Podcasts about public order act

Jamie's FB: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?... Jamie on Chris Thrall channel:    • JAILED For A FACEBOOK Post - War Vete...  Jailed for a Facebook Post - War Veterans Horror Story. In this gripping interview, we explore the shocking story of an Ex-Royal Marine jailed for a social media post. This case highlights the UK free speech crackdown and the dangers of social media censorship, as veterans and citizens alike face increasing restrictions on freedom of expression. Following the Southport murders aftermath, authorities took drastic action, leading to a Facebook prosecution that many see as politically motivated. Is this another example of veterans betrayed by the very country they served? We examine the British justice system, the role of the Public Order Act, and whether UK government overreach is silencing dissent. With rising concerns about political persecution, the Free Speech Union has weighed in on the growing number of social media arrests under vague and inconsistent laws. Many critics argue that two-tier policing unfairly targets individuals while ignoring others, raising fresh questions about Labour Party criticism of free speech and government policies. As tensions mount after the UK riots 2024, we discuss how new online speech laws are being used against military veterans and civilians alike. Does this case set a dangerous precedent for veteran rights? And what does it say about the state of democracy in Britain today? Join us as we uncover the truth behind the shocking case of Jamie Michael, the growing impact of social media laws, and what this means for the future of free speech in the UK. Jamie's FB: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?... #news #uk #speech

Jailed for a Facebook Post - War Veterans Horror Story. In this gripping Chris Thrall interview, we explore the shocking story of an Ex-Royal Marine jailed for a social media post. This case highlights the UK free speech crackdown and the dangers of social media censorship, as veterans and citizens alike face increasing restrictions on freedom of expression. Following the Southport murders aftermath, authorities took drastic action, leading to a Facebook prosecution that many see as politically motivated. Is this another example of veterans betrayed by the very country they served? We examine the British justice system, the role of the Public Order Act, and whether UK government overreach is silencing dissent. With rising concerns about political persecution, the Free Speech Union has weighed in on the growing number of social media arrests under vague and inconsistent laws. Many critics argue that two-tier policing unfairly targets individuals while ignoring others, raising fresh questions about Labour Party criticism of free speech and government policies. As tensions mount after the UK riots 2024, we discuss how new online speech laws are being used against military veterans and civilians alike. Does this case set a dangerous precedent for veteran rights? And what does it say about the state of democracy in Britain today? Join us as we uncover the truth behind the shocking case of Jamie Michael, the growing impact of social media laws, and what this means for the future of free speech in the UK. Socials: instagram.com/chris.thrall youtube.com/christhrall facebook.com/christhrall christhrall.com Support the podcast at: patreon.com/christhrall (£2 per month plus perks) gofundme.com/christhrall paypal.me/teamthrall Our uncensored content: christhrall.locals.com Mailing list: christhrall.com/mailing-list/ Life Coaching: christhrall.com/coach/  

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.public.newsGreat Britain seems like a free nation. In recent years, there have been mass protests against everything from Israel's war with Hamas to fossil fuels. Newspaper editorialists denounce the government in strong terms daily. The nation draws upon hundreds of years of demands for free speech from intellectual giants, including John Milton, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Paine, and George Orwell.But today, Britain appears to be descending into tyranny. In 2023, Britain's parliament passed the Public Order Act and Online Safety Act to crack down on protests and online content and then failed to pass the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act that same year. Then, last summer, the Keir Starmer Labor government appears to have deliberately spread disinformation about the high-profile killings of three little girls to justify censorship and repression of anti-mass migration protesters and rioters.

The police are investigating The Telegraph's Allison Pearson for a social media post despite everyday crime going largely unsolved.Essex Police chose the morning of Remembrance Sunday to visit our Telegraph colleague Allison Pearson and inform her they were investigating a year-old social media post under Section 17 of the Public Order Act 1986 relating to material “likely or intended to cause racial hatred”.Kamal and Tim Stanley ask why our police forces seem perfectly capable of following up on remarks made in an online environment, whilst everyday crimes like burglaries and sexual offences go largely unsolved.And what next for the beaten up Democrats in the US? They ask Governor Phil Murphy from New Jersey how his party lost so badly and what they do next.We want to hear from you! Email us at TheDailyT@telegraph.co.uk or find us on X, Instagram and TikTok @dailytpodcastProducers: Lilian Fawcett and Georgia CoanSenior Producer: John CadiganExecutive Producer: Louisa WellsProduction Co-ordinator: Ryan GudgeVideo Editor: Luke GoodsallStudio Operator: Meghan SearleSocial Media Producer: Niamh WalshOriginal music by Goss Studio Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's Wednesday, November 6th, A.D. 2024. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 125 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark and Adam McManus Sudanese Muslims drove 34 Christians from their homes Morning Star News reports Muslims in Sudan drove 34 Christians from their homes last month. The Christians had come to the area after fleeing military conflict elsewhere in the northeastern African country. However, local Muslims demanded they leave since they did not want Christians in the area. One of the Christians said, “We are currently in a very bad humanitarian situation, as we have lost our shelter, and we have children, women and the elderly. And we have lost our livelihoods that helped us provide for our basic daily needs.” According to Open Doors, Sudan is the 8th most dangerous country for Christians worldwide. Pro-lifer reacts to prayer censorship zone around abortion mills Last Thursday, a “buffer zone” law went into effect in England and Wales. The Public Order Act 2023 bans people from “influencing” people at abortions mills. The United Kingdom's Crown Prosecution Service released legal guidance on the law. It noted that people could violate the law near abortion mills by offering counsel, handing out leaflets, holding Bibles, displaying images of babies, singing around religious pictures, and praying, including silent prayer.  Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, director of March for Life UK, called the law a national disgrace. VAUGHAN-SPRUCE: “Today is a shameful day for our country. Buffer zones around abortion centers have been legalized with an unlimited fine risk for those caught waking the obscure rules they set out.” Conservative Christian groups spending more money in Africa Conservative groups are increasing spending in Africa, according to a report from the Amsterdam-based Institute for Journalism and Social Change. The report covered 17 U.S. groups most of which were Christian and known for opposing sexually perverted lifestyles. The groups included Heartbeat International, Focus on the Family, Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Home School Legal Defense Association.  The groups spent a combined $16.5 million in Africa between 2019 and 2022. Over the period, spending increased 47%. U.S. conservative groups' investment in Africa comes as nations in the continent have passed laws in favor of Biblical marriage and sexuality.  80 million voters cast ballots during early voting Voters in the United States headed to the polls yesterday for the 2024 presidential election. Nearly 80 million voters already cast ballots in early voting. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump both encouraged their supporters to vote early. Voters will also be deciding control of the U.S. Congress. Nonpartisan analysis suggests that Republicans are likely to regain control of the Senate, but they might lose control of the House where Democrats only need to win four seats. Daniel 2:21 says God “changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings and raises up kings; He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding.” Early election results appear promising for Trump Initial results are in and early calls have been made. So far there are no surprises. Ten states, including Florida, have been called for Trump and eight states have been called for Harris. Gary Bauer, the founder of Campaign for Working Families, wrote, “Kudos to RNC Co-Chair Lara Trump. Throughout the day, the RNC had a serious ballot integrity effort under way so that at the first signs of predictable Democrat cheating, we immediately went into court to correct the situation. “While the night is still young, Harmeet Dhillon reports that everything seems to be running smoothly in Maricopa County, Arizona. The big challenge is making sure people get in line so they can vote. “There is one troubling area where we still need more information. An alleged ‘tabulation error' in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has resulted in 31,000 absentee ballots being recounted. Election officials made this announcement without stating any results. This is the kind of thing that puts us all on edge. “Florida is the third largest state in the country and they are racing through the counting process. Donald Trump and Sen. Rick Scott are leading by nearly one million votes. In fact, Trump is reportedly up by double digits in heavily Hispanic Miami-Dade County, suggesting he may perform well with Hispanics across the country. “But how is it that Florida can count ballots so efficiently and will have their results in a few hours while much smaller states are saying it will take days or weeks?  It doesn't take weeks to count votes. It takes weeks to cheat. “A CNN exit poll found that the degree of dissatisfaction with the direction of the country is extraordinary, and that should help Trump. Commentators said this was a strong current Harris must swim against since she has been in office the last four years.” Gary Bauer made one final observation. “One exit poll indicated that independent voters in Georgia were breaking for Trump by high single digits.” David Axelrod: There is “no enthusiasm on the ground for Kamala Harris” Appearing on CNN's "State of the Union" this past Sunday, David Axelrod, the chief strategist of Barack Obama's two successful presidential campaigns, said that there is "zero enthusiasm on the ground for Kamala Harris in demographics that [she] most needs."  AXELROD: “The watch word of the day is humility here. When you have polls this close, you're not sure of anything, and it really matters who shows up, because these polls are not precise. “So, what I'm worried about is you're counting on some women -- who are independent, Republican women -- to come out and vote for Harris. Is that going to materialize? Is the gender gap going to be what you need it to be? “Are minority voters going to come out in the numbers, of African-American voters in particular, and are you going to get the margins that you want there? So, there are a lot of open questions. This race is filled with uncertainty today.” 114-year-old Pennsylvania woman the oldest in North America And finally, a Pennsylvania woman is now considered to be the oldest living person in North America. 114-year-old Naomi Whitehead lives in a senior care community in Greenville West Salem. She attained the status after 115-year-old Elizabeth Francis of Texas died last month.  Naomi was born in September 1910 and has outlived her husband and three sons. She's the seventh oldest person in the world and has 12 grandchildren, 28 great-grandchildren, 49 great-great-grandchildren, and three great-great-great-grandchildren. She said she's abstained from smoking and drinking and also credits good genes. She told New Castle News last year, “I'll live as long as the Lord lets me.” 1 Peter 3:10-11 says, “He who would love life and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips from speaking deceit. Let him turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Wednesday, November 6th, in the year of our Lord 2024. Subscribe by Amazon Music or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Neoborn Caveman is back in this almost alive radio show replay with fresh satirical takes on the world and humanity or the there lack of.Free speech and good music, check the timestamps for the best bits!00'20": Part 1 - Are you living as a free person?03'39": Sun Atoms: Take This Love08'36": Part 2 - Do we have free speech?11'32": Gabi Coco: Queen of the Club15'05": Part 3 - Public Order Act vs Sovereignty and Freedom19'03": The Giraffes: The Shot24'12": Part 4 - The Right Migration and Little People as Tools34'59": Project Rod Williams: Only in My Dreams39'00": Part 5 - Freedom of Speech Can Win, GARM is over44'00": pMad: Electric48'07": Part 6 - Why movies and series are disappointments lately?51'45": Perry Blake: Let's Fall in Love (remix)55'22": Part 7 - Porajmos, the forgotten gypsy holocaust61'56": Vegan Steven: Nervous64'08": Part 8 - Mobile phones causes cancer according to a fresh study67'18": Part 9 - Battle of Jokes (reprise)Please consider supporting our channel and free speech by subscribing to any of the tiers on our Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/TheNeobornCavemanShowRemember: your are worthy, you are special, you are one of a kind!.......... Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

在《大麻煩不煩》特別系列〈藥物音樂史〉裡，Zoe 與音樂製作人 DJ QuestionMark 一起介紹藥物、音樂、派對與文化之間糾葛的愛恨情仇。第二集來了！Zoe 與 DJ QuestionMark 討論銳舞文化 Rave 在歷史中的反動精神、Rave 浪潮之下迅速成為派對音樂主流的樂風 Acid House (酸浩室)，以及在1990年代，英國政府試圖在法律上將派對與 Acid House 定義為違法。甚至在蘇格蘭法庭中，曾有巡警試圖說服法官，以「藥物濫用」的名義起訴在派對中播放 Acid House 音樂的主辦人。（蘇格蘭為英國的構成國之一，同樣使用英國法律。）在當年勢不可擋的 Rave 浪潮之中，孕育並奠定了許多我們在現代習以為常的派對文化基礎。與派對文化一起迅速擴散的藥物使用現象，也是本集的重點話題之一。Zoe 與 DJ QuestionMark 也針對藥物文化進一步討論，並強調並不是必須使用特定藥物，才能享受特定風格的音樂：藥物與音樂之間雖有親近性，但並沒有必然性。本系列從 2023年底在 DJ QuestionMark 的 Twitch 平台直播 Live 版本，並由鬼島之音再製成 Podcast 版。錯過 Live 直播的觀眾不用擔心！歡迎收聽並敬請期待後續的 Podcast 節目版！    音樂史顧問 DJ QuestionMarkIG｜instagram.com/dj_questionmark/FB｜facebook.com/dj.questionmark.taiwanTwitch｜https://twitch.tv/djqm 參考片單／歌單／法條“Trainspotting”《猜火車》(電影/英國/1996)“Weekenders” (歌曲/ Flowered up /1992)“I Am Weekender” (紀錄片/2023)DJ QuestionMark 的本集歌單：https://spoti.fi/3LM0qauCriminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Part V, 63, Powers to remove persons attending or preparing for a rave.（英國刑事訴訟及公共秩序法，第五條，第六十三項，驅逐參加或準備 Rave 派對的人員的權力）https://gimpod.me/CJPOA1994_RAVE   節目聲明：大麻

 JK Rowling, famous for Harry Potter, is now at the centre of a controversial debate on transgender rights.   We'll explore her views, why they've sparked so much outrage and support, and the impact on free speech laws in the UK.  JK Rowling and her views on transgenderism Tweet supporting Maya Forstater's views on sex and gender Public reaction: support and death threats Her article explaining her five reasons for speaking out Impact on education and safeguarding Freedom of speech concerns Personal experiences influencing her opinion Criticism from Harry Potter actors Scottish Hate Crime and Public Order Act of 2024 Ongoing role in the public debate on transgender issues Full interactive transcript, subtitles and key vocabulary available on the website: https://www.leonardoenglish.com/podcasts/rowling-transgenderism ---You might like:

Send us a Text Message.Is your neighborhood safe tonight? Discover the new police measures that could change everything. Join us as Superintendent Emma MacDonald sheds light on the enhanced stop and search powers granted to Cheltenham police under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. These measures come in response to a series of violent incidents and are targeted at preventing further conflicts in hotspots like St Paul's, the Moors, Hester's Way, St Mark's, and Pitville. Hear from the superintendent herself about how the community can support these efforts and ensure our streets stay safe. But that's not all; find out why a group of travellers at Sanford Park has reignited the debate about authorised traveller sites in Cheltenham. We also tackle the hot-button issue of a former school playing field at Pitville School being sold for residential development. Local parents and residents are up in arms, sparking a debate about the balance between preserving public spaces and meeting housing demands. Tune in to hear the latest updates on these pressing local issues and how they could affect you. Stay informed, stay safe, and stay engaged, Cheltenham!Police given enhanced stop and search powers after weapon was discharged and four men arrestedTraveller encampment set up in Cheltenham parkFormer school playing field for saleSupport the Show.

Today, we discuss a new law that has been passed in Scotland. Sorry that we've been a bit infrequent with the uploads, we should be back to regular bi-weekly uploads from now on.

As Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act comes to the end of its first week, the number of ‘hate crimes' reported to Police Scotland has ticked over the 8,000 mark. This was entirely predictable and no doubt reflects a combination of reporting by those keen to make use of the act's censorious powers and mischievous attempts at exposing its almost comically authoritarian intent. What's also clear is how the new Act has quickly become a major distraction for Police Scotland, which needs to pay its officers overtime, handle the public relations fall out and continue to address ordinary crime. Having now welcomed nearly 1,000 new members to the Free Speech Union, we've set up a Hate Speech Hotline in case any of them get into trouble with the police about something they've said. We've also put an arrangement in place with Levy & McRea, a top firm of criminal lawyers in Scotland, so that if any of our members are arrested or interviewed under caution for something speech-related we can come to their aid. You can find the Hotline number, as well as detailed instructions about what to do if you're arrested in Scotland for a speech-related offence in this set of FAQs, here. We move on to discuss a piece of research the FSU released in March entitled, “The EDI Tax: How Equity, Diversion and Inclusion is Hobbling British Businesses”. It was great to see our survey results reported in The Telegraph in an article that highlighted how nearly a quarter of employees going through EDI and/or climate training have been compelled to say things they don't believe. The release of our report coincided with the publishing of the Inclusion at Work Panel's recommendations, several of which alluded to problems akin to those uncovered in our survey. We end today with a discussion on Open Data, or rather the lack thereof. Writing in The Times, conservative MP for Harborough, Neil O'Brien, raises concerns that the failure of multiple government departments to publish granular migration data in the way that they used to is potentially frustrating an important debate. ‘That's Debatable!' is edited by Jason Clift.

En Irlande, le soutien aux Palestiniens est une cause très populaire. Ce soutien s'explique par la propre histoire de l'Irlande, elle-même occupée et soumise à la Grande-Bretagne pendant des siècles. La mémoire de la lutte contre la colonisation britannique et, par-dessus tout, la mémoire de la Grande famine de 1846, qui a tué un million d'Irlandais et poussé un million d'autres à l'exil, est toujours bien vivante. Et elle est ravivée par le conflit israélo-palestinien.Le directeur d'un club de football de Dublin très marqué à gauche de l'échiquier politique, le Bohemian FC, onze fois champion d'Irlande, a par exemple annoncé l'organisation prochaine d'un match amical avec des joueuses palestiniennes. Depuis l'année dernière, ses joueurs portent d'ailleurs un maillot aux couleurs de la Palestine.La position unique en Europe des Irlandais face au conflit au Proche-Orient, c'est le sujet du reportage à Dublin de Clémence Pénard.Le conflit israélo-palestinien provoque des turbulences en EuropeEn Allemagne, contrairement à l'Irlande, c'est une relation particulière et amicale avec Israël qui prévaut plutôt. Et cela s'explique évidemment par l'histoire du pays avec le peuple juif. On le sait, l'Allemagne s'est rendue coupable des crimes incommensurables de la Shoah, une responsabilité historique qui est restée ancrée dans la République fédérale allemande, comme nous l'explique notre correspondant à Berlin Julien Méchaussie.En Écosse, une loi entrée en vigueur le 1er avril dernier fait des vaguesCette loi s'appelle le « Hate Crime and Public Order Act ». En français, la « Loi contre les crimes de haine ». Pour certains, il s'agit d'une avancée dans la protection des minorités. Mais pour d'autres, elle signe la fin de la liberté d'expression en Écosse, rien de moins. Franceline Beretti a tenté pour nous d'y voir clair, avec son Œil européen.Les universités en Belgique francophone sont en ébullitionEn cause : un décret durcissant, à partir du mois de septembre prochain, non seulement les conditions d'accès aux études, mais aussi les conditions pour rester dans le cursus universitaire. La volonté du gouvernement est officiellement d'éviter que trop d'étudiants ne « traînent » dans leurs études. Mais même au sein de la coalition au pouvoir en Wallonie, la polémique va bon train, au point de menacer son maintien aux affaires. Deux partis sur les trois qui composent le gouvernement de la Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles ont en effet pris position en faveur des étudiants.Et au centre de ce mouvement de contestation se trouve une jeune femme : Emila Oxhaj, 25 ans, dirigeante de la FEF, la Fédération des étudiants francophones, le plus grand syndicat d'étudiants belges de la région, très visible dans les médias belges francophones ces dernières semaines. Depuis Bruxelles, notre correspondant Jean-Jacques Héry nous en brosse le portrait.Un détour par la question vitale de l'accès à l'eau en AlbanieIl y a tout juste un an, le gouvernement de Tirana et la marque américaine Patagonia célébraient en grandes pompes un événement inédit : la création d'un parc national pour sanctuariser la Vjosa, l'un des derniers fleuves sauvages d'Europe.Mais moins d'un an après, des travaux sont en cours pour détourner la source de son principal affluent, qui est lui aussi protégé. Le but de ces travaux est d'alimenter les stations balnéaires de la côte albanaise, en plein boom touristique. Dans la vallée où se trouve la source, la population locale n'a pas été prévenue. Et elle s'inquiète pour son accès à l'eau. Les associations de défense de l'environnement s'alarment, donc, non seulement du futur parc national, mais aussi pour les zones protégées du pays. Reportage dans la vallée de Shushica, en Albanie, de Louis Seiller.

En Irlande, le soutien aux Palestiniens est une cause très populaire. Ce soutien s'explique par la propre histoire de l'Irlande, elle-même occupée et soumise à la Grande-Bretagne pendant des siècles. La mémoire de la lutte contre la colonisation britannique et, par-dessus tout, la mémoire de la Grande famine de 1846, qui a tué un million d'Irlandais et poussé un million d'autres à l'exil, est toujours bien vivante. Et elle est ravivée par le conflit israélo-palestinien.Le directeur d'un club de football de Dublin très marqué à gauche de l'échiquier politique, le Bohemian FC, onze fois champion d'Irlande, a par exemple annoncé l'organisation prochaine d'un match amical avec des joueuses palestiniennes. Depuis l'année dernière, ses joueurs portent d'ailleurs un maillot aux couleurs de la Palestine.La position unique en Europe des Irlandais face au conflit au Proche-Orient, c'est le sujet du reportage à Dublin de Clémence Pénard.Le conflit israélo-palestinien provoque des turbulences en EuropeEn Allemagne, contrairement à l'Irlande, c'est une relation particulière et amicale avec Israël qui prévaut plutôt. Et cela s'explique évidemment par l'histoire du pays avec le peuple juif. On le sait, l'Allemagne s'est rendue coupable des crimes incommensurables de la Shoah, une responsabilité historique qui est restée ancrée dans la République fédérale allemande, comme nous l'explique notre correspondant à Berlin Julien Méchaussie.En Écosse, une loi entrée en vigueur le 1er avril dernier fait des vaguesCette loi s'appelle le « Hate Crime and Public Order Act ». En français, la « Loi contre les crimes de haine ». Pour certains, il s'agit d'une avancée dans la protection des minorités. Mais pour d'autres, elle signe la fin de la liberté d'expression en Écosse, rien de moins. Franceline Beretti a tenté pour nous d'y voir clair, avec son Œil européen.Les universités en Belgique francophone sont en ébullitionEn cause : un décret durcissant, à partir du mois de septembre prochain, non seulement les conditions d'accès aux études, mais aussi les conditions pour rester dans le cursus universitaire. La volonté du gouvernement est officiellement d'éviter que trop d'étudiants ne « traînent » dans leurs études. Mais même au sein de la coalition au pouvoir en Wallonie, la polémique va bon train, au point de menacer son maintien aux affaires. Deux partis sur les trois qui composent le gouvernement de la Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles ont en effet pris position en faveur des étudiants.Et au centre de ce mouvement de contestation se trouve une jeune femme : Emila Oxhaj, 25 ans, dirigeante de la FEF, la Fédération des étudiants francophones, le plus grand syndicat d'étudiants belges de la région, très visible dans les médias belges francophones ces dernières semaines. Depuis Bruxelles, notre correspondant Jean-Jacques Héry nous en brosse le portrait.Un détour par la question vitale de l'accès à l'eau en AlbanieIl y a tout juste un an, le gouvernement de Tirana et la marque américaine Patagonia célébraient en grandes pompes un événement inédit : la création d'un parc national pour sanctuariser la Vjosa, l'un des derniers fleuves sauvages d'Europe.Mais moins d'un an après, des travaux sont en cours pour détourner la source de son principal affluent, qui est lui aussi protégé. Le but de ces travaux est d'alimenter les stations balnéaires de la côte albanaise, en plein boom touristique. Dans la vallée où se trouve la source, la population locale n'a pas été prévenue. Et elle s'inquiète pour son accès à l'eau. Les associations de défense de l'environnement s'alarment, donc, non seulement du futur parc national, mais aussi pour les zones protégées du pays. Reportage dans la vallée de Shushica, en Albanie, de Louis Seiller.

The Hate Crimes of Public Order ACThttps://www.audacy.com/989wordThe Tara Show Follow us on Social MediaJoin our Live StreamWeekdays - 6am to 10am Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/989wordRumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-2031096X: https://twitter.com/989wordInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/989word/ "Red Meat, Greenville." 04/03/24

Join me Alexis Blake and my fiancé Liam Blake on our semi-weekly podcast - where we discuss the latest hot topics, our life in general and also answering questions from viewers! On today's episode we discuss Scotlands new Hate Crime and Public Order Act which is now in effect, Queer Pheasants, and Demi Livato is no longer Non - Binary?! Hope you enjoy! All our love  Alexis & Liam

It's Tuesday, April 2nd, A.D. 2024. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Kevin Swanson South African bus crashes, killing 45 A bus carrying 46 persons from Botswana to an Easter service in Moria, South Africa drove off a bridge and burst into flames over the weekend, resulting in 45 deaths, reports a South African news site. Only one person, an 8-year-old girl, miraculously survived the crash. One relative told the New York Times, “No one can explain this miracle.” Arsonist torches Bibles Somebody set a trailer full of Bibles on fire in the parking lot of Global Vision Bible Church in Juliet, Tennessee on Sunday. Pastor Greg Locke made a statement on Facebook. He wrote, “Our security cameras caught a man dropping off a trailer in the middle of the intersection and blocking the road into our church. He then got out and set fire to an entire trailer full of Bibles right in front of our church.”   The police are investigating. Will Scottish be imprisoned for “misgendering”? News pundit Paul Joseph Watson of Modernity News is suggesting that thousands will be investigated and some imprisoned in Scotland for misgendering. That would include the likes of famous author J.K. Rowling. This week, Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act of 2021 goes into effect. Anyone who is “stirring up hatred” on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender identity will be prosecuted. Sanctions could extend to seven years in prison for any “insulting” behavior towards the protected groups. Israel killed top Iranian commander in Syria An Israeli air attack leveled a building on or near the property of the Iranian consulate in Syria, resulting in multiple casualties, reports the BBC. The Iranian state-affiliated media has confirmed that a top commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Mohammad Reza Zahedi, was killed in the attack. Germany legalized marijuana Germany has just legalized private possession and the recreational use of marijuana. The Deutsch Welle news site quoted the president of the German Society of Psychiatry. He said, “I fear that with this law we are casting out the devil and replacing him with Beelzebub.” Germany joins the European Union countries of Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Belgium, and the Netherlands with this move. Drug-related executions up But now, worldwide drug-related executions are on the rise.   Records available for 2023 reveal that 467 people were executed for drug-related offenses. And that doesn't include China, North Korea, and Vietnam. Most of the data comes from Iran, Kuwait, and Singapore.   These numbers are up 44% from the previous year. Americans are crippling themselves with illicit drugs People in the United States consume more illicit drugs than any other nation, according to data from World Population Review. America rates 6.7 on Disability-Adjusted Life Years.  Estonia, Mongolia, Canada, Greenland, and Russia also rate between 3.8 and 5.0 on Disability-Adjusted Life Years, due to illicit drug use. For drug deaths per 100,000, the U.S. rates twice as many than the second highest in the world — Estonia, and three times as many deaths as Canada, which stands at third place in the world for drug deaths.   Drug-related U.S. deaths have exceeded 110,000 per year.  95% of the world's opium comes from a mere three nations: Afghanistan (the world leader), Mexico, and Myanmar. The nations with the lowest drug-related deaths in the world are found in Africa and Southeast Asia. Proverbs 11:19 reminds us that, “As righteousness leads to life, so he who pursues evil pursues it to his own death.” Interest payments on U.S. debt have exploded U.S. government interest payments, as a percentage of total tax receipts, have exploded to 35%.   That's the highest level since big inflation rates of the 1980s and early 1990s. Cost of housing skyrocketing To afford a median-priced house in the U.S. today, an American family would have to earn $111,000.   By contrast, in January 2020, just before COVID, the American family would have to earn $76,000 to afford a median-priced house.  That's a whopping 46% increase. The Consumer Price Index has run 20% over these four years. Most Americans believe Jesus rose from the dead In 2022, Lifeway Research reported that 66% of Americans agreed that the Biblical account of Jesus Christ's physical resurrection was completely accurate. Only 23% disagreed. Trust in U.S. pastors hitting rock bottom In other religious surveys, trust in pastors has reached an historic low in America — dropping from 64% to 32% since 2001.  Pastors are less trusted than nurses, veterinarians, engineers, dentists, medical doctors, pharmacists, police officers, college teachers and psychiatrists. Pastors are called to a high standard. Here's 1 Timothy 2:1-4.  “An overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.  He must manage his own household well.” Woman drags three drowning men out of water And finally, an Australian woman is being hailed a hero for hauling not one, not two, but three drowning men to shore in Apollo Bay, Victoria, reports Channel 7 News.  Thirty-three-year-old Brianna Hurst risked her own life to drag the three men, all unconscious, one at a time to shore.    HURST: “It's pretty hard like I had to swim out to get him about like 20 meters and then pulled him in. He was pretty heavy. He was much bigger than me.” She began CPR until first responders arrived on the scene.  Two of the three men survived. And Channel 7 News quotes one of the survivors  “thanking God” for his rescuer. HURST: “It just feels like I did what anyone else would do.” Close And that's The Worldview in 5 Minutes on this Tuesday, April 2nd in the year of our Lord 2024. Subscribe by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Join Julie live Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday at 1p PT, call in number: 844-861-5537Check out other Julie Hartman videos: https://www.youtube.com/@juliehartman Follow Julie Hartman on social media: Website: https://juliehartmanshow.com/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/julierhartman/X: https://twitter.com/JulieRHartmanSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Scotland's new Hate Crime and Public Order Act came into force on Monday - and within 48 hours at least 800 'hate crimes' had been reported to Scottish police. So, what's in it? And why has it put Scotland once again at the centre of the culture wars?This podcast was brought to you thanks to the support of readers of The Times and The Sunday Times. Subscribe today: http://thetimes.co.uk/thestory Guest: Kieran Andrews, Scottish Political Editor, The Times & Sunday Times. Host: Manveen Rana. Clips: BBC, Sky News, This Morning, JRE, The Daily Mail, ITV News, BBC, TalkTV, BBC, GB News, Police Scotland, Get in touch: thestory@thetimes.co.ukFind out more about our bonus series for Times subscribers: 'Inside the newsroom' Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's Tuesday, March 12th, A.D. 2024. This is The Worldview heard at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Kevin Swanson Elderly British pro-lifer arrested for holding sign outside abortion mill An elderly British woman, Livia Tossici-Bolt, is in trouble for holding up a sign in the proximity of an abortion clinic in Bournemouth, England. It said, “Here to talk, if you want to.” The Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council has proceeded to charge Livia with a crime. Her legal defense is supported by Alliance Defending Freedom UK.   The U.K. government passed legislation in the Public Order Act in 2023 enforcing censorial buffer zones around all abortion facilities, and banning any form of “influence.”   Evidently, the home office has since issued a clarification, generously allowing “for women to engage in consensual conversations of their own free will" and "to pray inside of one's own mind.”  Livia was attempting to abide by the narrow confines of these regulations, but she still faces charges. Ukrainian Baptist pastor's daughter and grandson die in drone attack On March 2nd, a Ukrainian Baptist pastor's daughter and grandson died in a drone strike in Odesa, Ukraine, an attack that resulted in the deaths of 12 people. Twenty others were injured.   The Baptist Standard reports that the father and grandfather of the victims is Nikolai Sidak  — “a well-known and respected pastor of an independent Baptist church in Odessa.” Odessa is just south of Kyiv on the Black Sea. Trump meets with Hungary's Victor Orbán despite media naysayers Hungary's president Viktor Orbán met with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump over the weekend at the former president's Mar-a-Lago complex in Palm Beach, Florida. The liberal media is referring to the Hungarian leader as a dictator, a despot, an autocrat, and an authoritarian. Hungary:  A light in Europe Orbán's party, the Hungarian Civic Alliance, was re-elected for a fourth term in 2022 by a vote of 53.7% to 34.4%.   Orbán said, “The horrors of Nazism and communism happened because some Western states in continental Europe abandoned their Christian values.” In addition, he noted, “Today's progressives are planning to do the same.” Why American right has embraced Hungarian President Viktor Orbán Voice of America explained why the American right has embraced the Hungarian President. Hungary is one of the only nations in Europe that prohibits the promotion of transgenderism or homosexuality to minors — legislation that was signed by Orban in 2021.   Mildly pro-life, Orban's government has required that mothers must listen to the heartbeat of their children before having the child aborted. Hungary reported 21,730 immigrants in 2021, compared to Germany's 874,000, Spain's 529,000, France's 336,000, and Italy's 318,000 immigrants.  Plus, the Hungarian government has also nixed all income taxes for mothers under 30 as well as mothers with four or more children. As a result, Hungary's birth rate has improved from 1.25 to 1.55 since 2010. And the Gross Domestic Product per capita increased from $14,000 to $18,000 over the same timeframe.   France added abortion as a constitutional right Meanwhile, on Friday, the French legislature brought the right to abortion into the nation's constitution — what some are calling a “world first.”   The constitutional amendment passed the parliament by a vote of 780 to 72, supported by many “far right” members.  In Psalm 94:3-7, the Psalmist asks, “Lord, how long will the wicked, how long will the wicked triumph? They utter speech, and speak insolent things; All the workers of iniquity boast in themselves. They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless. Yet they say, ‘The Lord does not see nor does the God of Jacob understand.'” Highest vs. lowest car insurance rates according to states The highest car insurance rates in the United States for 2024 are found in Louisiana, Florida, California, and Colorado. The lowest car insurance rates can be found in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Ohio, and Idaho. NASDAQ recovered and gold up Last week, the NASDAQ composite index finally recovered its 35% drop from November 2022. The Index dropped 65 points and closed at 16,019 on Monday. Gold increased another $100 over the last week, reaching $2,185 per ounce yesterday.  And silver hovered around $24.50 per ounce Monday, up $1.00 over the last week. Trump ahead in battleground states Both CNN and a website 270ToWin.com, referring to the number of delegates a presidential candidate needs to win, suggests Donald Trump is ahead in this election cycle, especially in the Sun Belt Battleground states.   Joe Biden, the incumbent, is trailing by five points or more in Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada. Psalm 75:6-7 reminds us: “For not from the East or from the West and not from the wilderness comes lifting up, but it is God who executes judgment, putting down one and lifting up another.” Hypersonic plane can travel 3,800-7,700 miles per hour And finally, the company “Stratolaunch” has successfully tested a hypersonic vehicle, with the end goal of providing a reusable space vehicle and, entering the nuclear race for hypersonic delivery vehicles. One news source describes it as the world's largest plane. Hypersonic vehicles travel at 3,800 to 7,700 miles per hour. Wow! That's fast! Close And that's The Worldview on this Tuesday, March 12th in the year of our Lord 2024. Subscribe by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

How have we arrived at a time when law enforcement tramples the gospel, while silently endorsing violence? On GB News, Christian Legal Centre's Michael Phillips commented on yet another incident of police officers weaponising PSPO (Public Spaces Protection Order) laws to threaten and silence Christian street preachers. Although these run-ins have captured the focus of the internet and mainstream news lately, they are a 'systemic problem' which the Christian Legal Centre has been working through for over a decade now. "The problem is that police officers that I meet day in, day out, are often extremely ill-informed about the Public Order Act. What the officer said is, 'You commit an offense if harassment, alarm or distressed is caused', and that is just not what the law says. "Officers always take this topsy-turvy approach to the law, whereby they say if somebody's upset then there's a crime - and that is not the case. It is not the law. And unfortunately this is a systemic problem. This is Uxbridge; we see it in Liverpool, we see it in in Yorkshire, we see it across the country. "Eventually what happens is that somebody gets arrested and and put into prison, albeit maybe only for 24 hours, and it sends a chilling effect to everybody else." Host Martin Daubney duly noted that other religious groups have caused far more disruption to public life and property without repercussions. GB News 14 February 2024

Today's episode of Yours Lawfully focuses on understanding the interconnections between climate change protests, and what, if anything, the law and media have to do with it all. This topic will be explored particularly from the perspective of climate change protesters, specifically within the Just Stop Oil movement, and the future restrictions their human rights will face from the facilitation of UK's new Public Order Act 2023. To consider this intersection, particularly from a climate change activism perspective, we decided to talk to Mathilda Lorkin, an alum from Queen Mary who has studied environmental and international law extensively in both the UK and France. Mathilda's research and expertise lies in understanding the rights of indigenous peoples and the ways in which they're impacted by climate change. You can listen to her podcast, 'Terra Nuillis' here. 

A round-up of the main headlines in Sweden on August 18th, 2023. You can hear more reports on our homepage radiosweden.se, or in the app Sveriges Radio Play. Presenter: Michael WalshProducer: Kris Boswell

https://thecommunists.org/2023/07/11/news/public-order-act-latest-anti-worker-legislation-to-outlaw-protests-and-strikes/

We hear from Sweden's Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer as the Government looks to navigate through the diplomatic crisis facing Sweden, and we take look at the thorny legal debate on potential changes to the Public Order Act. Plus, we meet some of those taking part in Stockholm Pride Week – and we talk football, as Sweden advances to the knockout stage at the World Cup.Presenters: Joshua Worth and Maya NaylorProducer: Michael Walsh

Show notes and Transcript Arrested for swearing? Yes.  This is what happened to Abi Roberts as she protested outside the COVID Inquiry in London.  Abi returns to Hearts of Oak to discuss exactly what happened.  Why did she feel compelled to protest outside the COVID Inquiry and will it reveal anything or is it just another cover up?  Under what law did the police officer arrest her?  What powers do our police now have in the UK and is this the end of any free speech? Is swearing actually now prohibited or is it just illegal for Welsh comedians? Can we regain our freedom of speech or has this so called 'Conservative' government destroyed it?  Tune in for Abi's analysis following her unexpected night in the cells.  *Might contain swearing!  Abi Roberts is a British stand-up comedian, writer and commentator and is proud to be a stone in the shoe of the cowardly bauble-chasers in politics and the media. All lovers of truth, liberty, free speech and the pursuit of justice for the crimes committed over the last three years, are welcome to her party. Abi became a professional stand-up in 2012, and since then has played some of the biggest clubs across the UK, and had several sold-out shows at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe.  She became a comedian because she wanted to write her own material and have the freedom to express her worldview – and make thousands of people laugh at the absurdity and wonder of life.  Abi's stand up show Anglichanka, which was about living and studying in Russia, gained her several 5 star rave reviews and the show toured the UK.  She was the first comedian to do shows in Moscow in both English and Russian, as Abi explains “My father was a spy… sorry, diplomat, so I went to the Soviet Union as a kid and then in the early 1990s I studied opera at the Moscow Conservatoire" Abi hosts a daily podcast and writes regular articles on her Substack.   Follow and support Abi at the following links... Websites:        https://abiroberts.com/                          https://www.cathycrunt.com/ Twitter:            https://twitter.com/abiroberts?s=20 GETTR:            https://gettr.com/user/abiroberts Substack:        http://abiroberts.substack.com/ Podcast:          https://abiroberts.substack.com/podcast Instagram:       https://instagram.com/abirober....tscomedy?utm_medium= YouTube:         https://www.youtube.com/user/AbiRobertsComedyDiva Interview recorded 21.7.23 *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20  To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more...  https://heartsofoak.org/connect/ Please subscribe, like and share! Transcript (Hearts of Oak) Hello, Hearts of Oak, and welcome to another interview coming up with Abi Roberts, who re-joined us. Been a while since she was last with us. And of course, I know many of you will have seen the video of her being arrested for swearing. So she just tells us what she was there for, the Covid inquiry, which is in effect a whitewash, a little spoiler for you. She discusses what was happening there, why she was there at the whole yellow board, what that's about. And then the police telling her she'd be arrested if she swore again. So she did. And she was arrested. How the police have the right to arrest anyone, we look at the legislation and the overreach they now have. She was held in a cell until the middle of the night, then released. Why on earth that would be done? So join us as Abi shares her story in her unique style. Abi Roberts, it is wonderful to have you back. Thank you so much for joining us today. (Abi Roberts) It's my pleasure, Peter, my pleasure. A lot's happened since I last saw you. Lots. We're going to talk about Abi's campaign to make swearing legal again. So we'll get into all of that. For the viewers @AbiRoberts on social media, on Twitter, everywhere else, and her Substack, abiroberts.substack.com. If you don't get that, actually, just if you never signed up simply just to read her article, I think that's a great article on what happened to her as she swore and was arrested. It's a fantastic article, it lays it all out. So it's well worth signing up Substack for that, and then you'll see everything else. But can we start, Abi? I'm going to play one of the video clips that sets the scene and then we'll discuss why we're there, and how in their swearing is not illegal on the streets of Britain. So let's play this two minute clip. (Video plays) Police:  You are perfectly allowed to protest, you are not allowed to swear in the street. Abi:  I'm not allowed to swear in the street? It's OK if our government commits democide, cos' that's what's happened. So you're saying to me, swearing in the street is worse, is illegal, but it's legal to lock people in their homes, and give them, coerce them, you know I'm telling the truth. Police:  Madam, here's your warning. Abi:  Have you been coerced?  Police:  Swear again you're going to get arrested. Abi:  Swear again? Well fuck... fuck you.  Police:  You are under arrest for swearing   Abi:  You are joking, you are joking, you are joking. You've seen this and you're all complicit. You know and you're going to call me an anti-vaxxer. I'm anti-tyranny, I'm anti-democide. You absolute bastards. You're arresting me for swearing, but you're not talking about democide that's been committed against the British people, lockdowns, gene therapies, how dare you. You're getting all this guys, this is Britain, this is United Kingdom. If you're not angry, there's something wrong with you. There's something wrong with you. Police:  Can you stop swearing?  Abi:  If I stop swearing, am I allowed to talk about democide? Am I allowed to talk about crimes against the British people? Do you agree with the lockdowns? Do you agree that the British people, they knew that thousands, hundreds of thousands of people were going to die. They knew at the very beginning that the lockdowns were going to kill thousands and thousands of people. Are you getting this? Are you recording any of this?  Police:  Listen to me. Abi:  So you agree the British government... Police:  I'm not getting into that. Abi:  And all the politicians were against the British people? Police:  We can have a conversation. Abi:  Can we?  Police:  Yeah. All we wanted you to do was stay on that side of the road. Abi:  Are you getting this? I'm being arrested for swearing. Police:  Just listen to what he's saying.  Abi:  I am listening. This is the UK! How dare you! (video ends) So, that's Abi in full flow.  Good grief. You know what, Peter? I don't think I've seen that in full. I'm actually, I feel quite, do you know what? I'm going to say it. I feel damn proud of myself. If only there were more people that told it how it is.  100%. When, you know what I mean? And it's weird. I feel good. God, I've got kind of goose bumps because obviously it was all just happening kind of in the moment. And, but wow, it's weird, you know, it's almost like a lot of the, like a lot of the stuff I've been doing for two and a half, three years has led to that moment, if that doesn't sound too, like, I have a dream, you know, it's like one of those things where you, you prepare for these things all your life, in little ways, you know, saying, saying what you mean, what you feel, without being afraid, and truth. It's weird, pure truth, when you speak it to power, has a way of cutting through any fear that you may have. I didn't feel, I don't know if you saw in the clip, I didn't feel, looking back at that now, I didn't feel afraid at all of the consequences, you know?  Well, let's, so there are two issues here. One is the issue itself, which is the the COVID inquiry whitewash, they should have just just given it a full title. And the second issue is police overreach. Maybe let's start at the first one. Why were you there that fateful day, Abi? That fateful day on the grassy knoll, which I mentioned in my article because it was a little grassy bank where all the the photographers and well, I've got a new collective noun for journalists. It's a shame of journalists. I don't include some people, including yourself. There are some people that stay out of that collective noun, but let's be honest, most journalists are a shame. If you compare them to Woodward and Bernstein, you know, those guys with the Watergate scandal, they dug and dug and dug and dug and dug and dug and got their sources, cross-referenced their sources. You know, you've read, you know the story. What a disgrace the press have been. Anyway, back to the day. So I basically, I went down that Tuesday morning, the 27th of June to meet my good friend Francis O'Neill. Who I believe you know, he was with his Yellow Boards. They do so much great work, they're grassroots activists, so they stand on roads, on roundabouts, and actually they're getting more and more traction, you know, with all sorts of issues, including the COVID-19 vaccines and the ULEZ, all that kind of, basically, yeah, government and overreach. And it's really, they do great work. So I went down to meet him at Dorland House where this COVID UK inquiry, can I just say before I forget, I saw you talk to Steve Bannon about it, it was, this was a, I wasn't really in any place to kind of talk to many people, but I just wanted to say that in answer to Steve's question about is it a whitewash, it's worse than that actually, it's, if you saw Matt Hancock talking on that, he was actually interviewed that day, the day I went down, he said that he thought the next time the lockdowns should be harder, faster, stricter. And that they didn't act quick enough and strict enough. So actually, everything we've said, many of us have said for the last three years, has come true, which is that they're going to, they're trying to corral people into this way of thinking. So I would just like to make that clear that in a weird way, it's worse than the Watergate scandal because so many of the crimes that have been committed as people are off the charts. I mean, I've seen various people I respect very much, including Brett Weinstein on his Dark Horse pod, say that the Nuremberg Code has been violated purely by using coercion and lack of consent, including informed consent. I mean, it's very important that we get these specifics right. And regardless of what is in, this is the point that I make in my article that I made very clear, including to the police, that what's in these gene therapies, these so-called vaccines, is sort of a side issue. The crime is the coercion. And when people say, but I wasn't forced, well, yeah, but you were told if you don't get them, then you lose your job, you can't travel, you lose your friends. Do you see what I mean? If you look up the definition of coercion, it includes blackmail, force, vilification, being told, well, you're a bad person, blah, blah, blah. So it's very important that people understand this. So that's one of the reasons I went down, was because I felt so strongly. Matt Hancock was in there and people, American viewers who may not know and people from around the world of course who watch this, he was the health secretary during the time, during the 2020 and part of 2021 when the vaccine rollout happened. He was cheering for it, he was fake crying going I can't believe it, we've got this miracle cure that we're going to coerce into the arms of the British people, which is a disgrace in itself. So I went down, met my fellow yellow boards, got into a chat with a few people who were kind of lurking by the entranceway. It's in Paddington, by the way, guys, if anyone, again, not from the UK. Paddington is a kind of main part of London, West London. So this building is kind of on a thoroughfare, on a main road. And then there's a little entranceway where it's kind of, it's like an official building where they were doing the inquiry and by the entrance there was a little table with three people and again in my article. My Substack article I mentioned this, there were two, I think two men and a woman and they had this like, I thought well they're on our side, you know because they were standing outside, you know how you just, you assume, they looked like the kind of people who would have been on all the marches that I went on and the woman said, I said I'll presume we're on the same side and the woman pointed over to the road where the yellow boards were and said, the anti-vaxxers are over there. Well, Peter, and viewers who know me, the red mist descended. And I just, and I turned, and I said to them, I thought, well, I'm not going to go into the MRNA. I'm not going to go into the scientific detail about what's in these things, because that's model, it's confused people, including myself by the way, so I thought no I'm going to go for the moral argument, which is that the coercion, the lack of informed or consent, any other consent, meant that it was violating the Nuremberg Code. So serious crimes have been committed against the globe, you know, in 90 countries around the world. So we're talking about millions and millions and millions of people just with this one action by world governments. And I mean, I've made, I said it slightly less, it was a bit shorter than that, just for, I'm just, I'm expanding because we're talking. And then, so I said that to them, and then turn around and I said, and that's not conjecture, that's fact. That's fact. So I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I'm anti-tyranny, I'm anti, you know, as you saw in the video, anti-democide, anti-lies, anti-coercion, you know, all those terrible Free speech, you know, being a free individual, all those kind of terrible things which some people are for.  But can I ask, because obviously the so-called, media on the right that supposedly stand up for free speech, all of that, who were silent for the vast majority and suddenly come out at the very end to say oh look we overspent a little bit on PPE, oh it's really naughty, or the government official got a contract for this, that's really naughty. I mean after you've gone through the last two and a half years of control. So they have, I don't think any of the mainstream media have even called this art as just a whitewash that will hide over everything, because even if you have government failings of spending or the control of cronyism, but it's much deeper than that. It's collusion with the drug companies.  Oh, yeah, completely. It's collusion. Is Hancock, the person who, because it seems so he's been thrown under the bus, kind of, although he'll get a lucrative media career. It's kind of, well, he did some things, but the rest of us, we carry on as normal. That seems to be how this will be the outcome. Well, this is the crazy thing, is that Matt Hancock is, I mean, it's a bit like, I have compared much to people's disgust, what happened to us, to people around the world to the early 1930s in Germany. I make that comparison with no shame, because it's the truth, or you could compare it to the Soviet Union in the first part of the 20th century, everything that was going on there, or name any other regime where they use force, intimidation, segregation, all those kinds of things. So you're talking about, I mean, the reason that Matt Hancock is the poster boy is because there's always gotta be a poster boy for the, what's the word, I was going to say scapegoat, but he's not, he's just a criminal. He's a criminal that happened to be part of a criminal establishment. And I'm very careful by the way to not just to target the Tories because Labour... In fact, everyone in the House of Commons and the House of Lords and the monarchy, you know, and I'm talking, by the way, if you'd spoken to me in 2019, Peter, I would have been like, oh, well, you know, it's really lovely because we've got the two-party system, you know, we've got the lovely Queen, we've got the whatever, blah, blah, blah. Wow, have my eyes been opened? You know, it's not about believing in every single conspiracy theory that anyone utters. You know, I'm always, I'm very particular about, this is why I'm so focused on this one issue, which is the last three years, the lockdowns, especially the vaccines in inverted commas, because I feel that such a terrible crime has been committed by, and also let's not forget the United States, you know, and again, I had nothing but love for the States. You know, I was going to to live there before I met my late husband. So I was going to, I got my visa. I got my O-1, which is a person of exceptional ability. I got that visa. I was going to go, man. I was going to go in 2008. It breaks my heart when I look at New York, what they did to Broadway, the Broadway actors. They made them, they made them get jabbed to like, well, otherwise you just can't work. So you see these wonder people like guys like Clifton Duncan, who's on, he said, well, I'm out then, I'm out. You, this is my body. This is my, this is, you know, my holy, sort of God-given body, get away with that stuff. So the United States, particularly the Democratic, Democrat states, honestly, I never thought I would see America go down that path, but holy shit, balls, guys. I know many people watching will agree with me, Americans. Canadians did the same thing. It is quite astounding the level, and I think people need to be aware of this, the level, the comparator between the 20th century, the first part of the 20th century, with all the dictators, with all the tyrants that there were around and that political sort of shadow that was cast, the similarities that there are with today. Trudeau, Biden, that his administration, in fact most of Europe, many countries, you know Germany and Austria, they were, I mean Austria went full fascist and so did Germany. They fell back into their, those tropes and maybe it's because there were so many marches and that it didn't go quite as, well I was going to say far as camps, but then Australia did have camps, They had lockdown camps in, is it Hope Springs? Or Hope... Do you remember there's a place in Australia, like a really lovely nature reserve, where people would have just been lovely to hang out and people I'm sure watching maybe have been there. I've seen videos of a woman trying to climb over the wall. She's climbing over a wall like The Great Escape, you know, from the Nazi camp. And then she's got those guards who like tug her back down. And then these people sitting there going, doing their video diaries, going, well, I'm sitting here, it's been my fourth day in isolation or whatever, in my, you know, and I'm like, what the hell, what the hell is this? And the same with a friend of mine, a well-known actor, he had to, well, he got the vaccines to go and work in America and he had to stay in a hotel. This is when he travelled for like... Maybe like a week or something, but like in a hotel room with like just a balcony. And honestly, to watch his videos, I was crying. I thought this is against everything that we, all of us, hold dear, you know, left or right. I mean, obviously the left have gone particularly AWOL, you know, but I've started to think, Peter, because you know that I was a small c conservative, I suppose libertarian, you know, so all my thought processes were kind of down that. But I'm starting to think that actually, you know, this is something bigger, but that definitely has, it has echoes of that communist, you know, sort of, what's the word, collectivization, I would say. It has, that's why I think we look at the left and go, oh yeah, the similarities are so obvious, you know, but I think party politics is over. I think we're coming into a new era now. Yeah, because obviously the uni-party is the term used over in the state for the Republican Democrats and it seems to be that's across the world and governments combined to control and coerce everyone. I think the worst one in Australia I came across was a family whose child was seriously ill with some condition, the ambulance took them to a specialist hospital, which was over the state border in Australia, and the parents were not allowed to go and see their child as it lay dying. And what level of evilness would make an exception, whatever, but that didn't matter. It was, no, no, we must follow the diktat.  Yeah, we must follow the, and that's the extraordinary thing, Peter. And actually, very sadly, I mean, I talk about this a lot on my podcast. Abi Daily. Well, I've addressed it so many times, I kind of, it's almost like it's a stock record, where you, the sad fact of the matter is that, and I think Graham Hancock may have said this, he's the guy that made the shows about possibly there being other civilisations that may have been around earlier than us, which is that the human race may suffer from amnesia. So you know how people are always saying, look back at history, don't forget history. You know all these wonderful quotes that float around about the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I don't know who said that, probably an American, but it's true, but the problem is we forget to be vigilant. What's happened now is that because of that, we're seeing the results of people not turning round and saying, enough. Like I said, I don't want to go into so much the party political thing but with the right, there's been a lot of times where I think to myself, is Roger Scruton enough to fight back, even though he's got great ideas about truth and beauty and goodness, which I totally hold dear, but is it enough for political change? Because at the moment we need more than that, as we've seen with Uxbridge last night. I think people are living in a bit of a cloud cuckoo land. And I say this in all seriousness, it's not going to cut it. With the Tories, we're like, oh, we're anti-ULEZ. Guys, this is the least of our problems and they vote in the Tories. Sorry, did you not see what the Tories have presided over the last three years and further back? I mean, like you said, Peter, though, you're right, it's a uni-party, it's Biden, it's this massive blob of sort of communo-fascist ideology, which is masquerading as, look at us, we're for the people, you know, yeah, we're just like introducing these things, these green things, you know, to save the planet and blah, blah. And of course, like you said, all the while it's for control. It's just to, because human beings, this is an anti-human ideology. Human beings are sort of like Stanley Johnson has said in his books, they're sort of an inconvenience, human beings, that's his view, rather than, you know, it's a gift from God, your life is a gift from God, you do with it. I was thinking about my grandpa, my wonderful Welsh gramps, Bob Roberts, his name was, and I was thinking, and he said, you know, your life is a gift, your talents are a gift. Use it. Use them. Use them as fully as you can. I'm not sure what he'd think about me being arrested. Actually, knowing him, he probably would be going, yeah, that's my girl. God love him, God rest him. But I think it's true. I think it's true. We have one life, so we may as well try and make it count. Not just for us, not just for now, but for the people that come after us. You're 100%. Can I ask you, the inquiry is a tick box exercise, we see through the BS, the mainstream media will play the game and play along. Before we get on to your campaign making swearing legal again, can I ask you about how do you perceive it? Because as you said, three, four years, four or five years ago, you would have thought actually a two-party system, and we have a monarchy, which is kind of good. Now, all that our institutions are good for society. They keep us, all that. And then that's all changed. So we have lost trust in many people, lost trust in the police. There's no longer policing by consent. It is policing by force. Absolute change. Biggest change in what, 200 years in policing. Zero trust in politicians. You see the voting rates so low and across the board. I mean, the even zero trust in our legal system, our courts anyway, have collapsed under so-called Covid. And now it takes you a year. The whole thing has gone to ground. And the Conservatives, what is there to conserve if everything has been burned to the ground? And how do you view that? I mean, we both we both live in the UK and we would like to believe that institutions are positive for society. We're the opposite opinion, as are many others.  Yeah, that's a good point. I've been thinking about this long and hard, actually. I remember having a conversation with Claire Fox. Hmm, how disappointing she is. Amazing, you know, how many communist revolutionaries there are who are far from revolutionary. In fact, if anything, they toe the line, the establishment line. I've met a few of them. I'm like, I actually said to one, I went, you should be ashamed of yourself that I'm one who's doing all the pushing back. So lots of roles have been reversed with this, which many of your viewers will be aware of, this weird inversion of things, as often happens in history. This isn't unusual. Well, it is, but it's not, if you know what I mean, because we have been here. I mean, there are countries that have suffered under tyrants and perverse ideologies, anti-human ideologies. But what was your question again? Oh, that's a two-party system. But all the institutions, we've lost this completely.  Oh, that's it. Yeah, you've reminded me about the Clare Fox chat. This was way back when I used to be on GB News. Mm, that's a whole, aren't they doing well, Peter? Oh, who'd have thought it? Anyway, that's a sight.  And your favourite journalist there calling you an anti-vaxxer on the day, but that's a whole separate issue. Your favourite journalist, Tom, what's his name,  Tom Harwood, yeah. Yes, exactly, who'd look very at home in a Hugo Boss suit and knee-high boots, and that's only at the weekends. That's from my article. Please read it, it's hilarious and sad at the same time. So in answer to your question, when Claire Fox and I had this chat when I was first on and she said that she thought the institutions could be saved from within. And I pushed back on this, I said, yeah, I don't think so, I don't think so, Claire. Because anyone that knows, this is what's so bizarre, Peter, anyone that knows anything, or claims to have read anything about anything, knows that the long march through the institutions that happened in Mao's China, happened in the Soviet Union, it happened in all these Marxist, let's use this paradigm, seeing as, because I know there will be maybe people watching going, yeah, but you've just said there's no such thing as left and right, but let's use this framework, is that the common purpose, this whole collectivization ideology has been creeping in and it's strangled everything like bindweed. So it's been happening for like maybe 30 years, maybe more than that actually. And the problem is, it's everywhere, it's woodworm in all the institutions, so like you said, everything's kind of collapsed. So I think, this is my personal view, is that no, the institutions should be rebuilt. And I don't mean build back better, I mean in the good sense that after the Enlightenment, you know, like Erasmus, you know, where we look around and say where are the good, where are the thinkers, the critical thinkers, I mean like myself, like yourself, can we have institutions that are the green shoots of, you know, for the next generation. So you have kids who go, oh, thank goodness for people like Abi Roberts and Peter Mcilvenna and various other people, because they saw the corruption, the evil that's in everything. Like you said, the judiciary, good grief. I was in the police cell thinking they could pin anything on me, these guys. That's a scary thought. I actually also thought, shall I fake a panic attack in the police cell. I was in there, by the way, viewers, for 17 hours. And I thought, and I'm claustrophobic as well, which didn't, I mean, I honestly, I've never prayed so hard in my life or sang so much to keep myself occupied. But I genuinely thought maybe I should fake a panic attack so that they'll let me out and I'll be with some medics. And then I thought, actually. Given what the medical profession have done the last three years, I would rather stay in the cell. Now that is, if that isn't a soundbite for 2023, I don't know what is. Abi Roberts would rather have stayed in a police cell with two Nigerians next door going, eh oh eh eh oh, like Nigerian Teletubbies, no comment, no comment bro, and smearing, you know, as I was told, because I smelt bleach and one of them had smeared his own excrement up the walls. I would rather have been in that cell, that damn cell, than be with doctors. So that's where we are, guys. But it's not just the UK, it's everywhere. So I hope that kind of answered your question, which is I've always believed in the, what the Russians did in Stalin's time, which is obviously you had many people who went along with it, the whisperers, they were called, you know, who whispered to, I may even have said this on one of our chats, that in Stalin's time, a lot of people just went along with it and used to grass up their neighbours and they were called the Whisperers. It just became this thing. So a lot of people go along with it and actually sort of get quite used to it. Oh, it's quite nice being locked at home. It's quite nice being forced, coerced into having injections. Oh, it's quite nice not being able to travel further than 15 minutes outside. You know what I mean? All these things, that's what happened under Stalin where everyone went, it's quite nice. Just only being able to have one cow, which the Kulaks, you know what I mean? All these little things people sort of started to think, well, maybe this is just our lot. We should rather than thinking, no, this is not our lot. This is not what life is for, what free life is for. But there were secrets of society. There were secret meetings and the catacombs, the true Christians, so not the Orthodox church that was hand in hand with Stalin. And they all met and they all prayed and they all, so children, educated children. So it was all happening, but sort of in parallel. Do you know what I mean? With the, so my view, and again, I said this to Lawrence Fox on a, God blimey, how the mighty have fallen. I said to him on a Twitter Spaces that I thought that we should start to have a parallel society. And he disagreed with that. Well, look what happened in Uxbridge last night. You know, I may be blonde, I may be a comedian, I may be silly and swear and the rest of it, But you know, a sharper mind you will not find talking about this kind of stuff. So you people can believe in their Labour versus Tory and their new parties and blah blah, but it's going to take a lot more than that. It's going to take a hell of a lot more. I mean, put it this way, Peter, I... Never thought I'd be arrested in this country for saying, fuck off, fuck you, whatever, standing with the police and the press, taking photographs of me outside a building where they were essentially lying about what's happened over the last three years. And that, but you know, like I said, I'm proud that I'm, it's something that, Um, yeah, that all, I didn't think I'd be in this position, but I'm I'm glad that I did it. I'm glad. OK, so one ask about the police side. It seems that we are now at the stage and part of this, a lot of this is a so-called conservative government. Laws being put in place that give the police absolute right to make up stuff, and it's this whole thing of offens,e of anything which may, possibly might do in the next 100 years to someone reading it in the far-flung galaxy, may find offense, then that is enough. It seemed as though that was, and it means taking, if you're wearing brown shoes and the policeman thinks, no, I don't like brown shoes, that's offensive. They can literally come up with anything, and it seemed to be what he said it to you, And it was so funny looking back at him saying, what, if I swear again? And you're thinking, if I swear again, I should swear. Well, also, you know, I spoke to an ex-policeman about this, who's on our side, by the way, very much on our side. So he was very high up in the police. And I spoke to a couple of people actually about, and obviously I can't reveal too much to you about things which may or may not happen with the process, but he said that if swearing was illegal, then I would have been arrested the first time. He said that's a point of that. And also, before anyone takes you by the arm, you know, you see the two, I don't know if it's in the clip, but the two policewomen, they really grip hold of me, took my arms. They're meant to say, We're going to now put our hands on you and take you, this is in the old days, the old school, They had to take you through everything. So you're seeing people that have been trained in a police college that is riddled with common purpose. I'm going to go back to that phrase, common purpose, look it up, Peter, you know what I'm talking about. The communitarian, this wonderful idea that everyone, hey, as long as everyone is abiding by this ideology, then it's okay for you to act beyond your authority. That's part of the common purpose thing, which is, by the way, a Marxist organisation. It was set up many years ago by the daughter of a Marxist called Julia Middleton. So look it up. It's all true. Whether that is running in tandem or not with what we're talking about, the global tyranny is kind of another matter. It's almost too coincidental that it's all kind of coming together. This whole offence thing, and in fact, the Public Order Act 1986 should really have been, I mean, it shouldn't even be there. And I'm very worried, Peter, about this online offence, online harms bill. There's a lot of stuff which will be used, stuff maybe we're seeing now in the media being used about people saying certain things, doing certain things, and Oh, in which case, then let's have let's have harsher laws. So I would say.  But on the online city bill, so we've had Signal boss has said they will have to pull out because they do not give back doors to anyone. Wikipedia have said they will have to shut down their operation in the UK. I know Telegram have talked about, Apple have said it is. I mean, everyone is saying this is overreach to the nth degree. And yet the government don't give a damn. so-called conservative government think this is wonderful, let's shut everyone up. Yes, exactly. The so-called conservative. I mean, this is what's weird though is I think we have to... We have to stop thinking in terms of, I'm afraid to say, in terms of Conservative and Labour, because whatever's taken over both those parties and everyone else in the House of Commons, let's be honest, all of them, is a dark force, is a dark ideological force. So we're in a historical, we are in a first, in Britain, in the sense that I mean, I again never thought I'd be sitting here saying that the two-party system, it's I mean, our democratic system is broken. It's completely broken. It's completely, it's been trashed, it's been stamped on and the people of this country need to wake up and realise that, you know, if you want to go to I mean, I heard someone the other day say, well, maybe China, a Chinese system wouldn't be that bad. Really? Really? Yeah. Brilliant. How fantastic. I mean, that's the level. People will go, well, even if we have to live in a tiny flat, a tiny room, you know, with our tokens, you know, with our, what's it? Compliance tokens, I call them. Yeah. All those things. And our currency, and have you been well behaved, all that. People, I'm sorry, Peter, but a lot of people, like I've said in history, will go along with it. They'll go, well, what's the worst that can happen? At least I'll get my food and I'll get my, because they don't prize freedom. They don't prize the idea. And when I say freedom, I don't mean freedom, like it's this weird sort of slogan. I mean the free soul, the spirit, The idea that freedom is not just about a word, it's about you and the extension of you around you. So including things that come out of your mouth, your utterances, all that is sacred. And including swearing, by the way. And I know people say, I know there might be some Christians watching saying, how could you be a Christian? Well, I am, I've got my lovely cross on, which by the way, they made me take off in the police station. I said to them, what am I going to do, stab myself in the eye with it? It's a cross for heaven's sake. Even though I did hear people down the other cells say we need to pray so they were let out. Hmm. That's interesting, Peter.  Look, the thing... And there's so much we could cover, and I won't keep you all day. But I want to, in, you're arrested. I mean, if you are, you've sworn, and that is illegal, and you can be arrested, something like that should be, you would think, well, you get taken down the station, you get like a 50 pound, 100 pound fine, I don't know what. But you were actually kept, probably because they thought you were a danger to society? What is the benefit of keeping you locked in a cell instead of just processing you in 30 minutes and then letting you go? Yeah, well, good question. And when I went down there, they told me that I, and again, it's in the article, they told me, the solicitor on the phone said, they'd agreed, they'd suggested, they'd said that this is the police, so they'd give me a £90 fine, which I could either pay in 21 days or take it to court. So like, you know, dispute it and take it to court. So that was, I was told by the solicitor, she said, you'll be out in the afternoon. That was the first phone call. Hours later, when I started to get the feeling that something wasn't quite right, because I was getting, being told different things by the police who were opening the little cell door where they put the food and water in, I thought, hang on a minute, they're gonna try and keep me in for 24 hours. And according to Francis, who came down to the station, bless him, and stayed there for hours, Francis O'Neill. And I didn't know that he was there until someone had said, by the way, I think there's a friend of yours out there. He's been waiting, I was like, oh my God. Apparently, a separate team got involved, a kind of protest team. But you know what, when I was in there, one of the coppers, and again, this is in the article, said, we're conflicted about letting you go because we don't know who's gonna replace you. And as I was leaving, one of the other police women who interviewed me said, we've talked to all the staff here, and they say you're by far the nicest criminal that they've ever met. They probably wanted to keep you in. Because you would lighten up the mood. They did. Well, I was just there on my plastic mat reading a book. I had, because one of the lovely police, well, I say lovely, he was really, he didn't want to shut the door, the cell door. He didn't want to shut it. And he said, I don't know why you're in here. He said, you know, he whispered. And then he took me out and he, I chose a couple of books to read. So I was reading, I was there with my Bernard Cornwall. Which I only know about because James Delingpole mentioned it on his, mentioned it on London Calling.  Yeah, it must be good.  And then another book. And I was just there, you know, with my cups of tea, you know, nibbling on a little biscuit. And I was just like there, you know, do praying, singing, thinking, this too shall pass. You know, I'm thinking, I was thinking to myself, you're not Solzhenitsyn. You're not, you're not Nelson Mandela. You're not, You know, many, you know, Artur Pawlowski, the lovely Polish priest who, by the way, can I just quickly say, he needs our help. His trial in Canada is, the verdict is going to be on August the 9th. So this man, you know, who told, who they, the police interrupted an Easter service and he told them they were Nazis and the Gestapo, quite rightly. He then made a speech at to the truckers rally in 2022. He was then put in prison for 51 days. In prison. So if he gets found guilty, this is the Canada, the wonderful Canada under Trudeau, he'll get 10 years, 10 years. So to round this up, it was 17 hours, but it was not in comparison to many people many people who have come before me, including Artur, Artur Palowski, sorry any Polish people if I'm getting the pronunciation wrong. God love him. He's one of my true heroes of this time, because he was prepared to say, no, no, I'm not gonna live in a country. I'm not going to give away my freedom to you and the freedom of my congregation, my flock. He said, as a shepherd, he said, it's my duty to protect my flock. And I'm like, oh my goodness, you know? Maybe Calvin Robinson could take a few notes. I told you, you weren't going to get, Peter knows me, that I have to slip in the odd, well, it's true, come on, enough of the tweed and the baubles. What about the people? There are no restrictions, Abi. I don't think we've ever edited, literally, and I say this, start with you. I think the only, we removed one video, but with someone who just went crazy and started just going at us, that was only one. Piers Corbyn we removed because he couldn't use a camera and the internet. So it was just... Oh bless Piers It was embarrassing. But I don't think we've ever actually edited or removed anything. So what's the point? You want the guest on, you want them to talk because you want them to speak. And I am making, I think I'm making, well, you know, I'm making a point. And this is something I've, don't forget, you know, I've, I've had a journey over the last three years. I've contemplate and, and wrestle, struggle with stuff and ideas and, and my faith, and all these kind of things. And all I would say is that, beware the baubles. It's become like my catchphrase in my, on my site with my Abi Daily family, and on Twitter, beware the baubles. And what I mean by that is, the Holy Grail was not a jewel-encrusted chalice. It was a simple wooden cup, and in that cup was the truth.  And that's all you need to know.  100%. Abi, just to finish, just last thought, does this mean that if I go outside now, doing the school run, and I happen to swear, because, I don't know, for whatever reason, a colleague comes to me and I say, holy shit, what was that? Is that now suddenly, I can now be arrested or something over here? Or is it simply that the police now have the power to use and abuse whoever they want to at will? I think it's the latter, you're right. I'm not sure, it's not the, I mean the swear word is part of it, but as Artur Pawlowski says, that when he was living under Soviet, it is in Poland, when the Soviets were around, is that the police could, if they could choose a man, so anyone, and fine something on them. That's what the police motto was in Poland at that time. So, you know, you look around, pick anyone in the street and you'd find they might have a parking fine, they might've had a row with a neighbour a few years ago, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, all these things. And the point is, they could just go, Right, you're coming down with us. So the swearing was sort of incidental to the bigger picture. So you're right that it is the police powers and because they don't know. I mean, the guys at the police desk, they didn't even know what coercion meant. I had to explain to them. I said, don't tell me this is in the police, you know, in full view of all the, everyone working there. I said, don't tell me that there aren't people in this room who were thinking, maybe something might have gone wrong with the vaccines or I might have been harmed. And then the guy behind the desk said, I wasn't forced, I wanted to go on holiday to Spain. So this is the kind of people, this is the kind of, they need to go back to, the rule, what the principles of law actually. So again, we're back to starting new institutions, Peter. We're sort of back to this idea that... That there needs to be a sort of non-violent, philosophical revolution needs to happen. Like a new enlightenment, actually. Completely. We'll finish, Abi Daily, it's in the name, it is Abi every day, tell us what people can find. How do they find it, and how can they actually listen? Yeah, well, so it's abiroberts.substack.com. you've got it under my name there. You just go to that address, you then you can listen for free. You can go on, I don't have any paywall. You can subscribe, you can if you want to donate, chuck in a few quid. I've got people who do that as well. So there's like, you'll see that I did it free for a year, and then there was pledges. So people pledged. Quite a few people went, I want to pledge. So then you switch the toggle on and then it changes to this idea that people can say. So basically, what I'm saying is, everyone's welcome to the Substack family, to Abi Daily family. I've also got some gigs coming up. I wasn't going to because I had a bit of problems with some trolls. So I was a bit like I freaked out, but I thought they're not going to win, you damn bastards, you wankers. So I have got gigs coming up at the next week. I'm doing Newport with Katie Hopkins on Friday the 28th. Then I've got Southampton 29th with a great bill with Alastair Williams. Then I've got various things coming up. Actually, that's the first bit. People will be hearing this on Monday going, we didn't think you were doing any live gigs. Well, fuck you because I am. I don't care if people want to come along and go, you're whatever, I don't know, you're a loon. I am. Yeah, we did a few days before, but it's going out on Monday, the 24th? On Monday the 24th. So everyone will get it. Make sure, and for the viewers, listeners, make sure and follow Abi on her Twitter or Substack. Everything will be up there. And Abi, you're one of the fun people I've gotten over the last few years. It's been three years of meeting a whole new set of people and losing a whole load of people as well. Losing a whole load of, yes.  I know.  To the baubles. Oh, but I love what you do and thank you so much for joining us, Abi, and sharing your crazy experiences getting locked up. It's my pleasure. One last thing before we clock off is We the People, the book that I'm, and this goes back to the COVID inquiry, Whitewash. We the People is an e-book that I released at the end of last year with lots of stories that were written to me about lockdowns, about jab injuries, et cetera, et cetera. And I'm redoing that book. So it's going to to be really going to be like a e-pub, no, published book. And there will probably be hard copies. And there'll be a launch and an audio version. So with Bob Moran's cartoons. So it's going to be laid out. And I'm going to give it to any person I meet. I was going to say MP. What good would that do? But basically, so people can understand the true horror of what's gone on. And if that's my contribution along with being arrested, Like I said, that's fine by me, you know, and I'll try and keep people laughing as well. You always do. I look forward to having that launch.  Yeah, bless you. Come to the launch for sure. Oh, I'm coming anyway, so just tell me where it is. Exactly. Just gate crash.  I'll be there.  All the best. All the best people gate crash. I'll be there. Abi, thanks so much for your time today. Cheers. Not a problem. God bless you all.

A round-up of the main headlines in Sweden on July 6th, 2023. You can hear more reports on our homepage radiosweden.se, or in the app Sveriges Radio Play. Presenter: Simon LinterProducer: Kris Boswell

Richard Hermer KC, Jessica Jones and Martha Spurrier (Director at Liberty) discuss the new Public Order Act 2023. The episode analyses the legislation including its connection to the recent Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and what the new Act means for trust in policing - seen within the context of the current problems faced by the Met Police.

On this week's #NCFNewspeak, NCF Director Peter Whittle & Senior Fellows Dr. Philip Kiszely and Rafe Heydel-Mankoo discuss: * Britain's new Public Order Act was used at the coronation to arrest members of anti-monarchy group Republic. Was that justified? Is the Public Order Act a good way to stop Just Stop Oil & Extinction Rebellion? Or is it a serious infringement of civil liberties? * Ireland's new hate crime bill would see people criminalised simply for possessing content that is "deemed" hateful against certain protected characteristics, including gender, race and religion. Simply having a meme or whatsapp message on one's phone, or a book on one's shelf would be enough to fall foul of this law. It is the most draconian piece of legislation we have ever seen. How long until a similar law is enacted in the UK? * Summary of the NCF team's take on the coronation. --------------- SUBSCRIBE: If you are enjoying the show, please subscribe to our channel on YouTube (click the Subscribe Button underneath the video and then Click on the Bell icon next to it to make sure you Receive All Notifications) AUDIO: If you prefer Audio you can subscribe on itunes or Soundcloud. Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/user-923838732 itunes: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/s... SUPPORT/DONATE: "So What You're Saying Is.." is still very new and to continue to produce quality programming we need your support. Your donations will help ensure the show not only continues but can grow into a major online platform challenging the cultural orthodoxies dominant in our institutions, public life and media. PAYPAL/ CARD PAYMENTS - ONE TIME & MONTHLY: You can donate in a variety of ways via our website: http://www.newcultureforum.org.uk/#do... It is set up to accept one time and monthly donations. ABOUT THE SHOW: So What You're Saying Is... (SWYSI) is a weekly discussion show with experts and significant figures from the political, cultural and academic worlds. The host is Peter Whittle (@PRWhittle), Founder & Director of The New Culture Forum, a Westminster-based think tank that seeks to challenge the cultural orthodoxies dominant in the media, academia, and British culture / society at large. JOIN US ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Web: http://www.newcultureforum.org.uk F: https://www.facebook.com/NCultureForum/ Y: https://www.youtube.com/@NewCultureForum T: http://www.twitter.com/NewCultureForum (@NewCultureForum)

The Metropolitan Police has faced criticism following the controversial arrest of six anti-monarchy protesters during King Charles III's coronation under new public order laws. Recent changes to the law under the new Public Order Act, passed shortly before the coronation, make it illegal for protesters to use equipment to secure themselves to things like railings. On the Sky News Daily, Niall Paterson explores what does the Public Order Act say, what is it meant to do, and why is there the potential to interpret it badly? Joining Niall are journalist Mic Wright who witnessed police action at the coronation, former chief constable of Greater Manchester Police Sir Peter Fahy, human rights barrister Adam Wagner, and professor of international law at the University of Portsmouth Leïla Choukroune. Producer: Soila Apparicio Interviews Producer: Alex Edden Promotions Producer: David Chipakupaku Editor: Philly Beaumont

Saturday the sixth of May saw two major occasions, the coronation of King Charles III in London and the All Under One Banner march in support of Scottish independence in Glasgow.We compare and contrast the two events and examine their significance not only at UK level but for the Yes Movement and the SNP.The coronation also provided the first opportunity for the Met to exercise the muscle given to them in the rushed through Public Order Act. We discuss not only this but the revelation that if they came to power Labour would not seek to repeal the act.Talking of Labour, they, the Lib/Dems, and the Greens, had good results in last week's English local elections. However, not good enough to guarantee a majority Labour government if repeated at a General Election. The prospect of a hung Parliament prompted the SNP's Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, to call on Labour voters to lend the SNP their votes to keep out the Tories in Scotland, and to lay out his demands to secure SNP support to prop up a minority Labour administration. We examine the feasibility of this strategy.We also look at the impact of the new voter ID requirements, the growing Conservative influence in public appointments and controversial proposals for "politicisation" of the Civil Service.Lesley's new book, Thrive, is now at the printers. If you want to go along to hear her talk about it here are the links to upcoming eventsGlasgow Aye Write with Neil Findlay May 26https://www.glasgowlife.org.uk/event/1/lesley-riddoch-and-neil-findlay-the-futures-of-scotlandEdinburgh June 22https://www.toppingbooks.co.uk/events/edinburgh/lesley-riddoch-2023/Other June events in Perth, Dundee, Inverness, Fort William and Maybole - details to follow. ★ Support this podcast ★

Solidarity 670, 26 April 2023. Articles: No kings, no bosses! Price inflation: facts, prospects, and responses Unions need more democracy Sudan: stop the war, fight for democracy Public Order Act imminent Organising economic life without “bosses” Russia out! Arm Ukraine! Push forward after May Day weekend strikes Union links after 21-24 April Morning Star mentions Nicaragua again The politics of emotional life EHRC flies a kite for Tory “culture-war” Diane Abbott and racism Solidarity, not saviour complex Connolly, the strike, and the children of Dublin Worker solidarity against apartheid St Mungo's strike to start mid-May STUC backs Ukraine solidarity Glasgow CCA expels Saramago Letter: The German SPD on Zimmerwald, 1915 NHS: press forward on pay Letter: Strikes, exams, and exemptions Schools: scope to escalate Support the junior doctors! Build university Marking and Assessment boycott! Michael Collins, from 1916 to 1922 Postal workers: reject Royal Mail deal! PCS reballot ends 9 May Tube pay: don't let bosses set the pace More online: https://workersliberty.org/publications/solidarity/solidarity-670-26-april-2023

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Spotify | RSS This week we're talking about a street preacher in the U.K. who was charged with violating the Public Order Act by citing a Bible passage about homosexuality. The prosecutor claimed that such passages are “no longer appropriate in modern society.” Unfortunately, he's not […]

Rerun. Attending or producing raves was made illegal in Britain with the passing of the Criminal Justice Act on 3rd November, 1994. The government even legislated against electronic dance music, “wholly or predominantly characterized by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats” These unprecedented restrictions were partly in reaction to the moral panic caused after a 'free party' at Castlemorton Common attracted 30,000-40,000 attendees, and the ire of the tabloid press. In this episode, Arion, Rebecca and Olly consider the provenance of ‘revellers' in the raver's lexicon; explain why the creation of the M25 lead directly to the Act; and confess just how many illegal parties they've (inadvertently) attended…  Further Reading: • ‘The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 becomes law' (The Guardian, 2011): https://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/jun/15/criminal-justice-public-order-act • Police clash with ravers at Castlemorton (BBC News West, 1992): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOySsljl54E • ‘Why did raves become illegal?' (BBC Newsbeat, 2020): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-53170021 #1990s #UK #music #culture ‘Why am I hearing a rerun?' Every Thursday is 'Throwback Thursday' on Today in History with the Retrospectors: running one repeat per week means we can keep up the quality of our independent podcast. Daily shows like this require a lot of work! But as ever we'll have something new for you tomorrow, so follow us wherever you get your podcasts: podfollow.com/Retrospectors Love the show? Join  

David Scott is joined by Dia Moodley of Spirit of Life Church in Bristol. Moodley is the main preacher at this church and, together with his congregation, has been engaging with the public on the streets to discuss the big issues of belief and lack of belief, morality and how to view the world. Complaints from those who do not share a Christian worldview—including transgender and LBGTQIA2S+ people, some adherents of the Islamic faith, and some angry atheists—were received by Avon and Somerset Police. The police response, notwithstanding the lawfulness of the activity, was to engage in a year-long evidence-gathering process during dialogue with Moodley and then to serve him with a warning notice (evangelism ban) under the Public Order Act 1986, ostensibly for his own protection and that of of his congregation. In other words, the aggressive and threatening behaviour of those offended was used as justification for preventing street preaching—an entirely lawful activity. The police, it seems, became allies of the offended. Listen to what transpired: an ongoing fight by Dia Moodley and his church to be able to speak in the public square and engage in peaceful discussion about important matters. He is standing up for the Gospel, and also for critical thinking and the freedom to question any philosophy, belief or idea.

 Mariah Carey has shared that recordings of the alt-rock grunge album with her lead vocals have been found. And she hinted that the elusive project will finally be released. A man who appeared to grab the flag draped over the Queen's coffin because he did not believe she was dead. Muhammad Khan, 28, was arrested and appeared at Westminster magistrates court on Tuesday, charged with two counts under the Public Order Act. A moment on Queen Elizabeth's lead-lined coffin. Julie Anne Taddeo, a Research Professor of History at the University of Maryland said: “As a material in coffins, lead helps keep out moisture and preserve the body for longer and prevent smells and toxins from a dead body escaping.” Most of the companies participating in a four-day workweek pilot program in Britain said they had seen no loss of productivity during the experiment. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

 Mariah Carey has shared that recordings of the alt-rock grunge album with her lead vocals have been found. And she hinted that the elusive project will finally be released. A man who appeared to grab the flag draped over the Queen's coffin because he did not believe she was dead. Muhammad Khan, 28, was arrested and appeared at Westminster magistrates court on Tuesday, charged with two counts under the Public Order Act. A moment on Queen Elizabeth's lead-lined coffin. Julie Anne Taddeo, a Research Professor of History at the University of Maryland said: “As a material in coffins, lead helps keep out moisture and preserve the body for longer and prevent smells and toxins from a dead body escaping.” Most of the companies participating in a four-day workweek pilot program in Britain said they had seen no loss of productivity during the experiment. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mike Isaacson: If your free speech requires an audience, might I suggest a therapist? [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: Welcome once again to The Nazi Lies Podcast. I am joined by two historians today. With us is Evan Smith, lecturer at Flinders University in Adelaide, and David Renton, who taught at a number of universities in the UK and South Africa before leaving the academy to practice law, though he still finds time to research and write. Each of them has a book about today's topic: the free speech crisis. Dr. Smith's book, No Platform: A History of Anti-Fascism, Universities and the Limits of Free Speech, chronicles the No Platform policy of the National Union of Students in the UK from its foundation in 1974 to the present day. Dr. Renton's book, No Free Speech for Fascists: Exploring ‘No Platform' in History, Law and Politics, tells a much longer story of the interplay of radical leftist groups, organized fascists, and the state in shaping the UK's speech landscape and their significance in politics and law. Both are out from Routledge. I have absolutely no idea how we've managed to make the time zones work between the three of us, but welcome both of you to the podcast. Evan Smith: Thank you. David Renton: Thanks, Mike. Mike: So David, I want to start with you because your book goes all the way back to the 1640s to tell its history. So what made you start your story in the 1640s, and what did contention over speech look like before Fascism? David: Well, I wanted to start all that time back more than 300 years ago, because this is the moment when you first start to see something like the modern left and right emerge. You have in Britain, a party of order that supports the state and the king, but you also have a party which stands for more democracy and a more equal distribution of wealth. And essentially, from this point onwards in British, European, American politics, you see those same sites recreating themselves. And what happens again, and again, and again from that point onwards for hundreds of years until certainly say 50 years ago, you have essentially the people who are calling for free speech, whether that's the levellers in 1640s, Tom Paine 100 years later, J.S. Mill in the 19th Century. The left is always the people in favor of free speech. In terms of the right, if you want a kind of the first philosopher of conservatism, someone like Edmund Burke, he's not involved in the 1640s. He's a bit later, about a century and a half later. But you know, he supports conservatism. So what's his attitude towards free speech? It's really simple. He says, people who disagree with him should be jailed. There should be laws made to make it harder for them to have defenses. And more and more of them should be put in jail without even having a trial. That's the conservative position on free speech for centuries. And then what we get starting to happen in the late 20th century, something completely different which is a kind of overturning of what's been this huge, long history where it's always the left that's in favor of free speech, and it's always the right that's against it. Mike: Okay. Now, your contention is that before the appearance of Fascism, socialist radicals were solidly in favor of free speech for all. Fascism changed that, and Evan, maybe you can jump in here since this is where your book starts. What was new about Fascism that made socialists rethink their position on speech? Evan: So fascism was essentially anti-democratic and it was believed that nothing could be reasoned with because it was beyond the realms of reasonable, democratic politics. It was a violence, and the subjugation of its opponents was at the very core of fascism. And that the socialist left thought that fascism was a deeply violent movement that moved beyond the traditional realm of political discourse. So, there was no reasoning with fascists, you could only defeat them. Mike: So, let's start with David first, but I want to get both of you on this. What was the response to Fascism like before the end of World War II? David: Well, what you do is you get the left speaking out against fascism, hold demonstrations against fascism, and having to articulate a rationale of why they're against fascism. One of the things I quote in my book is a kind of famous exchange that takes place in 1937 when a poet named Nancy Cunard collected together the writers, intellectuals, and philosophers who she saw as the great inspiration to– the most important writers and so on that day. And she asked them what side they were taking on fascism. What's really interesting if you read their accounts, whether it's people like the poet W.H. Auden, novelist Gerald Bullitt, the philosopher C.E.M Joad, they all say they're against fascism, but they all put their arguments against fascism in terms of increased speech. So C.E.M Joad writes, "Fascism suppresses truth. That's why we're against fascism." Or the novelist Owen Jameson talks about fascism as a doctrine which exalts violence and uses incendiary bombs to fight ideas. So you get this thing within the left where people grasp that in order to fight off this violence and vicious enemy, they have to be opposed to it. And that means, for example, even to some extent making an exception to what's been for centuries this uniform left-wing notion: you have to protect everyone's free speech. Well people start grasping, we can't protect the fascist free speech, they're gonna use it to suppress us. So the Left makes an exception to what's been its absolute defense of free speech, but it makes this exception for the sake of protecting speech for everybody. Mike: Okay. Evan, do you want to add anything to the history of socialists and fascists before the end of World War Two? Evan: Yeah. So just kind of setting up a few things which will become important later on, and particularly because David and I are both historians of antifascism in Britain, is that there's several different ways in which antifascism emerges in the interwar period and several different tactics. One tactic is preventing fascists from marching from having a presence in public. So things like the Battle of Cable Street in 1936 is a very famous incident where the socialists and other protesters stopped the fascists from marching. There's also heckling and disrupting of fascist meetings. So this was big meetings like Olympia in June 1934, but then also smaller ones like individual fascist meetings around the country were disrupted by antifascists. There was also some that are on the left who also called for greater state intervention, usually in the form of labor councils not allowing fascists to congregate in public halls and stuff like that. So these kinds of arguments that fascism needs to be confronted, disrupted, obfuscated, starts to be developed in the 1930s. And it's where those kinds of free speech arguments emerge in the later period. Mike: Now immediately after the Second World War, fascist movements were shells of their former selves. They had almost no street presence and their organizations usually couldn't pull very many members. Still, the response to fascism when it did pop up was equally as vehement as when they organized into paramilitary formations with membership in the thousands. Something had qualitatively changed in the mind of the public regarding fascism. What did the immediate postwar response to public fascist speech look like, and what was the justification? Evan, let's start with you and then David you can add anything he misses. Evan: David probably could tell the story in a lot more detail. In the immediate post-war period in Britain, Oswald Mosley tries to revive the fascist movement under the title The Union Movement, but before that there's several kind of pro-fascist reading groups that emerge. And in response to this is kind of a disgust that fascists who had recently been imprisoned in Britain and their fellow travellers in the Nazis and the Italian Fascists and the continental fascists had been, you know, it ended in the Holocaust. There was this disgust that fascists could be organizing again in public in Britain, and that's where it mobilizes a new kind of generation of antifascists who are inspired by the 1930s to say "Never again, this won't happen on our streets." And the most important group and this is The 43 Group, which was a mixture of Jewish and communist radicals, which probably David can tell you a little bit about. David: I'd be happy to but I think before we get to 43 Group, it's kind of worth just pausing because the point Mike's left is kind of around the end of the Second World War. One thing which happens during the Second World War is of course Britain's at war with Germany. So what you start to get is Evan talked about how in the 1930s, you already have this argument like, “Should stopping fascism be something that's done by mass movements, or should it be done by the state?” In the Second World War the state has to confront that question, too, because it's got in fascism a homegrown enemy, and the British state looks at how all over Europe these states were toppled really quickly following fascist advance, and very often a pro-fascist powerful section of the ruling class had been the means by which an invading fascism then found some local ally that's enabled it to take over the state and hold the state. So the British state in 1940 actually takes a decision to intern Oswald Mosley and 800 or so of Britain's leading fascists who get jailed initially in prisons in London, then ultimately on the Isle of Man. Now, the reason why I'm going into this is because the first test of what the ordinary people in Britain think about the potential re-emergence of fascism comes even before the Second World War's ended. When Oswald Mosley is released from internment, he says he has conditioned phlebitis, he's very incapacitated, and is never going to be politically active again. And the British state buys this. And this creates–and an actual fact–the biggest single protest movement in Britain in the entire Second World War, where you get hundreds of people in certain factories going on strike against Oswald Mosley's release, and high hundreds of thousands of people signed petitions demanding that he's reinterned, and you start to get people having demonstrations saying Mosley ought to go back to jail. That kind of sets the whole context of what's going to happen after the end of the Second World War. Mosley comes out and he's terrified of public opinion; he's terrified about being seen in public. He's convinced that if you hold meetings you're going to see that cycle going on again. So for several years, the fascists barely dare hold public meetings, and they certainly don't dare hold meetings with Mosley speaking. They test the water a bit, and they have some things work for them. Evan's mentioned the 43 Group so I'll just say a couple sentences about them. The 43 Group are important in terms of what becomes later. They're not a vast number of people, but they have an absolute focus on closing down any fascist meeting. We're gonna hear later in this discussion about the phrase "No Platform" and where it comes from, but you know, in the 1940s when fascist wanted to hold meetings, the platform means literally getting together a paste table and standing on it, or standing on a tiny little ladder just to take you a couple of foot above the rest of your audience. The 43 Group specialize in a tactic which is literally knocking over those platforms. And because British fascism remained so isolated and unpopular in the aftermath of the Second World War, you know, there are 43 Group activists and organizers who look at London and say, "All right, if there going to be 12 or 13 public meetings in London this weekend, we know where they're going to be. If we can knock over every single one of those other platforms, then literally there'll be no fascists to have any chance to find an audience or put a public message in Britain." That's kind of before you get the term 'No Platform' but it's almost in essence the purest form of No Platforming. It's people being able to say, "If we get organized as a movement outside the state relying on ordinary people's opposition to fascism, we can close down every single example of fascist expression in the city and in this country." Mike: Okay. So through the 50's and 60's, there were two things happening simultaneously. On the one hand, there was the largely left wing student-led free speech movement. And on the other hand, there was a new generation of fascists who were rebuilding the fascist movement in a variety of ways. So let's start with the free speech movement. David, you deal with this more in your book. What spurred the free speech movement to happen? David: Yeah. Look in the 50s and 60s, the free speech movement is coming from the left. That's going to change, we know it's going to change like 20 or 30 years later, but up to this point we're still essentially in the same dance of forces that I outlined right at the start. That the left's in favor of free speech, the right is against it. And the right's closing down unwanted ideas and opinion. In the 50s and 60s, and I'm just going to focus on Britain and America, very often this took the form of either radicals doing some sort of peace organising–and obviously that cut against the whole basic structure of the Cold War–or it took the form of people who maybe not even necessarily radicals at all, just trying to raise understanding and consciousness about people's bodies and about sex. So for the Right, their counterattack was to label movements like for example in the early 60s on the campus of Berkeley, and then there's originally a kind of anti-war movement that very quickly just in order to have the right to organize, becomes free speech movements. And the Right then counter attacks against it saying, "Essentially, this is just a bunch of beats or kind of proto-hippies. And what they want to do is I want to get everyone interested in drugs, and they want to get everyone interested in sexuality, and they want everyone interested in all these sorts of things." So their counterattack, Reagan terms this, The Filthy Speech Movement. In the late 60s obviously in states, we have the trial of the Chicago 7, and here you have the Oz trial, which is when a group of radicals here, again that their point of view is very similar, kind of hippie-ish, anti-war milieu. But one thing is about their magazines, which again it seems very hard to imagine today but this is true, that part of the way that their their magazine sells is through essentially soft pornographic images. And there's this weird combination of soft porn together with far left politics. They'll get put on trial in the Oz trial and that's very plainly an attempt– our equivalent of the Chicago 7 to kind of close down radical speech and to get into the public mind this idea that the radicals are in favor of free speech, they're in favor of extreme left-wing politics, and they're in favor of obscenity, and all these things are somehow kind of the same thing. Now, the point I just wanted to end on is that all these big set piece trials–another one to use beforehand is the Lady Chatterley's Lover trial, the Oz trial, the Chicago 7 trial, all of these essentially end with the right losing the battle of ideas, not so much the far right but center right. And people just saying, "We pitched ourselves on the side of being against free speech, and this isn't working. If we're going to reinvent right-wing thought, make some center right-wing ideas desirable and acceptable in this new generation of people, whatever they are, then we can't keep on being the ones who are taking away people's funds, closing down ideas. We've got to let these radicals talk themselves out, and we've got to reposition ourselves as being, maybe reluctantly, but the right takes the decision off of this. The right has to be in favor of free speech too. Mike: All right. And also at this time, the far right was rebuilding. In the UK, they shifted their focus from overt antisemitism and fascism to nebulously populist anti-Black racism. The problem for them, of course, was that practically no one was fooled by this shift because it was all the same people. So, what was going on with the far right leading into the 70s? Evan, do you want to start? Evan: Yeah. So after Mosley is defeated in Britain by the 43 Group and the kind of antifascism after the war, he moves shortly to Ireland and then comes back to the UK. Interestingly, he uses universities and particularly debates with the Oxford Union, the Cambridge Union, and other kind of university societies, to find a new audience because they can't organize on the streets. So he uses–throughout the '50s and the '60s–these kind of university platforms to try and build a fascist movement. At the same time, there are people who were kind of also around in the '30s and the '40s who are moving to build a new fascist movement. It doesn't really get going into '67 when the National Front is formed from several different groups that come together, and they're really pushed into the popular consciousness because of Enoch Powell and his Rivers of Blood Speech. Enoch Powell was a Tory politician. He had been the Minister for Health in the Conservative government, and then in '68 he launches this Rivers of Blood Speech which is very much anti-immigration. This legitimizes a lot of anti-immigrationist attitudes, and part of that is that the National Front rides his coattails appealing to people who are conservatives but disaffected with the mainstream conservatism and what they saw as not being hard enough in immigration, and that they try to build off the support of the disaffected right; so, people who were supporting Enoch Powell, supporting the Monday Club which is another hard right faction in the conservatives. And in that period up until about the mid 1970s, that's the National Front's raison d'etre; it's about attracting anti-immigrationists, conservatives to build up the movement as an electoral force rather than a street force which comes later in the '70s. Mike: There was also the Apartheid movement, or the pro-Apartheid movement, that they were building on at this time as well, right? Evan: Yeah. So at this time there's apartheid in South Africa. In 1965, the Ian Smith regime in Rhodesia has a unilateral declaration of independence from Britain to maintain White minority rule. And a lot of these people who are around Powell, the Monday Club, the National Front, against decolonization more broadly, and also then support White minority rule in southern Africa. So a lot of these people end up vocalizing support for South Africa, vocalizing support for Rhodesia, and that kind of thing. And it's a mixture of anti-communism and opposition to multiracial democracy. That's another thing which they try to take on to campus in later years. Mike: So finally we get to No Platform. Now, Evan, you contend that No Platform was less than a new direction in antifascist politics than a formalization of tactics that had developed organically on the left. Can you talk a bit about that? Evan: Yeah, I'll give a quick, very brief, lead up to No Platform and to what's been happening in the late '60s. So Enoch Powell who we mentioned, he comes to try and speak on campus several times throughout the late 60s and early 70s. These are often disrupted by students that there's an argument that, "Why should Enoch Powell be allowed to come onto campus? We don't need people like that to be speaking." This happens in the late 60s. Then in '73, Hans Eysenck, who was a psychologist who was very vocal about the connection between race and IQ, he attempts to speak at the London School of Economics and his speech is disrupted by a small group of Maoists. And then also– Mike: And they physically disrupted that speech, right? That wasn't just– Evan: Yeah, they punched him and pushed him off stage and stuff like that. And a month later, Samuel Huntington who is well known now for being the Clash of Civilizations guy, he went to speak at Sussex University, and students occupied a lecture theater so he couldn't talk because they opposed his previous work with the Pentagon during the Vietnam War. This led to a moral panic beginning about the end of free speech on campus, that it's either kind of through sit-ins or through direct violence, but in the end students are intolerant. And that's happening in that five years before we get to No Platform. Mike: One thing I didn't get a good sense of from your books was what these socialist groups that were No Platforming fascists prior to the NUS policy stood for otherwise. Can we talk about the factionalization of the left in the UK in the 60s and 70s? David, maybe you can help us out on this one. David: Yeah, sure. The point to grasp, which is that the whole center of British discourse in the ‘70s was way to the left of where it is in Britain today, let alone anywhere else in the world. That from, say, ‘64 to ‘70, we had a Labour government, and around the Labour Party. We had really, really strong social movements. You know, we had something like roughly 50% of British workers were members of trade unions. We'll get on later to the Students Union, that again was a movement in which hundreds of thousands of people participated. Two particular groups that are going to be important for our discussion are the International Socialists and International Marxist Group, but maybe if I kind of go through the British left sort of by size starting from largest till we get down to them. So the largest wing we've got on the British left is Labour Party. This is a party with maybe about half a million members, but kind of 20 million affiliated members through trade unions, and it's gonna be in and out of government. Then you've got the Communist Party which is getting quite old as an organization and is obviously tied through Cold War politics to the Soviet Union. And then you get these smaller groups like the IS, the IMG. And they're Trotskyist groups so they're in the far left of labor politics as revolutionaries, but they have quite a significant social heft, much more so than the far left in Britain today because, for example, their members are involved in editing magazines like Oz. There is a moment where there's a relatively easy means for ideas to merge in the far left and then get transmitted to the Labour Party and potentially even to Labour ministers and into government. Mike: Okay, do you want to talk about the International Marxist Group and the International Socialists? Evan: Do you want me to do that or David? Mike: Yes, that'd be great. Evan: Okay. So as David mentioned, there's the Communist Party and then there's the International Socialists and the International Marxist Group. The International Marxist Group are kind of heavily based in the student movement. They're like the traditional student radicals. Tariq Ali is probably the most famous member at this stage. And they have this counter cultural attitude in a way. International Socialists are a different form of Trotskyism, and they're much more about, not so much interested in the student movement, but kind of like a rank and file trade unionism that kind of stuff, opposition to both capitalism and Soviet communism. And the IS, the IMG, and sections of the Communist Party all coalesce in the student movement, which forms the basis for pushing through a No Platform policy in the Nationalist Union of Students in 1974. Mike: Okay. So in 1974, the National Union of Students passes their No Platform policy. Now before we get into that, what is the National Union of Students? Because we don't have an analogue to that in the US. Evan, you want to tackle this one? Evan: Yeah. Basically, every university has a student union or a form of student union–some kind of student body–and the National Union of Students is the national organization, the peak body which organizes the student unions on all the various campuses around the country. Most of the student unions are affiliated to the NUS but some aren't. The NUS is a kind of democratic body and oversees student policy, but individual student unions can opt in or opt out of whether they follow NUS guidelines. And I think what needs to be understood is that the NUS was a massive organization back in those days. You know, hundreds of thousands of people via the student unions become members of the NUS. And as David was saying, the political discourse is much bigger in the '60s and '70s through bodies like this as well as things like the trade union movement. The student movement has engaged hundreds of thousands of students across Britain about these policies much more than we see anything post the 1970s. David: If I could just add a sentence or two there, that's all right. I mean, really to get a good sense of scale of this, if you look at, obviously you have the big set piece annual conventions or conferences of the National Union of Students. Actually, it doesn't even just have one a year, it has two a year. Of these two conferences, if you just think about when the delegates are being elected to them how much discussion is taking place in local universities. If you go back to some local university meetings, it's sometimes very common that you see votes of 300 students going one way, 400 another, 700 going one way in some of the larger universities. So there's an absolute ferment of discussion around these ideas. Which means that when there are set piece motions to pass, they have a democratic credibility. And they've had thousands of people debating and discussing them. It's not just like someone going on to one conference or getting something through narrowly on a show of hands. There's a feeling that these debates are the culmination of what's been a series of debates in each local university. And we've got over 100 of them in Britain. Mike: Okay, how much is the student union's presence felt on campus by the average student? Evan: That'd be massive. David: Should I do this? Because I'm a bit older than Evan and I went to university in the UK. And it's a system which is slowly being dismantled but when I was student, which is like 30 years ago, this was still largely in place. In almost every university, the exceptions are Oxford and Cambridge, but in every other university in Britain, almost all social activity takes place on a single site on campus. And that single site invariably is owned by the student's union. So your students union has a bar, has halls, it's where– They're the plumb venues on campus if you want to have speakers or if you want to have– Again, say when punk happened a couple of years later, loads and loads of the famous punk performances were taking place in the student union hall in different universities. One of the things we're going to get onto quite soon is the whole question of No Platform and what it meant to students. What I want to convey is that for loads of students having this discussion, when they're saying who should be allowed on campus or who shouldn't be allowed on campus, what's the limits? They feel they've got a say because there are a relatively small number of places where people will speak. Those places are controlled by the students' union. They're owned and run by the students' union. It's literally their buildings, their halls, they feel they've got a right to set who is allowed, who's actually chosen, and who also shouldn't be invited. Mike: Okay, cool. Thank you. Thank you for that. That's a lot more than I knew about student unions. Okay. Evan, this is the bread and butter of your book. How did No Platform come about in the NUS? Evan: So, what part of the fascist movement is doing, the far-right movement, is that it is starting to stray on campus. I talked about the major focus of the National Front is about appealing to disaffected Tories in this stage, but they are interfering in student affairs; they're disrupting student protests; they're trying to intimidate student politics. And in 1973, the National Front tried to set up students' association on several campuses in Britain And there's a concern about the fascist presence on campus. So those three left-wing groups– the IMG, the IS and the Communist Party–agree at the student union level that student unions should not allow fascists and racists to use student buildings, student services, clubs that are affiliated to the student union. They shouldn't be allowed to access these. And that's where they say about No Platform is that the student union should deny a platform to fascists and racists. And in 1974 when they put this policy to a vote and it's successful, they add, "We're going to fight them by any means necessary," because they've taken that inspiration from the antifascism of the '30s and '40s. Mike: Okay. Now opinion was clearly divided within the NUS. No Platform did not pass unanimously. So Evan, what was opinion like within the NUS regarding No Platform? Evan: Well, it passed, but there was opposition. There was opposition from the Federation of Conservative Students, but there was also opposition from other student unions who felt that No Platform was anti-free speech, so much so that in April 1974 it becomes policy, but in June 1974, they have to have another debate about whether this policy should go ahead. It wins again, but this is the same time as it happens on the same day that the police crackdown on anti-fascist demonstration in Red Lion Square in London. There's an argument that fascism is being propped up by the police and is a very real threat, so that we can't give any quarter to fascism. We need to build this No Platform policy because it is what's standing in between society and the violence of fascism. Mike: Okay. I do want to get into this issue of free speech because the US has a First Amendment which guarantees free speech, but that doesn't exist in Britain. So what basis is there for free speech in the law? I think, David, you could probably answer this best because you're a lawyer. David: [laughs] Thank you. In short, none. The basic difference between the UK and the US– Legally, we're both common law countries. But the thing that really changes in the US is this is then overlaid with the Constitution, which takes priority. So once something has been in the Constitution, that's it. It's part of your fundamental law, and the limits to it are going to be narrow. Obviously, there's a process. It's one of the things I do try and talk about in my book that the Supreme Court has to discover, has to find free speech in the American Constitution. Because again, up until the Second World War, essentially America has this in the Constitution, but it's not particularly seen as something that's important or significant or a key part of the Constitution. The whole awe and  mysticism of the First Amendment as a First Amendment is definitely something that's happened really in the last 40-50 years. Again, I don't want to go into this because it's not quite what you're getting at. But certainly, in the '20s for example, you get many of the big American decisions on free speech which shaped American law today. What everyone forgets is in every single one of them, the Supreme Court goes on to find some reason why free speech doesn't apply. So then it becomes this doctrine which is tremendously important to be ushered out and for lip service be given to, just vast chunks of people, communists, people who are in favor of encouraging abortion, contraception, whatever, they're obviously outside free speech, and you have to come up with some sophisticated justifications for that. In Britain, we don't have a constitution. We don't have laws with that primary significance. We do kind of have a weak free speech tradition, and that's kind of important for some things like there's a European Convention on Human Rights that's largely drafted by British lawyers and that tries to create in Articles 10 and 11 a general support on free speech. So they think there are things in English legal tradition, in our common law tradition, which encourage free speech.  But if we've got it as a core principle of the UK law today, we've got it because of things like that like the European Convention on Human Rights. We haven't got it because at any point in the last 30, or 50, or 70 or 100 years, British judges or politicians thought this was a really essential principle of law. We're getting it these days but largely by importing it from the United States, and that means we're importing the worst ideological version of free speech rather than what free speech ought to be, which is actually protecting the rights of most people to speak. And if you've got some exceptions, some really worked out well thought exceptions for coherent and rational reasons. That's not what we've got now in Britain, and it's not what we've really ever had. Mike: Evan, you do a good job of documenting how No Platform was applied. The experience appears to be far from uniform. Let's talk about that a little bit. Evan: Yeah, so there's like a debate happening about who No Platform should be applied to because it states– The official policy is that No Platform for racists and fascists, and there's a debate of who is a racist enough to be denied a platform. There's agreement so a group like the National Front is definitely to be No Platform. Then there's a gray area about the Monday Club. The Monday Club is a hard right faction within the conservatives. But there's a transmission of people and ideas between National Front and the Monday Club. Then there's government ministers because the British immigration system is a racist system. The Home Office is seen as a racist institution. So there's a debate of whether government politicians should be allowed to have a platform because they uphold institutional racism. We see this at different stages is that a person from the Monday Club tries to speak at Oxford and is chased out of the building. Keith Joseph, who's one of the proto-Thatcherites in the Conservative Party, comes to speak at LSE in the 1977-78 and that there is a push to say that he can't be allowed to speak because of the Conservative Party's immigration policies and so forth like that. So throughout the '70s, there is a debate of the minimalist approach with a group like the International Socialists saying that no, outright fascists are the only ones to be No Platformed. Then IMG and other groups are saying, "Actually, what about the Monday Club? What about the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children? What about Conservative Ministers? Are these people, aren't they also sharing that kind of discriminatory agenda that shouldn't be allowed a platform?" Mike: Okay, and there were some objections within the National Union of Students to some applications of No Platform, right? Evan: Yeah, well, not so much in the '70s. But once you get into the '80s, there's a big push for it. But probably the biggest issue in the '70s is that the application of No Platform to pro-Israel groups and Jewish student groups. In 1975, there's a UN resolution that Zionism is a form of racism, and that several student groups say, "Well, pro-Israel groups are Zionists. If Zionism is a form of racism and No Platform should be applied to racists or fascists, shouldn't they the pro-Israel groups then be denied a platform? Should pro-Israel groups be disaffiliated from student unions, etc.?" Several student unions do this at the local level, but there's a backlash from the NUS at the national level so much so the NUS actually suspends No Platform for about six months. It is reintroduced with an explicit piece of it saying that if No Platform is reinstituted, it can't be applied to Zionists groups, to pro-Israel groups, to Jewish societies. But a reason that they can't, the NUS can't withhold No Platform as a policy in the late 1970s is because they've been playing catch up because by this time, the Anti-Nazi League, Rock Against Racism are major mass movements of people because the National Front is seen as a major problem, and the NUS has to have some kind of anti-Fascist, anti-racist response. They can't sit on their hands because they're going dragged along by the Anti-Nazi League. Mike: One thing that you talked about in your book, David, is that simultaneous to No Platform was this movement for hate speech prohibitions. Talk about how these movements differed. David: Well, I think the best way to convey it is if we go back to the motion that was actually passed at the National Union of Students spring conference in May '74. If you don't mind, I'll just begin by reading it out. Conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance, financial or otherwise, to openly racist or fascist organizations or societies (e.g., Monday Club, National Front, Action Party, Union Movement, National Democratic Party) and to deny them a platform. What I want to try and convey is that when you think about how you got this coalition within the National Union of Students in support of that motion, there were like two or three different ideas being signaled in that one motion. And if you then apply them, particularly what's happening as we're talking 50 years later now, if you apply them through the subsequent 50 years of activism, they do point in quite different directions. To just start up, “conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance” dadadada. What's really been good at here, I'm sure some of the people who passed No Platform promotion just had this idea, right? What we are, we're a movement of students' unions. We're a movement of buildings which are run by students and are for students. People have said to themselves, all this motion is really committing us to do is to say that we won't give any assistance to racist or fascist organizations. So what that means in practice is in our buildings, in our halls, we won't invite them in. Now, it may be that, say, the university will invite a conservative minister or the university will allow some far-right person to have a platform in election time. But the key idea, one key idea that's going on with this, just those things won't happen in our students' unions. They're our buildings; they're our halls. To use a term that hasn't really been coined yet, but this is in people's heads, is the idea of a safe space. It's just, student unions are our safe space. We don't need to worry about who exactly these terrible people are. Whoever and whatever they are, we don't want them on our patch. That's idea number one. Idea number two is that this is really about stopping fascists. It's not about any other form of discrimination. I'll come on to idea three in a moment. With idea three, this is about fascist organizations. You can see in a sense the motion is talking to people, people coming on and saying like I might not even be particularly left wing, but I don't like fascists. Evan talked about say for example, Zionist organizations. Could a Zionist organization, which is militantly antifascist, could they vote this motion? Yes. And how they'd sell it to themselves is this is only about fascism. So you can see this in the phrase, this is about refusing systems to “openly racist or fascist organizations,” and then look at the organizations which are listed: the National Front, well yeah, they're fascists; the Union Movement, yeah, they're fascists; the National Democratic Party, they're another little fascist splinter group.And then the only one there that isn't necessarily exactly fascist is the Monday Club who are a bunch of Tories who've been in the press constantly in the last two years when this motion is written for their alliance with National Front holding demonstrations and meetings together. So some people, this is just about protecting their space. Some people, this is about excluding fascists and no one else. But then look again at the motion, you'll see another word in there. “Conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance to openly racist or fascist organizations.” So right from the start, there's a debate, what does this word racist mean in the motion? Now, one way you could read the motion is like this. From today, we can all see that groups like the National Front are fascists. Their leaders can spend most of the rest of the decade appearing constantly in literature produced by anti-fascist groups, identifying them as fascist, naming them as fascist, then we have to have a mass movement against fascism and nazism. But the point is in 1974, that hadn't happened yet. In most people's heads, groups like the National Front was still, the best way to describe them that no one could disagree to at least say they were openly racist. That was how they described themselves. So you could ban the National Front without needing to have a theological discussion about whether they fitted exactly within your definition of fascism. But the point I really want to convey is that the motion succeeds because it blurs the difference between saying anything can be banned because it's fascist specifically or anything can be banned because it's racist or fascist. This isn't immediately apparent in 1974, but what becomes pretty apparent over time is for example as Evan's documented already, even before 1974, there have been non-fascists, there have been conservatives going around student unions speaking in pretty racist terms. All right, so can they be banned? If the answer is this goes to racists or fascists, then definitely they can be banned. But now wait a second. Is there anyone else in British politics who's racist? Well, at this point, both main political parties are standing for election on platforms of excluding people from Britain effectively on the basis of the color of their skin. All right, so you can ban all the main political parties in Britain. All right, well, how about the newspapers? Well, every single newspaper in Britain, even the pro-Labour ones, is running front page articles supporting the British government. All right, so you could ban all newspapers in Britain. Well, how about the television channel? Well, we've only got three, but the best-selling comedies on all of them are comedies which make fun of people because they're foreigners and because they're Black. You can list them all. There's dozens of these horrible programs, which for most people in Britain now are unwatchable. But they're all of national culture in Britain in the early '70s. Alright, so you say, all right, so students we could ban every television channel in Britain, every newspaper in Britain, and every political party in Britain, except maybe one or two on the far left. It's like, wait a second people, I've only been doing racism. Well, let's take seriously the notion, if we're against all forms of racism, how can we be against racism without also being against sexism? Without being against homophobia? So the thing about No Platform is there's really only two ways you can read it in the end, and certainly once you apply it outside the 1970s today. Number one, you can say this is a relatively tightly drawn motion, which is trying to pin the blame on fascists as something which is growing tremendously fast in early 1970s and trying to keep them out. Maybe it'd be good to keep other people out too, but it's not trying to keep everyone out. Or you've got, what we're confronting today which is essentially this is an attempt to prevent students from suffering the misery, the hatred, the fury of hate speech. This is an attempt to keep all hate speech off campus, but with no definition or limit on hate speech. Acceptance of hate speech 50 years later might be much more widely understood than it is in early '70s. So you've got warring in this one motion two completely different notions of who it's right politically to refuse platforms to. That's going to get tested out in real life, but it's not been resolved by the 1974 motion, which in a sense looks both ways. Either the people want to keep the ban narrow or the people want to keep it broad, either of them can look at that motion and say yeah, this is the motion which gives the basis to what we're trying to do. Mike: Okay. I do want to get back to the notion of the maximalist versus the precisionist view of No Platform. But first before that, I want to talk about the Anti-Nazi League and Rock Against Racism to just get more of a broader context than just the students in Britain in terms of antifascism. David, do you want to talk about that? David: Okay. Well, I guess because another of my books is about Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League, so I'll try and do this really short. I'll make two points. First is that these movements which currently ended in the 1970s are really very large. They're probably one of the two largest street movements in post-war British history. The only other one that's candidate for that is the anti-war movement, whether that's in the '80s or the early 2000s. But they're on that same scale as amongst the largest mass movements in British history. In terms of Rock Against Racism, the Anti-Nazi League, the total number of people involved in them is massive; it's around half a million to a million people. They're single most famous events, two huge three carnivals in London in 1977, which each have hundreds of thousands of people attending them and bring together the most exciting bands. They are the likes of The Clash, etc, etc. It's a movement which involves people graffitiing against Nazis, painting out far-right graffiti. It's a movement which is expressed in streets in terms of set piece confrontations, clashes with far-right, Lewisham in ‘76, Southall in ‘79. These are just huge movements which involve a whole generation of people very much associated with the emergence of punk music and when for a period in time in Britain are against that kind of visceral street racism, which National Front represents. I should say that they have slightly different attitudes, each of them towards the issue of free speech, but there's a massive interchange of personnel. They're very large. The same organizations involved in each, and they include an older version of the same activist who you've seen in student union politics in '74 as were they you could say they graduate into involvement in the mass movements like Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League. Now, I want to say specifically about the Anti-Nazi League and free speech. The Anti-Nazi League takes from student politics this idea of No Platform and tries to base a whole mass movement around it. The idea is very simply, the National Front should not be allowed a platform to speak, to organize, to win converts anywhere. Probably with the Anti-Nazi League, the most important expressions of this is two things. Firstly, when the National Front tries to hold election meetings, which they do particularly in the run up to '79 election, and those are picketed, people demonstrated outside of them  A lot of them are the weekend in schools. One at Southall is in a town hall. These just lead to repeated clashes between the Anti-Nazi League and the National Front. The other thing which the Anti-Nazi League takes seriously is trying to organize workers into closing off opportunities for the National Front spread their propaganda. For example, their attempts to get postal workers to refuse to deliver election materials to the National Front. Or again, there's something which it's only possible to imagine in the '70s; you couldn't imagine it today. The National Front is entitled to election broadcasts because it's standing parliament. Then the technical workers at the main TV stations go on strike and refuse to let these broadcasts go out. So in all these ways, there's this idea around the Anti-Nazi League of No Platform. But No Platform is No Platform for fascists. It's the National Front should not get a chance to spread its election message. It's not yet that kind of broader notion of, in essence, anything which is hate speech is unacceptable. In a sense, it can't be. Because when you're talking about students' unions and their original No Platform motion and so forth, at the core of it is they're trying to control their own campuses. There's a notion of students' power. The Anti-Nazi League, it may be huge mass movement and may have hundreds of thousands people involved in it, but no one in Anti-Nazi League thinks that this organization represents such a large majority that they could literally control the content of every single TV station, the content of every single newspaper. You can try and drive the National Front out, but if people in that movement had said right, we actually want to literally carve out every expression of racism and every expression of sexism from society, that would have been a yet bigger task by another enormous degrees of scale. Mike: Okay, I do want to talk a little bit more about Rock Against Racism just particularly how it was founded, what led to its founding. I think it gives a good sense of where Britain was at, politically. David: Right. Rock Against Racism was founded in 1976. The two main events which are going on in the heads of the organizers when they launched it, number one, David Bowie's weird fascist turn, his interview with Playboy magazine in which he talks about Hitler being the first rock and roll superstar, the moment where he was photographed returning from tours in America and comes to Victoria Station and appears to give a Nazi salute. The reason why with Bowie it matters is because he's a hero. Bowie seems to represent the emergence of a new kind of masculinity, new kind of attitude with sexuality. If someone like that is so damaged that he's going around saying Hitler is the greatest, that's really terrifying to Bowie fans and for a wider set of people. The other person who leads directly to the launch of Rock Against Racism is Eric Clapton. He interrupts a gig in Birmingham in summer '76 to just start giving this big drunken rant about how some foreigner pinched his missus' bum and how Enoch Powell is the greatest ever. The reason why people find Eric Clapton so contemptible and why this leads to such a mass movement is weirdly it's the opposite of Bowie that no one amongst the young cool kids regards Clapton as a hero. But being this number one star and he's clearly spent his career stealing off Black music and now he's going to support that horror of Enoch Powell as well, it just all seems so absolutely ridiculous and outrageous that people launch an open letter to the press and that gets thousands of people involved. But since you've asked me about Rock Against Racism, I do want to say Rock Against Racism does have a weirdly and certainly different attitude towards free speech to the Anti-Nazi League. And this isn't necessarily something that was apparent at the time. It's only kind of apparent now when you look back at it. But one of the really interesting things about Rock Against Racism is that because it was a movement of young people who were trying to reclaim music and make cultural form that could overturn British politics and change the world, is that they didn't turn around and say, "We just want to cut off all the racists and treat them as bad and shoot them out into space," kind of as what the Anti-Nazi League's trying to do to fascists. Rock Against Racism grasped that if you're going to try and change this cultural milieu which is music, you actually had to have a bit of a discussion and debate and an argument with the racists, but they tried to have it on their own terms. So concretely, what people would do is Rock Against Racism courted one particular band called Sham 69, who were one of the most popular young skinhead bands, but also had a bunch of neo-nazis amongst their roadies and things like that. They actually put on gigs Sham 69, put them on student union halls, surrounded them with Black acts. Knew that these people were going to bring skinheads into the things, had them performing under Rock Against Racism banner, and almost forced the band to get into the state of practical warfare with their own fans to try and say to them, "We don't want you to be nazis anymore. We want you to stop this." That dynamic, it was incredibly brave, was incredibly bold. It was really destructive for some of the individuals involved like Jimmy Pursey, the lead singer of Sham 69. Effectively saying to them, "Right, we want you to put on a gig every week where you're going to get bottled by your own fans, and you're going to end up like punching them, just to get them to stop being racist." But we can't see any other way of shifting this milieu of young people who we see as our potential allies. There were lots of sort of local things like that with Rock Against Racism. It wasn't about creating a safe space in which bad ideas couldn't come in; it was about going onto the enemy's ideological trend and going, "Right, on this trend, we can have an argument. We can win this argument." So it is really quite an interesting cultural attempt to change the politics of the street. Mike: Okay, now you two have very different ideas of what No Platform is in its essence. Evan, you believe that No Platform was shifting in scope from its inception and it is properly directed at any institutional platform afforded to vociferous bigots. While David you believe that No Platform is only properly applied against fascists, and going beyond that is a dangerous form of mission creep. Now, I absolutely hate debates. [laughter] I think the format does more to close off discussion than to draw out information on the topic at hand. So, what I don't want to happen is have you two arguing with each other about your positions on No Platform (and maybe me, because I have yet a third position). David: Okay Mike, honestly, we've known each other for years. We've always been– Mike: Yeah, yeah, yeah. David: –your listeners will pick up, there's loads we agree on, too. So I'm sure we can deal without that rubbish debate. [Evan laughs] Mike: All right. So what I'd like to do is ground this discussion as much as possible in history rather than abstract moral principles. So in that interest, can each of you talk a bit about the individuals and groups that have taken the position on No Platform that you have, and how they've defended their positions? David let's start with you. What groups were there insisting that No Platform was necessary but its necessity was limited to overt fascists? David: Well, I think in practice, that was the approach of Rock Against Racism. They took a very different attitude towards people who were tough ideological fascists, to the people who were around them who were definitely racist, but who were capable of being argued out of that. I mean, I've given the example of the policy of trying to have a debate with Sham 69 or use them as a mechanism to change their audience. What I want to convey is in every Rock Against Racism group around the country, they were often attempts to something very similar. People talk about Birmingham and Leeds, whether it be sort of local Rock Against Racism groups, they might put on– might get a big band from some other city once a month, but three weeks out of four, all they're doing is they're putting on a local some kind of music night, and they might get a hundred people there. But they'd go out of the way to invite people who they saw as wavering supporters of The National Front. But the point is this wasn't like– We all know how bad faith debates work. It's something like it's two big ego speakers who disagree with each other, giving them half an hour each to debate and know their audience is already persuaded that one of them's an asshole, one of them's great. This isn't what they were trying to do. They were trying to win over one by one wavering racists by putting them in an environment where they were surrounded by anti-racists. So it was about trying to create a climate where you could shift some people who had hateful ideas in their head, but were also capable of being pulled away from them. They didn't do set piece debates with fascists because they knew that the set piece debates with fascists, the fascists weren't going to listen to what they were going to say anyway. But what they did do is they did try to shift people in their local area to try and create a different atmosphere in their local area. And they had that attitude towards individual wavering racists, but they never had that attitude towards the fascist leaders. The fascist leaders as far as they're concerned, very, very simple, we got to close up the platform to them. We got to deprive them of a chance. Another example, Rock Against Racism, how it kind of made those sorts of distinctions. I always think with Rock Against Racism you know, they had a go at Clapton. They weren't at all surprised when he refused to apologize. But with Bowie, there was always a sense, "We want to create space for Bowie. We want to get Bowie back because Bowie's winnable." That's one of the things about that movement, is that the absolute uncrossable line was fascism. But if people could be pulled back away from that and away from the ideas associated with that, then they wanted to create the space to make that happen. Mike: Okay, and Evan, what groups took the Maximalist approach to No Platform and what was their reasoning? Evan: Yeah. So I think the discussion happens once the National Front goes away as the kind of the major threat. So the 1979 election, the National Front does dismally, and we can partially attribute that to the Anti-Nazi League and Rock Against Racism, kind of this popular antifascist movement. But there's also that Margaret Thatcher comes to power, and there's an argument that's made by historians is that she has pulled away the racist vote away from the National Front back to the conservatives. It's really kind of a realignment of leftwing politics under Thatcher because it's a much more confrontational conservative government, but there's also kind of these other issues which are kind of the new social movements and what we would now term as identity politics, they're forming in the sixties and seventies and are really big issues in the 1980s. So kind of like feminism, gay rights, andthat,  there's an argument among some of the students that if we have a No Platform for racism and fascism, why don't we have a No Platform for sexism? Why don't we have a No Platform for homophobia? And there are certain student unions who try to do this. So LSE in 1981, they endorse a No Platform for sexist as part of a wider fight against sexism, sexual harassment, sexual violence on campus is that misogynist speakers shouldn't be allowed to have a presence on campus. Several student unions kind of have this also for against homophobia, and as a part of this really divisive issue in the mid 1980s, the conservative government is quite homophobic. Section 28 clause 28 is coming in in the late eighties. It's a whole kind of homophobia of AIDS. There's instances where students object to local Tory politicians who were kind of outwardly, explicitly homophobic, that they should be not allowed to speak on stage. Then also bubbling along in the background is kind of the supporters of apartheid, so South African diplomats or kind of other people who support the South African regime including Conservative politicians, is that several times throughout the 1980s, they are invited to speak on campus, and there's kind of a massive backlash against this. Sometimes the No Platform policy is invoked. Sometimes it's just simple disruption or kind of pickets or vigils against them. But once fascism is kind of not the main issue, and all these different kind of politics is going on in the eighties, is that there's argument that No Platform for fascism and racism was important, but fascism and racism is only one form of hate speech; it's only one form of discrimination; it's only one form of kind of bodily violence; and we should take them all into consideration. Mike: Okay. Now there's been a fair bit of backlash against No Platform in kind of any of its forms from various sectors, so let's talk a bit about that. Let's start with the fascist themselves. So their response kind of changed somewhat over time in response to No Platform. David, you talk about this. David: Yeah. In the early ‘70s in Britain or I suppose in the late ‘70s too, what's extraordinary is how little use fascist make out of saying, "We are being attacked, free speech applies. We've got to have the right to be heard." I made the point earlier that Britain doesn't have a strong legal culture of free speech. We do have some culture of free speech. And again, it's not that the fascists never use these terms at all, they use them, but they use them very half-heartedly. Their dominant approach is to say, "We are being attacked by the left. The left don't understand we have better fighters than them. If they attack us on the streets, we'll fight back. In the end, we'll be the ones who win in a kind of battle of machismo, street fighting power." Now A, that doesn't happen because actually they lose some set piece confrontations, mostly at Lewisham in 1977. But it's interesting that they don't do the kind of thing which you'd expect the far right to do today, which is to say, like the British far right does today, they constantly say, "We're under attack. Free speech demands that we be heard. We're the only people who take free speech seriously." There's a continuous process in the British far right these days of endlessly going on social media every time anyone even disagrees with them a little bit, they immediately have their faces taped up and present themselves as the victim of this terrible conspiracy when in the mid-'70s when there really were people trying to put the far right out of business, that isn't what the far right did. I think, in essence, a whole bunch of things have to change. You have to get kind of a hardening of the free speech discourse in the United States; you have to have things like the attack on political correctness; the move by the American center-right from being kind of equivocal on free speech to being extremely pro-free speech; and you need to get the importation into Britain of essentially the same kind of free speech discourse as you have in States. Once we get all of that, the British far right eventually twigs that it's a far more effective way of presenting themselves and winning supporters by posing as the world's biggest defenders of free speech.  But in the ‘70s, they haven't learned that lesson yet, and their response is much more leaden and ineffective. In essence, they say, "No Platform's terrible because it's bullying us." But what they never have the gumption to say is, "Actually, we are the far right. We are a bunch of people putting bold and dangerous and exciting ideas, and if we are silenced, then all bold and dangerous and difficult ideas will be silenced too." That's something which a different generation of writers will get to and will give them all sorts of successes. But in the ‘70s, they haven't found it yet. Mike: Okay. Now fascists also had some uneasy allies as far as No Platform is concerned among Tories and libertarians. So let's talk about the Tories first, what was their opposition to No Platform about? Evan, you talk about this quite a bit in your book. Evan: Yeah. So the conservative opposition to No Platform is essentially saying that it's a stock standard thing that the left call everyone fascist. So they apply it to broadly and is that in the ‘80s, there's a bunch of conservative politicians to try to go onto campus, try to speak, and there's massive protests. They say that, "Look, this is part of an intolerant left, that they can't see the distinction between fascism and a Conservative MP. They don't want to allow anyone to have free speech beyond that kind of small narrow left wing bubble." In 1986, there is an attempt, after a kind of a wave of protest in '85, '86, there is an attempt by the government to implement some kind of protection for free speech on campus. This becomes part of the Education Act of 1986, that the university has certain obligations to ensure, where practical, free speech applies and no speech is denied. But then it's got all kind of it can't violate the Racial Discrimination Act, the Public Order Act, all those kind of things. Also, quite crucially for today, that 1986 act didn't explicitly apply to student unions. So student unions argued for the last 30 years that they are exempt from any legislation and that they were legally allowed to pursue their No Platform policy.

Attending or producing raves was made illegal in Britain with the passing of the Criminal Justice Act on 3rd November, 1994. The government even legislated against electronic dance music, “wholly or predominantly characterized by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats”These unprecedented restrictions were partly in reaction to the moral panic caused after a 'free party' at Castlemorton Common attracted 30,000-40,000 attendees, and the ire of the tabloid press.In this episode, Arion, Rebecca and Olly consider the provenance of ‘revellers' in the raver's lexicon; explain why the creation of the M25 lead directly to the Act; and confess just how many illegal parties they've (inadvertently) attended… Further Reading:• ‘The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 becomes law' (The Guardian, 2011): https://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/jun/15/criminal-justice-public-order-act• Police clash with ravers at Castlemorton (BBC News West, 1992): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOySsljl54E• ‘Why did raves become illegal?' (BBC Newsbeat, 2020): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-53170021For bonus material and to support the show, visit Patreon.com/RetrospectorsWe'll be back tomorrow! Follow us wherever you get your podcasts: podfollow.com/RetrospectorsThe Retrospectors are Olly Mann, Rebecca Messina & Arion McNicoll, with Matt Hill.Theme Music: Pass The Peas. Announcer: Bob Ravelli. Graphic Design: Terry Saunders. Edit Producer: Emma Corsham.Copyright: Rethink Audio / Olly Mann 2021. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This one's about EDM - I use it often and it's a big part of my life. There's some info you may find fascinating and advice you may find helpful. I hope you enjoy it. Links to check out... Transformational Festivals: https://edmmaniac.com/making-transformational-festival/ Regarding substances and therapies: https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/your-brain-on-drugs On PLUR and the handshake: https://dancemusiccreations.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/get-your-plur-on/ On the RAVE Act: https://mixmag.net/feature/joe-biden-and-the-rave On the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Public_Order_Act_1994 The Giving Tree: https://walnutumc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/239064999-The-Giving-Tree.pdf --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/michelle-vu/message

JUANJA pleaded guilty to possessing an offensive weapon, committing an offence under Section 4a of the Public Order Act, and assault by beating of an emergency worker. This episode is also available as a blog post: https://emergency-services.news/teenager-jailed-after-assaulting-police/

After the tragic murder of Sarah Everard earlier this week, and the furore surrounding the policing of the vigil held on Clapham Common in her honour just two days ago, public attention turns to the controversial Policing Bill which faces an early vote in Parliament today.  What amendments to the Public Order Act 1986 does the Bill seek to make? Who benefits from the Bill? Was the police response to a mass gathering of Rangers fans in Glasgow a week ago wrong? Were the Met police right to be criticised for their handling of the vigil on Clapham Common? Was the response from Cressida Dick valid? What similarities are there with the vigil and the policing of Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter protests? All these topics and more, discussed in part one of this Policing Bill special.

Irish Fenian rebellion prisoners and the songs of the last convict ship to Australia. Ned Of The Hill, John Boyle O'Reilly and Exile In The Kingdom. The Stardust Hotel and the birth of Drogheda Boxing Club. The London squat scene, Jamaican sound systems and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Secret Family Recipes and looking back at tradition with rose tinted glasses. No Bother. In this episode we hear: O'Niell's March Last Rose Of Summer Freedom - Exile In The Kingdom Ned Of The Hill Goodnight Sweetheart Make sure you check out Enda's ABC Australia documentary 'Songs of the last convict shi‪p‬'. You'll find it here on the ABC's site: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/the-history-listen/songs-of-the-last-convict-ship/12767044 If it's geo-restricted in your country you can listen as a podcast via Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/songs-of-the-last-convict-ship/id1337405260?i=1000495597902 You'll find everything you need to know about Enda's film work on his website, including the brilliant 'Secret Family Recipes' here: http://virusmedia.com.au/ Enda also sent us the video he made for Exile In The Kingdom back in the day. Exile In the Kingdom features Tony Conaghy, John Hodgins, Joe McCormack and Gavin Kierans. You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeWesoxGPE0&feature=emb_logo The book I mentioned about the socio-political effects and consequences of ecstasy and rave culture is called 'Altered State: The Story of Ecstasy Culture and Acid House'. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/269851.Altered_State -- To listen, stream or download simply click a link below: Our website: https://blarneypilgrims.com iTunes: https://apple.co/2A6tUPm Google Podcasts: http://bit.ly/3cPTkis Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3eIwBFy Or alternatively, simply search your favourite podcast app for the Blarney Pilgrims. -- Become a Patron Saint of the Blarney Pilgrims Podcast. We want the podcast to be free to listen to for as many people as possible. But without the support from at least some of you we couldn't keep putting out an episode a week. That's why we're asking you to become a Patron (Saint) of the podcast. www.patreon.com/blarneypilgrims So, for the price of a pint, or a half pint for that matter, you can help keep this show on the road and be safe in the knowledge you have a halo above your head. For your good deed you will secure your place in traditional Irish music podcast heaven. But most importantly, you'll have helped pay for the other 99% of listeners that don't or can't chip in. And that, my friend, is a hell-of-a-nice thing to do. Darren & Dom www.blarneypilgrims.com www.patreon.com/blarneypilgrims www.facebook.com/blarneypilgrimspodcast www.instagram.com/blarneypilgrimspodcast www.twitter.com/BlarneyPodcast

In episode three of The Art of Rave Becky and Roni Size cover a wide range of topics including: how the ‘Size' in Roni Size came from “a dating game vibe”; the 90s Bristol music scene, the evolution of Reprazent and their groundbreaking ‘live' sound, winning a Mercury Music Prize, why Roni's first record was released under someone's else name, how Margaret Thatcher killed the free party (with the criminal Justice and Public Order Act in 1994), ‘digital reggae' and David Rodigan, how the rave scene has moved on and ravers' dancing has moved on with it (from “giraffes” to mosh pits).Listen to Becky Hill: https://beckyhill.lnk.to/HeavenOnMyMindTWFollow Becky Hill: https://www.instagram.com/beckyhill/ See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The third round of Sudan peace talks gets underway in Juba; Sudan's prime minister calls on friends of Sudan to help the country achieve economic growth and lasting peace; and Sudanese citizens welcome the transitional government's decision to overturn the controversial Public Order Act.

In this special edition of the De Balie Podcast, cinema editor Emily Rhodes speaks to filmmaker Brian Welsh who visited Amsterdam for the screening of his latest film Beats. Beats depicts a friendship between two teenage boys, Johnno and Spanner, who embark on an adventure into the underworld of the Scottish 90’s rave scene. The film is set in 1994, the year in which British parliament passed the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, known as the Criminal Justice Bill, banning raves across the United Kingdom. The bill led to wide-spread protests and even more illegal raves. Set against this background, Beats tells a story of euphoria, anarchy and rebellion that defined a cultural era.As rave culture has now entered into the mainstream, with large-scale commercial electronic music events, such as the Amsterdam Dance Event.We talk to Brian Welsh about what drove him to make this film, how he sees itscultural and political significance, and how he perceives his role as a filmmaker.Brian Welsh’s film Beats will screen from November 7th in De Balie

https://www.facebook.com/streetmicpod/posts/Central London was brought to a standstill when XR started its two weeks of climate activism around the world. Thousands of activists took to the streets of London. They raised awareness about their common cause, sang songs, played their instruments, danced and behaved themselves. Children were also allowed to play & paint in the streets because the streets were free of polluting traffic.StreetMic was present when hundreds of activists were being arrested. In this Podcast you will hear what it was like to be present at the rebellion in Trafalgar Square. This occurred when hundreds of Police officers started to arrest activists for breaching section 14 of the Public Order Act of 1986, because they were obstructing the streets of London.This eight minute podcast consists of many soundbites to give you a feel of what it was like at the time climate activists were being arrested.A full-length and very detailed Podcast has also been uploaded. This captures a number of engaging conversations with climate activists from 06:30 in the morning when it was still dark & freezing cold, and a harpist was playing music to wake up encamped sleepers in Trafalgar Square. You will learn details about the aims of Extinction Rebellion and why so many committed activists are prepared to be arrested for their noble cause.StreetMic Podcast uploads a new episode every Sunday. Additional episodes will be published on a weekday if anything significant happens on the streets of London.

Should you be prosecuted for barking? Or asking about a horse's sexuality? What about using a racist slur? This episode looks at the turbulent history of §5 of the Public Order Act 1986, and its chaotic journey from the dreaming spires of Oxford to the inner-city streets of Newcastle. En clair is a podcast about forensic linguistics, literary detection, and language mysteries from past to present. You can find credits, links, a podcast transcript, and more about this episode in the Case Notes: https://wp.me/paoUKh-73

Can you protest outside of Speaker's Corner? What does the Public Order Act actually aim to achieve? Will we get called up because we sat together and discussed the juicy material around protesting in Singapore? All of this and more in our latest episode! --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/sg-explained/support

Protests are often seen as disruptive and destructive, and are generally frowned upon in Singapore. Activists and performance artists have been arrested and charged under the Public Order Act in recent years, even for indoor forums and solo outdoor performances. In this episode, we sit down to talk to former student activist Tan Tee Seng and civil rights activist Jolovan Wham about activism, social change, and the rule of law in Singapore.

Dissident Island Radio episode 172 bringing you audible action in the form of: – Dissident-i-rant on The Donald the scary prospect that he might be the next US president (00:01:29 – 00:17:50) – The Occupied Times of London talking to us about experiences of producing independent media and their contribution within the space for radical discussion and debate (00:22:58 – 00:47:32) – The LDMG‘s Andy with more sage legal advice, this time focussing on freedom of speech and the Public Order Act (00:48:05 – 01:02:21) – Clapton Ultras giving us the low down on the latest goings on at the politically active east London club (01:05:16 – 01:22:57) – Announcements of all shapes and sizes for upcoming actions and gatherings in the UK and beyond (01:23:31 – 01:27:20) – Another burst of Bong juice with all the latest cannabis news, spliff politics, and weed etiquette from around the globe ‪#‎GABOS‬ (01:27:30 – 1:33:42) – Killabomb with a fat bag of hardcore crossbreed tunes (01:33:57 – 02:33:25)

晓华: Hello and welcome to RoundTable’s “the Word of the Week.” This week we are talking about begging and busking. John: That’s right. In English these are two words that are basically interchangeable. They are begging and panhandling. They mean the same thing -- going around, asking people for money. 晓华:Begging 大家都知道,Panhandling从字面上听上去也可以知道是什么意思了,端着一个盘子,也是要乞讨要钱的意思。 John: Besides money of course, they may also ask for food, drink, cigarettes or other small items.Now looking at begging from the western history, for Ancient Greeks distinguished between the ptochos (Greek: πτωχός, which means the"passive poor" or "beggars") and the penes (Greek: ποινής, "active poor"), with the latter being accorded a higher social status. 晓华: Interesting. 从古希腊时期开始,就把被动的穷人,也就是乞讨者,还有主动的穷人,在词汇上加以区分了。 John: As many of our listeners probably already know, if you look here in China with Buddhism and perhaps even in Daoism, begging is actually part of the religion. But also Christianity, Hinduism, Sufi Islam and Jainism also provide a traditional method of begging for monks, nuns, and people living in monasteries. 晓华:不光是在佛教中,在基督教,甚至是印度教中都有和尚,尼姑,或者是修道院的修士行乞来求生这样的教义。 John: No let’s take a quick look at some interesting laws and practices from around the world. Just as a very quick example, in Canada, the province of Ontario introduced its Safe Streets Act in 1999. So actually it is not illegal to beg, but they ban what is called “aggressive”, or “abusive” begging or panhandling. 晓华:看来各个国家都有一些限制乞讨的法律。像加拿大就禁止非常强势的,或者缠着别人要钱的这种行为。 John: And in Finland, begging has been legal since 1987. But in 2003, the Public Order Act completely decriminalized begging 晓华: 芬兰相对来说是对begging比较友好的一个国家。 John: And in Luxembourg finally, begging in Luxembourg is totally legal except when it is indulged in as a group or the beggar is a part of an organized effort, someway like we could see in China. 晓华:卢森堡的律法是禁止有组织的行乞行为。 John: So another type, or way of asking for money is not begging, is not really panhandling. It’s basically performing, and having a hat or a can, asking for tips, you might say. So in English, there are two different words or phrases we called street performance, or perhaps even more commonly, we call it“busking.” 晓华: 下面该说到busking了,也就是街头表演。 John: People who engaged in busking can be called “street performers”, or perhaps even “buskers”. 晓华:顾名思义, busker就是街头表演者,或者是街头艺人, John: So the term “busking” was first noted in the English language around the middle 1860s in the Great Britain. The verb "to busk", from the word "busker", comes from the Spanish root word "buscar", meaning "to seek" – as supposedly buskers are seeking fame and fortune. 晓华:所以busking也不光是表演,在它的词源里有“索求,求取“的意思,自然是要要钱了。 John: So there are other four basic forms of street performance or busking is the "Circle show", which tends to gather a crowd around them. They usually have a distinct beginning and end. So perhaps street theater, magicians, acrobats, jugglers, things like that. 晓华:感觉Circle show有点像中文里的撂地卖艺,在一块固定的地点,吸引一些围成圈子的观众,然后表演一些杂耍,变魔术,木偶戏这样的表演。 John: And then there are "Walk-by acts", where the busker performs a musical, living statue or other act that does not have a distinct beginning or end and the public usually watch for a brief time and then walk on by. 晓华: "Walk-by acts"就是不需要观众停留太长时间的,比如说在街头弹吉他唱歌,还有在街头假装成雕像,都可以归在这里面。 John: And then there is the "Stoplight performers". These people present their act right on the crosswalk when the lights are red. Then, while still red, they walk by the cars to get contributions from drivers and/or passengers. 晓华:"Stoplight performers"就是趁人在等红灯的时候在街角表演的艺术家。I’ve never actually seen any of these. John: It doesn’t usually happen in places like China. Usually in America, or perhaps even in parts of Europe. 晓华: I see. John: And then last but not least is"Café busking", mostly done in restaurants, pubs, bars and cafes. Basically the idea is someone is performing inside one of these venues, but the venue is not paying them. Instead, they are making money only from the tips of the patients. 晓华: "Café busking"跟酒吧驻唱的歌手还不太一样。咖啡厅或者酒吧通常不支付他们任何费用,但是他们可以走来走去,为客人表演,向客人收取费用。 So that raps RoundTable’s “the Word of the Week.”