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