political party that will be allowed to exist that says what we're doing in terms of net zero is going to destroy the lives of ourselves and of our children. You're gonna have net zero happiness, net zero health, net zero jobs, net zero money, net zero heating, net zero food.
That's what you're going to be left with all because we've replaced the formal religion of this country, which was one of hope and optimism and love and required a higher authority with a religion of our own staring down at the ground, not looking up and dreaming of our place in the stars, as they said so brilliantly on Interstellar. So my frustration is born out of that. And my belief is that, in this situation, We only have the movement of the masses against it. And we can see how unpopular some of these schemes are and we can see what's happened. And My support for them, my support for freedom fighters is absolute.
On a side note, with this idea that justice is balanced. The exact same point was made by another man, Chris Packham, who said that he would support acts of violence and destruction to save the climate. Now he's totally entitled to That view, in my view, because that's his view. But where the problem lies is that when Chris Packham says it, nothing happens. And when I say it, 6 coppers come around my house.
So I was then taken to Croydon police station, where I walked into Croydon police station as a, you know, an alleged criminal. As I walked into Croydon police station, in the next door holding cell, you came outside. There was a guy who had blood on him and white forensic bags on on his arms and on his legs, which had led me to believe that he had been involved in some pretty serious crime. And I did think to myself those 6 coppers might have been somewhere else than my house And potentially, crimes could have been solved. You never know.
That's just I'm just saying what went through my head. That and this that and the fact that they've taken my kids' stuff. What have my kids got to do with this other than to intimidate me and to upset them? I think that is, as I've said, I think it's malevolent Beyond words. So, anyway, after some enjoyable time in the cells reading, I did say to him, Can I take a book?
And they went, Yeah. And I'd nearly finished the Gulag Archipelago. And, so I read the Gulag Archipelago, and anyone who's read it knows that, Being chucked in the cells of Croydon police station is incomparably good fun compared to, what they went through during the Soviet purges and what Alexander Solzhenitsyn so beautifully elaborates on in that book and others. So anyway, I'm in there, get questioned, and I leave. And I got home late last night to, with no phone, with no nothing, no way of contacting my kids, telling them I was safe, no way of contacting my elderly dad and telling him I was safe.
I did manage to get through to my dad in the end because his number is one of the few I can remember. Oh, quick side note, by the way, guys. Anyone who is working in this field and who's worried about any of this stuff, clone everything. Make sure you've got 2 phones. Clone each 1 and make sure that wherever you have your clone computer and your clone phone is somewhere else, somewhere else's house, because they're gonna take everything from you if you don't have the right views.
Everything. So I think My honest assessment of it. And, again, I'm totally happy to take responsibility for what I said. I, I my frustration at the, at the system that is being built around us is extremely serious and my concern about it is deeply held. But also it's my view in the same way as Jacob Rees Mogg has a view about abortion, which isn't the view of the Conservative Party or the government at large.
It's We're all entitled to a view. Let's not conflate what I think with what I represent because it's just 1 voice. Now let's move on to the joys of, yes, I'm bailed. I'll go back in 3 months. I don't know if I'm ever gonna get my phone back.
So, Yeah, also in the absence of the fact that I no longer have a job with GB News, which, I must be like Mystic Meg, I think I predicted that one coming. Again, actually, weirdly, while we're at it, with this idea of scales and balances, where was the, Where's the opprobrium and the Ofcom regulation against those who call for acid attacks, which is actually direct physical violence against a person or the wishing of death of the prime minister or the highly racist comments made by, television presenters and, Pundits on the BBC calling, saying, We don't want Y2 dead. Yeah, we do. The terribly white balcony comments that went out throughout the coronation. It seems to me that there is an imbalance here.
And I don't think that's healthy for democracy generally because in one view and one side of the argument is so heavily pleased and intimidated and politicized in the way that there is. Then do you live in a free and open democracy? My response to that would be no. The behavior of the police, and what I believe was a politically motivated arrest because Sadiq Khan doesn't like what I've got to say, especially in calling him out on some of his schemes and scams, seems to be disproportionately leveraged in one direction. And if that doesn't bother you, Fine.
If it bothers you, then there we are. I think I I think it's very frightening. I think we're gonna see the the beginning of more and more politically motivated arrests of dissident voices in this country, as well as the cancellation of dissident voices in this country from their employment, for reasons quite right So in a way, but, you know, one of the lessons we learn here is that I am a believer in humility and Honesty. So I think that when you've done something wrong, one should own up and say, I'm sorry, and you should offer a heartfelt apology whether you meant whether you Believe the point that you were expressing or not, you know, there were ways of putting it and certainly in my position, I should use those ways. And I made that heartfelt apology and made it openly and honestly, and, it was not received.
So in this new religion of climate terror and child mutilation and, you know, the hatred of certain groups of, mostly men actually in society and particularly heterosexual men and particularly white heterosexual men in society. We're in we're in a lot of trouble. So TV news, the home of free speech. Now, of course, free speech has consequences. It's the great argument that, you know, you can't have free speech without consequences.
And I think that's absolutely right. I am living proof of the consequences of free speech. But it seems to be silly to to use as your USP to advertise yourself as the home of free speech, with this very tight set of moral values. Some of which, I think as others have alluded to and are not hard to find if you're willing to look on the Internet, don't apply again universally to those within the organization that formerly worked for. So I think, sadly, GB News have opened themselves up for a huge number of attacks.
Interestingly, also in my contract, even when terminated, I'm informed that I'm not allowed to disparage GB News in any way, which seems oxymoronic, when one is caring about the idea of free speech. So, GB News sacked me yesterday while extolling the virtues of free speech, which they love. I was expecting it, so it comes as no surprise, and it's not much of a shock. And it was very kind of one of the coppers who, just FYI, Don't like what they were forced to do. And, I had a couple come and give me a, you know, an extra bit of food or something like that, when I sat around yesterday saying, I love what you do, man.
So that obviously must annoy the powers that be as well. But, yes, GB I don't have any personal malice toward GB. I think that they were, you know, bearing in mind the week I had, where at least 2 horrible incidents that week. GB News, while extolling the virtues of free speech, seem to have opened themselves up to attack. The other thing that's interesting is, well, you remain an employee with them, as I'm sure you are until they formally fire you, and bear in mind the media storm that had been whipped up.
Interestingly, the other thing I noticed was absolutely under under all of the comments, under all of the articles, was obviously, there were people saying, You know, shouldn't have said that, but an overwhelming majority of comments, which I didn't usually read, but I thought I've to review this one because it's an amazingly mad media storm that's been whipped up. 99% and more are, not Buying it. They say this is not what was so bad about that? I've heard it on a 1000000 other media channels. Anyway, the media storm was whipped up.
And I don't know, you know, I've been in a couple of media storms in my life. They're very, very unpleasant and, I wouldn't recommend them to anybody. Certainly, People with, you know, who, as I've already said, I don't feel particularly safe in this country as it is with some of the stuff that goes on. So, In that week, not one member of GB News contacted me at all to, you know, say, are you okay? You know, how's it going?
Just bear in mind that as I was walking near my, one of my family members' house, This guy came up and said, hey, Laurence, in a sort of very nice and upbeat way. And I turned around and he went, you're a and spat it in my face. And then he looked at me and he sneered and he went, free speech, ain't it? And I went, yeah. You're totally entitled, told the opinion that I may See you next Tuesday.
That is your free speech and that is your right. But it shocks you in a way which makes you not wanna leave the house, and it makes you feel Very vulnerable, so I'm disappointed in them for their handling of that. I do think there is an element of sexual discrimination here. I think if a woman had said it, It would have been, well, I mean, prudently so. If a woman says it, it's completely fine.
Women can say dreadful, awful things about men, including not wanting to shag them repeatedly over and over and over again, and there's no sanction. And, you know, again, the situation of male suicide and male mental health, which I can tell you I'm really suffering with at the moment, is put down. And just in regards to GB News, don't think they've done themselves any favors because it seems like a mob can get them to cancel people. Now, I can totally understand the human desire to try and Feed that mob and get that mob to calm down, but I think GB would be wise to know that that mob and Ofcom above it And most institutions in this country captured 1 GB News dead, so, you know, appeasing the crocodile in the hope that it feeds you, eats you last is not going to be the best thing to do. And I also, one other thought I had was, I know why we're losing because they're so organized and they really, really, really believe in what they're doing and they're so well organized that they can put these mobs together so brilliantly.
And I'll tell you why we're losing. We're losing because we're not organized and we're losing because we don't have that courage. And I hate to say that because it's really sad, but look at the way that those presenters So keen to hang on to the cancel money, the cancel cash in the hope that the crocodile elites in last were to throw All of their colleagues under the bus, no, it's totally fine, but you've got to admire our friends on the other side and genuinely admire them because they're gonna win unless we organize and unless we say no enough, not on my watch and not in my life and not to my kids because that's what we're fighting for. That's what I'm fighting for. I'm fighting for a world where they're not discriminated against for Things that they have nothing to say about, no say in, you know.
We have families and family is the most important thing. I think if ever there was an example of the state of how bad and worrying society is, the way that I was treated yesterday by the, from the orders from the mayor or however high up those orders go is an indication to try and frighten the populace into not Speaking freely and to not expressing themselves. So I will fight on because that's what I do and, I will not Surrender to the people that we pay taxes to to make our lives better, who are using our taxes to immiserate and impoverish us. Thank you again for all of the amazingly kind comments And I just thought I wanted to add a bit of context to all of this. There's no woe is me.
I don't feel woe is me at all. I make my own bed. I sleep in it. But I think we should all be very, very, very concerned for our country because we're essentially living in a soft tyranny now. And how long before it becomes a hard one?
And, you know, you read the Gulag Archipelago, and one wonders whether Britain is heading its way slowly, slowly, slowly there, while the rich sit at the top getting richer and richer and richer, and the white man man sits at the bottom first of all, a haircut. Paying £12.50 a day. Anyway, lots of love, and, I'm free from Zagolag, which is good news. And, hopefully, they'll give my kids' phones back and Ipads back because that's brutally unfair, what they've done. And, yeah, I'll keep you updated on everything and, also solidarity.
God, I never thought I'd say that. With Calvin who is, you know, in times of great, great, trouble and, and difficulty. You see how few people in this world are truly, truly courageous and father Calvin Robinson is one of them. And He posed principles above his wallet, and that is the test of a man.
@LozzaFox - Laurence Fox
A black lady and an Asian man get into a fight over a wig. Whose fault is it? You guessed it folks! White supremacy! Did wonder how long before someone would blame it on nasty old whitey. Not long, it would seem.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Black women, have you ever felt the need to ask for permission to be angry? We are often labeled as angry black women. But today, I want to ask you, are you angry? We have suffered at the hands of injustice. The image of a black woman with a store owner's hand on her throat is a painful reminder of how they try to silence us. They don't want us to breathe, whether it's a black man or a black woman. So I ask everyone, not just black women, are you angry? I will explain why we should be angry. There is a coward among us, and they need to hear us.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Black women, you're here. Right? Yeah. You know how we usually told, angry black woman, angry black woman. Today, I don't know if you ever felt that you needed the permission to be angry, but I'm asking you today, are you angry?
Yeah. I hear you. Are you angry? Black. We have died at the hand of beauty.
And when we saw that black, when we saw that black woman yesterday with this store owner's hand across her throat, that is a reminder woman, of the ways in which they symbolically as well literally hold their hands to our throats. They do not want us to breathe, whether it's a black man, whether it's a black woman. Trying to kill us at the same time. Right? So I'm asking you again, everybody, not just the black women.
Are you angry? Yeah. I'm gonna tell you why are you angry? Yeah. After today, we and black.
That's a coward. Let me start a jester coward. I know you can hear me. Yes. Yeah.
@LozzaFox - Laurence Fox
A hill we should die on.
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speaker questions when a person can determine that they are no longer living in a free society. They mention various scenarios, such as restricted speech, forced medical procedures, limited freedom of movement, and ideological infiltration in education. The speaker then discusses a specific case where an NHS hospital is seeking to remove lifesaving treatment from a conscious 19-year-old girl, known as ST, who wants to prioritize her right to life. Despite being assessed as mentally sound by two psychiatrists, a judge ruled that ST is incapable of making decisions about her medical treatment. The family is also silenced from speaking publicly about the case. The speaker criticizes the judge's decision and the lack of public debate on the matter. They express concern about the erosion of free speech and the disregard for the sanctity of the family institution. The video concludes by emphasizing that when the state denies someone's right to life, it signifies a departure from a free society.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: At what juncture can an individual realistically assess that they are no longer living in a free society? At what point do humans cease their relentless march up and down the hills of life and say, Here, I will die here on this hill? Is it when our speech is restricted to such an extent that to express an opinion freely rather than parroting conformity will result in total Social ostracization and the loss of our livelihoods? Is it when we are demonized for upholding bodily autonomy in the face of salivating tinpot totalitarians drippingly keen to force us into undergoing novel experimental medical procedures? Is it when our freedom to move is so prohibitively taxed and surveilled that we give up and say, I'm going to stay at home, staring at my screen like a good little comrade chewing on my ration of mealworms in soporific fealty?
Is it when we our children to schools where teachers have been replaced with political activists not knowing whether our kid will return home having been socially transitioned by some vengeful ideologue? Or is it when the state decides whether a seriously ill yet fully conscious individual should be denied treatment and left to die to protect our NHS? What chill will you die on? Well, an NHS hospital is asking the Court of protection to remove lifesaving treatment from a fully conscious 19 year old girl suffering from a similar condition to Charlie Gard because she is actively dying. The girl, known only as ST, understandably would like to prioritize her right to life over the budget sheets of our beloved NHS and has been assessed by 2 separate psychiatrists to be of sound mind.
She wants to raise money to partake in clinical trials overseas, which she is aware may not work. She says she wants to die trying to live. The doctors in our beloved health service view this Strange refusal just to give up and die so they can clear up some bed space is a refusal to accept the inevitable and therefore signs of Delusion. So they took their disagreement to court. Thank God for the courts, I hear you say.
Yes, The education system has been infiltrated by the child mutilation cult along with the police force and all the other national institutions, which Bang, the diversity drum as their buildings burn down around them, but the courts, the slow, cold dissection of facts and evidence, are blind to the ideological leanings of any individuals concerned, and we and will, we are led to believe, eventually get it right in the end, We can trust the courts: impartial, apolitical, fair. So surely, the judge, Mrs. Justice Roberts, would see sense and grant this girl the right to live, a freedom she should never have to ask for? No. Rejecting the opinion of both psychiatric experts, the judge concluded that ST, as she is known, is mentally incapable of making decisions herself, because she does not believe what the doctors say about her condition, she concluded, in my judgment, ST is unable to make a decision for herself in relation to Delph in relation to her future medical treatment, including the proposed move to palliative care because she does not believe the information she has been given by her doctors.
Not only has the esteemed judge reached her hand into a young life and desperate family to remove the ultimate freedom, That of life, like so many of the pernicious dealings of the courts these days, has imposed a strictest of reporting restrictions, denying the family the right to speak publicly about the case and raise money for ST to go to Canada for that last chance at experimental lifesaving treatment. Putting aside the, in my view, satanic insanity of Justice Roberts's judgment, the silencing of the family's freedom of speech To speak about the case is an even starker wrong. To be gagged whilst you're dying seems just so infinitely cruel. The right to life is the only unqualified right in the European Convention on Human Rights. Why would a judge impose such draconian restrictions to free speech on such a vulnerable human being?
And for whose benefit would she do so? This is a crucial debate, a debate to be heard in public and on television, reported in newspapers, argued around dinner tables and propped up against the bar, not behind closed doors, discussions like what is the cost of human life, What is the cost of human life to our beloved NHS? Is premeditatedly denying someone the right to life, not a form of murder in itself? Who knows? But The decision to silence the girl and her family means there will be no discussion or debate, no sunlight to disinfect this egregious wrong.
As ST continues to die while desperately trying to live. It would seem that those who wish to insert new orthodoxies into the system They've learned their lesson from Charley Guard. There will be no tearful parents on TV sofas. There will be no innocent children's faces on newspaper pages. One wonders how many more horrors lurk behind the justice system's inability to silence free speech and silence the voices of parents in society wishing to replace the family with their own warm and fatal embrace.
Certainly, the politicians have shown no interest in protecting this most and sacred institutions, the family. Their preening ambition prevents them from even having schools inform parents of life altering decisions made by immature, impressionable children. This conservative in name only party, the most gutless bunch of cowards to ever represent us, our values and our traditions, absolutely and utterly captured, like their chums on the other side of the house, by the child mutilation cult and its equally sinister derivative. This is why the decision of ST is so worrying. The last appeal to authority a human being can make is to those who have been chosen to judge.
Judgments of this importance should be open and transparent, not silence and sucked down into the darkness. So I said at the beginning, at what juncture can an individual realistically assess that they no longer live in a free society? I would say When the state removes a human being's right to life, not only are you about as far away from a free society as you can get, you are somewhere much, much
@LozzaFox - Laurence Fox
The climate emergency is real. I am so pleased that a giant fossil fuel burning super yacht was available to transport Emma Thompson to habitable climes to keep spreading her message of saving the planet. The one million litres of diesel is worth it. Thank you Emma!
@LozzaFox - Laurence Fox
I hear this every day. for speaking out. Chairman Khan has destroyed the capital city of the country he despises. Vote @SadiqKhan out. Remove his Scameras too. London should be open and Londoners should be free to go about their business.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Bars, pubs, restaurants, and cafes are closing down in London due to the city being shut down. Business owners are unable to operate because of Sadiq Khan's transport policies. The speaker expresses frustration and believes it is the mayor's responsibility to open the city. They refuse to disclose their name but emphasize that the mayor's actions are unacceptable.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Bars, pub, restaurants are closing down left, right, and center. Cafes are closing down. The city is done. And it's his responsibility. What is it called?
Why is it his fault? He's take I'll take you on a drive for 5 minutes through this city and you'll see London is closed. It can't work. It can't open. Shops need to live in.
I've had I've had business owners in my taxi telling me that they cannot run their business. They cannot open because That man, Sadiq Khan, has closed this city down. Now I told you, East Coast, left, right, and center, close wherever you So North, South, East, West of this city. The city is his transport policies have the council have gone run as it mentioned with it, and he's shut It's sitting down. I've had enough.
We've got to stop. What's your name, by the way? David Richard down. Look. This guy look.
Albert, look. Just talk People talk to everybody trying to use the city, trying to run a business, trying to work But this city is shut. It's closed. And it's it's the mayor's responsibility to open it. What what?
No. Can you tell us your name? I will Talk. I'll tell you later my name. But listen.
This mayor is been has been overseeing the shutting down of this city, and it is completely unacceptable. That's it.