with time for the news bulletin with aaron armstrong . aaron armstrong. >> very good evening to you. i'm aaron armstrong . the prime aaron armstrong. the prime minister has offered an unequivocal apology to victims of the infected blood scandal, describing it as a day of shame for the british state. the inquiry found a subtle, pervasive and chilling cover up from those in positions of trust and power, including the deliberate destruction of documents by government officials. the final report concluded patients were knowingly exposed to unacceptable risks, and the scandal could have largely been avoided. more than 30,000 people were infected with hiv and hepatitis c over more than 20 years because of contaminated blood products and transfusions. >> this is a day of shame for the british state. today's report shows a decades long moral failure at the heart of our national life , from the our national life, from the national health service to the civil service to ministers in

successive governments, at every level, the people and institutions in which we place our trust failed in the most harrowing and devastating way . harrowing and devastating way. they failed the victims and their families and they failed this country. >> the inquiry chair , sir brian >> the inquiry chair, sir brian langstaff, found victims suffering had been compounded by the slow pace of government compensation and in waiting for the conclusion of the report, rishi sunak had perpetuated the injustice. labour leader sir keir starmer also apologised , keir starmer also apologised, saying victims had been failed by all parties, including his . by all parties, including his. >> i acknowledge that this suffering was caused by wrongdoing , delay suffering was caused by wrongdoing, delay and suffering was caused by wrongdoing , delay and systemic wrongdoing, delay and systemic failure across the board, compounded by institute defensiveness . and as sir brian defensiveness. and as sir brian langstaff makes clear in his report , any apology today must report, any apology today must be accompanied by action. >> details of the government's

compensation package will be outlined tomorrow. in a statement in the commons. victims say today's events are vindication of their suffering over decades. >> sometimes we felt like we were shouting into the wind dunng were shouting into the wind during these 40 years when we told people they didn't believe us, they said this wouldn't happenin us, they said this wouldn't happen in the uk, but today proves that it can happen in the uk, and it did happen in the uk and i just feel validated and vindicated. >> i think everybody today has read of the disasters that unfolded , and sir brian has been unfolded, and sir brian has been very thorough and has not minced his words. this was a systemic this was by government, by civil servants and by health care professionals. >> i think that really rocks what we think of as society and really challenges the fact, the trust that we put in people to look after us, to do their best and protect us, none of that can we take for granted anymore. >> the parents of a baby girl say they'll never forgive the callousness of a nursery worker

who's been convicted of manslaughter. 37 year old kate rowley placed nine month old genevieve meehan face down on a beanbag for an hour and a half while working a tiny toes nursery in cheadle hulme in may 2022. colleagues and paramedics tried to revive the baby, but she was declared dead later that day. roughley has been remanded in custody and is due to be sentenced later this week . you sentenced later this week. you can get more on all of our stories in our later bulletins or there's more right now on our gb news alerts. scan the qr code on your screen or go to the website. now it's back to . jacob. >> welcome back to state of the nafion >> welcome back to state of the nation on the 12th of february of this year, at exactly this time, gb news hosted an episode of the people's forum with the prime minister and first lord of the treasury, rishi sunak , the treasury, rishi sunak, presented by our own stephen dixon. because gb news is the people's channel, gb news created a new broadcasting format that put the people at

the centre of the programme, with questions coming from members of the public and not from journalists . gb news hired from journalists. gb news hired an external and independent organisation to select the audience, which consisted of roughly 100 undecided voters. neither gb news nor the prime minister knew what the questions were in advance. program's format gave complete freedom to the people to ask their questions , but apparently the questions, but apparently the broadcast regulator, ofcom, doesn't believe in putting voters at the heart of government scrutiny. today, ofcom released its decision that found gb news to be in breach of the broadcasting code and is now considering sanctioning gb news. ofcom has made three basic claims for its decisions that a wide range of views were not presented, that due impartiality was not preserved, and that there was a problem with the prime minister promoting policies. in a period preceding a uk general election , the first a uk general election, the first two points of a wide range of views not being heard and a lack

of due impartiality. i can give you evidence here and now to debunk these points. here's an example. >> robin white i'm a barrister from somerset. why should lgbt people vote conservative? >> we've made changes in the nhs for provision of health care services for same sex couples, and that gives hopefully you and everyone else a sense that this is a country whose values are reflected in our party and in government, and that is that it's a compassionate, tolerant place. >> forgive me slightly, but i think some of the issue may be less about the lgbt and more about the t. prime minister more about the t. prime minister more about the t. prime minister more about the trans issue . about the trans issue. >> quite clearly, this was a left wing criticism of government's stance on lgbt matters, and the presenter, stephen dixon , pushed it on the stephen dixon, pushed it on the prime minister further. it was a clear occasion of a question being asked and answer being given, and then pushed back onto the prime minister. he was also held to account on a range of other policies. listen to this on rwanda. >> why are you so adamant about

rwanda when public documentation shows it isn't working and that it's not going to work? so can you be open and honest with everybody today and tell us what the next steps are? >> for the first time since the small boats thing became a phenomenon, the numbers were down. they weren't down by little. they were down by over a third. that if you come to our country illegally, you won't get to stay . we want to be able to to stay. we want to be able to remove you either to your home country, if it's safe, like we've done with albania, and for everyone else, we need an alternative. and that's what rwanda is about. >> prime minister, i'm not meant to really interject with any questions, but i've got to say, a lot of people will be wondering how do you get this through parliament? this is a big problem . big problem. >> and here we had a questioner saying to the prime minister he wasn't being open and honest. if that's not challenge , i don't that's not challenge, i don't know what is. and here's another example on the question of social care. >> social care is chronically

underfunded , and government has underfunded, and government has abdicated responsibility to local government , effectively local government, effectively making it a postcode lottery for many. do you agree that it needs radical reform, and if so , what? radical reform, and if so, what? >> we announced an extra £600 million for local government across the country and of that extra money that we've put in, the bulk of it is ringfenced specifically for social care. >> it's such a difficult issue which has faced so many governments, but do we ever seem to get an answer where we can really see any significant difference within a short timescale, at least in each of these three instances, the questions challenge the prime minister and stephen dixon interjected to further the challenge. >> and you must think ofcom is like the deaf adder that charmed gb news ever so nicely. it's stuffed up its ears, which address the bizarre claim about the prime minister promoting policies in a period preceding a uk general election. every point in english and then british history since the middle of the

13th century. pre seeds a uk general election and since the fixed term parliaments act was abolished, inevitably or always in a pre—election period. and that's been our normal state of affairs for hundreds of years. if the programme had been hosted two years ago or three years ago, it would still have been proceeding a uk general election. and there's nothing in the broadcast code that says anything about preceding a uk general election, other than when parliament's been dissolved, and we are an official election period , which official election period, which we were not during the programme and still are not now. we're not evenin and still are not now. we're not even in the electoral commission's pre—general election early spending period, which starts in july. so this decision is quite sinister. gb news was and has continued to be completely transparent about this broadcast structure that stays true to its values , but stays true to its values, but ofcom seemingly only wants apparatchiks to ask the questions. this chilling decision gets the heart what the

media ought to be. for decades, journalists seem to be on the side of the elite against the people that they know what is best. but @gbnews, we believe the people know what is best. ofcom begs to differ. so gb news is the newest addition to the broadcast ecosystem , and it's broadcast ecosystem, and it's doing quite well. this programme has reasonable figures and most days we're a bit ahead of sky and sometimes ahead of the bbc two. the establishment doesn't like this. who could forget the time? not too long ago when a journalist called for gb news to be taken off air on bbc newsnight and went entirely unchallenged, there were ofcom complaints about this, but we didn't hear anything about threats or sanctions. >> you know, i have to say, i think the complaints have piled up against gb news. i think there is a delicate and important broadcast ecology in this country . important broadcast ecology in this country. i think, you important broadcast ecology in this country . i think, you know, this country. i think, you know, gb news is trying to bust that ecology. and frankly, what ofcom should do is shut it down like it shut down. rt speaking of the

so—called delicate broadcast ecology that ought not to be disrupted. >> it's about time said that you, the public, own a broadcaster that poses as impartial news, but in reality he pumps out left wing propaganda. and for once, i'm not talking about auntie. the bbc, which has its own problems. i'm referring to channel 4 news. hardly surprised that people like adam boulton, who, it must be said, has some degree of interest to declare along with other establishment journalists, they would like us shut down. but for ofcom to behave like this represents a threat to freedom of speech . it's about freedom of speech. it's about time. it's antiquated, nonsensical regulations were removed for privately funded broadcasters , not least because broadcasters, not least because it can't seem to apply them fairly . it is it can't seem to apply them fairly. it is a dark day for freedom of expression. it's time we had an equivalent of the united states first amendment that protects freedom of speech from left wing bureaucrats. i'd like to make it clear that both gb news and i wholeheartedly reject this ruling , and will not reject this ruling, and will not back down on our foundational

principle whether ofcom likes it or not, we are here to represent you.the or not, we are here to represent you. the british people. gb news is, in a way, an easy target for the left , but we're not going the left, but we're not going anywhere as ever. let me know your thoughts. mel mogg at gb news.com i'm joined now by an old friend of the program, journalist and author michael crick, and the director of the free speech union and associate editor of the spectator, toby young. michael, you're not a fan of gb news, are you? i'm not a fan of gb news in the sense that i think it is a right wing propaganda channel. i think it's absurd that you're allowed to get away with ridiculous scenarios where you interview nigel farage, one senior right wing politician interviewing another , or richard tice or john another, or richard tice or john redwood, or farage interviews tice or farage's former press officer, another presenter patrick christys interviews farage or farage his wife. >> but you'll never get away with that on any other channel. nigel farage is critique of the conservative party. >> when i interviewed him last week, was brutal, yes, but how often do you get a true left

wingers interviewing each other on gb news? once a year. you have that on channel 4 most nights of the week. well, you used to be on channel, you know, my criticisms of channel 4 news and i made them for a long time. >> and, and i did i've given a lecture about all of this. so it's no secret that i felt that in the, in the, in the, in the teens channel 4 news was biased to the left. now you know. so i've got to be consistent here. yeah. and i think that is it's as i think basically gb news is taking the mickey out of ofcom. ofcom have become so weak they feel under i don't know what's going on at ofcom. frankly the people running it are just not up to it and they but on this ruling actually, this ruling , i ruling actually, this ruling, i think that it's a bit like al capone being prosecuted for tax evasion. i mean, that program, it wasn't revolutionary . granada it wasn't revolutionary. granada did the granada 500 program, i think, in 1964, similar format, 500 voters interviewing a politician. now, it was a dull program, actually. ofcom's right

when they say that the program should have allowed the members of the audience to follow up their questions in response to their questions in response to the prime minister's answer , the prime minister's answer, they let sunak rambled on for far too long, but, but and okay. offences were committed. but they're minor compared with what i've described. the way in which you allow politicians to introduce the same party and they're all right wing politicians. >> that's surely a matter of editorial judgement as to how long you allow a prime minister to respond, that you are asked pretty tough questions. they were tough. >> they were pretty. if i were sunak, i would have been delighted with that. now, of course, what where it went wrong is that gb news thought that they might get a programme with keir starmer as well. and according to gb news executives to talking ofcom, starmers people are given the indication that they would cooperate. but they hadn't actually said definitely they would do it now. if starmer had then been subject to such a programme, there. i really don't think that, but but in the end, labour basically have copped out. >> okay, but you can't be held

for that because boris johnson wasn't interviewed by andrew neil. it didn't mean that andrew neil. it didn't mean that andrew neil couldn't. but i think the people knew in the 19 in the 2019 election, how an what an unprincipled character a johnson was and how he couldn't be trusted. >> and therefore they prepared for that eventuality. >> you mustn't allow tv channels to be held to ransom by one person refusing to appear. >> i agree, i agree, but i mean, they could have changed the nature of the programme. so there was more criticism of sunak than than than you've just portrayed. >> this seems to me pretty fundamentally about freedom of speech that you must be able to have a programme that questions the prime minister and decide what is suitable, and that ofcom is applying its rules erratically, unfairly . and erratically, unfairly. and actually it just wanted a more left wing programme . left wing programme. >> like most, attacks on free speech, it underestimates the intelligence of the general public. intelligence of the general pubuc.the intelligence of the general public. the general viewing audience, you know, michael accuses gb news of being a right wing propaganda channel,

actually , early polling actually, early polling indicates that a majority of gb news viewers are going to vote labour rather than for any other party. more viewers are going to vote labour than for any other party. so it is a right wing propaganda channel. it's not doing a great job. or maybe members of the audience are intelligent and can make up their own minds, michael's right that this format isn't entirely revolutionary. in 2005, the bbc, put blair in front of a studio audience that grilled him. no other senior politicians on that programme to talk about the iraq war in 2016. michael gove, when he famously said he thinks we've had enough of experts. he said that in a programme on sky news in which it was just him being scrutinised by an audience, so we have called keir on lbc. where are the ofcom complaints about those programmes? this feels like two tier regulation, ofcom's equivalent of two tier policing. >> yes. i used to do a call rees—mogg programme with nick ferrari and that's absolutely right. it was only me and intermediated by nick.

>> one of the complaints that ofcom has upheld and the rationale it's given for upholding the complaints is, as you've discussed, that there wasn't enough scrutiny of sunak's answers that the presenter should have scrutinised what he said more challenged what he said. but if he'd done that, there would have been less opportunity for members of the audience to ask questions. and one other point the constant interruption of political leaders by journalists , particularly on the today programme, but other programs too, is what makes them virtually unlistenable and so unpopular as you know, for viewers, they don't want to hear or listen to senior politicians being constantly interrupted by journalists. >> michael isn't what ofcom is trying to do. >> absurdly out dated that there are now so many methods of people getting news, getting information, listening to podcasts, discussions that trying to regulate this very narrow field oppressively will just persuade people to go on to other means of getting their

message across. >> that may be there may be some truth in what you say, that the world, the world has changed and the range of media has changed and so on. but what's going on here is that ofcom seems to have changed the rules without any proper public debate about it. i'm not aware of there ever being a proper debate in parliament about this, that from now on you can have a channel stuffed with politicians of left or right, but only left or right, virtually and, and that and that's okay. that's what ofcom has essentially been saying so far. all occasionally they've come out with a ruling , they've come out with a ruling, but they don't ever punish you. but i mean, it is legally obuged but i mean, it is legally obliged to support freedom of speech. >> sorry. it's legally obliged to support freedom of speech. and isn't it better to have gb news in a regulated sphere than we could simply go on to youtube, and then we don't have to follow any of this? >> well, i think if you went on to youtube, you wouldn't get even the meagre advertising that you do get, and that's why you prefer to have the regulated, the licence method. >> people get quite good revenues from youtube.

>> well, in that case, you know, maybe that's a choice for you to make. but what i'm saying is, you know, when i worked in in 40 years in the bbc and itn , we years in the bbc and itn, we lived in terror of ofcom and we would go and do election campaigns and all the ofcom rules and everybody got far more frightened than they should have done for 40 years. >> ofcom didn't exist and for all it didn't regulate the bbc. >> the previous regulation. right, right. and if the rules are going to be changed, there needs to be a proper public debate about this. and as a democrat and a parliamentarian, you surely agree with that. it's not up to a government agency, an agency of the state to change the rules midstream and say from now on, it's okay. and also remember what they've also said is that they don't don't regulate gb news so heavily because your viewing figures aren't very high, in which case you better keep your viewing figures down. >> i'm glad to say that ofcom staff meets with the broadcasting standards council as it sort of origin, with my father was the first chairman of that set up by margaret thatcher

to stop sex and violence overwhelming our screens. anyway in a statement, ofcom said we also took into account that dunng also took into account that during the course of our investigation, gb news said it had purposefully not been aware of the questions which audience members would ask the prime minister, given the very high compliance risk this programme presented, we found gb news approach to compliance to be wholly insufficient and consider it could have and should have taken additional steps to mitigate these risks. well, that's feral nonsense, i'm afraid. but thank you, michael and toby coming up. labour is once again wielding the transgender broadsword as it looks to make gender recognition certificates easier to obtain

in. while the male dogs are on fire. reform this evening. absolutely brilliant set that i've got. bnan brilliant set that i've got. brian says the ofcom statement sounds as if it's the one that

they should have sent to the bbc question time programme prior to the brexit referendum . and the brexit referendum. and patricia, patricia, i think this is glorious. i'm so sorry. michael's left . he is he's michael's left. he is he's a very decent chap. but this is very decent chap. but this is very funny. we, the viewers are not so fond of the sound of michael creek's voice as he is. that's excellent. and cynthia, today i joined as a member of gb news specifically because of ofcom's ruling . thank you, ofcom's ruling. thank you, cynthia, and thank you to our very loyal viewers. nicola sturgeon do you remember her? she was the most effective politician in recent scottish history. she's secured repeated mandates from her electorate and for a long time seemed like she simply wasn't going away. that was all until she took the decision to try to pass the scottish gender recognition bill, which would have removed doctors from the process of changing gender. however, the bill led to her downfall. one might think that the labour party would learn from such a lesson, but it seems not. new plans from the party suggest it would abolish the need for a panel of doctors to approve someone's request for a gender recognition certificate. while

the reform would still require one doctor's approval, it would certainly make obtaining the certificates significantly eafien certificates significantly easier. well, i'm joined now by my panel, former brexit party mep and current sister nunziata rees—mogg, and the author and broadcaster eamonn cartana . amy broadcaster eamonn cartana. amy jacob dawson . the requirement to jacob dawson. the requirement to have a panel decide actually protect people who have a desire for a gender recognition certificate . from all the fears certificate. from all the fears that we've discussed before about men just dressing up as girls and using the girls toilets, well , i love it when toilets, well, i love it when this argument comes up because we get to remember when it went through in holyrood and we get to remember that it had cross—party support and that it was then alister jack stopped it. >> originally the brainchild of theresa may. so this is not a left wing woke idea. >> what sorts of things have been the brainchild? theresa may, that we wouldn't necessarily support here? >> it's a very sensible amendment to obtaining a gender

recognition certificate, which is basically paperwork. it's things like your birth certificate, your marriage certificate, your marriage certificate, but isn't it? and your death certificate and obtaining that more easily is just isn't this isn't this a safeguard that protects people with your opinion? >> because if you take the criticism of gender recognition certificates , it's the idea that certificates, it's the idea that a boy tomorrow morning could wake up and say, i'm a girl and go make a nuisance of himself in the girls changing rooms. >> no, because he could go in the. this is nothing about changing rooms. >> this is about this is because once people have certificates. yeah that's right, it's getting married. >> it's about accepting somebody as a different gender. >> i don't think so. only 2% of trans individuals in the uk even have a gender recognition certificate, but isn't. so that shows that it's very hard to get one and that people live. >> but if this makes it easier without one, if you make it eafien without one, if you make it easier, then all the abuses, the male prisoners who decide to be women because life's easier in a female prison. >> i really think that all these concerns melt away. if you've got proper checks.

>> no, the prison service is a separate argument because that's all done. case by case basis. when you apply for a gender recognition certificate, you still have to have supporting material. you can't just say, hey, i'm like that trivial example that you gave, but it's just that it's not as highly medicalized and it doesn't take as long and it's more simple way. so not only can get married and it might not be highly medicalized, but it's also not at all well thought through that there are already numerous questions about what anneliese dodds actually meant and how it would work in practice , so that would work in practice, so that she says, you'll only have to see one doctor. >> well, you can't go straight to a specialist, so you have to go to a gp. so is the professional deciding your general practitioner rather than someone qualified in a relative? a relevant area. and they also haven't begun to they carry on. in her statement with labour party as the party of equality , party as the party of equality, while protecting single—sex spaces well, if without any surgery, you can decide with the

say so of one doctor and not having to convince a panel or anyone else that you have changed your gender, you are then legally allowed into every single sex space of the other genden single sex space of the other gender, but there is no way to protect it. you are also legally allowed to fulfil all the quotas for equality for women and that is not fair. >> i know we've had this conversation before, and you've said that you think there are men that are ambitious enough to want to have an f on their birth certificate and death certificate and death certificate definitely. >> aren't. there definitely are. in sports, clearly in sports there are. >> we've already seen it. >> we've already seen it. >> there are lots of men who have pretended to be women so they can win, as i do not. >> i think there are lots of we've seen it there are transgender athletes, been a huge may look gender non—conforming, but they're in the minority of this in america. >> they got the right if you were right, if you were right. >> the england women's football team would be all biological men. and it's not this is not

problem. >> no, but in most sports, you can think of an example of someone who has done swimming and tennis and darts and, well, they're a transgender, transgender competitor. >> you have different, different physical abilities , but they do physical abilities, but they do as well as men because they're basically men. absolutely not. >> so there was the case of leah thomas, she won the college swimming, competition. she went back the next year. she came second. people only have a problem with transgender athletes when they win. >> no, no. where does she come as a man? >> i have no idea. i have no idea. that's the thing. >> as a man, she was useless. and then pretending to be a woman, she won. this is deeply unfair. >> it's deeply unfair that you would say that women pretend to be a woman to win. >> i never thought of myself as a feminist, but i'm afraid this does make me very passionately feminist. that this is undermining all the fights that are my gender has had for the last 50 years, to a career wrecked the wrongs of hundreds of years. we fought for equality and we are now seeing it being

lost by men taking our place in our own gender. >> it's not in any way a threat to women. in the same way that a patriarchy would be right now , i patriarchy would be right now, i can't leave my house and feel safe. i can't go in my car with and put my seatbelt on without knowing that it was designed for a man. if i take a paracetamol that's designed for a man's body medical misogyny, real life misogyny, sexism in the police, there are so many things facing women and transgender inclusion does not even making it worse . does not even making it worse. doesn't even get in the top 100 of my concerns. >> it clearly is. and when you have bodies such as the city of london saying that it men who are saying that at that time they are a woman count towards all the targets and quotas for bringing women into the city thatis bringing women into the city that is doing down real women. >> all right. well, i've given the last word to my sister. so like family life, really. but thank you to my panel coming up, how would you feel about paying more than £200 billion in reparations to caribbean

countries for slavery? plus, has the northamptonshire rozzers taken a step too far by allegedly meddling in democracy

? well, we were talking about labour's gender recognition. and the male moggs are forthright. al says a person's sex is usually readily identifiable from a glance. not not not always . and, roger, gender is always. and, roger, gender is a social construct. i think it's a grammatical one. i mean, if one were to be traditional sex is a man or a woman, woman and gender is she goes, he goes. never mind, it seems that gender is broadly misused. so what did black lives matter teach us? the guardian asked. today well, it taught us that they do not deserve a penny of the money that largely well—meaning people

donated to it. in the us. some of the groups biggest benefactors were, in fact, friends and family of the group's founder , patrisse group's founder, patrisse cullors. in 2023, us tax filings revealed that musa qala brother received $1.7 million in salary and contracts from blm, while almost another million dollars was paid to a company owned by the father of her child. carlos subsequently described the us tax form as triggering. that's great if it's triggering, it means you can't do it, which is perhaps one explanation as to why only 33% of blm donations actually went to charitable causes. actually went to charitable causes . it actually went to charitable causes. it was a similar story in the united kingdom, where one of the people who organised the toppling of the statue of colston in bristol was jailed for using charity donations to fund a lavish lifestyle. i hope that wasn't too triggering financial impropriety. aside with racial relations at an all time low and the royal air force and others actively discriminating against white people, it has also taught us that organising politics around

ethnicity is a quick way to turn these shores into a cold and windy lebanon . this is a lesson windy lebanon. this is a lesson that the guardian has not yet learned, as today it ran a puff piece on the muslim vote, an organisation openly encouraging ethno religious voting. cambridge university is also yet to get the memorandum with the dean at trinity college recently releasing a book that claims the united kingdom is caribbean nafions united kingdom is caribbean nations £205 billion in reparations . this, despite a reparations. this, despite a recent institute for economic affairs report that found slavery did not make us rich and that britain was the country that britain was the country that did more than any other to create a world where slavery is almost universally abhorred and outlawed. well, my panel is still with me. my current sister , nancy the tories morgan, the author and broadcaster amy nicole turner. so nunziata . nicole turner. so nunziata. these people stole a lot of money, didn't they? they did. >> and i found it, both fascinating and torturous. reading nesrine malik's article

about blm today that it was quite possibly one of the most bitter articles i've ever read, and i actually feel rather sorry for miss malik that she comes from such a miserable sounding place. and the irony was that, it's not, as we all knew in the first place, just about, black equality, black lives mattering. but politics. so one of her sentences was the bitter promotion of black and brown people to positions of power to scold us. and this was in reference to sunak and that having an ethnic minority prime minister is not good enough because he's a tory. and the entire gist of her argument was that, things are happening. they're heading in the right direction . there are things we direction. there are things we can be pleased about, but nothing will ever be enough. >> well, i think one thing would be enough would be, you know, to

eliminate racial disparities , eliminate racial disparities, which she says are well and are very much persisting despite the efforts of blm. and i think, yes, blm individuals within blm deserve criticism . deserve criticism. >> a bunch of crooks who wanted to defund the police , don't you? to defund the police, don't you? >> did you take the knee? did you take the knee? amy, don't you? >>i you? >> i won't be doing it on air. remember what happened last time when someone did that on air? right so my point is criticism of blm should not take away from the aims or undermine the aims. the aims to end a systemic racism, to address racial justice and for equality. >> those are noble aims. >> those are noble aims. >> but don't we believe in equality under the law? and that's a fundamental, basic principle. >> and maybe the biggest confusing equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. >> and there is nothing that anyone can actually do to make outcomes more equal. and that is as true for women as it is for any ethnic minority . and in any ethnic minority. and in fact, if you look at ethnic

minorities, the financial and educational outcomes are staggeringly different between different groups. and would you want to make everyone the same low level, which is the only way you could achieve it, to hold everyone back so that no one's falling behind, but no one can advance? >> i think that conversations around things like the barriers to health care, the fact that 1 in 4, women who are who are black will struggle giving birth, who will die during childbirth, something like four times more likely than white women to die during childbirth. that's a staggering statistic that we need to look at. that's a really clear disparity. similarly, you see them across the criminal justice system , the criminal justice system, where there is great racial disparity . and i think things disparity. and i think things like the lammy review in 2017, it uncovered these and said, this is what we need to work on. so you you can keep saying , this is what we need to work on. so you you can keep saying, oh, well, we ended slavery, but its legacy persists and it didn't magic away pulling down injustice that built it and persists it. >> pulling down statues is not going to change that.

>> no. >> no. >> and the piece pointed that out. but and we know that white working class boys underperform almost everybody. >> yeah, but why say why in front of that? it's actually that working class kids and of the working. >> no, no, no. but it's white working class boys do particularly badly. >> yes, that's true, but it's mainly a social class problem. obviously all issues of racial disparity intersect with class . disparity intersect with class. yes, that's true, but that doesn't mean you should just put aside racial disparity. >> well, you just told me i had to. you said, why do i put white in front of it? and now you're saying i should have put it in use? >> you're putting white in front of it to try and say as soon as you may. >> it's wrong, but if you mention the racial disparities and only focus on the social class, i am saying focus on both. >> because if you look at the social class, if you look at the working classes of all working class people, the ones that do worst are white boys. but that is a very sad fact. and they happen to be white. there's nothing wrong with saying that or that admitting and

acknowledging that they are the worst off, and it shows that this country may have some racism in it, but it's not fundamentally racist. >> there may be racist individuals, but it's not structurally racist. >> and we should be very pleased with that. >> i mean, think about the casey review into the met police, which found in institutional racism. >> well, there was a very good report that boris johnson commissioned that showed that that wasn't the case, that it was suella report, the sewell report, everybody that was really distinguished, widely criticised when it came out on the programme, who explained it extremely well. >> baroness doreen lawrence, stephen lawrence's mother, working with the labour party to try and make one of the first things the labour government do to address this systemic racism, that they're not burying their headin that they're not burying their head in the sand about. and i fear that that's what you sometimes do. well i mean, i think when you look at what has happened with this segregationist approach you find in america that, top universities actually discriminate against certain racial groups to promote others.

>> now, is it right to discriminate against asian people , which is what they end people, which is what they end up doing? >> yeah. >> yeah. >> no, it's not no good. i mean, i've agreed and i've got to move on.thank i've agreed and i've got to move on. thank you to my next panel, thank you. my panel coming up next. have you ever criticised the rozzers on social media? well, beware, as northamptonshire police arrested my next guest for doing exactly that , allegedly. plus, my next guest for doing exactly that, allegedly. plus, i'll be making a spirited defence of wigs and that's without the h

well, hello. i'm still jacob rees—mogg , and this is talk of rees—mogg, and this is talk of the nation, last september, the conservative councillor for wellingborough, anthony stephens, was arrested for an alleged hate crime after resharing a video on social media that criticised the police for their treatment of a christian street preacher . when christian street preacher. when you see where you are, you will listen. >> when you are there, you will

listen . take me, take me . no no listen. take me, take me. no no no no no no no. no [10 [10 [10 110. >>— no no no no no. >> don't take my don't take my bible away . don't take my i gave bible away. don't take my i gave you the simple option . you the simple option. >> well, a detective also reportedly telephoned the former mayor of wellingborough to call for mr stephens to be removed as a councillor because of his views with the northamptonshire police now being accused of trampling over democracy. i'm joined by anthony stephens himself to give his side of the story. anthony, first of all, thank you very much for coming in. so let's go through the whole thing , you joined twitter. whole thing, you joined twitter. you'd been on it for a few months . yes. and you retweeted months. yes. and you retweeted something that was critical of the police. >> yes. retweeted. retweeted it to rishi sunak, it was basically saying that the point i was trying to get over is that we should all be treated the same. christian preacher, an islamic preacher. they should both be

allowed to preach in my opinion. but if you're not allowed to preach, then nobody should be allowed to preach. and that was allowed to preach. and that was all i was saying. it wasn't. i wasn't being hateful. i was literally i tweeted it to the prime minister to say, this isn't this is unjust, okay? >> and you have 76 followers on twitter at the time. at the time, you've probably got thousands. >> now you've been in the papers a bit. no, so then the police bang on your door at 8:00 in the morning? >> yeah, it was actually august, but 8:00 in the morning. i'd just left my side gate open because i was waiting on a plumber, i just took myself in my gym, i was a bit late this morning. and then there was two policemen staring at me through the glass door. so i came out and they told me that i was under arrest for a section 19. i didn't even know what section 19 was, nor would i. >> and you were taking the police station ? police station? >> yes, taken to police station. by the time we got there , they by the time we got there, they mugshot id and fingerprinted and i was in the cells at nine, around 9:00, interviewed around 12:00, back in the cells for

about 1:00 and released at about 5:30. >> so you were treated as a real villain? >> oh, the through the interview . yeah. they literally thought i was . i . yeah. they literally thought i was. i wouldn't . yeah. they literally thought i was . i wouldn't know how to was. i wouldn't know how to explain that. it was it was you were treated worse than if you'd been a shoplifter. i would definitely yeah. >> yeah. when they probably wouldn't have done anything , wouldn't have done anything, very much so. that happens then . very much so. that happens then. the former mayor of wellingborough is contacted . wellingborough is contacted. now, what happened then? >> well, actually, i only found this out after all the conditions was dropped. i sent an email to all my fellow councillors to tell them what had happened and said, look, if anyone's got any information because we need to look into this. the former mayor, contacted me and he said on this, it was the 8th of august. i was arrested on the 2nd of august, the dc in charge of the case contacted him to say that he needed to get me removed as a councillor. he this is i'm paraphrasing because this was his statement. >> okay . and this you've been

>> okay. and this you've been told this the police haven't confirmed this . confirmed this. >> well he wrote he's he's put a statement together which has gone to my lawyers and it's now gone to my lawyers and it's now gone over to the iopc. did any charge come from your arrest or they just dropped it. it took them about 3 or 4 months. they delay charged in between all of this i was due to come on gb news on dan wootton, i posted it on a facebook page the following morning. afternoon there was a hand delivered letter from the di , basically warning me off of di, basically warning me off of the media that i needed to get legal, asked for legal advice when they already knew that i had a legal team because they were. yeah. so, basically my three speech was not only trampled on, they then blocked me from. and then all the media stopped. i'd been on mike graham and a couple of other things, and a couple of other things, and then it all completely stopped because the police had. so, so again, this is the police not only arrested me from what i believe is my free right to, you

know, you can annoy people by your speech. you know, it's i annoy people the whole time. >> i didn't intend to, but but people get annoyed by lots of things. i say that's free speech. >> well, we don't have free speech anymore. >> how did the former mayor respond when this was suggested? >> he told them that they had no right . he won. >> he told them that they had no right. he won. he it >> he told them that they had no right . he won. he it wasn't in right. he won. he it wasn't in his power anyway. and they have no right. they could the conservative, could deselect me, but i could then i'm an elected official, the croyland ward elected me in a free and fair election. i have my right to . election. i have my right to. the police. shouldn't be allowed. this is what i've come for on now is it's not the police's to job interfere, to subvert the political process for no reason, i they hadn't even arrested me at the point when they made . they asked for when they made. they asked for me to be removed. he said no , me to be removed. he said no, then then, i went to my first i was bailed, my bail conditions

was bailed, my bail conditions was not to approach or speak to two people. i won't mention them. one of them was this, is a okay, don't mention them if you're not meant to mention. no, no, but he's a he's a councillor, right, i asked my legal team, where do i stand? and i'm the deputy chair of planning. right jonathan had been quite ill a lot of the time, so i had stood in the chair quite a lot that year, and you were able to carry on doing your council work? well, i went to the planning and then the police then contacted jonathan to say that they needed he needed to stop me. yes, he said no . they then said they'd raid no. they then said they'd raid the building to arrest me . he the building to arrest me. he said, it's you're not allowed. i'll actually stop you again. this is. this is what i was told. well it sounds pretty serious. >> although we're often disobliging about the police, i would say today i spoke to one of the police women on duty at the palace of westminster who had a bandage on her arm. she'd

got this when off duty, trying to arrest and struggling with a shoplifter, and he didn't get away with either his telephone or any money. so well done to her. and that reminder there are some first class police around anywhere . northamptonshire anywhere. northamptonshire police spokesman said this investigation is subject to a live complaint and until the matter is concluded, we are unable to comment further so i hope they will behave like this. police lady on duty at the palace of westminster, i think is inspirational . and finally, is inspirational. and finally, judges and barristers could soon lose their traditional courtroom wigs after michael etienne , a wigs after michael etienne, a barrister with an afro hairdo and a fondness for retweeting pro—hamas propaganda, branded them hair discrimination, reluctance to defend. i thought that was primogenita er, discrimination, never mind reluctance to defend our traditions and culture may mean that mr etienne gets his wish, and that we will soon see the judiciary in fancy dress or t judiciary in fancy dress ort shirts. i'm sure that mr etienne's complaints are entirely sincere, not at all motivated by dislike of britain,

which is why i look forward to him taking his complaints to ghana, gambia, sierra leone, jamaica, kenya , malawi and jamaica, kenya, malawi and nigeria all majority black countries where courtroom wigs are very much still in fashion. of course, i won't be holding my breath, so we may soon have a situation where english courtroom attire is worn almost everywhere apart from england. courtroom wigs do actually serve a purpose. they reinforce the authority of the judge and give an air of knowledge to the youngest barrister. they do personify the loyally participants, while sending a message that the law is not beholden to passing modern fashions. and for some they conceal receding hairlines . conceal receding hairlines. anyway, that's all from me. up next is patrick christys and we're going to the weather. thoughi we're going to the weather. though i have to tell you, the weather in somerset will be brilliant, not least because we beat kent by eight wickets at the cricket today, which is very exciting . well done to somerset exciting. well done to somerset county cricket club and i hope that the weather remains good for all somerset's future

engagements . engagements. >> a brighter outlook with boxt solar , sponsors of weather on . solar, sponsors of weather on. gb news. >> evening. welcome to your latest weather update from the met office here on gb news. a messy picture with the weather tomorrow. most of us cloudier and cooler than today, but again, like today there will be again, like today there will be a few thunderstorms in place where between weather systems, but this area of low pressure is pushing up from the south and will generate a few more showers. we'll see the cloud thickening across east anglia and the east midlands with some showers here. the downpours we've seen across northern ireland, they will continue to fade through this evening in many places will have a dry night, a bit misty and murky once more on these eastern coast. quite chilly across scotland again. temperatures down to about 3 to 5 degrees in rural spots, whereas in the south many towns and cities staying in double figures . a staying in double figures. a cloudier day. then on tuesday, particularly over the midlands, parts of northeast england and along the east coast of

scotland, especially aberdeenshire , up towards aberdeenshire, up towards orkney. grey, misty and murky with that ha sticking around but a good part of scotland actually starting sunny . generally a dry starting sunny. generally a dry starting sunny. generally a dry start in northern ireland, but we are looking at some thunderstorms breaking out here later on and we'll start with a lot of cloud over the midlands, northern england and generally quite a drab day over central and eastern england. but some sunshine for wales and southwest england as the day goes on, increasing chance of again seeing some thunderstorms breaking out across northern ireland but also southwestern parts of england. and the met office warning in place . wet office warning in place. wet weather will continue to affect parts of central and eastern england . a few scattered showers england. a few scattered showers over the highlands, some brightness in western scotland, but as i said, most places cloudier than today and as a result cooler. more cloud and rain then spill in from the east as we head into wednesday. could be a very soggy day over parts of eastern england and parts of scotland. some heavy downpours possible and in the south some brighter spells may well trigger some heavy showers as we go

through the day , there will be a through the day, there will be a bit more of a breeze coming in from the east, so a cool day here with some brightness further south we could again get up to 20 celsius. bye for now. >> looks like things are heating up boxt boilers sponsors of weather on

gb news. >> good evening to you. i'm aaron armstrong in the gb newsroom. the prime minister is travelling to vienna for talks with the austrian chancellor about illegal migration. it comes after the government promised an extra £25 million for the national crime agency to tackle people smuggling gangs. rishi sunak will hold talks with his counterpart karl nehammer, tomorrow. it's understood , tomorrow. it's understood, they'll say designated safe third countries like rwanda are part of the solution to prevent dangerous small boat journeys. 15 eu countries, including austria, have signed a letter

calling on the european commission to tighten migration policy and to look at third country schemes . a day of shame country schemes. a day of shame for the british state that is the prime minister's reaction to the prime minister's reaction to the findings of a five year inquiry, as he offered victims of the infected blood scandal a wholehearted apology. the final report identified a catalogue of failures by the nhs and successive governments, and concluded thousands of deaths could have been avoided. inquiry chair sir brian langstaff said the scandal had been exacerbated by a chilling cover up from those in positions of power, including the deliberate destruction of evidence by officials. more than 30,000 people were infected with hiv and hepatitis c between 1970 and the early 90s because of contaminated blood products. >> this is a day of shame for the british state. today's report shows a decades long moral failure at the heart of our national life , from the our national life, from the national health service to the civil service to ministers in successive governments, at every

level, the people and institutions in which we place our trust failed in the most harrowing and devastating way . harrowing and devastating way. they failed the victims and their families , and they failed their families, and they failed this country . this country. >> chair sir brian langstaff also found victims suffering had been compounded by the slow pace of government compensation and in waiting for the conclusion of the report, rishi sunak, he said, had perpetuated the injustice. labour leader sir keir starmer also apologised , keir starmer also apologised, saying victims had been failed by all parties, including his own . own. >> i acknowledge that this suffering was caused by wrongdoing , delay suffering was caused by wrongdoing, delay and suffering was caused by wrongdoing , delay and systemic wrongdoing, delay and systemic failure across the board, compounded by institutional defensiveness . and, as sir brian defensiveness. and, as sir brian langstaff makes clear in his report , any apology today must report, any apology today must be accompanied by action. >> a woman in her 50s has been

mauled to death by her own xl