Podcasts about uk supreme court

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

The Goldman Environmental Prize is known as the Nobel for grassroots environmental champions, for good reason. Award-winners are earth defenders, often bucking entrenched systems and powerful interests in order to protect and restore the natural environments we all depend on. This week we feature conversations with two of the 2026 Goldman Prize winners:  Iroro Tanshi, a tropical conservationist and bat ecologist who rediscovered a species that hadn't been seen in half a century. When climate-amplified wildfire threatened to destroy her new find, she built a community movement to virtually eliminate the wildfire risk.  Sarah Finch, a tireless environmental advocate who spent years in English courts using planning law as a defense against the fossil fuel industry. She won a major UK Supreme Court ruling, a ruling that is already constraining oil, gas, and coal development across the country.   What can we learn about passion, persistence, and collaboration from these two advocates? Guests:  Iroro Tanshi, Tropical Conservationist Sarah Finch, Environmental Campaigner For show notes, related links, and episode transcript, visit https://climateone.org/podcasts Highlights: 00:00 Intro 03:01 Iroro Tanshi on Warri, Nigeria and the oil industry 05:37 Iroro Tanshi on becoming interested in bats and the forest 09:24 Iroro Tanshi on finding a bat species once thought extinct 14:03 Iroro Tanshi on when a wildfire tore through the research site 19:20 Iroro Tanshi on the wildfire risks of forests in equatorial Africa  20:50 Iroro Tanshi on working with the community to address the wildfires 23:01 Iroro Tanshi how to scale what she's learned world-wide  24:40 Iroro Tanshi on what bats can teach people about being human 27:17 Sarah Finch on realizing the far reaching implication of her work 30:49 Sarah Finch on why the legal argument finally worked  34:42 Sarah Finch on getting the confidence to go after big oil  44:43 Sarah Finch on how a group of people can make a real difference  ********** Support Climate One by going ad-free! By subscribing to Climate One on Patreon, you'll receive exclusive access to all future episodes free of ads, opportunities to connect with fellow Climate One listeners, and access to the Climate One Discord. Sign up today at patreon.com/ClimateOne.  Ad sales by Multitude. Contact them for ad inquiries at multitude.productions/ads Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Goldman Environmental Prize is known as the Nobel for grassroots environmental champions, for good reason. Award-winners are earth defenders, often bucking entrenched systems and powerful interests in order to protect and restore the natural environments we all depend on. This week we feature conversations with two of the 2026 Goldman Prize winners:  Iroro Tanshi, a tropical conservationist and bat ecologist who rediscovered a species that hadn't been seen in half a century. When climate-amplified wildfire threatened to destroy her new find, she built a community movement to virtually eliminate the wildfire risk.  Sarah Finch, a tireless environmental advocate who spent years in English courts using planning law as a defense against the fossil fuel industry. She won a major UK Supreme Court ruling, a ruling that is already constraining oil, gas, and coal development across the country.   What can we learn about passion, persistence, and collaboration from these two advocates? Guests:  Iroro Tanshi, Tropical Conservationist Sarah Finch, Environmental Campaigner For show notes, related links, and episode transcript, visit https://climateone.org/podcasts Highlights: 00:00 Intro 03:01 Iroro Tanshi on Warri, Nigeria and the oil industry 05:37 Iroro Tanshi on becoming interested in bats and the forest 09:24 Iroro Tanshi on finding a bat species once thought extinct 14:03 Iroro Tanshi on when a wildfire tore through the research site 19:20 Iroro Tanshi on the wildfire risks of forests in equatorial Africa  20:50 Iroro Tanshi on working with the community to address the wildfires 23:01 Iroro Tanshi how to scale what she's learned world-wide  24:40 Iroro Tanshi on what bats can teach people about being human 27:17 Sarah Finch on realizing the far reaching implication of her work 30:49 Sarah Finch on why the legal argument finally worked  34:42 Sarah Finch on getting the confidence to go after big oil  44:43 Sarah Finch on how a group of people can make a real difference  ********** Support Climate One by going ad-free! By subscribing to Climate One on ⁠Patreon⁠, you'll receive exclusive access to all future episodes free of ads, opportunities to connect with fellow Climate One listeners, and access to the Climate One Discord. Sign up today at ⁠patreon.com/ClimateOne⁠.  Ad sales by ⁠Multitude⁠. Contact them for ad inquiries at ⁠multitude.productions/ads⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Information published by the newly established Persian Gulf Strait Authority suggests Iran is expanding its oversight of the Strait of Hormuz to the coastal territories of Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Plus, the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission provides long-awaited guidance for single-sex spaces and Rome’s “hot priest” drops a bombshell. Read more: Iran moves to expand Hormuz control into foreign waters Single-sex spaces must be based on biological sex, UK rules Hot priest is not priest? Papal pin-up is an immaculate deceptionSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today's question: Evaluate the view that the UK Supreme Court is independent and neutral. 30 marksEnjoyed the show? Then why not subscribe to PLUS PLUS PLUS! For just £1.99 per month, you will receive access to every episode and every transcript of the A Level Politics Show. That's right, the full back catalogue for less than a price of a coffee. Furthermore, you can cancel anytime – no obligations or hidden costs. Click ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to get started! For a full list of the back catalogue, organised by topic, click ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Also look out for bonus E. G.4Me episodes, which take you through breaking news stories and attempt to make sense of them. If you listen through Spotify, you can ask follow-up questions to each episode by clicking on the comment section in the show notes. And why not take part in episode-by-episode polls once you have finished listening. If a PLUS PLUS PLUS subscription is not for you at this time then no worries – rest assured that the latest episode of the show will remain free until the next episode comes out. One last thing: don't forget to leave a nice review wherever you listen to your podcasts so that more people can find out about us. Happy listening, dear listener, and thanks for your support of the show. 

Your Reputation on Trial — And Why the Rules Are ChangingThis is not just another legal interview. This is a story about growing up under armed protection, about a father who became the last Law Lord in the UK, and about a legal system that is about to change in a very big way.John Kerr — barrister, defamation specialist, and colleague — joins us to talk about:What it was like living through the Troubles with security at the front gateWhy his father became the “Great Dissenter” in the UK Supreme CourtThe truth about defamation cases — and why juries may be scrappedAnd what happens when your reputation becomes your livelihoodPlus: Three fascinating Decisis cases including dead-person defamation, missing expert witnesses, and multi-million euro stud fees. Decisis is brought to you thanks to Charltons Solicitors and Collaborative Practitioners. defamation law Ireland, jury trials Ireland, Brian Kerr judge, UK Supreme Court law lords, Irish barristers, Paul Tweed defamation, legal podcast Ireland, Fifth Court podcast, Irish courts cases, Decisis cases Ireland, John Kerr barrister, freedom of expression lawTIMELINE00:00 Intro + Decisis sponsor mention 02:00 Defamation after death — can you sue? 05:15 Lost expert witness — trial goes ahead anyway 08:30 Coolmore stud fees — big money, no excuses 12:00 John Kerr — defamation specialist 14:00 Growing up in Northern Ireland during the Troubles 17:00 Armed guards, relocation, and real risk 20:00 The career of Lord Kerr — last Law Lord 25:00 The “Great Dissenter” — why minority judgments matter 30:00 From solicitor to barrister — taking the leap 34:00 Defamation reform — are juries finished? 40:00 Big awards, big problems — reality vs headlines 47:00 International defamation and celebrity cases 50:00 Book & film recommendations Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Writer Róisín Michaux investigates women's rights and free speech in the context of the transgender movement. Róisín brings a uniquely European lens to her research, exposing how LGBTIQ activist organizations in Europe are heavily state-funded — unlike the U.S., where private foundations like the Rockefellers and Ford Foundation dominate — and how this funding pipeline has turbocharged some of the most extreme gender ideology we're seeing today.We dig deep into intersex activism: what it actually is, who's behind it, and why it matters for parents navigating the gender craze with their children. Róisín explains the crucial distinction between people with genuine disorders of sexual development (DSDs) — rare, named medical conditions like congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), Turner syndrome, and complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) — and the largely queer-theory-driven "intersex identity" movement that has very little to do with medicine and everything to do with dismantling the sex binary.We also explore the history of brain sex research, how trans activists strategically abandoned the science when it stopped serving them, and how self-ID legislation spread from Argentina to across Europe through incremental legal maneuvers. I close with an important note for parents: understanding the politics of intersex activism is valuable, but knowing how to actually talk to your child about these issues is a different skill altogether — one I teach in ROGD Repair.Róisín Michaux is an Irish writer based in Brussels, Belgium. She writes about women's rights and free speech in the context of the transgender movement. She is specifically interested in LGBTIQ activism, activists' relationship to EU/European bureaucracies, the funding they receive, and how it has all led to deep and anti-democratic policy capture. She has 2 kids and a cocker spaniel. Follow her on X @RoisinMichaux or on Substack at Peaked.[00:00:00] Start[00:02:00] What Is Intersex Activism and Why It Matters[00:07:00] DSDs vs. Intersex Identity: Two Separate Worlds[00:16:00] The Top Line Demand: Stop All Infant Surgeries[00:17:00] Origins of Intersex Activism and John Money's Legacy[00:28:00] Activists vs. Doctors: The Surgery Moratorium Debate[00:36:00] The Real Agenda: Queering the Sex Binary[00:47:00] The Brain Sex Hypothesis and Why Activists Abandoned It[00:54:00] The 1993 Amsterdam Meeting and the Pivot to Self-ID[01:01:00] How Self-ID Laws Crept Through European Courts[01:08:00] Government Funding and How Fringe Ideology Goes Mainstream[01:16:00] Creating Iatrogenic Intersex with Cross-Sex Hormones[01:19:00] DSD Families, the UK Supreme Court, and CAIS[01:24:00] The "Consent at 12" Framework and the Trans Agenda[01:29:00] Medical Necessity vs. Trans Activist Demands[01:36:00] Infighting, Identity, and the Mess of Merging Medicine with Politics[01:39:00] PCOS, Testosterone, and a Word for ParentsROGD REPAIR Course + Community gives concerned parents instant access to over 120 lessons providing the psychological insights and communication tools you need to get through to your kid. Now featuring 24/7 personalized AI support implementing the tools with RepairBot! Use code SOMETHERAPIST2026 to take 50% off your first month.PODCOURSES: use code SOMETHERAPIST at LisaMustard.com/PodCoursesTALK TO ME: book a meeting.PRODUCTION: Looking for your own podcast producer? Visit PodsByNick.com and mention my podcast for 20% off your initial services.SUPPORT THE SHOW: subscribe, like, comment, & share or donate.Watch NO WAY BACK: The Reality of Gender-Affirming Care. Use code SOMETHERAPIST to take 20% off your order.MUSIC: Thanks to Joey Pecoraro for our song, “Half Awake,” used with gratitude & permission. ALL OTHER LINKS HERE. To support this show, please leave a rating & review on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Subscribe, like, comment & share via my YouTube channel. Or recommend this to a friend!Learn more about Do No Harm.Take $200 off your EightSleep Pod Pro Cover with code SOMETHERAPIST at EightSleep.com.Take 20% off all superfood beverages with code SOMETHERAPIST at Organifi.Check out my shop for book recommendations + wellness products.Show notes & transcript provided with the help of SwellAI.Special thanks to Joey Pecoraro for our theme song, “Half Awake,” used with gratitude and permission.Watch NO WAY BACK: The Reality of Gender-Affirming Care (our medical ethics documentary, formerly known as Affirmation Generation). Stream the film or purchase a DVD. Use code SOMETHERAPIST to take 20% off your order. Follow us on X @2022affirmation or Instagram at @affirmationgeneration.Have a question for me? Looking to go deeper and discuss these ideas with other listeners? Join my Locals community! Members get to ask questions I will respond to in exclusive, members-only livestreams, post questions for upcoming guests to answer, plus other perks TBD. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

This week we're looking at the decision of the United States Supreme Court to go against President Trump in a ruling which contests his power to unilaterally set tariffs. The case could have significant financial consequences and is being heralded as a possible turning point for a court that's often seen as excessively political. But what was in the nitty-gritty of the judgment? And does it really suggest a change of approach from the conservative majority court? The Law & Disorder triplets are joined, this week, by David D. Cole, one of America's leading constitutional law scholars (and friend of the show) and Lord Robert Carnwath, who sat on the UK Supreme Court from 2012 to 2020.If you have questions, criticisms, praise or other feedback, please do send your thoughts to us via lawanddisorderfeedback@gmail.com!Law and Disorder is a Podot podcast.Hosted by: Charlie Falconer, Helena Kennedy, Nicholas Mostyn.Executive Producer and editor: Nick Hilton.Associate Producer: Ewan Cameron.Music by Richard Strauss, arranged and performed by Anthony Willis & Brett Bailey. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Podcast 405 "Pen and paper will solve almost anything. Or at least start the process." - Nicholas Bate This week, I have a special episode for you about what I have discovered over the last two years from bringing pens and paper back into my productivity system. It's certainly been an eye-opener for me.    Links: Email Me | Twitter | Fac ebook | Website | Linkedin   The Hybrid Productivity Course    Get Your Copy Of Your Time, Your Way: Time Well Managed, Life Well Lived The Working With… Weekly Newsletter Carl Pullein Learning Centre Carl's YouTube Channel Carl Pullein Coaching Programmes Subscribe to my Substack  The Working With… Podcast Previous episodes page   Script | 405 Hello, and welcome to episode 405 of the Your Time, Your Way Podcast. A podcast to answer all your questions about productivity, time management, self-development, and goal planning. My name is Carl Pullein, and I am your host of this show.  A week ago, I launched a brand new course called the Hybrid Productivity Course. The purpose of this course was to help those who have found that a digital-only approach has led to a loss of focus on what's important and a sense of extreme overwhelm and distraction.  As in most areas of life, a one-size-fits-all methodology rarely works. All humans are unique. We think differently, have different life experiences, grow up differently and experience life through many different cultures.  It stands to reason that none of us will have exactly the same needs as everyone else.  We saw this during the pandemic. Around 50% of people loved working from home. They thrived and became much more productive. The other 50% struggled, found it hard to do their work, and lost their enthusiasm and energy for it.  This highlighted the difference between extroverts and introverts. Extroverts bounce off the energy of other people. They need the bustling office environment to operate. Take that away, and they slump.  Introverts, on the other hand, thrive in the opposite conditions. Quiet spaces and solo environments are where they thrive.  I always struggled in an office environment. I found it difficult to concentrate and focus. When I began working from home in 2015, my productivity went through the roof. I suddenly had the freedom to work when I liked, where I liked and in the quiet solitude of my front living room.  One advantage of an all-digital system is that you can easily add many features to your digital tools without much thought.  I noticed this while testing Todoist's new feature, Ramble. Ramble lets you have a conversation with Todoist, and it pulls out all the things you indicate need to be done. Sounds great in theory, until you test it out.  Just a two-minute “conversation” with Ramble led to 15 tasks!  When I went back into my inbox to sort them out, I realised that the majority of those tasks were low-value, would-be-nice-to-do tasks, but realistically, there was no way I would have the time to do them.  I edited down that list of 15 to 6 tasks.  The problem is that most people will not edit these lists. It's time-consuming, and you have to think it through. Two things that are out of fashion these days, it seems. This is where I found bringing a pen and notebook back into my system really helped. It forced me to edit down my list of tasks for the day. It also made me smarter when writing my lists.  If I had five people to call today, in the digital system, I would write out all five calls independently. It didn't take long, and most of those would already be in the digital system. All I had to do was add a date.  In a paper system, it would mean writing out all those calls individually. You soon find that rather than doing that, you would write “do my calls”. Writing those three words strangely reinforced the action. All you then needed to do was to ensure that any communication tasks were correctly labelled in your digital system.  This is where the seeds of a hybrid system began to take shape.  If it were easier to collect using digital tools, then why stop doing it that way? If you were more focused when writing out a daily to-do list than using a digital to-do list, why stop doing that?  My idea was to marry the two.  This led to the development of what I call my Day Book. However, before I got there, I went back to my roots and used the Franklin Planner for eighteen months.  The strength of the Franklin Planner is in the way the daily pages are laid out. You have your daily prioritised task list on the left, your calendar for the day next to it, and, on the right page, a place to keep notes and ideas.  This means that once you have written your appointments, you can see how much time you have available to do tasks. It forces you to be realistic.  If you had seven hours of meetings and began writing out a long list of tasks, you would instantly see that you were creating an impossible day.  If you were to consider meeting overruns, the “urgent” messages and “quick questions” that will inevitably come your way that day, it's likely you won't be doing any tasks.  Yet the digital system won't show you that. All it shows you are the tasks you have dated for today.  And let's be honest, most people are adding dates to tasks, not because they need to be done that day, but because they are afraid they will forget about them or they will get lost in the system.  That's not how a to-do list is meant to work. It's meant to give you a clear indication of what needs to be done. On a day-to-day basis, that means what needs to be done today.  The act of writing down on a piece of paper the tasks that need to be done today forces you to be realistic.  When it comes to storage, though, paper is not so great. It's here where digital tools shine. You can easily store files and documents. You can keep meeting notes together in one place and create a master project note for all your projects, so everything is kept together in one convenient place.  And of course, digital's piece de resistance, search.  If you were to keep all your notes in notebooks, you would soon have notebooks all over the place, and notes would be difficult to find unless you carefully indexed every notebook you used. Perhaps not the best use of your time.  Instead, you can keep all your notes in a notes app, and allow it to use keywords, date ranges or titles to find what you need when you need it.  However, I have discovered that paper is a great planning medium. This is where I always used to struggle.  When I first began teaching, there were no such things as Evernote or Apple Notes. They didn't come along until five years after I began teaching. I therefore used my old counsel notebooks. These were what would be described as foolscap in size, slightly taller than A4, and had a royal blue cover.  Given that throughout my school and university days, I would always plan out my essays on paper, it was perfectly natural for me to make notes on paper when planning my lessons. Then we had the digital explosion. Smartphones became a thing, followed shortly afterwards by apps. I began using Evernote in 2009, and I started planning digitally.  It was certainly convenient, but I did notice I rarely went into any depth. I tried using mind-mapping software, but it didn't help.  I thought there must be something wrong with me.  Then, a couple of years ago, I began seeing studies about how our brains work differently between digital and physical tools.  The most striking studies found that when you write on paper (or a whiteboard), you activate the same areas that artists activate when creating art. This is the creative centre of your brain.  When you tap on a keyboard, you don't. Tapping is formulaic and monotonous. If you think about this, it makes perfect sense. When you handwrite, you are forming shapes. Letters are shapes. When you write via keyboard, all you are doing is tapping. There's nothing artistic about that.  This was when the penny finally dropped for me. There was nothing wrong with me! It was science.  Now, I would never consider opening up my phone or laptop to sketch out an idea. I would open a notebook.  One of my favourite ways of doing this is to grab a notebook, a few pens and a pencil and head off to a local cafe for an hour or two. I can sit in a corner and brainstorm ideas for new courses, YouTube videos and blog posts.  Since I began doing this, my productivity has improved significantly. It helped because I have fewer re-edits to do. When I sit down at the computer to write, I now have a fully planned-out structure and well-thought-through points, and I am writing the first draft much faster. It seems that planning works best on paper, yet storage and output are best digital. Again, leading to the conclusion that there is a place for both digital and analogue tools in a solid productivity system.  I saw this all in action recently. I was watching a UK Supreme Court session, where a barrister (a lawyer who speaks before a judge, not someone who makes coffee) had an iPad in front of him containing all the case files and documents. Yet his speaking notes were on paper. As he made his arguments before the judge, he marked off the points with a pencil and added notes.  The opposing barrister was also using the same tools. Her case files were on an iPad, yet as she listened to her opposite number, she was taking notes in a notebook and appeared to be adding revisions to her own speaking notes.  What's more, if we're being honest, stationery is much more fun than digital tools. Digital fonts, screens and keyboards are not really all that exciting.  But the many different types of pens, pencils, notebooks, and pencil cases at all different price ranges give you the ultimate way to make your tools truly personal.  I'm sure you already know I love fountain pens. I've been writing with them since middle school and just love the way the nib feels on a quality sheet of paper.  I remember being excited when Apple brought out the Apple Pencil. When I got one, and tried it out I was horrified. It was the worst writing experience I'd ever had. I've tried Paperlike and tested a Remarkable. Yuk! None of them comes close to the experience you get from a real pen and paper.  And so, after two years of testing, playing and refining, I came up with what I would describe as the “perfect” system. A method that marries the power of digital with analogue tools.  Digital for storage and output, paper for planning and thinking.  It works. I tested it with some of my coaching clients, and even my wife has started using it for her university studies.  What's more, it works superbly with the Time Sector System. You keep all your tasks in your digital task manager, and only when you decide to do them, you put them on paper.  What you will discover immediately is that you are no longer staring at an almost infinite list of things you could do, and instead, you see a list of genuine tasks that need to be done today. No more overwhelm, just a focused list and a realistic day.  If you are interested in learning more about this course, I will put a link in the show notes. Currently, you can get the course with the early-bird discount for just $49.95.  But if you're not interested, try using a notebook for your planning and daily task list this week. Watch what happens to your productivity.  Thank you for listening, and it just remains for me to wish you all a very, very productive week.   

US Attorney General Pam Bondi has been defending her department's handling of the release of millions of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. She's been giving evidence today to a committee in the US Congress. Meanwhile, the former prime minister, Gordon Brown, has called for detectives to interview Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor about allegations that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked women and girls through the UK. The former Prince Andrew has denied any wrongdoing - or that he derived any benefit - from his association with Jeffrey Epstein. Also in the programme: the UK Supreme Court rules the plant-based drink maker Oatly cannot use the word "milk" in its marketing; and how the latest Hollywood remake of Wuthering Heights is going down in the birthplace of its author Emily Brontë.

Good afternoon, I'm _____ with today's episode of EZ News. Tai-Ex opening The Tai-Ex opened up 24-points this morning from yesterday's close, at 32,828, on turnover of $11-billion N-T. The Taiwan stock market hit a record high today as shares of chipmaker T-S-M-C soared to a new peak, and memory chip suppliers also saw big gains. Analysts say the surge was driven by investor optimism over the artificial intelligence boom and upcoming earnings reports from U.S. tech giants like Microsoft and Meta. Beyond tech, petrochemical stocks rose because of higher crude oil prices and tensions in Iran, while electric machinery companies also gained value as the government works to improve the national power grid. However, some analysts warn the market could face resistance as it approaches the 33,000-point mark. (NS) Prosecutors Seek Taiwan Man Detention for Alleged Money Laundering Prosecutors are seeking to detain the Taiwanese manager of a gambling ring accused of laundering money from China through local shell companies. The Taipei District Prosecutors Office says a Chinese national set up several companies in Taiwan starting in 2016. The group allegedly hired engineers to design gambling software for overseas markets, then used fake transactions and false invoices to move illegal profits back into Taiwan. On Tuesday, authorities searched four locations and questioned 12 people, including accountants and engineers. Nine suspects were released on bail. But prosecutors are asking the court to hold the Taiwanese manager without bail, citing the risk that he might collude (串通) with others. (NS) Russia Warn on Ukraine Casualties Could Hit 2Million A new report warns that combined (合併的) war casualties in Russia's war on Ukraine could soon hit 2 million AP correspondent Laurence Brooks reports Germany Deutsche Bank Searched in Money Laundering Probe German investigators searched the offices of Deutsche Bank, Germany's largest, on Wednesday in connection with an investigation into possible money laundering. Prosecutors in Frankfurt said that the probe focused on the bank's prior (事先的) business relationships to foreign entities which were in turn suspected of being used to launder money. Offices were searched in Frankfurt, where the bank is headquartered, and in Berlin. The bank said it was cooperating with investigators. Rwanda Suing UK for Cancelled Migrant Deal Rwanda has said it is suing the United Kingdom to seek payments over an aborted, controversial migrant deal under which the East African nation was to host deported asylum seekers from the European country. The migrant deal entered into force on April 25 2024. In July 2024, shortly after taking office, Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that the deal was “dead and buried.” In 2023, the UK Supreme Court found the deal between Rwanda and the UK to be “unlawful,” ruling that it violated both UK law and international law and ordering it to be scrapped. Some legal experts have questioned whether parties to an unlawful contract can seek financial remedies (補救措施). That was the I.C.R.T. EZ News, I'm _____. －－－－以下為 SoundOn 動態廣告－－－－

Send us a textThis is Part 2 of our two-part discussion with Tom Hayes, the now vindicated former English banker, who we first spoke with in April 2025.  At the time of that earlier discussion with Tom, in Part 1 of this series, Tom was awaiting a decision of the United Kingdom's Supreme Court on the appeal of his August 2015 conviction, arising from his work submitting rates, on behalf of his employer, a bank, that were used to determine the London Interbank Offered Rate (or, LIBOR)—a benchmark rate, to which many other financial instruments were connected.The allegation was that Tom, and others, had manipulated their submission of rates to benefit the financial institutions they worked for.  For that conduct—what the prosecution characterized as a “manipulation” of LIBOR—Tom was sentenced to 14 years in prison, subsequently reduced to 11 years in prison, of which he ultimately served about 5. But a parallel prosecution in the United States against two other traders, brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, was dismissed, following a favorable decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2022.  At the time of our discussion with Tom in Part 1, the United Kingdom remained the only jurisdiction that viewed Tom's conduct as criminal.  That is, until his conviction—and the conviction of another trader, Carlo Palumbo—were overturned by a unanimous UK Supreme Court on July 23, 2025.  We caught up with Tom after this tremendous reprieve.

In this episode, Dominic Bowen and Jonathan Sumption discuss the fragility of democratic institutions, the strain on the rule of law, and how electoral systems — particularly First-past-the-post — shape political incentives, polarisation, and ultimately public trust. They unpack why so many citizens feel increasingly disconnected from their leaders, and what this means for the future of liberal democracies.Find out more about how constitutional norms erode not with dramatic collapse, but through incremental shifts in political behaviour, rhetoric, and executive overreach — and why institutional resilience depends as much on culture and restraint as on legal frameworks.The conversation also addresses the rise of populism, the backlash against globalization, protectionism, and the geopolitical consequences of Russia's refusal to accept the post–Cold War settlement. They consider the economic and social drivers behind public anger, and the tensions between identity, sovereignty, and prosperity.Finally, they explore whether existing political systems can adapt, what realistic reforms might look like, and how leaders — and voters — can help rebuild legitimacy, accountability, and trust.Lord Jonathan Sumption, OBE, is one of the most distinguished legal and intellectual figures in Britain. A former Justice of the UK Supreme Court, he joined the bench in 2012 after an exceptional career at the Bar, becoming one of only a handful of barristers since the 19th century to be appointed directly to the highest court. Before entering the law, he studied history at Magdalen College, Oxford, later serving as a Fellow in History and publishing his first major work on medieval pilgrimage. Over the following decades, he built a great practice in commercial, public, EU, and constitutional law, taking Silk in 1986 and serving in various judicial and advisory roles, including as a Judicial Appointments Commissioner.The International Risk Podcast brings you conversations with global experts, frontline practitioners, and senior decision-makers who are shaping how we understand and respond to international risk. From geopolitical volatility and organised crime, to cybersecurity threats and hybrid warfare, each episode explores the forces transforming our world and what smart leaders must do to navigate them. Whether you're a board member, policymaker, or risk professional, The International Risk Podcast delivers actionable insights, sharp analysis, and real-world stories that matter.The International Risk Podcast is sponsored by Conducttr, a realistic crisis exercise platform. Conducttr offers crisis exercising software for corporates, consultants, humanitarian, and defence & security clients. Visit Conducttr to learn more.Dominic Bowen is the host of The International Risk Podcast and Europe's leading expert on international risk and crisis management. As Head of Strategic Advisory and Partner at one of Europe's leading risk management consulting firms, Dominic advises CEOs, boards, and senior executives across the continent on how to prepare for uncertainty and act with intent. He has spent decades working in war zones, advising multinational companies, and supporting Europe's business leaders. Dominic is the go-to business advisor for leaders navigating risk, crisis, and strategy; trusted for his clarity, calmness under pressure, and ability to turn volatility into competitive advantage. Dominic equips today's business leaders with the insight and confidence to lead through disruption and deliver sustained strategic advantage.The International Risk Podcast – Reducing risk by increasing knowledge.Follow us on Tell us what you liked!

Justice Secretary David Lammy has announced plans for a sweeping range of reforms to criminal courts in England and Wales. The proposals include scrapping jury trials for cases where sentences are likely to be less than three years and for trials involving ‘particularly technical and lengthy fraud and financial offences'. They will only be kept for the most serious offences, including murder, robbery and rape. However there are fears that the proposed changes will have a disproportionate impact on women, whether as victims or when accused of a crime and then particularly for women of colour. Nuala McGovern discusses the reforms with Fiona Rutherford, Chief Executive of legal reform charity Justice, barrister Emma Torr, Co-chief of Appeal, a law practice dedicated to challenging wrongful convictions, and Val Castell, Deputy National Chair of the Magistrates' Association. A petition has been launched calling for a national endometriosis registry to track and audit data on diagnosis, treatment and surgery outcomes. It's been spearheaded by Jessica Smith, who, like an estimated one and a half million women in the UK, suffers with endometriosis, a condition which occurs when the tissue, similar to the lining of the uterus, grows in other places, such as the ovaries and the fallopian tubes. Campaigners say the level of care is a post code lottery, with long wait lists and that by streamlining this information some of the gaps in care could be eliminated. Jessica joins Nuala along with Professor Ranee Thakar, President of the Royal College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians.The Women's Institute has announced a big change - from next April it will no longer offer membership to transgender women. The UK Supreme Court earlier this year ruled that the legal definition of a woman can only be based on biological sex. This comes the day after it was announced that transgender girls can no longer join the Girl Guides, Brownies or Rainbows. The Women's Institute says it's decision comes with the ‘utmost regret.' Melissa Green, Chief Executive of the National Federation of Women's Institutes explains why they came to this decision. The BBC's political correspondent Phil Sim gives the background.Do you like everything to be perfect for Christmas dinner party hosting – the spotless house, the elaborate menu, the Instagram-worthy table setting? But what if the secret to a great dinner party isn't perfection, but scruffy hosting – a trend that is apparently transforming the way we gather together and makes stress-free dinner parties more attainable - perhaps a one-pot dinner, mismatched cutlery, toys under the table or children running around screaming. Helen Thorn, Comedian, Podcaster and one half of Scummy Mummies tells Nuala why she embraces this type of hosting. Presenter: Nuala McGovern Producer: Andrea Kidd

The Epstein files have finally started to drip out, and the early reactions are already something to behold. This week, Frank and Dan wade into the bizarre rhetorical contortions spilling out of the right-wing media sphere—from Megyn Kelly's head-scratching attempt to "reframe" things to the Catholic League charging in with one of the most offensive defenses imaginable. We also look at Catholic clergy in Chicago suing ICE for blocking access to detained migrants, and the Vatican's "generous" decision to return 62 Indigenous artifacts to First Nations communities in Canada. Meanwhile, Ken Paxton is threatening schools that won't put the Ten Commandments in every classroom, and the UK Supreme Court finally calls out mandatory religious education in Northern Ireland schools for what it is: Christian indoctrination. To close things out, we talk about gratitude and how atheists can navigate Thanksgiving without a divine recipient of their thankfulness. And if you want to support the work we do, visit: thankgodimatheist.com/donate

Christian religious education (RE) taught in schools in Northern Ireland is unlawful, the UK Supreme Court has ruled. Audrey is joined by Dr James Nelson from Queens University, Bishop Donal McKeown and Boyd Sleator from the Northern Ireland Humanists to discuss the implications for schools.As the Presbyterian Church safeguarding scandal continues, we talk to church members about their reaction to the news and what they want to see happen.And as the COP 30 meeting in Brazil ends, we look at steps we can all take locally towards sustainability.

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.Tom Hayes v. UBS, Connecticut Superior Court case filed on October 27, 2025 seeking $400 Million (Read Complaint HERE): A tiny shift in an interest rate can move oceans of money. We follow that ripple to its breaking point, tracing how Tom Hayes became the public face of LIBOR manipulation, then—years later—won full vindication in both the United States and the United Kingdom. Along the way, we unpack the documents, emails, and internal spreadsheets that allegedly turned “commercially aware” rate submissions into an institutional practice, and the crisis‑era pivot that recast one trader as the perfect fall guy.We set the stage with a clear explanation of LIBOR's design, why a bank's submissions sit within a plausible range, and how that nuance became the hinge of subsequent court decisions. Then we walk through the complaint's central claims: that UBS policy told staff to consider the bank's trading positions, that management tracked exposures and directed desired outcomes, and that the bank later secured a non‑prosecution agreement by advancing a narrative of isolated misconduct. The result, according to the lawsuit, was a devastating chain reaction—selective disclosures, missing spreadsheets, and a jury instruction that erased the difference between choosing within a legitimate range and committing fraud.Hayes' convictions collapsed after the U.S. Second Circuit and the UK Supreme Court clarified that profit‑motivated choices are not criminal if the submitted rate stays within a genuine range of estimated borrowing costs. With legal ground restored, Hayes now sues UBS for malicious prosecution and indemnification, seeking at least $400 million in damages. We examine the stakes: lifetime earnings lost, health and family fallout, and the broader question of who should bear responsibility when corporate incentives steer behavior and later demand a scapegoat.If you care about financial regulation, corporate accountability, and how legal narratives are built and unbuilt, this story matters. Listen, share your take, and help us bring more people into the conversation. If this resonated, subscribe, leave a review, and tell a friend what surprised you most. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Our guest in this episode is Lord Jonathan Sumption, former Justice of the UK Supreme Court, acclaimed historian, and one of Britain's leading public voices on law and democracy. The conversation explores the uneasy boundary between law and politics. Sumption reflects on the long history of the U.S. Supreme Court as a political actor, from the Lochner era's resistance to worker protections, through clashes with Roosevelt's New Deal, to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision on school segregation. He examines the controversies of Roe v. Wade and its recent reversal, warning that both decisions undermined trust in different ways. Lord Sumption also considers how courts respond when politics fails, the role of judicial appointments in shaping independence, and why democracies today struggle with expectations they cannot meet. Despite widespread skepticism, he insists that neutrality is not a myth: judges can set aside personal opinions, and trust in courts depends on their ability to do so. This episode offers a sobering yet hopeful look at the fragile balance between courts, politics, and public trust and why defending judicial neutrality is essential for the future of democracy.

PREVIEW: UK King's Powers Explored Amidst Starmer Government's Weakness GUEST AND TITLE: Gregory Copley, Defense and Foreign Affairs, author of The Noble State: On Constitutional Monarchy SUMMARY: Gregory Copley discusses the extreme weakness of Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government in Great Britain. Copley outlines the King's potential actions, including proroguing (suspending) or completely ending Parliament and calling new elections, especially if the government breaks convention or the constitution. The King could also call party leaders for discussions if the country falls into disarray. The UK Supreme Court has chastised the prime minister for reprehensible political and private behavior. 1901

Sally Wainwright, UK, Why the lesbian intervention was critical to the UK Supreme Court ruling.Recorded at the WDI Conference in London on 27th July 2025.

We have a record-breaker on the podcast this week! It's Eva Echo's third appearance on A Gay And A NonGay, which puts her in a class of her own! Eva is a trans activity, NHS campaigner and is the Director of Innovation at Birmingham Pride. On this episode, James, Dan and Eva talk about pride as a protest amid rising transphobia in UK politics, the recent UK Supreme Court ruling on gender identity and the Download Festival toilet controversy. Plus, the hosts explore the difficulty of self-recognition and appreciation for activists. Follow A Gay & A NonGay TikTok: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@gaynongay⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@gaynongay⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@gaynongay⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Facebook: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@gaynongay⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠gaynongay.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Email Us: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠us@gaynongay.com⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode 85 - Dr. Kathleen Stock returns to discuss the recent UK Supreme Court ruling that ‘sex' in the 2010 Equality Act refers to biological sex. Disclaimer: Please note that all information and content on the UK Health Radio Network, all its radio broadcasts and podcasts are provided by the authors, producers, presenters and companies themselves and is only intended as additional information to your general knowledge. As a service to our listeners/readers our programs/content are for general information and entertainment only.  The UK Health Radio Network does not recommend, endorse, or object to the views, products or topics expressed or discussed by show hosts or their guests, authors and interviewees.  We suggest you always consult with your own professional – personal, medical, financial or legal advisor. So please do not delay or disregard any professional – personal, medical, financial or legal advice received due to something you have heard or read on the UK Health Radio Network.

Today we discuss sex and vaccines, reality and renegades. First: men can no longer compete in women's sports—from Trump's Executive Order, to the NCAA's response, to William “Lia” Thomas having his records rescinded at Penn, reality is prevailing. Other evidence includes the UK Supreme Court declaring that “man” and “woman” refer to biological reality; and the U.S. Supreme Court writing an opinion that forcing LGBTQ+ books on children in public elementary schools is unconstitutional. Men cannot magically turn into women, nor boys into girls, no matter what they believe or are told. Then: from the ACIP (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) to Vinay Prasad's latest presentation at the FDA: the federal government is being populated by a combination of true renegades and middle ground scramblers who are dressed like renegades. A good toolkit for understanding how to make sense of the claims being made is necessary, and we all should be rooting for the renegades to win.*****Our sponsors:CrowdHealth: Pay for healthcare with crowdfunding instead of insurance. It's way better. Use code DarkHorse at JoinCrowdHealth.com to get 1st 3 months for $99/month.ARMRA Colostrum is an ancient bioactive whole food that can strengthen your immune system. Go to http://www.tryarmra.com/DARKHORSE to get 15% off your first order.Helix: Excellent, sleep-enhancing, American-made mattresses. Go to www.HelixSleep.com/DarkHorse for 27% Off - an offer exclusive for listeners of DarkHorse!*****Join us on Locals! Get access to our Discord server, exclusive live streams, live chats for all streams, and early access to many podcasts: https://darkhorse.locals.comHeather's newsletter, Natural Selections (subscribe to get free weekly essays in your inbox): https://naturalselections.substack.comOur book, A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century, is available everywhere books are sold, including from Amazon: https://amzn.to/3AGANGg (commission earned)Check out our store! Epic tabby, digital book burning, saddle up the dire wolves, and more: https://darkhorsestore.org*****Mentioned in this episode:Trump's EO: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/keeping-men-out-of-womens-sports/Paula Scanlan speaks about men in women's sports:https://x.com/xx_xyathletics/status/1940381615131332719U.K. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042The Lancet – sex isn't binary! https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)00834-7/fulltextU.S. Supreme Court – Mahmoud vs Taylor: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdfWilliam Thomas in the record books: https://www.outkick.com/sports/lia-thomas-upenn-womens-swimming-record-books-updated-acknowledges-transgender-swimmer-noteRFK Jr on Tucker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_fzlwxJZAAACIP committee with Robert Malone and Retsef Levi: https://x.com/janjekielek/status/1939482343313453423Prasad on myocarditis: https://x.com/US_FDA/status/1940111214497210425Prasad makes full professor: https://x.com/bretweinstein/status/1554849287300792320Earlier clips of ZDogg and Prasad and Makary: https://x.com/alexandrosm/status/1574530850565558272Support the show

Identity has become tribal, and it's stopping us understanding each other's humanity. Activist, writer, and model Munroe Bergdorf explains how fear and anger for society's issues have been misdirected towards trans people.In this chat with Fearne, Munroe talks through what the recent UK Supreme Court ruling on biological sex and gender means for trans women, cis women, and society more widely. How, for example, are trans rights intimately connected to abortion rights?Fearne and Munroe chat about how to practice self-acceptance, particularly around body image, and how to use your voice to create positive change. They also cover grief, and numbing out as a way of dealing with poor mental health.Munroe's new book, Talk To Me, is out on June 5th, and you can watch her documentary, Love and Rage, in cinemas from June 10th.This episode also contains an exclusive first listen to a chapter of Kirsty Gallagher's new book, Your Cosmic Purpose, which is published by Happy Place Books on June 5th.If you liked this episode of Happy Place, you might also like:Emma DabiriOlly AlexanderKirsty Gallagher Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A recent ruling from the UK Supreme Court on the definition of women is a blow for trans rights, and has major, and confusing, implications.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Join Gabriel Gara Lonning (@unitedstatesofgara) as he dives into the latest stories shaping conversations around gender. In this episode, he unpacks headlines about transgender rights, explores the significance of lavender graduations, breaks down the recent UK Supreme Court decision, and shares his take on state-level debates. Expect sharp insights and thoughtful discussion on the issues that matter most right now.https://www.patreon.com/c/garalonningSupport the show

In the wake of the UK Supreme Court ruling that the legal definition of woman should be based on biological sex, Nish and Zoë speak to LGBTQ+ activist Ellen Jones, author of "Outrage: Why the fight for LGBTQ+ equality is not yet won and what we can do about it" about the implications for trans people and what we can do about it.  They discuss how the campaigning of reactionaries like billionaire author JK Rowling led to the decision that has seen Prime Minister Keir Starmer backflipping on his support for the trans community. Ellen speaks on the dangers of the recent ruling and practical ways to resist and support the trans community. Then, as the Tories flounder ahead of the local elections, Zoë hedges her bets. And we take a look at two shocking attempts to seize the limelight by Liz Truss and Tony Blair. Plus, ahead of the Australian election this weekend, Nish speaks to former Deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan about how, in the wake of Trump's tariffs and attacks on allies, the commonwealth might be more important than ever and what the US and UK could learn from Australia's compulsory preferential voting system. CHECK OUT THESE DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS  AURA FRAMES https://www.auraframes.com CODE: PSUK SHOPIFY https://www.shopify.co.uk/podsavetheuk  Guests: Ellen Jones Wayne Swan Useful links: Outrage: Why the fight for LGBTQ+ equality is not yet won and what we can do about it by Ellen Jones https://www.panmacmillan.com/authors/ellen-jones/outrage/9781035030606 The Good Law Project Crowdfunder to legally challenge the Supreme Court Decision https://goodlawproject.org/crowdfunder/supreme-court-human-rights-for-trans-people/ Compilation of protests against the Supreme Court Decision https://whatthetrans.com/compilation-of-protests-against-the-supreme-court/  Volunteer at your local trans pride - London Trans Pride call for stewards https://www.instagram.com/londontranspride Write to your MP https://transactual.org.uk/change-actions/write-to-your-mp/ Reclaim the framing of UK trans rights https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTWR6sdj_xWKoOGLmwp0JotSL3NBrYSd1Dy3VZOIIKJKy0Ej6cFPt32IIKan3qCq6fG4lpgrw46ewO0/pub?urp=gmail_link Protect the Dolls T-shirt in support of Trans Lifeline, a US-based charity https://connerives.com/products/pre-order-protect-the-dolls-t-shirt Info on voting in the Australian Election abroad: ALPABROAD.ORG  Audio Credits Sky News ITV News Pod Save the UK is a Reduced Listening production for Crooked Media. Contact us via email: PSUK@reducedlistening.co.uk Insta: https://instagram.com/podsavetheuk BlueSky: @podsavetheuk.crooked.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/podsavetheuk TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@podsavetheuk Facebook: https://facebook.com/podsavetheuk Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@PodSavetheUK Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week is very special for us at the Unreported Story Society. We are releasing another of our special projects for all of you to watch and enjoy.We are releasing the filmed version of our play Trans on Trial.The story has never been more relevant or important particularly in the light of the recent UK Supreme Court decision on gender.The filmed play is based entirely on the transcripts of a dramatic five-day UK Charity Commission trial. Trans On Trial captures the intense legal battle between Mermaids, a trans youth advocacy group, and The LGB Alliance, a gay rights charity, that believes women are women and men are men and it is impossible to change one's sex. And they also believe children should not be given puberty blockers or be subjected to mutilating surgery.The film shows just how shallow the trans ideology actually is.This was the first time these people faced hard questions and they had no answers. At times the court case descended into farce as they tried to justify the ridiculousness. The play is serious but it is also very, very funny. It is also a hugely important piece of human rights history and we are so happy that you and the world will see it.This week's guest is actually depicted in the play, and will be talking about the historic UK Supreme Court decision - declaring that a woman, among other things, is a woman, and the backlash that came from it.And so do Irish band KNEECAP support Hamas and Hezbollah and the murder of British Memebers of Parliament or is it all just a massive "out of context" misunderstanding?And more importantly should they go to prison for their views.

Encore from 4/16/25 Hour 2 Patrick engages in thought-provoking discussions on the divinity of Jesus while fielding questions from listeners around the world. From understanding what defines a woman to grappling with the moral implications of actions taken in military service, each call brings deeper insights. Todd - Divinity of Jesus: Is there any biblical basis for Jesus being God? It seems like Jesus goes out of His way to say He is not God but the son of God. (01:46) Peter - Could you clarify about killing in the military. I have killed in the line of duty and I believe that killing is the biggest sin that I have committed. (07:03) Mike - My son is returning to the Catholic Faith after being in evangelicalism. He is looking for small groups and community in the Catholic Church. How can I help? (17:49) Rhonda - The Trinity: in dressing rooms they have three mirrors so you can see three different angles. Is that a good analogy for the Trinity? (23:32) Isaac (6-years-old) - How is the communion bread made before it is blessed? (30:25) UK Supreme Court just ruled that law defines women as people born biologically female. (35:41) Australia's most populous state New South Wales just made it illegal to pray with someone about their sexuality. (42:08)

In this episode, Kyle shares an email he got from a former member of Andy Stanley's church, and he talks about what everyone is getting wrong about the rise in sextortion of teenage boys online. Also, in the Quick Hitters segment, he discusses he Trump White House's presidential message on Holy Week, 50+ Nigerian Christians being slaughtered by Muslim fundamentalists on Palm Sunday, a state in Australia criminalizing prayer, the debate between Douglas Murray and Dave Stewart on the Joe Rogan Experience, a black teenager stabbing a white teenager to death at a high school track meet in Texas, a proposed California ballot measure named in honor of alleged murderer Luigi Mangioine, a proposed Colorado House bill that would categorize “misgendering” and “deadnaming” as child abuse, a proposed Oklahoma House bill that would allow for the chemical castration of child sex offenders, a pitbull mauling a 7-month-old baby girl to death in Ohio, scientists claiming to have resurrected the extinct dire wolf, the UK Supreme Court ruling that “trans women” are not actually women, FBI senior leadership using an internal gag order to cover up the Hunter Biden laptop story, some of the best jiu-jitsu advice you could ever get. Let's get into it… Episode notes and links HERE. Donate to support our mission of equipping men to push back darkness. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today, we're discussing the ongoing Supreme Court case Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which SCOTUS will be addressing whether or not parents have the right to opt their children out of curriculum featuring storybooks promoting LGBT ideology. The Maryland school board doesn't want to let parents opt out, but parents say this violates their First Amendment rights. Who will SCOTUS side with? And the state of Colorado is back on our radar, and not in a good way, with four new bills that protect abortion care and "gender-affirming health care" that are currently working their way through the legislature. At least some good news came from across the pond with the U.K. Supreme Court ruling that women are, in fact, biological females, and "transgender" women don't fit that description. Share the Arrows 2025 is on October 11 in Dallas, Texas! Go to sharethearrows.com for tickets now! Watch the latest episode of Relatable At Home, "Liturgy-Led Living: Following the Christian Calendar" featuring Danielle Hitchen exclusively on BlazeTV: https://get.blazetv.com/allie/ Buy Allie's new book, "Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion": https://a.co/d/4COtBxy --- Timecodes: (06:31) SCOTUS Mahmoud v. Taylor (19:10) Colorado bills  (45:02) UK Supreme Court protects women --- Today's Sponsors: A'del — Try A'del's hand-crafted, artisan, small-batch cosmetics and use promo code ALLIE 25% off your first time purchase at AdelNaturalCosmetics.com Good Ranchers — Go to https://GoodRanchers.com and subscribe to any of their boxes (but preferably the Allie Beth Stuckey Box) to get free bacon, ground beef, seed oil free chicken nuggets, or wild-caught salmon in every box for life. Plus, you'll get $40 off when you use code ALLIE at checkout. Fellowship Home Loans — Fellowship Home Loans is a mortgage lending company that offers home financing solutions while integrating Christian values such as honesty, integrity, and stewardship. Go to fellowshiphomeloans.com/allie to get up to $500 credit towards closing costs when you finance with Fellowship Home Loans. Pre-Born — Will you help rescue babies' lives? Donate by calling #250 & say keyword 'BABY' or go to Preborn.com/ALLIE. --- Links: The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care): https://a.co/d/aSmoqlO --- Related Episodes: Ep 927 | Is Tumblr Making Kids Trans? | Guest: Daisy Strongin (Part One) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-927-is-tumblr-making-kids-trans-guest-daisy-strongin/id1359249098?i=1000640465566 Ep 928 | Losing ‘Gender Identity' & Finding My Faith | Guest: Daisy Strongin (Part Two) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-928-from-transition-to-conversion-guest-daisy-strongin/id1359249098?i=1000640577375 Ep 13 | Two Gay Men + A Christian Baker Walk into a Courtroom https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-13-two-gay-men-a-christian-baker-walk-into-a-courtroom/id1359249098?i=1000413171727 Ep 719 | Christians v. the State of Colorado… Again https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-719-christians-v-the-state-of-colorado-again/id1359249098?i=1000589107658 Ep 896 | From 'Trans Man' to Transformed by Christ | Guest: Laura Perry Smalts (Part One) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-896-from-trans-man-to-transformed-by-christ-guest/id1359249098?i=1000632613519 Ep 897 | A Detransitioner on the Lie of Trans ‘Joy' | Guest: Laura Perry Smalts (Part Two) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-897-a-detransitioner-on-the-lie-of-trans/id1359249098?i=1000632747460 Ep 1020 | Botched: The Brutality of Trans Mastectomies | Guest: Soren Aldaco https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-1020-botched-the-brutality-of-trans/id1359249098?i=1000659311855 --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise – use promo code 'ALLIE10' for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A ruling on equality law has caused relief, fear – and confusion. Libby Brooks reports. Help support our independent journalism at theguardian.com/infocus

Justin discusses who Christians should frame the Israel/Palestine war. He also talks about freedom of speech and the UK Supreme Court decision saying that sex is binary and what defines a woman is based on biological sex.   Show Notes: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/16/us/politics/trump-israel-iran-nuclear.html https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1912566643856937203 https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/02/younger-americans-stand-out-in-their-views-of-the-israel-hamas-war/ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74z04j23pwo Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week in women: the UK Supreme Court declares that transwomen are not women, and women are lauded for putting on matching jumpsuits and being launched into space for a minute. In Britain, rapists can no longer pretend to be women; in the United States, we are asked to celebrate one of the oldest plays in the book—attractive woman attaches herself to wealthy man and attains power—and pretend that it represents female empowerment, while conveniently forgetting actually skilled women who have come before. Also: a hostage situation in Podcastistan: in which we explore the strange about-face of some prominent free speech warriors. Finally: the amazing institution that is Ralston College, whose themes are truth, freedom of inquiry, beauty, and fellowship.*****Our sponsors:Timeline: Accelerate the clearing of damaged mitochondria to improve strength and endurance: Go to http://www.timeline.com/darkhorse and use code darkhorse for 10% off your first order.ARMRA Colostrum is an ancient bioactive whole food that can strengthen your immune system. Go to http://www.tryarmra.com/DARKHORSE to get 15% off your first order.Brain.fm: intense music that boosts productivity. Unlock your brain's full potential free for 30 days by going to http://brain.fm/DARKHORSE*****Join us on Locals! Get access to our Discord server, exclusive live streams, live chats for all streams, and early access to many podcasts: https://darkhorse.locals.comHeather's newsletter, Natural Selections (subscribe to get free weekly essays in your inbox): https://naturalselections.substack.comOur book, A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century, is available everywhere books are sold, including from Amazon: https://amzn.to/3AGANGg (commission earned)Check out our store! Epic tabby, digital book burning, saddle up the dire wolves, and more: https://darkhorsestore.orgThumbnail courtesy of Blue Origin.*****Mentioned in this episode:How women won the gender wars, by Kathleen Stock: https://unherd.com/2025/04/how-women-won-the-gender-wars/Rapists aren't women in the UK: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/18/trans-rapists-can-no-longer-claim-to-be-women/Federal contracts to SpaceX, ULA & Blue Origin: https://spacenews.com/spacex-ula-blue-origin-win-13-5-billion-in-u-s-military-launch-contracts-through-2029/Best shot at space for Amanda Nguyen: https://www.thecut.com/article/amanda-nguyen-blue-origin-space-flight-controversy.htmlMIT research team: https://www.media.mit.edu/posts/amanda-nguyen-carries-mit-research-projects-into-orbit/Former NASA engineer Aisha Bowe, in Ebony: https://www.ebony.com/black-women-technology-nasa/Douglas Murray in the New York Post: https://nypost.com/2025/04/17/opinion/douglas-murray-so-called-israel-hamas-ukraine-war-experts-spew-false-info-on-joe-rogans-podcast-there-has-to-be-a-standard/Ralston College: https://www.ralston.acSupport the show

Democrats and the media defend a deportee with past criminal history, the Global Engagement Center is no more, and the UK Supreme Court defines the word “woman.” Get the facts first with Morning Wire.Good Ranchers: Visit https://goodranchers.com and subscribe to any box using code WIRE to claim $40 off + free meat for life!NetSuite: Download the CFO's Guide to AI and Machine Learning for FREE at https://NetSuite.com/MORNINGWIRE

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks to James Lindsay and Winston Marshall about JK Rowling's victory lap after the UK Supreme Court ruled that trans women are not legally women; CNN's Kasie Hunt regretted asking Secretary of Education Linda McMahon why Title IX shouldn't force colleges to allow trans athletes to participate in women's sports; Winston Marshall asking “Club Random's” Bill Maher what kind of change he would like to see from the Democratic Party; White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt explaining in clear terms why Harvard University will have its federal funding ended for violating federal discrimination laws; Shermichael Singleton arguing with CNN's Abby Phillip over the failure of ivy league universities to teach critical thinking to the future leaders of America; “Triggernometry's” Konstantin Kisin giving the perfect breakdown of the contentious debate between Douglas Murray and Dave Smith on “The Joe Rogan Experience”' and much more. WATCH the MEMBER-EXCLUSIVE segment of the show here: https://rubinreport.locals.com/ Check out the NEW RUBIN REPORT MERCH here: https://daverubin.store/ ---------- Today's Sponsors: Hillsdale College - Hillsdale College is offering more than 40 free online courses in the most important and enduring subjects. Start your free course, “American Citizenship and Its Decline,” with Victor Davis Hanson today. Go to: http://www.hillsdale.edu/dave Lean - A powerful weight loss supplement with remarkable results to help lower blood sugar, burn fat by converting it into energy, and curb your appetite. Rubin Report viewers get 20% off plus free rush shipping off their first order! Go to: https://TakeLean.com and enter promo code RUBIN20 for your discount Rumble Premium - Corporate America is fighting to remove speech, Rumble is fighting to keep it. If you really believe in this fight Rumble is offering $10 off with the promo code RUBIN when you purchase an annual subscription, Go to: https://Rumble.com/premium/RUBIN and use promo code RUBIN ---------- James Lindsay Founder, New Discourses James on X: https://twitter.com/conceptualjames Support James Lindsay and the New Discourses at his Locals page here: https://newdiscourses.locals.com/ Winston Marshall Host, The Winston Marshall Show Winston on X: https://twitter.com/MrWinMarshall Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John and Maria look ahead to Easter Sunday and remember the anniversary of the passing of Charles Colson. The highest court in the UK rules there are only two genders. And are there biblical guidelines for when we should we help the poor? Recommendations Death on a Friday Afternoon by Richard John Neuhaus The Biggest Story Bible Storybook By Kevin DeYoung Segment 1 - Holy Week and Remembering Chuck Colson Breakpoint: Jesus, the Last Adam Breakpoint: “I Thirst” Points Us to God's Scars There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Anthony Flew Breakpoint: How Johnny Hart Pointed to the Cross and Empty Tomb in the Funny Papers Johnny Hart's Good Friday Comic Strip Segment 2 - UK Supreme Court on Gender BBC: Supreme Court backs 'biological' definition of woman J.K. Rowling on X Segment 3 - Helping the Poor The World and Everything in It: April 15, 2025 National Review: The War on Poverty at 50 Recovery Ministries Try to Help Portland Get Clean by Maria Baer When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor . . . and Yourself by Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert Poverty Cure | Session 1 | Michael Matheson Miller __________ Learn more about how ADF helps the Church be the Church at adflegal.org.  Register for the upcoming Identity Project webinar: Saying 'I Do' is Good for You at colsoncenter.org/marriage.

Topics this week:Women's Basketball Player Embraces Her FaithThe UK Supreme Court Rules on GenderFrance's Law on Anonymous Sperm and Egg DonationRichard Dawkins' Blog Post on ChristianityListener Questions:Further questions concerning the life of MLK jr.How should someone approach talking with parents in the midst of deconstruction?Is there continuity of life between now and the new heavens and new earth?==========Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture is a podcast from Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, which offers degrees both online and on campus in Southern California. Find all episodes of Think Biblically at: https://www.biola.edu/think-biblically. Watch video episodes at: https://bit.ly/think-biblically-video. To submit comments, ask questions, or make suggestions on issues you'd like us to cover or guests you'd like us to have on the podcast, email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu.

A Democrat senator flies to El Salvador to help a foreign criminal, the UK Supreme Court rules that men are not women, and the arsonist who tried to roast PA Gov. Josh Shapiro turns out to be a pro-Palestine Marxist. Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4biDlri Ep.1717 - - - DailyWire+: We're leading the charge again and launching a full-scale push for justice. Go to https://PardonDerek.com right now and sign the petition. Now is the time to join the fight. Watch the hit movies, documentaries, and series reshaping our culture. Go to https://dailywire.com/subscribe today. Live Free & Smell Fancy with The Candle Club: https://thecandleclub.com/michael - - - Today's Sponsors: Hillsdale College - Start learning today. Go to hillsdale.edu/knowles to sign up for over 40 free online courses. PreBorn! - Help save babies from abortion at https://preborn.com/KNOWLES PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and start saving today! Visit https://PureTalk.com/KNOWLES - - - Socials: Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6 Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, one of the central demands of the BLM movement was that all police officers should have body cameras. Well, ironically, as a recent incident again demonstrates, body cameras are what ultimately killed the BLM movement. Also, a landmark decision from the UK Supreme Court, which has found that men are not women. And a sports reporter has provoked outrage and attracted national headlines for committing the crime of being a very normal heterosexual man.  Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6 Ep.1578 - - - DailyWire+: We're leading the charge again and launching a full-scale push for justice. Go to https://PardonDerek.com right now and sign the petition. Now is the time to join the fight. Watch the hit movies, documentaries, and series reshaping our culture. Go to https://dailywire.com/subscribe today. Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj - - - Today's Sponsors: Dose Daily - Save 30% on your first month subscription by going to https://dosedaily.co/WALSH or entering WALSH at checkout. Jacked Up - Order your own Power Rack Pro at https://GetJackedUp.com and use promo code WALSH to save 10% Jeremy's Razors - Try Jeremy's Razors for 20% off risk-free: https://www.jeremysrazors.com/WALSH - - - Socials:  Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs

Tim, Phil, & Mary are joined by Shawn Farash to discuss Democrats defense of MS-13 gang member backfiring after Trump admin drops proof, the wife of a deported MS-13 gang member defending domestic abuse, NY AG Letitia James suspected of mortgage fraud, and the UK Supreme Court officially recognizing "woman" as a biological female. Hosts: Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Mary @PopCultureCrisis (YouTube) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guest: Shawn Farash @Shawn_Farash (X) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Donate (no account necessary) | Subscribe (account required) Join Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA Operations Officer, as he breaks down today's biggest stories shaping America and the world. Democrats Embarrassed by Criminal Past of Deported Migrant – Senator Chris Van Hollen's trip to El Salvador backfires as the Trump administration reveals the deported man he sought to rescue, Kilmar Garcia, is an MS-13 gang member accused of domestic violence and possibly human trafficking. Trump Moves to Strip Harvard of Nonprofit Status – After the university refuses to comply with civil rights reforms tied to DEI and anti-Semitism, the IRS prepares to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status, risking billions in lost funding and taxes. Tariff War Update: Honda and Nvidia Reshore Production – Despite Fed Chairman Jerome Powell's warning of stagflation, signs emerge that Trump's strategy is working. Honda shifts car production to Indiana, and Nvidia announces plans to manufacture high-end chips in the U.S. UK Supreme Court Declares Trans Women Are Not Women – In a landmark ruling, Britain's highest court affirms that legal definitions of “woman” and “sex” refer only to biological females, igniting pushback from trans activists and possibly reshaping European law and sport. Bonus Medical Briefs: Surgery Safety and MRI Warnings – New UK research points to the best hip replacement materials for long-term success, while North American studies warn of a rare MRI risk linked to oxalate-rich foods and Vitamin C. Also, avoid elective surgeries on Fridays due to higher complication rates. "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32

April 17, 2025Have you had your dose of The Daily MoJo today? Download The Daily MoJo App! "Ep 041725: The Painful Death Of Belief - The Daily MoJo"The content discusses various topics, including the UK Supreme Court's ruling on trans women and the implications for trans rights. It critiques government appointment processes and military leaks, while also debating space exploration claims and the definition of an astronaut. Additionally, it humorously critiques the fragrance industry and shares personal experiences with scents. The conversation touches on pilot qualifications and a nonprofit's controversial contract, concluding with a positive community engagement.Phil Bell's Morning Update Why is the Left so focused on saving an MS-13 gang member?  HEREJeff Fisher - Host of Chewing The Fat Podcast - Dumped us for Pat Gray this morning, can you believe it?!  Jeff Fisher LinktreeBrandon Morse - Redstate Author & host of The Brandon Morse YouTube channel- has strong feelings for Jasmine Crockett. Brandon's LinktreeOur affiliate partners:Pantell Less Lethal Protection - an official dealer of Byrna Technologies - has your alternative to deadly force. It's the Byrna Launcher, and it's legal in all 50 states! Check your state's laws for any special restrictions that may exist. Find the Byrna Launcher that's perfect for you: Ross's Cell: 908.642.2636ProtectMyMoJo.comPromo Code: DailyMojoRomika Designs is an awesome American small business that specializes in creating laser-engraved gifts and awards for you, your family, and your employees. Want something special for someone special? Find exactly what you want at MoJoLaserPros.com  There have been a lot of imitators, but there's only OG – American Pride Roasters Coffee. It was first and remains the best roaster of fine coffee beans from around the world. You like coffee? You'll love American Pride – from the heart of the heartland – Des Moines, Iowa. AmericanPrideRoasters.com   Find great deals on American-made products at MoJoMyPillow.com. Mike Lindell – a true patriot in our eyes – puts his money where his mouth (and products) is/are. Find tremendous deals at MoJoMyPillow.com – Promo Code: MoJo50  Life gets messy – sometimes really messy. Be ready for the next mess with survival food and tools from My Patriot Supply. A 25 year shelf life and fantastic variety are just the beginning of the long list of reasons to get your emergency rations at PrepareWithMoJo50.comStay ConnectedWATCH The Daily Mojo LIVE 7-9a CT: www.TheDailyMojo.com (RECOMMEDED)Watch:Rumble: HEREFacebook: HEREFreedomsquare: HEREYouTube: HEREListen:LISTEN: HEREBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-daily-mojo-with-brad-staggs--3085897/support

In a landmark ruling, the UK Supreme Court says the legal definition of a woman refers to biological sex. Also: BBC gets rare access to a torture cell in Bangladesh, and the unexpected popularity of a slow TV moose show.

Former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney and National Review Contributing Editor Andy McCarthy is in for Jim on Tuesday's 3 Martini Lunch. Join Andy and Greg as they dig into ICE's clever move to apprehend a Columbia protest leader, the UK Supreme Court's affirmation of reality concerning biological sex, and the legal spotlight now shining on New York Attorney General Letitia James for behavior strikingly similar to what she prosecuted Donald Trump for last year.First, they applaud ICE agents for their creative tactics in apprehending Columbia University student and anti-Israel protest organizer Mohsen Mahdawi by summoning him under the guise of a naturalization interview. Andy also breaks down the legal distinctions between citizens and non-citizens when it comes to speech that incites hate. Greg highlights how mainstream media continue to spin radical activists like Mahdawi into sympathetic figures.Next, they're pleasantly surprised over the UK Supreme Court's ruling affirming that sex is binary—just male and female. Considering the dominance of gender ideology in the UK and elsewhere, the decision wasn't guaranteed. The ruling stemmed from a case designed to clarify DEI policies in Scotland, so there's still a long way to go. Andy explains how his legal background helps interpret such cultural shifts. Greg adds that if momentum keeps building for biological truth, expect many elites to pretend they never supported the opposite.Finally, they react to news that New York Attorney General Letitia James is under federal investigation for mortgage fraud and falsifying financial records— the same offenses she charged Trump with in 2023. Authorities say she claimed a Virginia property as her permanent residence, which could disqualify her from her role. She also missated the number of units existed in another property. Andy closely followed the frivolous case against Trump and is stunned that James would have brought those charges forward with this kind of baggage in her own background.Please visit our great sponsors:Oracle will cut your cloud bill in HALF —new US customers only, offer ends May 31st! Check eligibility: https://oracle.com/MARTINIThis podcast is sponsored by BetterHelp. Your well-being is worth it. Visit https://BetterHelp.com/3ML to get 10% off your first monthIt's free, online, and easy to start—no strings attached. Enroll in Understanding Capitalism with Hillsdale College. Visit https://hillsdale.edu/Martini

A landmark UK Supreme Court ruling has reignited the gender identity debate, declaring that “woman” in the Equality Act refers strictly to biological sex. Trans women—even those with Gender Recognition Certificates—are no longer legally considered women under this definition. With implications for everything from women's spaces to representation quotas, this ruling marks a seismic shift in the cultural and legal landscape. How did we get here—and what comes next? Call 1-(800)-958-1000 or visit http://TNUSA.com/brand to schedule a complimentary consultation. http://www.1775coffee.com/BRAND to save 15% off your order of 1775 Coffee.

Today, the UK Supreme Court has ruled that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex. It marks the culmination of a long-running legal battle which could have major implications for how sex-based rights apply across Scotland, England and Wales.Adam is joined by James Cook, Alex Forsyth and the BBC's social affairs editor Alison Holt. You can now listen to Newscast on a smart speaker. If you want to listen, just say "Ask BBC Sounds to play Newscast”. It works on most smart speakers. You can join our Newscast online community here: https://discord.gg/m3YPUGv9New episodes released every day. If you're in the UK, for more News and Current Affairs podcasts from the BBC, listen on BBC Sounds: https://bit.ly/3ENLcS1 Newscast brings you daily analysis of the latest political news stories from the BBC. It was presented by Adam Fleming. It was made by Miranda Slade with Bella Saltiel and Adam Chowdhury. The technical producer was Dafydd Evans. The assistant editor is Chris Gray. The editor is Sam Bonham.

Patrick engages in thought-provoking discussions on the divinity of Jesus while fielding questions from listeners around the world. From understanding what defines a woman to grappling with the moral implications of actions taken in military service, each call brings deeper insights. Todd - Divinity of Jesus: Is there any biblical basis for Jesus being God? It seems like Jesus goes out of His way to say He is not God but the son of God. (01:46) Peter - Could you clarify about killing in the military. I have killed in the line of duty and I believe that killing is the biggest sin that I have committed. (07:03) Mike - My son is returning to the Catholic Faith after being in evangelicalism. He is looking for small groups and community in the Catholic Church. How can I help? (17:49) Rhonda - The Trinity: in dressing rooms they have three mirrors so you can see three different angles. Is that a good analogy for the Trinity? (23:32) Isaac (6-years-old) - How is the communion bread made before it is blessed? (30:25) UK Supreme Court just ruled that law defines women as people born biologically female. (35:41) Australia's most populous state New South Wales just made it illegal to pray with someone about their sexuality. (42:08)

Tensions are rising at American colleges, following the Trump administration's Harvard funding freeze. Chinese factories are taking the trade war with the US to TikTok. The New York City Council is suing Mayor Eric Adams. The WHO has reached a “historic” agreement on how to tackle future pandemics. And, the UK Supreme Court has made a major ruling on gender. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney and National Review Contributing Editor Andy McCarthy is in for Jim on Tuesday's 3 Martini Lunch. Join Andy and Greg as they dig into ICE's clever move to apprehend a Columbia protest leader, the UK Supreme Court's affirmation of reality concerning biological sex, and the legal spotlight now shining on […]