The BBC Trump Edit Scandal

Stefan Molyneux

In this flash livestream from 11 November 2025, Stefan Molyneux exposes the BBC. He discusses oppressive enforcement tactics and a recent controversy over misleading edits in a BBC documentary about Trump, stressing the need for context in journalism. Molyneux highlights the implications of state-funded media on democracy and advocates for the importance of free expression in a polarized world.  SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneux  Follow me on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/@freedomain1  GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK! https://peacefulparenting.com/  Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!  Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!  You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!  See you soon! https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025

Transcript

00:00All right. Good afternoon, everybody. Thursday, the 11th. Happy Sad Remembrance Day. For everyone,

00:07we published a remastered version of the 2010 speech that I gave about that, which you can

00:13check out, of course, at fdrpodcast.com. And I feel very strongly about this. And, you know,

00:23for those of you who don't know, the BBC, of course, is the British Broadcasting Corporation,

00:31which is a taxpayer-forced-funded British institution. And if you don't pay the licensing

00:45fee, well, like all things that are taxpayer-forced and funded, you go to jail. You can go to jail,

00:55or at least you can be prosecuted. And, of course, all of the fines increase and things just get worse

01:02and worse, all of this kind of stuff, right? So the fact that it is a forced institution is

01:12pretty terrible. And the fee is £169 a year. Mandatory payment. It is just wretched.

01:25The license fee model was established under the Royal Charter, renewed every 10 to 11 years to

01:29come on runs until 2027, ensuring editorial independence from government or commercial

01:35interests, which means it's pure propaganda. It's pure propaganda.

01:42So how is it enforced? How is it that it is collected? Well, there are these sinister notices

01:49you see in England about, we know you've got a TV. We can scan. We can tell. You better pay.

01:57You better pay. So watching, recording, or streaming live TV, including the iPlayer without a battle

02:04license, is a criminal offense punishable by prosecution.

02:08So evasion hit record rates of 12.52% in 2025, prompting around 2 million enforcement visits,

02:18though prosecutions only affect about 0.18% of suspected cases. So how did they figure it out?

02:25So TV licensing uses data-driven and on-the-ground approaches to identify potential evaders,

02:30focusing on the about 31 million UK addresses in the national database.

02:36Addresses without a recorded license receive automated reminders via letters, email, or texts.

02:43Unannounced home visits to verify status, especially for high-risk addresses, those ignoring reminders.

02:49Officers carry ID and must explain their purposes.

02:52Mobile vans equipped to scan for TV signals at targeted locations, detecting unlicensed equipment

02:59in minutes. They're not random. They prioritize these visits based on data like the recent moves or

03:06subscription patterns from cable and satellite providers and so on. So what can happen?

03:12What can happen? Well, initial contacts, escalation letters, office of visit, compliance opportunity,

03:20prosecution referral, and what happens?

03:24Single justice procedures. Handles about 96% of cases as a paper process. No court appearance needed

03:31if you plead guilty and pay promptly. Full court hearing if you plead not guilty or request one.

03:36It goes to magistrate's court. Evidence includes your statement, officer notes, and any admissions.

03:42Defenses. Oh, a genuine mistake. A license was purchased after the visit on no live TV use.

03:47Gender disparity is important. 72% to 74% of prosecutions are against women.

03:54But no discrimination found. What are the fines?

04:00Fined up to £1,000 plus legal costs of £150 to £200 and victim surcharge or compensation.

04:07In currency, that's up to £2,000. Criminal record? Yes, for evasion convictions.

04:14Non-payment of fines, civil enforcement, or short jail terms, maximum seven days. It's rare.

04:21There were 178,000 prosecutions in 2013, but only some of them led to imprisonment.

04:292020, 2025. Updates. No decriminalization. Focus on fairness for vulnerable groups.

04:36Ah. Enforcement costs about £5 million per year, offset by some fine revenue.

04:45Can you imagine? It's a shakedown. Imagine me as a podcaster. Just imagine. Imagine.

04:54A nice piece of liberty you've got there. Be ashamed something happened to it and you were sent to jail for not paying.

05:01I got to do freedomaine.com slash donate, freedomaine.com dash slash donate.

05:06I rely on donations because I'm not an a-hole. A burke, a git in British parlance.

05:14And, of course, I remember I grew up with BBC One, BBC Two, and then there was ITV.

05:20And once a year, the entire country would shut down because they were showing a Bond movie.

05:24And imagine if you had to pay me or I could send people in costume round to drag you away.

05:34What a wretched, horrendous, horrible situation that would be.

05:39See, I would never in a zillion years ever join an organization where people were forced at gunpoint to pay me.

05:51That's like calling it a marriage because you chloroform someone and lock them in your basement.

05:56If it's violent. If it's not voluntary, it's violent.

06:01And if it's violent, it's corrupt beyond measure.

06:05And it's pretty funny. We'll get into the details of the case in a sec.

06:09And I'm, of course, happy to hear your thoughts on this or any other subject.

06:13It being an essential conversation for the world, for the future as a whole.

06:18But what has happened recently?

06:21So Donald Trump has threatened to sue the BBC for defamation over an edited clip of his January the 6th, 2021 speech featured in a panorama documentary entitled Trump, a second chance, question mark.

06:33This program aired on October 28th, 2024, just days before the U.S. presidential election.

06:40It sparked controversy because of allegations of misleading editing that portrayed Trump as directly inciting violence at the Capitol.

06:47As of November 10th, 2025, this remains a threat rather than a filed lawsuit with Trump's legal team giving the BBC until November 14th, 2025 at 5 p.m. Eastern to retract, apologize and compensate him or face a claim for at least a billion dollars in damages.

07:03This incident has led to high level resignations at the BBC, public apologies and accusations of institutional bias, fitting into Trump's broader pattern of legal threats against media outlets like ABC and CBS over unfavorable coverage.

07:16Now, there's some of this from AI, of course, right?

07:19And, of course, it's not unfavorable coverage.

07:23It's not unfavorable coverage.

07:25It's not an editorial mistake.

07:28It's not a whoopsie, slipped a digit, fat fingered, a copy paste, nothing like that.

07:33So, the hour-long panorama special produced by independent company October Films Limited and broadcast as part of BBC's flagship investigative series examined Trump's potential return to power.

07:46It included footage from his January 6th, 2021 rally speech in Washington, D.C., where he addressed supporters before the supposed Capitol riot.

07:53So, what was the controversy?

07:56Well, the controversial edit involved splicing two segments of the speech that were originally more than 50 minutes apart.

08:04So, the first segment early in the speech, Trump said, we're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.

08:12The second segment, about 54 minutes later, and we fight.

08:18We fight like hell.

08:19And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

08:21So, in the documentary, these two were combined to make it appear as, we're going to walk down to the Capitol and I'll be there with you and we fight.

08:32We fight like hell.

08:33And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

08:36This admitted key context, including Trump's earlier call for supporters to, and I quote, peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.

08:44The program then showed footage of flag-waving marches heading to the Capitol, which critics say implied Trump's words directly inspired the riot.

08:53Though some of that footage was reportedly filmed before the speech ended.

08:57So, Trump's team argues that this fabricated depiction was defamatory, as it made him say things he never actually said and implied he incited violence, causing, and I quote,

09:09quote, overwhelming financial and reputational harm, end quote, to him, especially given the pre-election timing and global dissemination to tens of millions of people.

09:18Trump used the word fight or fighting 20 times in the full speech, often in the context of contesting election results rather than physical violence.

09:26The documentary is not available via BBC's iPlayer service because these programs are generally taken offline about a year after initially airing, and this is not as a response to this controversy.

09:38So, the editing issue came to light through a leaked internal memo written by Michael Prescott, a former external advisor to the BBC's Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee, EGSC, who left the role in summer 2025.

09:53First reported by The Telegraph, the memo accused the BBC of misleading viewers by editing the clip in a way that, quote,

10:01created the impression President Trump's supporters had taken up his call to arms.

10:05It framed this as part of broader, quote, troubling matters, including alleged anti-Trump bias, issues in Gaza coverage, one-sided transgender reporting, and anti-Israel, an anti-Israel slide.

10:18The memo was circulated to the BBC board out of despair at inaction.

10:23Concerns about the edit were reportedly raised as early as January and May 2025 during a US election coverage review.

10:30This led to over 500 public complaints to the BBC since the leak.

10:34MPs and critics have called for the BBC to answer questions about the editing, emphasizing its public-funded impartiality mandate.

10:41This scandal prompted the resignations of two top executives, November 9th, 10th, 2025, Tim Davey, BBC Director-General, a salary somewhere between £540,000 and £544,999,000,

11:01who had led the organization for five years and faced ongoing controversies over bias.

11:07And Deborah Ternes, CEO of BBC News, salary a little over £430,000, overseeing 6,000 staff in global broadcasting in over 40 languages.

11:17BBC Chair, Samir Shah, issued a public apology on November 10th, 2025, acknowledging an error of judgment in the edit, which gave, quote,

11:31the impression of a direct call for violent action.

11:34It's an error of judgment.

11:36Oopsie!

11:38He stated the intent was to compare the speech's message and reception, but admitted that, in hindsight, more formal action should have been taken.

11:46Shah denied institutional bias, emphasizing that mistakes occur, despite efforts for impartiality,

11:51and outlined actions like disciplinary measures, guideline updates, and corrections on other stories, e.g. Gaza coverage.

11:58Ternes echoed this, calling BBC journalists,

12:01the hard-working people who strive for impartiality, and rejecting claims of corruption.

12:07Trump celebrated the resignations on Truth Social, calling it a terrible thing for democracy,

12:12and accusing the BBC of doctoring his, quote,

12:15very good, perfect, end quote, speech by very dishonest people from a foreign ally trying to influence the election.

12:22So, on November 10th, 2025, Trump's Florida-based lawyer, Alejandro Brito,

12:27sent a demand letter to BBC Chair Samir Shah and lawyer Sarah Jones under Florida Statute 77.011.

12:34The letter accuses the BBC of, quote,

12:37actual malice, end quote,

12:39in publishing, quote,

12:40false, defamatory, malicious, disparaging, and inflammatory statements, end quote,

12:44citing Florida defamation law where statements can be actionable if they imply false facts through omission or juxtaposition.

12:51Right? So, the actual malice, if you're a public figure, and please understand, I'm the exact opposite of a lawyer.

12:57I am not a lawyer, so this is just my amateur understanding.

13:01Irish law and other forms of defamation law,

13:05you have to prove that the statements are true or you lose or something like that.

13:10And again, don't take my advice.

13:11This is just my idiot understanding.

13:13But, in America, if you are a public figure, you have to show reckless disregard for truth or actual malice.

13:22And that's, of course, a state of mind argument.

13:24And, of course, everybody who wants to defame anybody else just knows that they don't keep,

13:28they don't write and say, they don't write an email to someone and say,

13:31well, I know this is false, but I hate the guy.

13:32Like, they know that that's a legal standard, so they just work around it.

13:35And it's pretty terrible because you have to prove state of mind or reckless disregard for the truth and all of that.

13:42I think it's a terrible standard, but America has always, well, I would say it's erred on the side of free speech,

13:50but this is just because the media wants the ability to lie about people without being held accountable.

13:56So, the letter from Trump's lawyer demands, one, a full and fair retraction of the documentary and statements

14:04as conspicuously as originally published, two, an apology, three, compensation for harm.

14:09Additionally, it requires the BBC to preserve all evidence, including communications, sources, documents,

14:14and electronic data with metadata.

14:16Warning against destruction, failure to comply by the deadline would lead to a lawsuit for no less than a billion dollars.

14:23So, what is required here?

14:27What is the hell that the BBC is being put through?

14:32Well, they have to say sorry, and they have to retract and say this was false.

14:38This is misleading.

14:40And compensation for harm, I don't know what the demand is.

14:43I don't know if anyone knows what the demand is, but I don't know what the demand is.

14:48The BBC's response.

14:49The BBC confirmed receipt and stated they would respond in due course

14:54while defending their overall impartiality.

14:57As of 2.45 p.m. Eastern Standard on November 11th, 2025, the BBC has only partially responded

15:03with an apology, as noted above N. Samir Shah's error of judgment comment.

15:08No conspicuous retraction or compensation has been offered.

15:12Word is that the BBC is preparing to contest the demand and may enter into a lawsuit rather than settle,

15:17but without any formal reply.

15:19This is only speculation.

15:20So, the threat aligns to Trump's history of suing the media for defamation,

15:26including a $10 billion suit against CBS over an edited 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris,

15:31a suit against ABC and George Stephanopoulos for statements about a rape case,

15:35threats against the Des Moines Register, Bob Woodward,

15:37and the Pulitzer's critics see it as part of efforts to intimidate the media

15:42while supporters view it as holding outlets accountable.

15:44The incident has strained US-UK media relations,

15:47with Trump calling the BBC a number one ally, yet corrupt.

15:51No further developments have been reported beyond the threat as of the current date.

15:57So, I think that's, I mean, obviously, I think it's interesting.

16:05Everything that is forced is corrupt.

16:07Everything that is coerced is corrupt by nature and gets worse and worse as time goes on.

16:14Now, I know that there are some libertarians who aren't particularly keen on defamation.

16:19I think it is essential because it can do absolutely real world harm, right?

16:24So, again, this is just legal theory, not legal advice.

16:28But if you own a restaurant, and the restaurant owner across the street,

16:33who's in competition with you, writes an article or publishes something

16:37or gives you a review that says that he found a rat head in his soup

16:42when he went to dine there, and this is false,

16:45well, that's going to cost you a lot of business, right?

16:48It's going to cost you a lot of business.

16:51And it's going to spread.

16:52And where they smoke this fire, people don't want to take a chance

16:57of having a rat's head in their soup.

16:59So, you lie, and this causes a lot of harm.

17:02It can destroy someone's life savings, destroy their business,

17:05causes a lot of stress.

17:07So, don't do that.

17:09A reputation is, and trust me, I say this with great cheese,

17:14greater to the nads' personal experience,

17:17that reputation is a very important thing.

17:19And if people wreck their own reputation, right,

17:23can take a lifetime to build up and 20 seconds to destroy.

17:28So, a reputation is something that you work very hard to build up,

17:31a reputation for integrity, impartiality, honesty, directness, virtue, integrity.

17:36It takes a lot to build up a reputation.

17:40And a reputation has significant economic value.

17:44Significant economic value.

17:46So, in general, over the course of my business career,

17:50where possible, I have done business on a handshake.

17:54Because I keep my word.

17:56I pay my bills.

17:57So, I don't need to involve battalions of lawyers

18:01every time I want to do business with someone.

18:04Now, again, where important, where necessary, where required,

18:07it's all papered over.

18:08But I generally do business on a handshake.

18:12So, that's having a good reputation saves a lot of money.

18:17You know, I mean, I got married without a prenup.

18:20I don't generally try to involve lawyers where possible in things that I do.

18:26So, if you have a reputation for honesty, integrity,

18:30and fair and plain dealing in business,

18:32it's a lot cheaper to do business with you.

18:34And therefore, people will want to do business with you.

18:38So, a reputation is a very important thing.

18:42And attacks, false attacks upon a reputation,

18:46are staggeringly damaging.

18:48And again, I say this from direct personal experience.

18:53So, as far as editing a speech, as appears to be the case,

18:58I mean, obviously, I don't know, right?

19:00I don't have access to any internal memos.

19:03Memos, I can't read the minds of anyone.

19:05So, this is all speculative because if there is a lawsuit,

19:08then it will have to go through a process of discovery

19:11and any potential bias.

19:13You know, it has to go through interrogatories.

19:16It has to go through depositions.

19:19It has to go through a review of evidence and all of that.

19:23So, who knows what's going to come out.

19:27So, in general, the media is very left-wing.

19:30That we know, at least in America.

19:31I don't know the degree of Labour versus Conservatives

19:34that are going on in England.

19:35But in America, the media is overwhelmingly left-wing.

19:39And left-wingers, as a whole, hate Trump.

19:43Hate Trump.

19:43For reasons we can perhaps talk about another time,

19:47but that's fairly clear, right?

19:51The fact that this was published on the eve of an election

19:54that disseminated around the world,

19:56and again, I think that there's some geographical blocking

20:00of the BBC in various places,

20:04but it still gets written about, it still gets talked about,

20:07it still gets republished in various areas.

20:08So, the fact that this truly horribly edited speech compilation

20:16was published right before the election,

20:20the idea that that's an accident, to me,

20:22strains all credibility.

20:24I would not believe that for a single split second.

20:29Now, you can see edits, right?

20:31It's not a continual flow.

20:33You can see edits, right?

20:34And assembling language that is 50 minutes apart

20:41and putting one before the other

20:42is not an accident at all.

20:45It's very clear.

20:47And it creates a misleading impression.

20:51So, an analogy for me would be

20:54if somebody was accused of a crime

20:56and said, I'm not guilty,

20:59and they took out the word not

21:00and they published it as, I'm guilty,

21:03that would be horrendous, right?

21:06It would be like saying,

21:07oh, the Bible says that there is no God

21:08because in the Bible,

21:10there is the statement,

21:11a fool in his heart has said there is no God.

21:14And if you take a fool in his heart has said

21:15and you just say there is no God,

21:17then you're creating something

21:18entirely misleading.

21:21Entirely misleading.

21:23I don't know if you've ever been involved

21:24in conflicts with people

21:25who misinterpret,

21:27willfully misinterpret

21:28just about everything that you say,

21:31but you can't have conversations with people.

21:33Who lie.

21:35You just, you can't.

21:36I mean, there's no sanity.

21:37There's no conversation.

21:39Oh, so what you're really saying is,

21:40it's like, no, no,

21:41can you just deal with what I said?

21:43No, no, no.

21:43But what you mean is like,

21:45no, no, no,

21:45can we just have a conversation

21:47at the level where you deal

21:48with what I've actually said

21:50and for what,

21:51not for what you hallucinate, right?

21:53It is wretched.

21:56So, every institution,

21:58this is sort of a well-known phenomenon,

21:59every institution,

22:01not specifically,

22:02they get dedicated

22:03to right-wing causes

22:03becomes left-wing over time.

22:07And there was a time,

22:09of course,

22:09when I was young

22:09that the BBC seemed

22:11to be quite keen

22:11on maintaining

22:13sort of old school

22:15or old type British culture.

22:18And that's,

22:20you know,

22:20everything that you build,

22:22that you turn over

22:22to the government

22:23to protect you

22:23will be used to attack you.

22:25It's really,

22:26this is an iron law.

22:28Everything that you build,

22:30that you give to the government

22:31to protect you

22:32will be used

22:33in order to attack you,

22:36to harm you,

22:37to destroy you.

22:38I mean,

22:39it's probably fairly well-known

22:41among this

22:41as a very erudite

22:42and wise audience,

22:44but it's kind of known

22:45that the reason why

22:48education was turned over

22:49to the government

22:50was out of fear

22:51of the Catholics coming in, right?

22:53So America was founded

22:54in its sort of

22:56modern incarnation

22:57as a white Anglo-Saxon

22:59Protestant country, right?

23:02And then when the Catholics came

23:03and the Italians

23:04and the Irish

23:06and others,

23:07when the Catholics came,

23:09the Protestants

23:09were very concerned

23:10that the Catholics

23:11were going to have

23:12their own schools

23:13and not teach

23:14the same values

23:14as the Protestants,

23:15which of course,

23:16by definition,

23:16sort of different values.

23:18And so they ran

23:19to the government

23:19to protect

23:21American culture.

23:23Quick question.

23:24How would you say

23:26how would you say

23:28the American educational system

23:30is doing

23:31at the moment

23:32at the moment

23:34in protecting

23:35American culture?

23:36Well, I think

23:36it's fairly safe

23:37to say

23:37that it has become

23:38like, you know,

23:39the immune system

23:39that attacks

23:40all the healthy cells.

23:42Oof.

23:43Oof.

23:44Right?

23:46Now,

23:47they don't keep

23:48records

23:49at the BBC

23:50of

23:52political affiliation.

23:54Are they left?

23:55Are they labor?

23:55Are they more conservative?

23:56And so on, right?

23:58So there is

23:59a 2017 investigation

24:01by the Guido Falks blog,

24:03a right-leaning

24:03political commentary site,

24:05Electoral Commission

24:06records of donations

24:07from BBC staff

24:08between 2001

24:09and 2017.

24:11Three-quarters of them,

24:13it's not a huge number,

24:14right?

24:14So three-quarters

24:15of the donations

24:17were to the Labor Party

24:19and 19%

24:21to the Conservatives,

24:23right?

24:2374% Labor,

24:2519% Conservatives

24:26and others,

24:28Liberal Democrats,

24:29the Greens

24:29and so on

24:30was 7%.

24:31And again,

24:32it's a small

24:33number

24:34and so on.

24:36But there are

24:37other analyses

24:38that Telegraph did

24:39one in 2014

24:39found comparable

24:41imbalances

24:41with about 70%

24:42of BBC-linked donations

24:44going to

24:44to Labor.

24:45The BBC has

24:47high trade union

24:48density,

24:4980 to 90%

24:50in some departments

24:51and of course

24:53government unions

24:54historically in

24:55the UK

24:56affiliate with

24:56the Labor Party.

24:58So

24:59speculations on X

25:01speculate 90%

25:03or more

25:04of BBC staff

25:05vote Labor.

25:05These are anecdotal

25:06and unsubstantiated.

25:09YouGov polls

25:102023 to 2025

25:12show about

25:1331%

25:13of the UK

25:14public view,

25:15sorry,

25:1531%

25:16of the UK

25:16public view

25:17the BBC

25:17as left-leaning

25:18versus 19%

25:20right-leaning.

25:22Now,

25:23the fact is

25:24of course

25:24that

25:24these numbers

25:26should be published

25:27and the fact

25:28that they're not

25:28is important.

25:31It is

25:31impossible

25:32for a

25:34government-funded

25:35institution

25:35to be neutral

25:37and factual

25:38about the

25:39government.

25:40Come on.

25:42I mean,

25:43if you were

25:43to go to

25:44some

25:45madman

25:46advertising

25:47agency,

25:48right?

25:49ABC

25:49advertising

25:50agency.

25:51An ABC

25:52advertising

25:53agency

25:54gets 100%

25:55of its revenues

25:56from McDonald's

25:58and Coca-Cola.

25:59100% of its revenues

26:01from McDonald's,

26:03two clients,

26:03McDonald's and Coca-Cola.

26:05It gets

26:05tens of millions

26:07of dollars a year

26:08in revenues

26:09or hundreds of millions,

26:10whatever,

26:10some giant figure,

26:11right?

26:12Gets tens of millions

26:12of dollars a year

26:14in revenue

26:14from McDonald's

26:16and Coca-Cola.

26:17Now,

26:19does anyone

26:19with half a brain

26:21think

26:22that these

26:23advertising

26:24agency

26:25executives

26:26and workers

26:27can be

26:28objective

26:29and neutral

26:30about McDonald's

26:32and Coca-Cola?

26:33The hand

26:34that pays

26:35the piper

26:36calls

26:37the tune.

26:39So,

26:39you get all

26:40of your money

26:42from the government.

26:43Can you be objective

26:44about the government?

26:46Let's say

26:47that there is

26:48a politician,

26:49this is like,

26:50again,

26:51I'm sorry,

26:51I know you guys

26:52get all of this,

26:53but just for the

26:54general audience,

26:55like this is just

26:55a thought exercise,

26:56right?

26:57So,

26:58a politician

26:59is gaining

27:01great success

27:02as a free market

27:03politician,

27:04a Javier Millet

27:04or whatever it is.

27:05So,

27:06a politician

27:07of the UK

27:07is gaining

27:08strong ascendancy.

27:10He's doing

27:11really well,

27:12really

27:12raking in the votes.

27:15I don't know,

27:15he's tall

27:16and good looking.

27:17You know,

27:18whatever calls,

27:19whatever

27:19triggers these kinds

27:21of things

27:22in the world

27:22as a whole,

27:22right?

27:23So,

27:24he's doing

27:24really well

27:24and one of

27:25his big platforms

27:26is to eliminate

27:28the license tax

27:29that funds

27:30the BBC.

27:32Get rid of it!

27:33Let the BBC

27:34be thrown

27:34to the vagaries

27:35and exciting

27:36and tumultuous

27:37life

27:38as a free market

27:39entity.

27:40No more subsidies,

27:42no more monopolies,

27:43no more legal

27:43protections,

27:44no more force,

27:45no more violence,

27:46no more moat

27:47of taxpayer blood

27:48surrounding

27:49the public broadcaster.

27:51Does anyone alive

27:53even remotely

27:55imagine

27:55that the BBC

27:57would be

27:58completely neutral

27:59regarding a politician

28:01that was going

28:02to eliminate

28:03all their government

28:04protections

28:05and force

28:06taxpayer funding

28:07if he was doing

28:08really well?

28:08anybody who says

28:11that the BBC

28:12could retain

28:13even a scrap

28:13of neutrality

28:14when dealing

28:15with a politician

28:16who threatened

28:17the very lifeblood

28:18of their blue blood

28:19privilege

28:20is crazy.

28:22I mean,

28:22everybody knows

28:23that

28:24the American media

28:26gets most of its,

28:28a significant portion

28:29of its revenue

28:31from

28:32pharmaceutical companies,

28:34and you don't

28:37report

28:37stuff very critical

28:39of the pharmaceutical

28:40companies

28:41when the pharmaceutical

28:41companies

28:42are paying

28:43a good chunk

28:45of your salary.

28:45It's just not possible.

28:49Human beings

28:50respond to

28:51incentives,

28:53to foundational

28:53insight,

28:54right?

28:54All human desires

28:55are infinite,

28:57all resources

28:58are finite,

28:59and human beings

29:00respond to incentives.

29:01Or,

29:02as the old saying goes,

29:03it is impossible

29:04to get a man

29:05to understand something

29:06when his salary

29:08requires him

29:10to not understand it.

29:13Now,

29:14there is

29:15some commercial

29:16income

29:16for the BBC.

29:18The license fee

29:18income

29:19is

29:203.843

29:21billion pounds

29:23because the

29:24license fee

29:25has gone up.

29:26Commercial income

29:272.155,

29:29other income

29:290.9,

29:31and

29:32so,

29:33yeah,

29:33I mean,

29:34close to

29:344 billion pounds

29:35coming from

29:36the license fee.

29:37The

29:38coverage

29:40from the BBC

29:41on a politician

29:42who was threatening

29:43their

29:44sweet bloody

29:44license fee

29:45deal

29:45would be

29:46hysterical

29:47and relentless

29:48and horrible.

29:50Now,

29:50of course,

29:51a lot of

29:52the Republican

29:52platform

29:53is to do

29:54with privatization.

29:56They're free

29:56market people,

29:57they're free

29:57will people,

29:59the free

29:59private,

30:01privatizing

30:02is a big thing

30:03in the

30:04Republican platform.

30:06Now,

30:06of course,

30:07there's all this

30:07political stuff

30:08and I get all of that

30:09and,

30:09you know,

30:09close the borders

30:10means fewer

30:11illegals into America,

30:12which means that

30:13the

30:14representation

30:16in Congress

30:16would go down.

30:18So,

30:19it's inevitable

30:20and natural

30:20that there'd be a lot

30:22of political

30:22considerations,

30:23but

30:24there is,

30:25of course,

30:26the direct

30:26raw

30:27financial

30:28considerations

30:28as well.

30:30And that is

30:31nothing to be

30:32sneezed at,

30:33there's nothing to be

30:34taken lightly,

30:35it is a direct

30:35incentive.

30:37And this is why,

30:37this is why the

30:38government

30:39loves to collect

30:40money on behalf

30:41of the media,

30:42right?

30:43Happens in many

30:44places around

30:46the world.

30:47Donald Trump,

30:47of course,

30:48has repeatedly

30:48threatened to

30:49defund PBS,

30:50the public

30:51broadcasting service,

30:53because he says

30:54the woke stuff,

30:54he talks about

30:55the left-wing

30:55bias and so on,

30:57right?

30:58Now,

30:59PBS,

31:00along with

31:00National Public

31:01Radio,

31:02only gets about

31:0315% of its

31:04funding through

31:06the Corporation

31:06for Public

31:07Broadcasting.

31:07So,

31:09I mean,

31:09that's 80

31:10to 85

31:10million dollars

31:11annually,

31:12that's not a

31:13small amount

31:14of money,

31:14no matter which

31:15way you slice

31:15it.

31:16So,

31:16when Trump

31:17is threatening

31:18or saying

31:19we should get

31:20rid of subsidies

31:20for public

31:21broadcasters,

31:22and the

31:22subsidies in

31:23America are

31:23much smaller

31:24than the

31:25subsidies for

31:25the BBC,

31:26then yeah,

31:27of course the

31:27BBC,

31:28they've got

31:28their friends

31:29over on

31:29PBS and

31:30NPR,

31:32and there's

31:32a wave of,

31:33you know,

31:33we don't have

31:34enough money

31:35and privatization.

31:36So,

31:37what they do,

31:39and it's a

31:39wild thing to

31:40see,

31:40right,

31:41it's a wild

31:41thing to

31:42see.

31:43So,

31:43what they do,

31:43and you can

31:44see this all

31:44over on X

31:45the last couple

31:45of days,

31:46it's like,

31:47oh,

31:48but the

31:48British BBC

31:49is a

31:50treasured,

31:50honored

31:51institution

31:52defending

31:52public values

31:54and integrity

31:55and loved

31:56by the British

31:57population,

31:58blah,

31:58blah.

31:59Absolute,

32:00absolute

32:01unmitigated

32:02Pratt-based

32:04bullcrap.

32:05I mean,

32:05just absolute,

32:07you know,

32:09if you lock

32:09your wife

32:09in your

32:10basement,

32:10don't try

32:11and tell

32:11me how

32:12much she

32:12loves you.

32:13Oh,

32:13the British

32:14people adore

32:15the BBC,

32:15they love

32:16the BBC,

32:16okay,

32:17then maybe

32:18stop waving

32:19prison in

32:19their face

32:20to get

32:20them to

32:20fund it.

32:21Maybe,

32:22maybe,

32:23because you

32:24can't chain

32:25someone to

32:26your basement

32:26and then say,

32:27oh,

32:27but they

32:28love me,

32:28they're totally

32:29respecting me,

32:30they wouldn't

32:30want to be

32:31anywhere else.

32:31It's like,

32:32okay,

32:33take the

32:33chains off

32:34then.

32:35Take them

32:36off.

32:36Come on.

32:37Come on,

32:38you psycho.

32:39Take them

32:40off.

32:40You say,

32:41she wants

32:42to be there.

32:44She loves

32:44you so much.

32:45The best

32:45husband ever.

32:46Maybe take

32:47the manacles

32:47off her

32:48leg and

32:49let her

32:50stretch her

32:51getaway

32:52six a

32:52little and

32:53see which

32:54way they

32:54trot.

32:55If,

32:56if the

32:58British

32:58population,

32:59British

32:59public,

33:00so loves

33:00to see the

33:01BBC,

33:02so loves

33:03it.

33:03Oh,

33:03can't get

33:04enough.

33:04Oh,

33:05smashing.

33:06Oh,

33:06glorious.

33:07Oh,

33:07lovely.

33:08Lovely.

33:09Okay,

33:10then.

33:11Write a

33:11check,

33:12assholes.

33:14Write a

33:14check.

33:15Go pay.

33:16Go pay on

33:17your own.

33:17You care

33:18about it

33:18so much

33:19because

33:19the BBC

33:20is like,

33:20we can't,

33:22we can't

33:22possibly,

33:23oh,

33:23no,

33:23oh,

33:24monstrous.

33:25No,

33:25no,

33:25we can't

33:26because,

33:27you see,

33:28then we

33:29couldn't be

33:29objective.

33:30We would

33:30be beholden,

33:31beholden,

33:32I say,

33:33we would be

33:34beholden to

33:35the advertisers

33:36who pay our

33:37bills.

33:38Ah,

33:39so,

33:39of course,

33:39the abstraction

33:40of that general

33:40principle,

33:41which is easy

33:43as ABC,

33:44is to say,

33:45oh,

33:45okay,

33:45so you

33:47need government

33:47money because

33:48you don't want

33:48to be beholden

33:49to the people

33:49who pay your

33:50bills,

33:51which,

33:51of course,

33:51is a full

33:52confession that

33:53you're completely

33:53beholden to

33:55the government

33:56who's paying

33:57your bills,

33:57that you are

33:58captured by

33:59the government.

33:59You are a

34:01Bertolt Brecht,

34:02East Germany-based

34:03slavish state

34:05propagandist who

34:07sings for your

34:08supper whatever

34:09tune the government

34:10wants.

34:11And,

34:12of course,

34:12the other thing

34:12too,

34:12and this was

34:13not lost on

34:14me,

34:15on the

34:15great propaganda

34:17purge of

34:19anyone not

34:21on board with

34:22the leftist

34:22lunacy that

34:23was going on

34:24from sort of

34:242015 to

34:252020 when I

34:26got deplatformed,

34:28I mean,

34:29you know

34:30that the

34:33subsidized,

34:34the captured,

34:35the state

34:37broadcasters are

34:39writing about

34:40their direct

34:40competitors,

34:41right?

34:41if Coca-Cola

34:44is writing

34:44about Pepsi,

34:45especially if

34:46Pepsi is

34:46kicking Coca-Cola's

34:47ass,

34:48if Coca-Cola

34:49is writing

34:50about Pepsi,

34:52does anyone

34:52even remotely

34:53imagine that

34:55Coca-Cola is

34:56going to be

34:56objective about

34:58Pepsi?

34:59When you see

35:00these,

35:01this is this

35:02car versus

35:02this ABC

35:03car versus

35:04XYZ car,

35:05well,

35:05look at all

35:05these,

35:06we've got all

35:06these checkboxes

35:07and they just

35:07don't.

35:07It's like,

35:08well,

35:08that's not

35:08objective,

35:09right?

35:10Assuming like

35:10if ABC

35:12car company

35:12is paying

35:13for the

35:13product

35:13comparison,

35:14they're going

35:14to choose

35:14their strengths

35:15against their

35:16competitor's

35:17weakness.

35:17Nobody thinks

35:17that that's

35:18objective,

35:18right?

35:19Because you

35:20go to XYZ

35:20car company,

35:21they've got

35:21exactly the

35:22same comparison,

35:23they just do

35:24their strengths

35:24against ABC

35:25company's

35:25weaknesses.

35:27You know,

35:27I remember

35:28many years

35:29in 2018

35:30or whatever,

35:31I was trying

35:31to explain

35:32to my daughter

35:32what I did

35:33and I said,

35:34hey,

35:35look,

35:35here's me

35:36on Twitter

35:36and every

35:37time I post

35:38you know,

35:39I get

35:3910,

35:4020,

35:4130,

35:4150,000

35:42views and

35:42retweets and

35:43likes and

35:44comments and

35:45so on and

35:45I said,

35:46okay,

35:46let's go over

35:46to the New

35:47York Times,

35:47let's go over

35:48to CNN and

35:49see how they're

35:49doing,

35:50right?

35:50And we laughed

35:50at those

35:51numbers because

35:52they were doing

35:53well,

35:54very badly,

35:54right?

35:55And it must,

35:56look,

35:56I get it,

35:56it must be

35:57frustrating as

35:58hell.

35:58And can you

35:59imagine,

36:00you go and

36:00study journalism,

36:01you get heavily

36:03into debt,

36:04you develop a

36:05fashion or

36:05substance

36:05addiction,

36:06and then you

36:07get your spot

36:10on the coveted

36:11Woodward and

36:12Bernstein desk

36:13of some

36:14old gray lady

36:16illustrious

36:18Watergate

36:18busting

36:19paper of

36:20record.

36:22Smells like

36:23ink,

36:24sweat,

36:25and power.

36:27Ah,

36:28work your whole

36:28life,

36:28you dream of

36:29it.

36:30You watch

36:30Dustin Hoffman

36:31and Robert

36:32Redford

36:32fulfilling the

36:34communist agenda

36:34of getting rid

36:35Richard Nixon

36:37and,

36:38oh,

36:39I'm going to

36:39be a,

36:40I'm going to

36:40speak truth to

36:41power,

36:42I'm going to

36:43take down,

36:44I'm going to

36:45afflict the

36:45comfortable and

36:46comfort the

36:47afflicted and

36:47I'm going to

36:47be a force for

36:48moral good

36:49and glorious

36:51integrity

36:51in the world.

36:53And you,

36:54you move,

36:56you pay

36:56exorbitant rents,

36:58Chicago,

36:59Los Angeles,

37:01New York,

37:01of course,

37:02and you put up

37:03with a fairly

37:03crappy standard

37:04of living,

37:05but it's

37:05all right,

37:06it's all

37:07right,

37:07because you

37:09are going to

37:10be doing

37:11good in the

37:12world,

37:13holding corrupt

37:15corporations'

37:16feet to the

37:16fire.

37:18And,

37:18of course,

37:18all the

37:19writers,

37:20all the

37:21West Wing

37:22lunatics,

37:22all the

37:23people with

37:24pressed cards

37:25who are on

37:25the left

37:26are just so

37:26full of

37:28CJ-style

37:29integrity.

37:30And then,

37:33so you do

37:33all of that,

37:34you go into

37:34debt,

37:35you have to

37:36hang out with

37:36God help you,

37:37a bunch of

37:37other journalists

37:38all patting each

37:39other's backs

37:39while drinking

37:40too much.

37:42Sociopathy and

37:43substance abuse

37:44are very high

37:44in journalism.

37:46And then,

37:47oh,

37:48damn it,

37:49oh,

37:50come on,

37:50man,

37:51what happens?

37:53Oh,

37:54the entire

37:54tech landscape

37:55changes and

37:57now some

37:58guy screeching

37:59away in his

38:00car while

38:00driving to

38:01work is

38:01getting more

38:01views than

38:02you.

38:02Utterly

38:03untrained,

38:04doesn't even

38:05have a

38:06research department,

38:08doesn't have a

38:08giant building,

38:10three chords of

38:11the truth,

38:11one microphone,

38:12a webcam,

38:12and the truth,

38:14and he's

38:14kicking your

38:15ass,

38:15boy.

38:17That's really

38:17frustrating.

38:19You know,

38:19I remember

38:19reading a

38:20short story

38:22many years

38:23ago,

38:23stuck with

38:24me,

38:24like,

38:25burrs to

38:25an elk's

38:26ass,

38:27right?

38:27It really,

38:28really stuck

38:29with me.

38:30And it was

38:30a story

38:30about

38:32traveling

38:33to a

38:34distant

38:34star.

38:35And

38:36one of

38:37the spaceships

38:38that was

38:38traveling

38:38to said

38:40distant

38:40star

38:41was a

38:42sublight

38:42spaceship

38:44and it

38:45took,

38:45like,

38:45three or

38:46four

38:46generations.

38:47Like,

38:48they all

38:48were born,

38:49they lived

38:50on the

38:50spaceship,

38:50they died

38:51on the

38:51spaceship,

38:51and then

38:52their kids

38:52took it

38:53over,

38:53and it

38:54took,

38:54you know,

38:55multiple

38:55generations

38:55to get

38:57to this

38:57distant

38:58star.

38:59And then

39:00when they

39:01got to

39:01this distant

39:02star,

39:03they found

39:04a colony

39:05of humans.

39:08And they

39:09come down

39:10and they

39:10say,

39:11what the

39:12hell?

39:13How are

39:14there people

39:14here?

39:15Do you

39:15speak English?

39:17How are

39:17you here?

39:18It took us

39:20three or four

39:20generations to

39:21get here.

39:22How are you

39:23here?

39:23And of

39:25course,

39:25the people

39:25who are

39:26on the

39:26planet,

39:27on the

39:27colony,

39:27they say,

39:28maybe with

39:29a British

39:29accent,

39:30oh,

39:30Tosh,

39:31oh,

39:31so sorry,

39:32we couldn't

39:32find you

39:32in the

39:33bottomless

39:34depths of

39:34space.

39:36Funny

39:36story,

39:37about 15

39:38years after

39:39you left

39:40on your

39:40multi-generational

39:41interplanetary,

39:42interstellar

39:43journey,

39:44we figured

39:45out how to

39:45fly faster

39:46than light,

39:46and we

39:46got here

39:47in about

39:4712 minutes.

39:49Ooh,

39:50bummer.

39:51generations

39:52of people

39:52living and

39:53dying on a

39:53slow-moving

39:54spaceship.

39:55It turns

39:55out they

39:56FTL'd,

39:57fasted and

39:58lighted the

39:58whole thing

39:59shortly after

40:00the slow-ass

40:02spaceship left.

40:04Bummer.

40:05Same thing

40:06with the media,

40:06right?

40:07Well,

40:08you've got to

40:08work all your

40:10contacts,

40:11and you have to

40:12build these giant

40:12buildings,

40:13and you have to

40:14invest in a

40:15zillion dollars

40:16worth of ink,

40:17paper,

40:17distribution

40:19networks,

40:20phone systems,

40:21computer systems,

40:23of the gods.

40:24Got to pay

40:25a thousand people

40:26a salary,

40:26500 people a

40:27salary,

40:28but to travel

40:28all over the

40:29world.

40:30Wait,

40:30hang on,

40:31what's this

40:31douchebag with

40:32the PowerPoint

40:32doing from

40:33his basement?

40:34Oh,

40:34no.

40:37That sucks.

40:39I'd be

40:40cheesed.

40:41I'd be

40:41cheesed like

40:42an ass

40:42full of

40:42cheddar.

40:44I get it.

40:44Hey,

40:45it sucks.

40:46It sucks.

40:48But it

40:49became a

40:49raw meritocracy,

40:50and the

40:50barrier to

40:51entry

40:51dissolved.

40:53And anyone

40:54can talk to

40:55the world

40:55now.

40:55I'm talking

40:56to you.

40:57Anyone can

40:58talk to

40:58the world.

40:58And it

40:59really just

40:59comes down

40:59to integrity,

41:00passion,

41:01charisma,

41:01whatever a

41:02sprinkling

41:02magic pixie

41:04dust of

41:04X,

41:05it factor

41:05goes on,

41:07and boom!

41:09You can

41:09just go

41:10faster than

41:11light,

41:11and you

41:12don't have

41:12to have

41:12the three

41:13generation

41:14trundled

41:15testicle of

41:16a giant

41:16round

41:16spaceship.

41:17That is

41:18the reality.

41:19Yeah,

41:19so it

41:20sort of

41:21sucks.

41:22Think of

41:22all of

41:23these

41:23people

41:23who,

41:24you know,

41:25what was it,

41:25Trump vaulted

41:26over in

41:262016,

41:272015,

41:282016,

41:28he vaulted

41:29over 17

41:30professional

41:31politicians,

41:32guy basically

41:33wandered into

41:34politics,

41:35and won

41:36on three

41:37things,

41:38right?

41:38One on

41:38only Rosie

41:40O'Donnell,

41:40right?

41:40Of course,

41:41women,

41:41fat pigs,

41:42only Rosie

41:42O'Donnell,

41:42beautiful,

41:44funny,

41:45that's

41:45number one.

41:46Number two,

41:47we should

41:47never have

41:47gone into

41:48Iraq,

41:49Jeb

41:49Bush's

41:49conflict

41:50with

41:50Jeb

41:51Bush,

41:52and

41:52number

41:52three,

41:53well,

41:55I take

41:55the tax

41:55breaks,

41:56all of

41:57Hillary's

41:57friends

41:57take the

41:58tax breaks,

41:58she was

41:58a senator,

41:59she had

41:59years to

41:59close off

42:00these tax

42:00breaks,

42:01why didn't

42:01she?

42:01Because all

42:01her friends

42:02donate to

42:03her to

42:03not do

42:03that,

42:03so,

42:04you know,

42:04just that

42:05kind of

42:05stuff,

42:05just the

42:05plain,

42:06frank,

42:06jaw-dropping

42:07honesty that

42:09people had

42:09given up

42:10on in

42:10politics just

42:11came roaring

42:12back because

42:14he didn't

42:14have to have

42:14backers,

42:16and having

42:16himself being

42:17mentored by

42:17Roy Cohn,

42:19he understood

42:20what he was

42:20up against,

42:21and it's

42:22got to be

42:23really frustrating,

42:24you know,

42:24and I have

42:25this,

42:25if you want

42:26to talk

42:27about this

42:28or whatever's

42:28on your mind,

42:29I'm happy to

42:29take your

42:30questions or

42:31comments,

42:31but,

42:32you know,

42:32I see this

42:33when people,

42:34you know,

42:35get kind of

42:36petty and

42:36vicious on

42:37X towards

42:38me,

42:38right?

42:38Hey,

42:38disagreement's

42:39fantastic,

42:39right?

42:40I had a

42:40great debate

42:40this morning

42:41with a

42:41fellow about

42:41Christian

42:42forgiveness.

42:43We disagreed

42:43quite a bit

42:44at the

42:44beginning,

42:44but we,

42:45I think,

42:45came to a

42:45very good

42:46detente near

42:46the end.

42:47So,

42:47a great,

42:48you know,

42:48different thing.

42:49Everyone wants

42:50to say,

42:50oh,

42:50you just can't

42:51handle a

42:51difference of

42:52opinion,

42:52or you ban

42:53people just

42:53for disagreeing

42:54with you.

42:54It's like,

42:55no,

42:55I just,

42:56I don't ban

42:57people at my

42:58pool party for

42:59liking a different

43:00kind of

43:00drink.

43:00I ban people

43:01at my

43:01pool party

43:02if they're

43:02peeing in

43:03the pool.

43:04Then you're

43:04like,

43:04oh,

43:05I just

43:05disagreed with

43:05them.

43:06It's like,

43:06yeah,

43:06but if

43:06disagreeing,

43:07it's about

43:07where the

43:07human urine

43:09belongs in

43:09the pool,

43:09that's a

43:10fairly

43:10significant

43:11disagreement.

43:12Get the

43:12F off my

43:12property,

43:14you exploding

43:15bladder sociopath.

43:16So,

43:17when people

43:18on X

43:19rip into me,

43:20I mean,

43:21all I know,

43:21I don't know

43:22much about them,

43:22obviously,

43:23other than their

43:24lack of impulse

43:25control.

43:25But,

43:26and this is

43:26really important

43:27for your life,

43:27right?

43:27Because people,

43:28you know,

43:28if you do

43:29any kind

43:29of good

43:29in the world,

43:29people are

43:30going to

43:30rip on you

43:31and attack

43:31you and

43:32hound you

43:33and lie

43:34about you.

43:34It's the

43:35deal,

43:35right?

43:36I get it.

43:37So,

43:38you know,

43:39if I run

43:39a bad

43:39restaurant

43:40and Gordon

43:40Ramsey moves

43:41in next

43:41door,

43:42I don't

43:42like Gordon

43:43Ramsey

43:43because he's

43:44better at it

43:45than I am

43:46and I'm

43:46going to

43:46lose my

43:47business.

43:47I get that.

43:48So,

43:48when people

43:49rip on you,

43:50and they

43:50will,

43:51the only way

43:52to not get

43:52ripped on is

43:53to ignore

43:54evil completely,

43:54which is to

43:55collude with

43:55it or

43:56ally with

43:56it,

43:56which is

43:57to support

43:57it.

43:59So,

43:59people rip

43:59on you

44:00and people

44:00like get

44:00really aggressive

44:01and rip

44:01on me

44:02and you

44:02idiot and

44:02how can

44:03you do

44:03this and

44:03you're so

44:03corrupt and

44:04you're a bad

44:04guy and

44:05blah,

44:05right?

44:06And all

44:07they're telling

44:07me is that

44:09these stupid,

44:11pathetic,

44:12ridiculous tactics

44:13work,

44:14right?

44:14People do

44:15what works.

44:16And if you

44:17have shitty

44:18manipulative

44:18tactics of

44:19abuse and

44:20manipulation,

44:21right?

44:22Then all

44:23you're telling

44:24me is that

44:24this works.

44:25on the

44:26people around

44:26you.

44:26And I

44:27say this

44:27quite often

44:28on X.

44:29Like I'm

44:29really sorry

44:31that this

44:31nonsense works

44:32on the

44:32people around

44:32you,

44:33kind of

44:33tells me

44:33the low

44:34quality people

44:34you have

44:35around you,

44:35but it

44:36doesn't

44:36work on

44:36me.

44:37But it

44:37doesn't

44:38work on

44:38me.

44:39The BBC

44:40funded,

44:42promoted,

44:42and paid

44:43Jimmy Savile,

44:44one of the

44:45most horrendous

44:47child sexual

44:48predators in

44:50human history.

44:51Gave him

44:51shows,

44:53prestige,

44:54he was

44:54best friend

44:54with Prince

44:55Charles,

44:56gave Prince

44:56Charles marriage

44:57advice.

44:58Jesus.

45:00And this

45:00guy,

45:01Jimmy Savile,

45:02volunteered at

45:03hospitals so

45:04that he could

45:04rape sick

45:05children.

45:07Hundreds and

45:07hundreds of

45:08victims,

45:08countless

45:08victims.

45:10And the BBC

45:10missed that

45:10completely.

45:12Funded,

45:12promoted,

45:13praised.

45:14BBC's been

45:15actively covering

45:15up immigrant

45:17rape gangs

45:18since

45:20about the

45:211950s.

45:23That's

45:2370 years.

45:25That's

45:2670 years.

45:28And after

45:28that,

45:29and did

45:29this prompt

45:30any

45:31self-examination?

45:33Whoa,

45:33hang on,

45:34we paid and

45:34promoted a

45:35guy who

45:35turned out

45:36to be a

45:37prolific

45:37raper of

45:38sick

45:38children?

45:39Interesting.

45:41I wonder

45:42if there

45:42could be

45:42something a

45:43little bit

45:43off in

45:44our moral

45:45compass if

45:46we missed

45:46that little

45:47detail.

45:48Just a

45:48little bit.

45:49I mean,

45:49wouldn't that

45:50give you,

45:50you know,

45:50if you claim

45:51to be a

45:52moralist and

45:52you claim to

45:53know what's

45:53right and

45:54you claim to

45:54know what's

45:55good and

45:55you claim to

45:56know what's

45:56noble and

45:57you miss

45:58that?

45:59You miss

46:00that?

46:01Not only do

46:02you miss it,

46:02you praise,

46:03promote and

46:03pay it.

46:05That bell-headed

46:06blonde demon in

46:08human form.

46:09Was there any

46:10looking in the

46:11mirror, any

46:12dark tea time

46:12of the soul,

46:13any mea

46:13culpus, at

46:14all, at

46:14all, any

46:16review of how

46:16this was

46:17missed?

46:18Because lots

46:18of people

46:18suspected it,

46:19some people

46:20whispered about

46:20it, so it

46:21wasn't unknown

46:23the rumors

46:24about Jimmy

46:24Savile, and

46:25this is just

46:25one of many

46:26examples,

46:28wasn't unknown.

46:29Was there a

46:29giant institutional

46:30we got to

46:31turn ourselves

46:31inside out?

46:33The fact that

46:34some people

46:35strongly suspected

46:36or perhaps even

46:36knew about

46:37Jimmy Savile

46:38and it

46:41did not

46:41make its

46:41way to

46:42the top,

46:42it was

46:42not acted

46:43upon, that

46:44would be an

46:44absolute

46:44catastrophe of

46:47internal lines

46:49of communication

46:49and checks and

46:50balances.

46:51Any big

46:52meal compass?

46:53When BBC

46:54looks back and

46:55say, well,

46:55we've been

46:55covering up

46:56these rape

46:57gangs for

46:58decade after

46:59decade after

46:59decade,

47:01anything,

47:02Bueller,

47:03anything,

47:04any big waves

47:06of outrage?

47:07Nope.

47:08Not really.

47:09Not really.

47:11So that,

47:11you know,

47:12they seem to

47:13be, you

47:14know,

47:14relatively okay

47:15with, in

47:16general.

47:17Again, maybe

47:17I've missed

47:18something.

47:19I'm obviously

47:20not knowledgeable

47:21about everything.

47:22Maybe I've

47:23missed something,

47:23but I don't

47:24recall it.

47:25I don't recall

47:26the BBC

47:27saying we

47:27did an

47:28absolute

47:28savage

47:29internal

47:30tearing apart

47:30of our

47:31entire systems

47:31of communication,

47:33claustrophobia,

47:34and censorship

47:34to find out

47:35how we

47:37ended up

47:37with Jimmy

47:38Savile

47:39being central

47:41to our

47:42brand

47:43for many

47:44decades.

47:47So,

47:48how anyone

47:49would think

47:50that these

47:50kinds of

47:51institutions

47:51think,

47:54how anyone

47:54thinks that

47:55these institutions

47:56have any moral

47:56high ground

47:57at all

47:57is beyond

47:58comprehension

47:59to me.

48:00How is it

48:01possible?

48:03How is it

48:03possible?

48:05I think

48:06one executive

48:07resigned

48:08about Jimmy

48:10Savile.

48:11The Jimmy

48:12Savile

48:12sexual abuse

48:13scandal,

48:13which erupted

48:13in late 2012

48:14after an ITV

48:15documentary

48:16revealed Savile's

48:17crimes,

48:18led to intense

48:18scrutiny of the

48:19BBC's handling,

48:21particularly the

48:21decision to shelve

48:22a newsnight

48:22investigation into

48:23the allegations

48:24in December

48:242011.

48:26Oh,

48:27there was

48:27chaos and

48:28confusion at the

48:28BBC,

48:29but no

48:29deliberate

48:29cover-up.

48:31No senior

48:31executives were

48:32outright fired

48:33for the

48:33mishandling.

48:34There were

48:34a couple

48:34of resignations,

48:35some temporary

48:36stand-downs and

48:36so on.

48:39Crazy.

48:41Crazy.

48:42Crazy.

48:43No prosecutions,

48:44of course,

48:44right?

48:44Nobody can

48:45ever be held

48:45accountable for

48:46enabling these

48:47kinds of crimes.

48:48I don't know.

48:49I mean,

48:50to me,

48:52if you were

48:53going to

48:53somebody with

48:55all these

48:56degrees on

48:56his,

48:57well,

48:57I'm the

48:57world's best

48:58oncologist,

48:59this guy would

49:00say,

49:00right?

49:00Boy,

49:01I can,

49:02I'm like a

49:03dog,

49:03I can sniff

49:04cancer from

49:05somebody's

49:06sweat or

49:07farts.

49:08I can see

49:08cancer long

49:09before anyone

49:10else can.

49:12I'm a stone

49:13brilliant genius,

49:14irreplaceable,

49:15essential,

49:16the very greatest

49:17cancer detector

49:18in the world.

49:21And this

49:21genius oncologist

49:23has a giant

49:24freaking tumor

49:25on his neck.

49:26would that

49:27not just

49:27be,

49:28I mean,

49:28that would

49:28be bad

49:29comedy.

49:29It would

49:29be too

49:30obvious,

49:30right?

49:30Oh,

49:31look at

49:31me.

49:32I'm the

49:33cancer

49:33whisperer.

49:34I'm the

49:34cancer

49:34sniffer.

49:35I can

49:35sniff cancer

49:36at 300

49:37paces on

49:38a dark,

49:39moonless

49:39night.

49:40Why do

49:41you have a

49:41giant

49:41cancerous

49:43tumor on

49:43your neck?

49:44Or imagine

49:45going to,

49:46you think,

49:47oh,

49:47I got a

49:48weird thing

49:49on my

49:49forehead

49:49here.

49:51I don't

49:51know.

49:51It looks

49:51kind of

49:51weird.

49:52It's like

49:52it's a

49:53weird mole.

49:53It's got

49:53hairs coming

49:54out of

49:54it.

49:55It just

49:55appeared

49:56recently.

49:57I wonder

49:58if it could

49:58be skin

49:59cancer.

50:00And then

50:00you go

50:00to the

50:01best

50:02dermatologist

50:03in the

50:04world.

50:05And the

50:06dermatologist

50:06lectures you

50:07about how

50:07he can

50:08spot cancer

50:09when it's

50:10three cells.

50:11He can

50:12spot cancer

50:13with his

50:14zoomed in.

50:15He says,

50:15you know,

50:16it's like

50:16how you

50:17zoom in

50:17from the

50:17earth down

50:18to a

50:18particular

50:19swimming

50:19pool.

50:19And you

50:19can see

50:20the ripples

50:20on it.

50:20That's me

50:21with the

50:21skin.

50:22And he

50:22has a

50:22giant

50:23cluster

50:24of skin

50:25cancer

50:25on his

50:25forehead.

50:26Would you

50:27take that

50:28person very

50:29seriously?

50:30Would you

50:30invite him

50:30to come

50:31and lecture

50:31you and

50:33the world

50:33on how

50:33to detect

50:34cancers

50:34with this

50:35giant

50:35skin

50:36tumor

50:37hanging

50:37off his

50:37forehead

50:37like a

50:38tusk?

50:39Looks

50:40like the

50:40elephant

50:40man.

50:42No.

50:43That would

50:43be,

50:44and this

50:44is like,

50:45it's not,

50:46we don't live

50:47in countries.

50:48I've even

50:48moved beyond

50:49tax farms.

50:50Now we just

50:50live in

50:50straight up

50:51asylums.

50:51if a

50:54dermatologist

50:54said he

50:55was the

50:56very greatest

50:57at discovering

50:58cancer and

50:59he had a

51:00tumor the

51:00size of a

51:01fist on

51:01his forehead

51:02or neck,

51:04you'd put him

51:05in an

51:05asylum.

51:06Like,

51:06what about

51:07this giant

51:10fist-sized

51:11crusty skin

51:12cancer on

51:12your forehead?

51:13Oh,

51:14that's nothing

51:14that's been

51:15dealt with.

51:15No, but it's

51:16still there.

51:17Yes, but there

51:18was an inquiry

51:19and found it.

51:19No wrongdoing,

51:20blah, blah, blah.

51:21But it's

51:21still there.

51:23The fuck

51:23is wrong

51:23with you?

51:25You freak?

51:26Oh, yes,

51:27I could examine

51:28you and

51:29determine if

51:30you have

51:30cancer.

51:30I'm the

51:30very best

51:31in the

51:31world.

51:31Bro,

51:32you've got

51:33a grapefruit

51:34sized lump

51:34hanging off

51:35your neck.

51:35What the

51:36fuck is

51:36that?

51:37Oh, no,

51:38nothing.

51:39Don't worry

51:39about it.

51:40Nonsense.

51:41Foolishness.

51:42It doesn't

51:42matter.

51:42It's time to

51:43examine you.

51:44You would

51:44never go to

51:45that doctor,

51:46right?

51:46You would

51:46never go to

51:47that dermatologist.

51:48You'd run

51:49out.

51:49You wouldn't

51:49pay your

51:49bill.

51:50You'd never

51:50go to a

51:51doctor who

51:51claimed to

51:52be an

51:52expert in

51:53diagnosing

51:54illness who

51:54himself was

51:55half dead

51:55from the

51:56very same

51:56illness that

51:57he refused

51:57to admit.

51:58And places

51:59like the

52:00BBC, honestly,

52:00they put

52:01themselves forward

52:01as a

52:02moral authority.

52:04Oh, so

52:05virtuous.

52:07Nope.

52:08I mean,

52:09the amount of

52:10scandals that

52:10have embroiled

52:11the BBC

52:11over the

52:12decades is

52:13innumerable,

52:14but I

52:14mean, just

52:14focusing on

52:15Jimmy Sappel and

52:16the cover-up of

52:16the immigrant

52:17rape gangs,

52:17that's

52:18pretty substantial.

52:20You know,

52:21I've not been a

52:22perfect person

52:22over the course

52:23of my life,

52:24but I have

52:25not done

52:25things which

52:26lead to the

52:27mass rape of

52:28hundreds of

52:29thousands of

52:29little girls.

52:30And the

52:31cover-up did

52:31that.

52:32Did that.

52:33Did that.

52:34Oh, but the

52:35problem is

52:35Donald Trump,

52:36you see.

52:37Orange man,

52:38bad.

52:39Oh, he's so

52:40déclassé.

52:41I mean, so

52:41bourgeois,

52:42don't you know?

52:44I don't know.

52:45I mean, the

52:45cover-up of

52:46these gangs

52:46cause hundreds

52:47of thousands

52:47of kids

52:48to get

52:49raped.

52:50I don't

52:50know how

52:51you process

52:51that.

52:51I don't

52:52know how

52:52you deal

52:52with that.

52:53I feel

52:54bad if I

52:54slip a

52:55digit when

52:56talking about

52:57complex economic

52:58issues.

53:00I don't know.

53:01And why?

53:04It's like being

53:05in this

53:06absolute gas-lit

53:07dinner party

53:08from hell

53:08with brain

53:09zombies

53:10chewing on

53:11brains that

53:12they can't

53:12digest.

53:12it's a

53:14madhouse.

53:15If somebody

53:16whose lies

53:17and cover-up

53:17had been

53:18at least

53:19in part

53:19responsible

53:20for the

53:21mass rape

53:22of little

53:22girls,

53:23who then

53:23tried to

53:24come across

53:24to me

53:24as some

53:25sort of

53:25moral

53:25authority,

53:27I just,

53:27I,

53:28again,

53:29it's as

53:29crazy-making

53:30as the guy

53:31with the

53:31giant tumor

53:31telling you

53:32he's an

53:33expert at

53:33knowing

53:33where tumors

53:34are.

53:35He can

53:35detect them

53:35at the

53:36earliest

53:36possible

53:36stages,

53:37and he's

53:37an expert.

53:40It's like

53:41some guy

53:42saying,

53:42oh,

53:42I'm a

53:43total expert

53:44in how

53:45to quit

53:45smoking

53:46and lose

53:46weight,

53:47and he's

53:47a chain-smoking

53:48guy who's

53:48400 pounds.

53:50I don't

53:51know how

53:51people do

53:51it.

53:52Like,

53:52I genuinely,

53:53I don't

53:54know how

53:55people do

53:55it.

53:55How can

53:56they be

53:56so insane

53:58as to

53:59think that

54:00these kinds

54:00of institutions

54:01have any

54:01moral authority

54:02whatsoever?

54:03And,

54:04of course,

54:04that's why

54:04they attack

54:05people like

54:06me.

54:06Of course,

54:08inevitable,

54:08right?

54:09The mafia

54:10whacks the

54:10witnesses,

54:11right?

54:11And I see

54:12clearly,

54:13and perhaps

54:13through my

54:14conversation,

54:16other people

54:16see it too.

54:17That's the

54:18goal,

54:18that's the

54:18hope,

54:18that's the

54:19idea.

54:20All right,

54:20I'm happy to

54:21take anybody's

54:22questions or

54:22comments,

54:23if you like,

54:25and if you

54:26don't have

54:26any,

54:26if you're

54:27just absorbing

54:28like a

54:30giant blast

54:30of sunlit

54:31vitamin D,

54:31the syllable

54:32spilling from

54:33my brain

54:34hole,

54:35I'm happy to

54:35close the

54:36show down.

54:36I'll just

54:36keep it

54:37for a

54:37moment.

54:38You just

54:38have to

54:38raise your

54:38hand to

54:39chat if

54:39you want

54:39to.

54:40And I

54:40really do

54:41appreciate

54:41your time,

54:42your support,

54:44and

54:44freedomain.com

54:46to help out

54:47the show.

54:48And I

54:48guess some,

54:49I know people

54:49are at work

54:50because it's

54:50sort of the

54:51middle of the

54:51day.

54:51But philosophy

54:52never rests.

54:54Okay,

54:54well,

54:54occasionally.

54:55All right,

54:56well,

54:56I will stop

54:56here.

54:57I really do

54:57appreciate

54:57everyone's

54:58time.

54:58Thank you

54:58so much.

54:59Have

54:59yourself a

54:59glorious,

55:00lovely,

55:00wonderful day.

55:02Lots of

55:02love from

55:03up here.

55:03And don't

55:04forget,

55:04if you

55:04subscribe at

55:05freedomain.com

55:06slash donate,

55:06you get

55:06access to

55:07my recently

55:08finished new

55:08book,

55:09which is

55:09really,

55:10really,

55:10really great.

55:11All right,

55:12lots of love.

55:12Talk to you

55:13tomorrow night.

55:13Bye.

Category

Transcript

Be the first to comment

Recommended