 This morning I was sent a tweet which someone had posted saying that our Santa's grotto, which is currently going on in Essex, I shouldn't be allowed because violent anti-Islam people should have no access to children. I mean, it's so much. There's just so much to say about that one, isn't there? Violent? First of all, when? When have for but never been violent. And the idea that being anti-Islam should exclude you from looking after children, well, I don't know, is irony the word? Perhaps not. Islam, as we know, allows children to be married, little girls to be married to old men, so I don't think it's anti-Islam that is a threat to children. And in fact, what is so wrong with being anti-Islam? But in any case, I mean this is the idiocy, isn't it? This is the upside-down, moronic, left-wing approach to this. And they're able to call us violent for absolutely no reason. We've absolutely no history of endorsing or condoning or involving ourselves in violence. Zero. And yet, casually, we are referred to as violent, and that's not the first time that I've seen that. So what's the problem here? Why are people like this? Why do they think? I mean, recently we were ambushed, as you might know, when we're trying to do a Dripper walk around the East End. Now these people actually thought we were there to scope out the masks. I mean, this is crazy! What do they think we are exactly? They think we're monsters. And there's a reason they think we're monsters. And that reason is the media. And the media lies and lies and lies. It, like much of public life, academic life, has been completely dumbed down and watered down. So the journalism is no longer journalism. Quote unquote, journalists now go on Wikipedia, go on to hope not hate, copy and paste, and denounce me and our party as absolute monsters with zero justification. And the only confirmation they get of our monsterhood is from hope not hate. A organisation with a financial vested interest in creating hate mongers out of thin air. Because that's what they've done. They create a caricature. Then they set themselves up as the opponent to that awful, awful monstrous caricature. And they must get paid for standing up to these monsters. The media is pathetic. It's completely unjust. And so-called journalists with a blink of an eye will destroy lives, utterly destroy them. And no investigation, there's never any investigation. I've read, I've seen in Irish magazine actually, the truth about Amory Waters, who is Amory Waters or something. And I never heard, this was a, you know, a document, a document of my life without me being informed or asked a single question about it. And that's not the first time I've done interviews and read it afterwards and simply not recognised the conversation that they wrote. I've been to events which I've seen reported after, bear no resemblance to the reality that I've seen. So the media is utterly, utterly toxic. But when you are talking about regulation of the media, for example, you've got to tread really, really carefully because we must have freedom of speech and we must have freedom of the press. So any regulation of the press has to be entirely justified. And this takes me to the media section. If you're wondering what all this is about this morning, this takes me to the media section of our manifesto. Absolutely crucial element of our manifesto. Timely, so important. And the only reason, as I say, that you can justify regulating the press or placing anything, any demands on a free press must be in the name of extending freedom of speech and in the name of extending democracy. And that is indeed what we are trying to do with this policy. So let me, as with the other videos on this, let me read it, let me read through it with some commentary. And I'll follow this up to with a blog as well. So here's the straight from the manifesto, our media policy. Ever since US President Donald Trump declared mainstream broadcasters were peddling fake news, the world has become far more aware of the power of the media and its ability to manipulate public opinion for political ends. Now let's be clear about this. Journalists not only are the lazy and dumbed down and don't actually seem to understand what journalism is because they get their information from Wikipedia. But they are often political activists, and they are trying to push their own political side. They will manipulate the news, they will create caricatures, as I've said. They will take a sentence, you can sit down and have an entire conversation with a journalist, and they will take one sentence and build a caricature around that sentence. They're not telling the truth. And I'm not talking about little white lies, I'm talking about manufacturing, deliberately manufacturing, a contrived quote unquote reality, which is placing people in danger. It's now uncontroversial to note that the mainstream media across the Western world demonstrates a stark and regular bias in favor of open borders, multiculturalism and woke social ideas while standing against nationalism and patriotism. Now everyone knows that's true. There is an inbuilt bias in the mainstream media towards the left wing way of thinking. Because our entire public sector, for example, our university schools all on the left, so journalists quote unquote journalists are coming out of universities, absolutely stuffed to the ears with left wing propaganda. Patriotism nationalism is seen as an evil. And it goes without saying that this is evil. And there's no justification for it. It's just matter of factly stated if you have any concerns about mass migration, or multiculturalism, they will denounce you as far right. And this, this, this is an incredible danger, a lie. It's putting people, it's putting people's lives at risk. But of course, they don't care about people like me and putting our lives at risk. It is also uncontroversial to note that many in politics who speak critically of open borders, multiculturalism, Islamization, manmade climate change, or transgenderism can expect to have their arguments ignored by the media, or for those critics to be declared far right, fascist, racist, or an otherwise hateful bigot, with no right of reply, and no objective justification provided for the application of the affixed label. So pretty much an extension of what I just said before reading this paragraph, but no right of reply. And you're not there's no justification offered either. So I'll be called a racist. Nothing, nothing I've said is racist, because I don't think that way. So they can't actually produce any evidence that I have racist views. So they will just call me and leave it there with no justification, no reason to call me a racist. And I have no right of reply. This must end. The wider public most often does not have the time to do intricate research into political issues, or read the true arguments of a political candidate. Most people are busy raising their children, paying their mortgages, and as such they get their information from glancing through the mainstream media. This is unfortunately, the truth. No, when people are not going to they'll see me call far right or racist that they're not going to go and listen to all the speeches I've delivered to understand that I've never said anything racist media giants understand this they understand people don't have a great deal of time. And they manipulate headlines, and indeed language itself to persuade the average voter that some politicians are good, others are bad, and can thus be ignored or written off altogether as immoral or as cranks. The effect this has on democracy should be obvious people are voting not based upon the true position of a political candidate, but upon media spin and outright untruths. And this is probably the most unforgivable aspect of all of this, the danger it does to democracy itself. We are people are voting based on lies. They don't know who the political candidate really is, especially if that candidate has any controversial views. The press will destroy that person. The public voting public is lied to. And the result is that we are voting for people not based on what they actually stand for, but based on what a lying journalist tells them. So in a free society and in the interest of democracy and free speech, the press should not be controlled. However, journalists should be required to justify labels they attach to political candidates. Now when we're running in an election period, what journalists say about candidates is crucial. And this is justifiable regulation of the press because it enhances the democratic debate and it extends freedom of speech by ensuring a right of reply for candidates. For example, if a newspaper labels a candidate a fascist, they should be legally required to explain the accepted definition of fascism and explain why and how the affected candidate meets that definition. Now this refers somewhat to the manipulation of language that I mentioned. Dislike of Islam, not fascism. Dislike of Islam, not racism. Dislike of Islam, not far right. And dislike of Islam, not a danger to children. Quite the opposite, I would argue. Furthermore, this is the final part of the manifesto on this. Furthermore, particularly during an election period, all candidates should be granted a right of reply by the newspaper or television programme. So here are the points. For Britain, will reform defamation laws so that those affected may take legal action if a lie is told about them in the media. This cannot be prohibitively expensive as it is now. Now there are several ways we can do that. We could extend legal aid, for example. Let's not spend taxpayers' money keeping rapists and terrorists in this country. Let's instead extend legal aid to ensure that the justice of not being defamed in the national press is extended because you shouldn't have to be rich to be able to protect your reputation from lies in the national press. And I remember when I went to a solicitor about the Guardian and said I'm a couple of others and he told me, I hope you have six figures in your back pocket. I mean, this is scandalous. I was ripped to shreds by those newspapers, completely lying, and there was nothing I could do because I didn't have the money. So we have got to change this. So as I say, there are several ways we can make, we can invest in a cheaper tribunal service, for example, or we can, as I say, extend legal aid. There are ways that we can make it easier and cheaper for people to have justice and not have their names smeared by the mainstream press. Two, ensure that candidates in an election are given the right of reply by the newspaper TV news program. And that this right of reply is of a similar length and placed in a similar section of the newspaper slash TV program as the initial piece to which the candidate is responding. Now, what this means is let me give you an example. I'm telling my own story with this, but I'm not. This isn't about me, the individual me, obviously. It's about people like myself who are attacked and smeared by the media without any justification or even any attempt at justification or any right of reply. I was called a neofascist in a headline by the Telegraph, right as the UKIP leadership election was about to open. And I had no right of reply. And what ought to happen, and I know we can't do this all the time, but during an election period this will be crucial. So if there's a full page article calling me a neofascist, there should be, I should have a full page article in the same place to reply. It's not good enough to stick a little quote, they didn't even ask me for a quote in fact, but it's not good enough to stick a little quote at the bottom of a, you know, one line from me at the bottom of a full page calling me a neofascist and then a line saying she denies being a neofascist. Not good enough. You have to give me a full page as well. Require newspapers, TV programmes to fully explain the meaning of political labels such as fascist and explain how and why the candidate in question meets or doesn't meet the definition of this label. This is quite clear. You can't just call me a fascist and then leave it there. Tell the reader what a fascist is and what I have done to or said that declares me, that makes me fit that definition. Once again opposition to Islam, not fascism. Resist and oppose all attempts to shut down independent blogging, sharing or exchange of information online. The internet has provided unprecedented liberty to individuals and this must not be tampered with. There are and are going to be attempts to shut down websites under the proviso of of course hate speech, isn't everything that is anti-establishment will is and will be called hate speech. So any attempts to regulate the internet, we know that the EU would love to, we know that the UN probably love to as well, any attempt must be resisted and all technology we can muster to get around these things must be on the table. We cannot and will not allow them to regulate the internet. Finally resist and oppose all attempts by social media to practice political bias. I mean the social media bias again, we're all familiar with, not a whole lot, we can do here about the two big ones Twitter and Facebook, that's up to Donald Trump. Sincerely she would do something about it, but we'll keep shouting, we'll keep fighting and you know one thing we really do need to do is get on to alternative social media. I don't have a great deal, I'm not a big fan of social media actually. Especially you know, Twitter is the only one I've really gotten into, Facebook is still a mystery to me, but Twitter is the one I've really gotten into and it was a toxic environment. It is a toxic place, I'm not a fan, but I do realise that unfortunately it is hugely, hugely, hugely influential and there ought to be, once again, if you're going to regulate speech and debate and you've got to have justifiable reason because we must be a free speech society and once again, to extend free speech and to expand debate, I think for that justification, we have every right to campaign for the regulation of social media. This is all about fairness, it's all about justice and what, you know, for Britain wants to offer the countries a fair, just society. We all know, we know in our gut, we have an innate sense of what's fair and what isn't. This isn't fair. To be called a Nazi, a racist on the national press and have no right of response isn't fair and it isn't fair to turn me and others into monsters, absolute cartoon character, evil, wicked monsters that actually we're followed around the streets, I can't walk around safely because of media lies. We all know this isn't fair. Once again, completely unique, brilliant, common sense, tough but fair policy from for Britain. If it sounds like your kind of thing, do get on board. Forbritain.uk. Look it up. Check us out. Most refreshing party in this country. Read our manifesto and join us.