Speaker 1: On Scolus Australia.
Speaker 2: This is the Reader Panalty Show.
Speaker 3: Good evening and welcome to the Rita Panety Show.
Speaker 4: Coming up tonight, the Albernizi government's or Wellian disinformation legislation
Speaker 4: is making news in the US. Douglas Murray will be
Speaker 4: with me shortly to discuss that and much more. The
Speaker 4: man behind the groundbreaking research into institutional anti Semitism at
Speaker 4: the BBC will join me later in the hour, and
Speaker 4: Nick Cator will explain why the Tials are lurching further
Speaker 4: left and talking about the left.
Speaker 3: Tonight's edition of Lefties.
Speaker 4: Losing It features totally normal folk telling us why Conservatives
Speaker 4: are so weird.
Speaker 5: What is something weird about Conservatives?
Speaker 6: There is a almost a cull tesh vibe. I feel,
Speaker 6: the way they operate within themselves. They refuse to listen
Speaker 6: to outside people you know there, refusing to learn, essentially,
Speaker 6: I think that is a large part of it.
Speaker 4: Now we hear plenty from the tills about Conservative male
Speaker 4: MPs in the Australian Parliament needing to lift their standards
Speaker 4: of behavior, but nothing about their ideological bedfellows. The Greens
Speaker 4: are indeed former green Lydia Thorpe who this week decided
Speaker 4: to interrupt Liberal Senator Alex Antick as he tried to
Speaker 4: speak about divisive welcome to country ceremonies.
Speaker 7: Have a look at this now.
Speaker 8: The idea that AFL fans and players are expected to
Speaker 8: listen to these ceremonies when all they actually want to
Speaker 8: do is watch the footy is extraordinary, and one suspects
Speaker 8: that many viewers, who in principle wouldn't have had a
Speaker 8: problem with these practices, are getting as fed.
Speaker 9: Up Antice senathorpt of order.
Speaker 10: No, I just want to interrupt his speech.
Speaker 9: Seriously, can we just you know too minutes? It's an
Speaker 9: antic thank you.
Speaker 3: Oh dear.
Speaker 4: The speaker was fed up, but Lydia was not done yet.
Speaker 8: Woke community meetings, woke sports matches, wope council.
Speaker 9: Meeting, the antics and just visunior seat colleagues. We're only
Speaker 9: asking to listen in peace and quiet for two minutes,
Speaker 9: that's all. It's not a big ask. Can we just
Speaker 9: do that one? The galleys full of people watching the
Speaker 9: behavior here, it's quite childish. Order, Senator Antique, you have
Speaker 9: the core again.
Speaker 8: I think we are making the point very clearly here.
Speaker 8: Now it's two hundred and fifty thousand years, and as
Speaker 8: we've said before, I don't need to be welcome to
Speaker 8: my own country in nough to you, what we witch
Speaker 8: witnessed before the match last weekend was a product of
Speaker 8: letting this ride for too long? Have you had enough?
Speaker 8: I certainly have.
Speaker 4: Joining me now as senior fellow at the Menzies Research
Speaker 4: Center and senior columnists with the Australian newspaper, Nick Kait Nick,
Speaker 4: what did you make of Senator Thorpe's performance? The speaker
Speaker 4: was certainly frustrated.
Speaker 11: Yeah, look at what I love about Alexander as he
Speaker 11: goes in there and says things will be perfectly uncontroversial
Speaker 11: in probably ninety five percent of Australia, but of course
Speaker 11: in the Senate Chamber, Oh.
Speaker 10: No, how dare you?
Speaker 11: And because Lydia Thorpe put on the usual display, I
Speaker 11: think that's what she's there for, is entertainment, by the way,
Speaker 11: But of course Alexander's perfectly absolutely correct. You know, the
Speaker 11: welcome to country thing is a relatively modern invention and
Speaker 11: it's completely misused. It's used for virtue signaling on the
Speaker 11: one hand, and it's also used to make money, as
Speaker 11: you know, by aboriginal groups, Aboriginal corporations who charge handsomely
Speaker 11: to anybody who's willing to pay for their services. So
Speaker 11: I'm with Alex on this one. Definitely yes.
Speaker 4: And the interruptions they're saying, I'm just interrupting for the
Speaker 4: sake of interrupting.
Speaker 10: At least come.
Speaker 3: Up with something. Go through the motions, pretend.
Speaker 4: Now, let's go to the wacky world of academia. And
Speaker 4: after the Australian National University reversed its decision to expel
Speaker 4: a student who had expressed support for her Mass, we
Speaker 4: learned that this student be Trice Tucker, is now running
Speaker 4: to be president of the a and u's student association.
Speaker 4: Let's just listen again to that infamous ABC interview where
Speaker 4: she expressed unconditional support for a terrorist group.
Speaker 11: You've also got to send a meshies to Hamas to
Speaker 11: release the hostages, don't you.
Speaker 12: Well, I actually say that Hamas deserve our unconditional support,
Speaker 12: not because I agree with their strategy.
Speaker 2: You can't condemn what her mass did in October.
Speaker 12: I will not condemn what Hamas did. We must be unconditional,
Speaker 12: but we must be critical also.
Speaker 4: Nick, how will Jewish students fear if she's elected president
Speaker 4: of the student association.
Speaker 11: I think they feel distinctly uncomfortable. Really, it's a terrible thing.
Speaker 11: I mean, I remember read too. I don't want to
Speaker 11: sound like the old bloke again, but I remember the
Speaker 11: days when universities were for the best and brightest. But
Speaker 11: when you listen to people like this, do you see
Speaker 11: that they're now open to the dullest and dimmest. This
Speaker 11: woman she can't even have read. Can I just read
Speaker 11: you one of her little messages? She says, just want
Speaker 11: to affirm that Palestinians, it's got a four in the
Speaker 11: middle of it, for some reason, have the right to
Speaker 11: resist by any means necessary, as recognized under internal law.
Speaker 11: What does she mean, Well, it's if she means international law.
Speaker 11: Is she sheal is genesting that the right to resist
Speaker 11: by raping, pillaging and killing babies is preserved under international law?
Speaker 11: I think not. It's just the absolute. I don't know
Speaker 11: that the no nothing quality of these people, and I
Speaker 11: don't know what they're doing at university. It would seem
Speaker 11: to be a waste of time educating them.
Speaker 4: Well, yes, there's a few things I could say here,
Speaker 4: but I will refrain. Before you go the tills are well,
Speaker 4: they're going to the likes of socialists like AOC and
Speaker 4: Bernie Sanders for advice. The Climate two hundred, the group
Speaker 4: behind much of the TILLS campaign funding, is going to
Speaker 4: host an event titled how to Win Lessons from Obama,
Speaker 4: Bernie and AOC, featuring a Democrat spin doctor who has
Speaker 4: worked on the campaigns of America's most left leaning politicians
Speaker 4: and helped push the disastrous Green New Deal. Next, Sure,
Speaker 4: the Tills just merge with the Greens.
Speaker 3: I think that would make a lot of sense.
Speaker 11: Well, they are right, they are the Gucci Greens. I
Speaker 11: think we call them, don't we. They are the green
Speaker 11: virtue signalers, people who they don't like to cool themselves
Speaker 11: Green it's got a sort of you know, a sort
Speaker 11: of wild tinted through it. But teal is much more
Speaker 11: the sort of color that's at home within in places
Speaker 11: like Wentworth in Sydney had about us tay that Australians
Speaker 11: headline writers to task on this one, if I may reader,
Speaker 11: because they described this as a socialist intelligence unit, which
Speaker 11: I would have thought it's a contradiction in terms. But anyway,
Speaker 11: perhaps they cannot keep that one.
Speaker 4: Oh yes, that is a good point. Nick Kita, thank
Speaker 4: you so much for your time this evening.
Speaker 3: Joining me now.
Speaker 4: Is best selling author of groundbreaking works including the Strange
Speaker 4: Death of Europe, The Madness of Crowds, and his latest
Speaker 4: The War on the West. Douglas Murray, Let's start in
Speaker 4: the US, and apparently Kamala Harris grew up as a
Speaker 4: middle class kid, and that's going to solve inflation.
Speaker 3: When it comes to the economy.
Speaker 5: Do you believe Americans are better off than there were
Speaker 5: four years ago?
Speaker 10: So I was raised as a middle class kid.
Speaker 11: When we talk about bringing down prices and making life
Speaker 11: more affordable for people, one or two specific things you
Speaker 11: have in mind for that.
Speaker 10: Well, I'll start with this. I grew up a middle
Speaker 10: class kid.
Speaker 4: And now her running mate Tim Walls is also going
Speaker 4: with that answer when asked about inflation.
Speaker 9: Let's start with inflation.
Speaker 5: What do you tell people who wake up frankly each
Speaker 5: morning wondering how am I going to get buy financially?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I tell them, Gamo Harrison, I know something about it.
Speaker 9: It being a middle class vote, Douglas.
Speaker 4: Is this strategy going to work? The media seem to
Speaker 4: love it. The glowing coverage has not stopped for the pair,
Speaker 4: but is the electorate going to buy it?
Speaker 13: It's very inting. There are really only two reasons to
Speaker 13: do this line. The first is that both Harrison Walls
Speaker 13: feel about the American public don't know who they are,
Speaker 13: and that may be actually quite a good estimate of
Speaker 13: where they stand. Tim Watz has only come across the
Speaker 13: American public at largest radar in the last few weeks
Speaker 13: since he has named the running mate. And it's true
Speaker 13: that to a great extent, you know, people don't really
Speaker 13: know Karla Harris, and so it seems to me fairly
Speaker 13: obvious that their teams have said to them, you know,
Speaker 13: you've got to establish yourself with the electorate and let
Speaker 13: them know who you are. It's quite interesting that the
Speaker 13: first and second most important jobs on earth are being
Speaker 13: competed for by people who feel that the public don't
Speaker 13: know who they are. But let me just go on
Speaker 13: the second reason. The second reason you would say that
Speaker 13: is because you don't have a policy, because you have
Speaker 13: absolutely no idea of how to bring down inflation and
Speaker 13: to bring down the cost of living for average households
Speaker 13: in America. I said this to you recently, Reta. It's
Speaker 13: something that Kamala Harris has been particularly adept at throughout
Speaker 13: her political career, which is that you ask her a
Speaker 13: question about a big issue, and she tells you how
Speaker 13: big the issue is, and you say, what are you
Speaker 13: going to do about this very important thing? And she says,
Speaker 13: I'm going to explain to you why it's a very
Speaker 13: important thing and why people like me think it is
Speaker 13: a very important thing. Their fear about actually coming down
Speaker 13: to any nitty gritty on policy is presumably because they
Speaker 13: don't have any policy, or the policy they would like
Speaker 13: to institute is one which they don't think the American
Speaker 13: electorate would like, and so they're going to spring it
Speaker 13: on them after the election when the electorate has graciously
Speaker 13: agreed to vote them into office.
Speaker 4: And Harris has been telling us bidics is working. She's
Speaker 4: been saying that for some time, so to now kind
Speaker 4: of switch it around and she's going to be the
Speaker 4: solution to the problems caused in part by Bidenomics. Yeah,
Speaker 4: it wouldn't be an easy, easy policy to sell. Now,
Speaker 4: we've also got at the moment, this vitriol, hyperbolic retric
Speaker 4: against Donald Trump. It has not stopped even really slowed down,
Speaker 4: despite two assassination attempts in as many months. Indeed, they're
Speaker 4: blaming Donald Trump for the attempts on his life. We've
Speaker 4: been playing clips of that all week on this show.
Speaker 4: It's curious given the left has long argued that words
Speaker 4: can be violence, and they've sought to blame their ideological
Speaker 4: opponents for acts of politically motivated violence, even protests or riots.
Speaker 4: Old enough to remember last month, Douglas, when the likes
Speaker 4: of Alistair camp Will wanted you arrested for riots in Britain.
Speaker 13: Look, I mean, it's an amazing thing. This Every side
Speaker 13: in politics can get overheated. It goes without saying everyone
Speaker 13: particular election season lobbs the biggest attacks they've got on
Speaker 13: their opponents, and this season is no different from any
Speaker 13: other to that extent. But the thing that is interesting
Speaker 13: and different is that we have now had two assassination attempts,
Speaker 13: not thwarted near the stage of assassination, but really serious plots,
Speaker 13: including a headshot to the president, and the Democrats and
Speaker 13: the Democrat media don't seem to have thought to tone
Speaker 13: it down a bit. That slightly amazes me, because I mean,
Speaker 13: when there is an attack on somebody of the political left,
Speaker 13: it should be axiomatic. It isn't always by any means,
Speaker 13: but it should be axiomatic that people on the right say,
Speaker 13: there's absolutely no justification for this. Now, look, some people
Speaker 13: on the right don't do that, and they laugh about things,
Speaker 13: and they laugh things off and so on. But in
Speaker 13: actual fact, I would like to think that if there
Speaker 13: had been two attempts on the life of Kamala Harris
Speaker 13: in the last few weeks, that you would not find
Speaker 13: what right wing media there is in America saying well,
Speaker 13: she brought.
Speaker 2: It on herself.
Speaker 13: I mean, that's a quite amazing thing we've seen in
Speaker 13: recent days in relation to Donald Trump, the left wing
Speaker 13: media in America actually saying well, yeah, here's another assassination
Speaker 13: attempt on him, but maybe he shouldn't use such hurty words.
Speaker 13: And I find that astonishing. I also find it astonishing
Speaker 13: that people can't understand that if you keep saying that
Speaker 13: somebody is hitler, it becomes pretty unviable to think that
Speaker 13: when somebody tries to kill the person you said was hitler,
Speaker 13: that you have to say, well, I think he's hitler,
Speaker 13: but I don't think people should kill him. I mean,
Speaker 13: you know, as you say, readers since we live in
Speaker 13: an era where people say that words have consequences, that
Speaker 13: words can be violence and much more. How about just
Speaker 13: sticking to the old idea that words are words and
Speaker 13: violence is violence. But there is a very important crossover point,
Speaker 13: which is incitement. And incitement laws are really pretty clear
Speaker 13: in the US. But if you start saying that your
Speaker 13: political opponent is going to take away every one of
Speaker 13: the rights of the electorate, that they're going to never
Speaker 13: go out of office, that they're going to be a
Speaker 13: dictator for life, that literally hitler and more. Then you
Speaker 13: probably have to take some responsibility for that. And you
Speaker 13: know this is a long way out from the election. Still,
Speaker 13: what will happen in the weeks to come? I dread
Speaker 13: to think.
Speaker 10: Absolutely.
Speaker 4: You almost feel like another attempt on Donald Trump's life
Speaker 4: is a matter of when, not if.
Speaker 14: And it's just a.
Speaker 3: Terrible state of affairs.
Speaker 4: I want to ask you about what's happening in Australia
Speaker 4: the UK. This war on free speech is intensifying. We
Speaker 4: have discussed the UK in the past, but here in
Speaker 4: Australia the government is introducing orwellyan misinformation and disinformation legislation.
Speaker 3: You've written a.
Speaker 4: Piece for the New York Post on these proposed laws
Speaker 4: that the Albanese government says is.
Speaker 3: All to us for our safety.
Speaker 4: It's for our own good, Douglas, Is that.
Speaker 3: How you see it?
Speaker 13: Why didn't they just set up the Committee of Public
Speaker 13: Safety like Robespiere and co. It's wonderful when they when
Speaker 13: they couatured in this language. The idea what I wrote
Speaker 13: was the idea that the Australian government, any more than
Speaker 13: the British government or the American government, should be the
Speaker 13: arbiter of what is true and what is false, is
Speaker 13: absolutely ridiculous to my mind. And the important point is
Speaker 13: it's not just that this particular Australian government can't do this,
Speaker 13: It's that no Australian government should do it. It's not
Speaker 13: that this particular democrat or labor administration in America or
Speaker 13: the UK shouldn't get into this train. It's that nobody
Speaker 13: could do it. There is nobody in the land, no
Speaker 13: committee of bureaucrats and apparatnics you could set up that
Speaker 13: would be able to legitimately decide rita what you and
Speaker 13: I should be able to read and know. And as
Speaker 13: I mentioned in that piece, I summoned up the memory
Speaker 13: of a real remember Dan Andrews.
Speaker 3: Oh, yes, right now, get.
Speaker 13: I know it haunts us all still remember in COVID
Speaker 13: when Dan Andrews decided to claim that an Australian having
Speaker 13: a pint outside in the street or anywhere else, if
Speaker 13: they were going to drink their pint of beer, should
Speaker 13: make sure that they keep their mask on and drink
Speaker 13: their pint through their mask. Now that was only a
Speaker 13: couple of years ago, and Dan Andrews obviously had his
Speaker 13: own problem since then, perhaps brought about by trying to
Speaker 13: drink all of his drinks through a mask. Who knows.
Speaker 13: But the interesting thing is that that passed for completely
Speaker 13: acceptable disinformation and misinformation by a very serious high level
Speaker 13: official in Australia. The idea that other officials will decide
Speaker 13: what Australians should or should not be able to know
Speaker 13: after people like Dan Andrews perverted the nature of their
Speaker 13: office in that way, It's just laughable to me. We
Speaker 13: don't have to have long memories anymore to remember a
Speaker 13: recent occasion or set of occasions when people who thought
Speaker 13: they knew better than us told us things that turned
Speaker 13: out to be utter fibbs.
Speaker 4: Oh, Dan Andrews, The list with him is along the
Speaker 4: Victoria form of Victorian premier. I remember when he scolded
Speaker 4: Victorians for watching sunsets at the beach. Apparently that was
Speaker 4: a danger to themselves and to their neighbors watching sunsets.
Speaker 4: This madness is also happening in America to a lesser extent.
Speaker 4: But I've got a constitution that protects free speech. But still,
Speaker 4: California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill that would outlaw
Speaker 4: memes and obvious AI satire videos on elections. This band
Speaker 4: was inspired by this amusing clip mock the Democrats.
Speaker 15: I had four years under the tutelage of the ultimate
Speaker 15: deep State puppet, a wonderful mentor, Joe Biden.
Speaker 10: Joe taught me rule number one carefully.
Speaker 14: Hydra toll as mummies, I mean, really, Douglas, are Californians
Speaker 14: so thick that they need to be protected from parody
Speaker 14: videos and funny memes?
Speaker 13: I was delighted to see that one meme online today
Speaker 13: had Gavin Newsome dressed as a clown. I suppose Gavin
Speaker 13: Newsom would be confused as to whether or not we
Speaker 13: actually think he did appear on stage dressed as a clown.
Speaker 13: But I think I trust the voters of California and
Speaker 13: America a bit more than that. It's pretty amazing, isn't it.
Speaker 13: I mean, Gavin Newsom would have a particular a strong
Speaker 13: impulse for trying to stop mocking memes and much more.
Speaker 13: That's because he's absolutely right for them. But once again
Speaker 13: you get into this thing of I wonder who would
Speaker 13: be just enough wise enough to decide what mockery was
Speaker 13: and was not allowed. Maybe memes about Donald Trump would
Speaker 13: be allowed in this system, Maybe memes about JD. Vance
Speaker 13: would be allowed in this system. But I suspect they
Speaker 13: would crack down double hard if the meme or the
Speaker 13: joke or the satire was about Gavin news And that's
Speaker 13: why you just can't give censorship tools to people like this.
Speaker 13: They would not be able to resist using them to
Speaker 13: their own advantage. And so you know, there is definitely
Speaker 13: a problem in the information age of false information being
Speaker 13: passed around. But my solution to that is that we
Speaker 13: the public have to be much wiser to that, and
Speaker 13: my experiences that most young people coming up are actually
Speaker 13: wiser to that. We have to get wiser to that
Speaker 13: because the alternative is some set of bureaucrats in Australia
Speaker 13: or America or somewhere else deciding what you and I
Speaker 13: are allowed to laugh about and what we're allowed to
Speaker 13: find funny. And I at any rate wouldn't want to
Speaker 13: live in such a system.
Speaker 4: No, and before you go, I have to get your
Speaker 4: thoughts on Hesba's humiliation. It appears to be some of
Speaker 4: Mossad's most creative work, and predictably it's been attacked by
Speaker 4: many so called progressives in the West who are calling
Speaker 4: the Pager plot and act of terrorism.
Speaker 3: How do you see this?
Speaker 4: I would have thought it was a very targeted attack
Speaker 4: to try to minimize casualties amongst noncombatants.
Speaker 13: Yeah, I mean, whoever did it? And we should add
Speaker 13: I mean, it obviously looks like it was the Israelis,
Speaker 13: but I mean, Hezbla have quite a lot of enemies,
Speaker 13: not least in the region. They've managed to destroy Lebanon
Speaker 13: since the nineteen eighties, once really thriving country that Lebanon.
Speaker 13: The Lebanon has just suffered from this miseration and violence since,
Speaker 13: particularly since Hesbula has had the grip it now has.
Speaker 13: So they have a lot of enemies. But it looks
Speaker 13: like it was probably is that did it, and the
Speaker 13: people who claim this is terrorism, I mean, I would
Speaker 13: just say, you know, the definition of terrorism is a
Speaker 13: deliberate targeting of innocent civilians. This is exactly the opposite
Speaker 13: of that. This is the deliberate targeting of hesbal A
Speaker 13: terrorists in the most targeted, precise, and somewhat personal way imaginable.
Speaker 5: This.
Speaker 1: You know, the.
Speaker 13: People who the people who say that you know this
Speaker 13: is indiscriminate, seem not to have noticed that if you
Speaker 13: have a Hesbalar Paiger device or a hesbeal a walkie
Speaker 13: talkie on you, the chances are you may well be
Speaker 13: a member of HESBLA, and HESBLA is a designated terrorist
Speaker 13: organization and therefore you're just not innocent. So I suppose
Speaker 13: Hesbola will try to spin this with their useful idiots
Speaker 13: in the West, and these people are useful idiots at
Speaker 13: this point or just enemies of the West, because let's
Speaker 13: be frank about it, if you're the sort of person
Speaker 13: as the people sort of howling about this on social
Speaker 13: media and on some of the newspapers in the last
Speaker 13: couple of days have been doing, if you're one of
Speaker 13: those people howling about this, you can guarantee. They're the
Speaker 13: same people who are howling about any collateral injuries in
Speaker 13: any targeted strike, for instance in Gaza or southern Lebanon
Speaker 13: in the last year or in recent years. You can
Speaker 13: be guaranteed of that. And now they claim you also
Speaker 13: shouldn't do the most precise thing of all, which is
Speaker 13: making the pager devices of hes Blar operatives explode. Just
Speaker 13: these guys should just come out and say it, which
Speaker 13: is they want Israel to be destroyed. They want HESBLA
Speaker 13: and Hamaz to win. They're on the side of the jihadists.
Speaker 13: Why don't these people have the guts to come out
Speaker 13: and say it, because Israel can do nothing, nothing from
Speaker 13: the including the most targeted operation, without these people saying
Speaker 13: that Israel shouldn't have done it. These people who are
Speaker 13: making these complaints in the last few days are people
Speaker 13: who want Israel to lose. That's fine, that's their view.
Speaker 13: I want Israel to win. These people want HESBLA to thrive.
Speaker 13: I don't. I want to see them gone. I want
Speaker 13: to see them stop making misery in Israel and making
Speaker 13: misery and Lebanon. But you know, there it is. It's
Speaker 13: a very clear divide and just remember, of course, the
Speaker 13: munition is that hes bolar uses are far from precise,
Speaker 13: and when they throw hundreds and hundreds of rockets, unguided
Speaker 13: missiles and others into Israeli territory, it has consequences like
Speaker 13: killing a dozen Israeli Drew's children whilst they're playing football.
Speaker 13: So I take the Israeli targeted strikes on actual hez
Speaker 13: Blard terrorists over hes Bala killing innocent children playing football
Speaker 13: any day. And if other people can't see that distinction,
Speaker 13: they probably can't see anything.
Speaker 3: Rita Douglas Murray, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 13: To save me pleasure as always still to come.
Speaker 3: Lefties losing it?
Speaker 4: And Donald Trump was a panelist on Gutfeld and he
Speaker 4: was cracking jokes even about his latest brush with death.
Speaker 3: Welcome back.
Speaker 4: Now it's time for lefties losing it. And let's hear
Speaker 4: from a lefty explaining why they believe conservatives are weird.
Speaker 3: Can't wait to hear this.
Speaker 5: What is something weird about conservatives?
Speaker 6: There is a almost a cultesh vibe. I feel the
Speaker 6: way they operate within themselves. They refuse to listen to
Speaker 6: outside people. You know, they're refusing to learn. Essentially, I
Speaker 6: think that is a large part of it.
Speaker 3: Perfect.
Speaker 4: Yep, they're there, folks calling you weird for believing in
Speaker 4: biological reality, borders law and order.
Speaker 3: Let's go to New York.
Speaker 4: Now we're dyeing your armpit hair pink is now an
Speaker 4: expression of gender identity.
Speaker 3: Confused, watch this?
Speaker 4: Have you ever gone to us alant to die your
Speaker 4: arbit and ibrow here? Well, if you have it, now's
Speaker 4: your chance.
Speaker 16: This part Abillity is hosting a complimentary that means free
Speaker 16: hair affirmation station at Happy Place Studio in New York
Speaker 16: City where you can get your body hair styled and died.
Speaker 17: For me, expressing myself through my hair is such an
Speaker 17: important part of feeling confident in my appearance as a
Speaker 17: queer person.
Speaker 16: Not only does dyeing my hair make me feel empowered,
Speaker 16: it helps affirm my gender identity too.
Speaker 4: Dying our hair together has always been a body experience,
Speaker 4: and having this opportunity at a salon instead of at
Speaker 4: home has just been really exciting and fun. You know,
Speaker 4: the Democrats must be getting desperate because they're sending celebrities
Speaker 4: to door knock and hug constituents in the Swing States.
Speaker 4: Here is Hanoi Jane Fonda d'Or knocking in Michigan.
Speaker 1: It's never done this for a president.
Speaker 3: Uh huh.
Speaker 5: I've done it first.
Speaker 9: I had an ex husband who came from Royal Michigan.
Speaker 13: I've done it for him.
Speaker 10: Uh huh.
Speaker 9: But I've never done it for a president.
Speaker 1: But this is most important.
Speaker 10: Oh definitely have to have to have to get them elected.
Speaker 4: Talking about Kouki's celebs, remember when Howard Stern was edgy
Speaker 4: and cool.
Speaker 3: Me neither. I'm not a hundred. Stern is only getting worse.
Speaker 4: Listen to this bile filled rant about Trump supporters.
Speaker 9: Hate the game. I hate the people who vote for him.
Speaker 9: I think they're stupid. I do. I'll be honest with you.
Speaker 9: I have no respect for you.
Speaker 4: Now to one of the democrats biggest celebrity backers, Puff
Speaker 4: Daddy P Diddy showing court holmbs. He has many names
Speaker 4: and is now facing many serious charges. But it wasn't
Speaker 4: long ago that P Diddy was endorsing Democrats, raising money
Speaker 4: for them, and running vote campaigns. He was so prolific
Speaker 4: and effective that Jimmy Kimmel wanted.
Speaker 3: Him to run for president. Remember this, maybe.
Speaker 9: You could be president. Do you ever think about anything
Speaker 9: like that? No about you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I wouldn't do a better job.
Speaker 17: But I think you know what I would if you
Speaker 17: agreed to run for president, I would be happy to
Speaker 17: be your running meet.
Speaker 10: Let's put it that way all right.
Speaker 4: Now to CBS, where a reporter had this triggering news
Speaker 4: for lefties about the battleground state of Nevada. It seems
Speaker 4: nowadays Nevada is Mecca country.
Speaker 1: But what was really incredible is in every single restaurant,
Speaker 1: the people willing to talk to us.
Speaker 3: We could only find one.
Speaker 5: Hair supporter in every restaurant, and we left no stone unturned.
Speaker 10: I approached every single person.
Speaker 4: Now, every now and then CNN allow a loan figure
Speaker 4: from the center right to appear on one of their
Speaker 4: panels to be typically bashed by lefties. But here Scott
Speaker 4: Jennings manages to extract from the CNN crew that they
Speaker 4: know the blood bath lie is a lie, but they
Speaker 4: allowed to be aired daily without correction or context.
Speaker 5: It is said by every Democrat working for or around
Speaker 5: her campaign every day on this network and every other one.
Speaker 5: The blood back thing is stated every single day. Okay,
Speaker 5: let me put my point in thereat eliminate constitutional What
Speaker 5: do you say there?
Speaker 10: This act.
Speaker 15: You're referring to Trump's use of the word blood bath
Speaker 15: when he was two was he talking about I'm going
Speaker 15: to explain it to people because they think there's confusion
Speaker 15: about this use of the word blood bath. When he
Speaker 15: was talking about, you know, vehicle manufacturing jobs in the
Speaker 15: United States, Vice President Harris improperly and unfairly mischaracterized that
Speaker 15: as him saying there would be a blood bath if
Speaker 15: he were elected. However, she did not say that if
Speaker 15: Trump were elected there would be a blood bath.
Speaker 10: She did not.
Speaker 5: I know you have interviewed and had people out here
Speaker 5: and have watched the same coverage I have. The blood
Speaker 5: bath garbage is and it is a pillar of the
Speaker 5: Democratic campaign against Trump as his dictator, as is eliminate
Speaker 5: the US Constitution.
Speaker 4: And here is Don lemon on sin and spearing a
Speaker 4: bunch of lies on hyperbole, including the aforementioned bloodbath lie.
Speaker 4: This is all to show that the assassination attempts against Trump,
Speaker 4: ah Well, his own fault, good.
Speaker 7: Jill, crooked Hillary, crooked Kamala, comrade Kamala, deranged Jack Smith,
Speaker 7: bird brain, Nikki Haley, blood bath, that he's not elected,
Speaker 7: there won't be another election. If he's not elected, bringing
Speaker 7: drugs that bring in crime, the rapists, poisoning the blood
Speaker 7: of our country, destroying the blood of our country, which
Speaker 7: was something that was Hitlers, communist, Marxist.
Speaker 4: Donald Trump was today a panelist on Gutfeld, a top
Speaker 4: rating late night show on Fox News, and he was
Speaker 4: in great form, even joking about the latest attempt on
Speaker 4: his life.
Speaker 9: I always said, GoF is a very dangerous game.
Speaker 13: If Dan told you.
Speaker 18: That the shooter was there, would you have tried to
Speaker 18: take him out with your three wood?
Speaker 9: I think so, Yeah, thanks, if I knew.
Speaker 19: Actually, the Secret Service did a great job. They saw
Speaker 19: the barrel of a gun, big gun. Yeah, and it
Speaker 19: came out through bushes, and how many people would see that?
Speaker 10: You know?
Speaker 19: He really was very exceptional.
Speaker 4: And he spoke about how incredibly lucky he has been
Speaker 4: in both these assassination attempts, or perhaps it's something more
Speaker 4: than luck.
Speaker 19: Fortunately so far I've been very lucky, or something is
Speaker 19: greater than all of us.
Speaker 18: Ooh, it is something is up.
Speaker 19: There, someone who's up there, maybe watching.
Speaker 9: Over so I think he's voting for you.
Speaker 13: Yeah, it's funny.
Speaker 18: I always thought the most dangerous job was feeding the view.
Speaker 13: But you bring up God.
Speaker 18: You bring up God and you've almost been killed twice,
Speaker 18: do you think more about your own mortality and what
Speaker 18: happens after.
Speaker 10: You go move on?
Speaker 19: Yeah, not about mortality, but I do think more about God,
Speaker 19: because Okay, Butler was really the greatest of all. If
Speaker 19: I'm not looking over there, and I mean a full
Speaker 19: turn exactly ninety degrees, I wouldn't be here right now,
Speaker 19: and your ratings would be a little bit lower.
Speaker 9: Perhaps.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Now let's.
Speaker 4: Bring in Sky News contributor Kosher, Gaeta Kosher. That was
Speaker 4: quite the performance from the former president.
Speaker 17: Indeed, he really was in great form, a little bit
Speaker 17: of humor, very relaxed humility in terms of talking about
Speaker 17: divine providence. If that was at play over here, and
Speaker 17: it just goes to show again President really has a
Speaker 17: lot of range. I think that's to read it about
Speaker 17: him where he can go from a late night comedy
Speaker 17: format like this to long form podcasts with younger gen
Speaker 17: ze talent, to his short form tweets that he's famous
Speaker 17: or infamous for, to know everything else in between, and
Speaker 17: that is a very important asset in this noisy media
Speaker 17: landscape that we live in. Coupled with the fact that
Speaker 17: means re media is such a gatekeeper for him. He
Speaker 17: really has a way of getting his message, in his
Speaker 17: personality through and that's why he is where he is.
Speaker 4: I do wonder whether he's going to come back to
Speaker 4: X completely. He's got just tens of millions of followers there.
Speaker 4: He's persisting with truth, which I know is a business
Speaker 4: that's now enormous, multimillion dollar business.
Speaker 3: But the audience is on X.
Speaker 4: And I want to as we get closer to the election,
Speaker 4: whether he's going to be more prolific on that site.
Speaker 3: And now, Robert F.
Speaker 4: Kennedy Junior has released a new campaign ad outlining his
Speaker 4: plans to work alongside Trump on tackling America's broken food
Speaker 4: and pharmaceutical system. He's just a little bit of the ad.
Speaker 1: Thousand and four. Robert F. Kennedy Junior was the darling
Speaker 1: of liberals and the Democratic Party establishment, an environmentalist unafraid
Speaker 1: to sue the biggest and most powerful polluters in America.
Speaker 1: But then the Democrats began to abandon the ideals he
Speaker 1: believed in, like peace, freedom of speech, honest government in
Speaker 1: the working class. The rank and file Democrats didn't realize
Speaker 1: it at first, but over the years, the DNC became
Speaker 1: the tool of big money, the war machine, and the
Speaker 1: very corporations Kennedy had battled his entire career kosher.
Speaker 4: How do you see the RFK junior endorsement. Trump is
Speaker 4: saying both RFK and Tulsi Gabbard, who's another former Democrat,
Speaker 4: really step up their advocacy for him. They're doing speeches,
Speaker 4: they're doing interviews, they're doing ads. Is it of any
Speaker 4: value now that Kamala is the candidate?
Speaker 10: I think so.
Speaker 17: I think one is in terms of message, just having
Speaker 17: former democrats', very prominent democrats endorse him, along with Silicon
Speaker 17: Valley folks and hedge fund guys and rappers and Latino
Speaker 17: music stars and data po poxifizers, yes, all of.
Speaker 10: Them coming out.
Speaker 17: It just makes him more palatable and more acceptable, I
Speaker 17: think as a brand than he was four and certainly
Speaker 17: eight years ago. In Rfk's case in particular, there is
Speaker 17: a mathematical consequence to it that one to two points
Speaker 17: of his support that he actually was able to consolidate
Speaker 17: when he was running.
Speaker 10: Telling them to vote is another thing.
Speaker 17: And then also I think in his case is broadening
Speaker 17: the message more around all this health and childhood health
Speaker 17: and everything else, which will make Trump, I think, more
Speaker 17: palatable to those suburban moms that he's always struggled with,
Speaker 17: because they do a lot of them do trust rfk's
Speaker 17: track record on this, and I think that does carry weight. Well.
Speaker 4: We've also got prominent former Republicans or some people will
Speaker 4: call them rhinos Republicans in name only, backing Harris. I
Speaker 4: would argue that actually doesn't hurt Trump too much because
Speaker 4: they're precisely the figures that that Republican base well borderline
Speaker 4: loads these days. I mean, that's why we have a
Speaker 4: Trump because those characters really did undermine trust amongst their
Speaker 4: voter base. But couldn't that hurt Trump? To have the
Speaker 4: likes of Romney and trying to think who else from.
Speaker 3: The Chee, the Chinese.
Speaker 10: The mckain's son, I think came out.
Speaker 17: I think you're right that by now, by twenty twenty
Speaker 17: four not so much, because it's just crystallizing this whole
Speaker 17: The shape of the two parties is changing, and it's
Speaker 17: about populism versus the establishment, and those guys really personify establishment,
Speaker 17: and I think to your point, it just crystallizes how
Speaker 17: Trump has remade the Republican Party in his image, and
Speaker 17: I think that just further further's that message, and it's
Speaker 17: not going to get too many Democrats to vote for Khamla,
Speaker 17: I think.
Speaker 4: And Telsa Gabbart is on this message a lot too.
Speaker 4: That the Democrat party she joined that she wanted to
Speaker 4: run full president for is very different to what it
Speaker 4: is now, and it's really departed a lot of those
Speaker 4: values that had a joining them in the first place.
Speaker 4: Now this is a turn up for the books. The
Speaker 4: Teamsters Union, which has endorsed every Democrat candidate well for
Speaker 4: at least a couple of decades, now, decided not to
Speaker 4: endorse Kamala Harris. They won't be endorsing anyone this year
Speaker 4: because their members are backing Trump. Indeed, three in five
Speaker 4: of the members are supporting Trump. Here's how Donald Trump
Speaker 4: reacted to the announcement.
Speaker 19: Democrats automatically have the Teamsters. They took a voter, and
Speaker 19: I guess I was at sixty percent or more.
Speaker 2: And that's a great honor.
Speaker 9: I mean, it's really I've had.
Speaker 19: A lot of teamsters work for me, a lot of
Speaker 19: the concrete trucks, and you've built all these buildings, and
Speaker 19: you see in New York City, the teamsters, exclusively teamsters,
Speaker 19: I have to say, and they've done a great job.
Speaker 2: But the vote of the Teamsters themselves.
Speaker 19: Was very high for me and the leadership Sean O'Brien
Speaker 19: and the group, who are great people. They said we
Speaker 19: and endorsed the Democrats. So I think this is the
Speaker 19: first time in many decades that they haven't endorsed Democrats.
Speaker 3: Kosha.
Speaker 4: Last time, around one in three of the Teamsters voted for.
Speaker 3: Trump over Biden.
Speaker 4: To see that figure and out go to three and five,
Speaker 4: it's quite a dramatic improvement for him.
Speaker 3: Why do you think is behind that.
Speaker 17: Huge I think it's a continuation of what Trump put
Speaker 17: his finger on when he first ran in twenty fifteen
Speaker 17: twenty sixteen, about the forgotten man and women and the
Speaker 17: working class, which the membership of these unions and these
Speaker 17: teamsters represent, and so he already I think, got more
Speaker 17: support from them than the traditional Republican candidates. So we
Speaker 17: just spoke about and with each election he just further
Speaker 17: solidified that and that contrast between the two parties and
Speaker 17: that reshaping that we just discussed is becoming so abundantly
Speaker 17: clear to everybody that I think the working class, the
Speaker 17: blue Dog Democrats, the Reagan Democrats, all those guys are
Speaker 17: coming over coming over to the side, and the Democrat
Speaker 17: Party is losing them and just really isn't any longer
Speaker 17: the party of the working class as it used to be.
Speaker 4: It isn't, but it is the party of the affluent,
Speaker 4: highly educated. There has been this switch, and is that
Speaker 4: going to be enough? Because you're seeing this current tactic
Speaker 4: where they're not being very forthcoming with policy ideas, They're
Speaker 4: doing all sorts of backflips, but it seems to be
Speaker 4: working for them so far that a honeymoon period that
Speaker 4: began with Harris is still underway.
Speaker 17: The fact that the selection is so close and will
Speaker 17: continue to be so close despite that, is so revealing
Speaker 17: and so shocking. Even though we shouldn't be shocked at
Speaker 17: this point that you can run, it really will be
Speaker 17: a case where the candidate could be switched out sixty
Speaker 17: days before the election. You run, you don't do any
Speaker 17: media or any policy prescriptions are never described. And still
Speaker 17: even if she loses, it's going to be by a
Speaker 17: reason then margin, which is quite telling.
Speaker 4: Absolutely, and part of the reason for that is the
Speaker 4: overwhelmingly positive media she's receiving and the overwhelmingly negative meat
Speaker 4: Trump is receiving. Conservative watchdog group Media Research Center has
Speaker 4: found that despite a second attempt on Donald Trump's life,
Speaker 4: the bulk of the mainstream media in the US has
Speaker 4: not lowered the temperature in its anti Trump coverage. In
Speaker 4: the first seventy two hours after the second assassination attempt,
Speaker 4: ninety five percent of the coverage on ABC, CBS, NBC.
Speaker 3: Was negative for Trump.
Speaker 4: That's quite remarkable, Koshark, because this is such an astonishing
Speaker 4: event to occur, to have an attempt on a candidate's life,
Speaker 4: a former president, to have it happened twice in two months,
Speaker 4: and yet still no sympathy. Know, Okay, well maybe we
Speaker 4: should stop calling him a threat to democracy.
Speaker 3: None of that is just doubling down.
Speaker 10: So shameful.
Speaker 17: The last time this happened was forty years ago. For
Speaker 17: Ronald Reagan, there's not been an attempt. So it's a
Speaker 17: big deal to have not worn but two attempts, as
Speaker 17: you said, in five weeks. And it really is shameful
Speaker 17: that they haven't done that. And I think you know
Speaker 17: the reason is when you demonize somebody so much as
Speaker 17: they have, the logical endpoint of that is you're going
Speaker 17: to normalize any and every critique and active opposition against
Speaker 17: that person, including an attempted assassination and taking their life.
Speaker 10: So it started with the rhetoric being.
Speaker 17: Investigated, being impeached, the lawfair being indicted, and then this
Speaker 17: is just the natural progression of that, where it's now
Speaker 17: normalized to either brush things under the rug that could
Speaker 17: be helpful to Trump or just.
Speaker 10: Continue to put it in the context.
Speaker 17: Well, if somebody really is the American incarnation of Hitler,
Speaker 17: then I guess they deserve this.
Speaker 3: That's the subtext.
Speaker 4: And you just hate to think what would happen to
Speaker 4: the country if an assassination attempt is successful.
Speaker 3: And he has been so.
Speaker 4: Astonishingly lucky both these times, the first time that last
Speaker 4: millisecond shift in his head to look at a graph
Speaker 4: that saved his life, and this time around to have
Speaker 4: a secret Service agent who in a golf course with
Speaker 4: all the trees and bushes, managed to spot the.
Speaker 10: Rifle looking through.
Speaker 4: It's almost miraculous, really.
Speaker 17: And that issue of the perimeter not being properly scanned
Speaker 17: and safeguarded is obviously picking up heat. But you know,
Speaker 17: how many times can someone be lucky? So he should
Speaker 17: be getting presidential level security right now, or having his
Speaker 17: own plus security.
Speaker 4: I mean, there's no person in the country right now,
Speaker 4: and there's no one in America who's in greater danger
Speaker 4: than Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: They've painted him.
Speaker 4: As a new age Hitler, a threat to democracy for
Speaker 4: eight years now, and there's enough nutbags out there who
Speaker 4: are got it into their heads that they're going to
Speaker 4: save the Republic from Trump. Koshugata, thank you so much
Speaker 4: for your time this evening pleasure. After the break, the
Speaker 4: man behind the groundbreaking research into institutional anti Semitism at
Speaker 4: the BBE will join me.
Speaker 3: Welcome back. Now.
Speaker 4: We've previously discussed the research led by British lawyer Trevor Assison,
Speaker 4: which found that the BBC breached its own editorial guidelines
Speaker 4: for news coverage more than fifteen hundred times during the
Speaker 4: height of the Israel her mass war. Israel was associated
Speaker 4: with genocide fourteen times more than her Maas who carried
Speaker 4: out the mass terrorist attacks against Israelis. On October seven,
Speaker 4: the BBC's Arabic channel was found to be one of
Speaker 4: the most biased of all global media outlets against Israel,
Speaker 4: with eleven instances in which their coverage featured reporters who
Speaker 4: publicly supported her mass joining me now is senior partner
Speaker 4: at the Assison Law Offices, Trevor Assisson.
Speaker 3: Trevor is the BBC institutionally and semitic?
Speaker 4: And what is behind these breaches of editorial guidelines.
Speaker 2: I think what's really behind these breaches, and they're systemic breaches,
Speaker 2: is a total management failure to control the journalists at
Speaker 2: the BBC. So I've not suggested that there's anti semitism.
Speaker 2: I deliberately avoided doing that because it's not my concern
Speaker 2: to look at the motives behind individuals or the organization.
Speaker 2: What I've looked at is systemic breaches of the BBC's
Speaker 2: own guidelines to be impartial. And the reason behind it
Speaker 2: really is that the BBC itself, although it has a
Speaker 2: deal with the British people, it will receive four billion
Speaker 2: pounds a year in return for which it promises to
Speaker 2: give impartial news, but they have absolutely no management controls
Speaker 2: at all in place to check whether or not they
Speaker 2: actually do it. I think think of the fundamental problem
Speaker 2: behind what's going on.
Speaker 4: Well, these editorial guideline breaches by the BBC included all
Speaker 4: sorts of areas accuracy and partiality, editorial values, public interests.
Speaker 4: You mentioned that they're publicly funded. Our own public, if
Speaker 4: publicly funded broadcaster, the ABC here in Australia, has a
Speaker 4: similar worldview to the BBC in your experience, are taxpayer
Speaker 4: funded broadcasters more likely to indulge in this sort of
Speaker 4: unrelentingly biased coverage against Israel.
Speaker 2: I think that public sector broadcasters are as likely as
Speaker 2: any other news outlets to be captured by a particular viewpoint.
Speaker 2: The people within the senior management will tend to hire
Speaker 2: people who they think to be right thinking, who think
Speaker 2: like them, and those people will tend to be high
Speaker 2: and do and be promoted. It's very difficult for a
Speaker 2: public sector broadcaster to be impartial, or for any broadcaster
Speaker 2: to be impartial, unless it has very careful, proper management
Speaker 2: systems in place. The BBC absolutely doesn't. I've been approached
Speaker 2: by Australians concerned with the Australian public sector broadcaster, and
Speaker 2: I believe that there are serious problems there as well.
Speaker 2: I think what's really at stake is that journalists, some
Speaker 2: journalists who clearly have very very negative views, should not
Speaker 2: be just allowed to They should be sent to something
Speaker 2: more harmless like Gardener's question time where they can do
Speaker 2: less harm. They shouldn't be reporting on something where they
Speaker 2: are clearly using the platform to express their own personal
Speaker 2: views and the guidelines say we will not express our
Speaker 2: journalist's personal views. Well, that's a myth. It's been exploded
Speaker 2: by my report and that kind of breach. Another type
Speaker 2: of absolutely clear breach is that Hamas is a dictatorship
Speaker 2: that controls the reporting that comes out of Garza Strip
Speaker 2: and the BBC specifically states that whenever they're reporting from
Speaker 2: somewhere with reporting restrictions, they'll tell the audience. They never
Speaker 2: tell the audience that they allow these people to report
Speaker 2: as though what they're telling us the truth, which it
Speaker 2: clearly isn't, and they know the BBC knows that isn't
Speaker 2: the truth. They've got an obligation to say so they fail.
Speaker 4: Now, your report does illustrate that the lines between opinion
Speaker 4: and impartial, biased news reporting have been completely blurred.
Speaker 3: How is that fixed?
Speaker 4: Because this is an issue that goes beyond the BBC.
Speaker 4: You've got so many news reporters these days who think
Speaker 4: they're in the opinion game and they want to state
Speaker 4: their opinion, and there's I think a diminishing it from
Speaker 4: the public in media.
Speaker 2: Because of that, the response to my report, which I
Speaker 2: think may be the most in depth analysis of any
Speaker 2: of the BBC's output that's ever been done. We looked
Speaker 2: at nine million words and it's worth saying that the
Speaker 2: BBC criticized the report for its methodology without before they'd
Speaker 2: read it. The methodology is normal standard litigation type analysis
Speaker 2: which I've been doing in my entire career, and in
Speaker 2: parallel with that, an entirely new, cutting edge approach by
Speaker 2: data scientists led by a data scientist expert in the
Speaker 2: UK but mainly Israeli's from Israeli universities, and that supported
Speaker 2: the completely standard, old style litigation approach. So the BBC
Speaker 2: NIEJA reaction attacking the report on methodology, what they're actually facing.
Speaker 2: Instead of one methodology, they're separating, facing two separate methodologies,
Speaker 2: dealing in real depth, as I said, over searching for
Speaker 2: over nine million words of product, and the net result
Speaker 2: is unremitting bias. Whether it can be resolved, I think
Speaker 2: is a question for BBC management. They've got to control
Speaker 2: their journalists and at the moment they're just not getting
Speaker 2: a grip at all. They're just totally out of control.
Speaker 4: Now, the BBC is hugely influential in world media. They
Speaker 4: have viewers listeners across television, radio, social media streaming, They've
Speaker 4: got global news outlets. They claim to be the most
Speaker 4: trusted news brand in the UK. You said they've disputed
Speaker 4: the methodology you've used in your report. Beyond that, have
Speaker 4: they had a response to your damning findings? Are they
Speaker 4: at least attempting to do better in the future.
Speaker 2: Well, one of my proposals was that they should have
Speaker 2: a thematic review of their Middle East reporting. Now three
Speaker 2: days after I sent them the report, they announced that
Speaker 2: they were conducting a thematic review of their Middle East reporting.
Speaker 2: So it's clearly bothered them that the report's arrived. And
Speaker 2: I think the report they realize has totally destroyed what
Speaker 2: trust there may still have been in the minds of
Speaker 2: many people that the BBC is doing its job properly.
Speaker 2: The question is whether or not the BBC will actually
Speaker 2: read it with an open mind, and that remains to
Speaker 2: be seen. If not, I have a fear that this
Speaker 2: matter may have to appear before an English judge and
Speaker 2: an English child's will they understand what impartiality means? Even
Speaker 2: if the BBC don't, and I think that they will
Speaker 2: find the BBC is in absolutely hopeless breach time and
Speaker 2: time again of its own rules.
Speaker 4: Yes, and it's not just the BBC. I would argue
Speaker 4: your own ABC breaches its charter daily. It would be
Speaker 4: wonderful if you could run a review of their work
Speaker 4: and only said Australians have already been in contact with
Speaker 4: you requesting just that.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much for your time this evening.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: That's it from May. I'll see you tomorrow night at
Speaker 3: nine point thirty four.
Speaker 4: Lefty's losing It, Don't go anywhere. Newsnight is up next