 Okay, good evening. I hope you're all doing well. Thanks for joining me. There's a few things I want to cover tonight. Primarily, the energy crisis that we're facing and it is part, of course, of a cost of living crisis that we're facing. Energy bills are due to go up by around 50% in April and they're not cheap as it is. At the same time, we're going to be having other increases, tax increases. For example, I'm going to go into that in a little bit more detail. There's a couple of things I want to tell you that what we could be doing to avoid this 50% hike. And if we had a government that gave a damn about us, they would be trying to find, trying to find is not even the right way to say this. It's easy to find ways to avoid this cost of living crisis exacerbated by a massive increase in energy costs. And energy costs are essential. That's the point. It's not luxuries. This is what we need to keep our lights on and our heating on and they're essential to our quality of life and our lives, particularly where heating is involved. I'm going to finish on something that you're really going to enjoy. If you haven't been watching Paul Borges' videos on YouTube, please do. They are fantastic. Explains this stuff with facts. Imagine that. Facts. But in a very accessible way because this is the heavy science. But he explains them in a very accessible way. I'm going to play you towards the end, one of my favorite videos of his. But I want to start with something. I am going to look at the Human Rights Act as well very briefly, which I promised last week I would do this week. But I want to start with something. I've had a message come through by Leonora number three. Hi, Leonora. Thank you for your message. It's a long message, but I want to respond to one bit of it. And Leonora says, having watched the video and listened carefully to Amory on this topic, I want to advise extreme caution about the legal side. I don't think it is wise to say the judge should have directed the jury to give a guilty verdict. Okay. Once again, thanks, Leonora. But I have to correct you on that one. I didn't say that the judge should have directed the jury to give a guilty verdict. It's that the judge should have directed the jury on the law. Now, I'll give you an example. Well, I was on a jury quite a few years ago now, and it was a domestic violence case, quite severe beating this woman had received. And their behavior, both of them, their behavior at the time of the offense was reckless at best. And when it came to, when the both sides, the prosecution and defense have presented their cases, the judge gave us a direction. And the judge made it clear to us that the morality of their behavior, their drinking, their smoking pot, whatever it might be, you have no concern. This doesn't concern you. What you are being asked, and this is the direction the jury, the judge gave us on the jury, what you are being asked is very simple. If you believe that the defendant caused the injuries to the victim's face, and we were shown photographs, and she had the shoe marks on her face, if you believe, this is what the judge said, it was very clearly, everything else, you brush aside. What you are being asked is this, if you believe he caused those injuries to her face, you must find him guilty. If you find there is reasonable doubt that he caused those injuries to her face, you find him not guilty. That is the direction of the judge. And the judge went to great pains to explain exactly what question we were as the jury being asked. He made it clear to push everything else aside. So morality, behavior, drinking excessively, smoking pot, whatever it might be, nothing to do with it. You are asked this question and this question only. On the basis of that question, we found him guilty. Now, similar thing here, that I wasn't there, so I do not know what the judge's directions were. To my mind, the judge should have directed the jury, that if you believe these four defendants pulled down that statue, they are guilty of criminal damage. If you find there is reasonable doubt that they pulled it down at all, that's not guilty. Reasonable doubt means not guilty. That's a direction. I wasn't suggesting the judge should have directed a guilty verdict. I'm saying the judge should have told them, I don't know whether he or she did or not, no idea. But that is what I was saying. The jury need to be directed as to what exactly they are being asked to decide. And that should be in accordance with the legislation. Did these people over here cause criminal damage? Do you believe they did? If you believe they did, you have to find them guilty. If you consider it reasonably doubtful that they did it, you find them not guilty. That's what I meant by judge's directions. These are directions that judges give to juries. Telford, 26th of February, it is not the coming weekend, following weekend. If you can come to Telford with us, we're going to do a targeted campaign for the party, advertising ourselves there. Please do come along. Get in touch with Sharon at inquiresappforbritain.uk and let her know if you want to come along and we will give you the details a bit closer to the time. This week, we're having our first Colston campaign meeting. If you want to be on that, also please, sorry, Sharon, give Sharon a shout as well. I know I have a list of volunteers, we're having our first meeting on that this week and we're not going to drag this on. We're not going to drag this on and on, but we'll just decide what we're going to do and just crack on with it. We're not going to drag this on and on. Okay, Human Rights Act, let me just address that briefly because we want to get on to the energy issue. Right, so what is happening with the Human Rights Act? So the Conservative Government has said that it may, might possibly, could do overhaul the Human Rights Act before the next general election. This is a speech by Dominic Raab and he said this was, this overhaul was quote, needed to prevent dangerous criminals abusing human rights laws and to restore some common sense to our justice system. At the left have, I got crazy about this and when the left goes crazy about something, you know someone's doing something right. However, I wouldn't, I don't believe it, I don't trust them as far as I can throw them and I wouldn't be able to throw Dominic Raab very far and I trust him even less. Look, the Tories, we cannot repeat this half a little bit. The Tories have been in governments in 2010. It's 2022. This is the Tories attempt at throwing a little bit of meat out to those who are desperate for a little bit of common sense and who know that the Human Rights Act has become a criminal's charter and that in our globalist world, where the British government is more concerned about people from Sierra Leone than it is about people from Britain, the Human Rights Act means that serious criminals from all over the world are allowed to stay here even if they present a risk to British people because as I said the government cares more about people from Africa than it does people from Britain. So that's what it's done and everyone, people can see this. So what the Tories are doing is trying to win back a little bit of actual conservative, actual conservative, unlike the Conservative Party actual conservative belief and common sense and they're trying to pretend that they understand we get it. We are actual real conservatives we promise, nothing else. The Conservative Party hasn't been conservative since, I don't know, Thatcher. They, and speaking of Thatcher, they have the biggest majority in the commons that the Tories have had since Thatcher. So if they wanted to do something about this, they would. They could. But they don't. And they won't. And they won't because they will upset the left and they will upset some committee somewhere. There's absolutely no way this is just throwing out meat to actual conservatives and pretending. This is Tories, isn't it? Say let's say the right stuff and do nothing. Continue with the open border and the complete lack of concern for the safety of British people. Remember then, British people? Because the Tories don't mean, look, to my mind, the whole thing needs to go. And they'll explain why. But for several reasons. I mean, it's work in practice. Left wing judges, activist judges are interpreting it to keep all ensondre in this country, regardless of what harm they do or what threat they pose. But here's the thing. Here's the problem for me with just the concept of human rights. I know it's just, bear with me because there's a little bit, of course humans should have rights. The problem with human rights legislation like this is that it ends the notion. And I'm not even just erodes the notion but ends the notion of citizenship of a nation state. What it means is that somebody who is, somebody sitting in, I'll use the same question, Sierra Leone, has the same rights in Britain as a British person does. Including the right to live here. I believe only citizens should have the right to live in this country. Everything else is a privilege and one that can be revoked. If you come here and you live here and you commit violent assault, that privilege is revoked. You don't get to live here anymore. Only the citizens have a right to live here. Everyone else that can be removed if they misbehave. But the concept of the human rights and how it is dealt with, how it is seen, is just that. That someone from anywhere can have the same rights in Britain as a British citizen. I don't think they should. And primarily the right to live here. You should not, if you're not a British citizen, you shouldn't have the right to live here. You can live here but you'll be removed if you behave in a certain way. That's the problem for me. And when everyone from any country has a right to be in Britain, because they're, because they're human, let's not forget, terrorists are human, gangs are human. This being human doesn't make you some sort of saint. All the threats we face, we face them, okay, not all of them. But most of the threats we face, we face from humans. So the idea that humans are all harmless and is auto nonsense. And that's another thing that the human rights act presents to us. But if everyone in the world has the same rights in Britain as a British citizen, there's no point in being a British citizen. In being a British citizen. The nation state further eroded and eroded. It is an internationalist, globalist concept that further chips away at the nation state and the concept of citizenship. And that's on a sort of a, I don't know, philosophical is probably the wrong word, viewpoint. But bring it back down to earth. It's not enough for the Tories to say it could be that this thing is abused. It is abused. All the time. And what's interesting to me is that while the human rights act is used to keep people who threaten the safety of British people in this country. It hasn't done anything to protect our rights. The rights of British citizens. It's protecting the rights of one else, but not the rights of British citizens. For example, our right to freedom of speech. Where is our right to freedom of speech gone? We don't have one. The police can come to your house because you say the shocking words, adulteam and female or something. So it has done nothing to protect our rights. It has done everything to protect the rights of all and sundry around the world. They want to come here, do, behave as appallingly as they like and get to stay here. That's what the human, there's no point saying it could and this is the language you're using. It could lead to, it could, it does. All the time. And in any case, to finish on this, we know perfectly well that the Tories, if they wanted to do something about this, wanted on it by now. This is another lie, another attempt to attract conservative people and they will do nothing. Nothing at all. It's just hot air from the Tories as usual. Right, so energy prices are going to go up by around 50% in April. And like I said, these are not cheap anyway. And there's been, for years now, people have struggled with this to pay their bills. And so 50% increase by a House of Commons, by a government that neither knows nor cares about what 50 quid a month or 100 quid a month actually means to people. 100 quid a month is, I was going to say it's a bottle of wine, but it's not. It's been way more than 100 quid on a bottle of wine, these people. They have no comprehension of this whatsoever, what 100 quid a month or 50 quid a month would mean to some people. No idea whatsoever. And that's why they can be so blasé about it. Oh, they don't care. They really don't. Why would they? They're rich. They don't get it. And they don't care. It's all just numbers on a page to them. They're not struggling to get their bills paid. They don't care. So to them, it's just, but to a lot of people out here in the real world, it means a great deal. I want to just take you through a couple of articles. Now, first of all, if you go onto our website and go to our manifesto and go to the energy section, please do because it is a, there are actual solutions in there that could and would avoid this. A stable salt reactors is one. It is mentioned in there. This is, would take, would give us, if you read through, I'm not going to read through it, because it's one of the things I want to read to you. But if you read through it, it would give us another, it would give us enough energy for 400 years. It's safe and it's clean. Have a look at it. You go on to just go on to forbritn.uk, manifesto and go to the energy part. There's an article I particularly want to cover, which I noticed this week. Oh, and also of course, what with Biden and the Western press wanting, wanting, they're salivating at the prospect, what do you mean so evil and rotten? That you actually want war. You want, and you know they want it. And the press wants it as well. And you can see the president of Ukraine saying, will you stop this? Stop, you're making my country panic. And he said to America, if you have evidence that Putin intends to invade on Wednesday, apparently, give it to me, I want to see it. But he's basically begging them to stop this because you're causing panic inside his country. This is disgraceful behavior. Disgraceful behavior, particularly from Biden or whoever is pulling his strings. But the same thing, you know, we get into this conflict now with Russia. Just imagine the prices of energy are going to go up and up and up even more. But once again, those who govern us don't care if the prices of energy go up and up and up. The only way they'll care, and I can promise you this, the only way they'll care is if they're threatened at the ballot box. They don't care because A, they're rich and they're not the money means nothing to them. And B, they assume, sadly, quite rightly, in many cases, that we will either go out and vote for them again or not vote at all, which is basically voting for them again. That's when they'll care. When they're threatened at the ballot box and their cushy jobs are threatened, that's when they'll care. At the moment, they don't care. So that's another thing looming on the horizon about energy, but the prices of energy going up. But there's an article from the Telegraph this week that I want to have a look at and an issue that I want to particularly have a look at. And that is fracking. It's an article in the, like I said, Telegraph. Actually, it wasn't this week. It's a couple of weeks back. No, it's not. It is this week. I'll get my dates and order. The headline is this, fracking would have saved Britain from the energy crisis. It says, the UK has plenty of gas of its own under the North Sea, and it has even more abundant reserves of shale oil and gas. It is just that we have decided not to develop it. By now, listen to this, by now Britain could be self-sufficient in energy and even exporting it at vast profits to the rest of Europe. But a series of epically bad decisions by a series of governments made that impossible. Let me talk, just take you through. Now, this was sent to me by, let me know what you think of fracking. I think it's a fairly divisive issue from what I can see, but let me know what you think of it. However, that's quite a sentence. And I'm going to actually just, just let me, just let me repeat it again. We have plenty of gas of our own under the North Sea, abundant reserves of shale oil and gas. We have decided not to develop it. We could be self-sufficient and even exporting it at vast profits, but a series of decisions by a series of governments made that impossible. Do you see the significance of what I'm saying? There are options available to governments, and if they gave a damn about us, they would investigate all of these options and find what is in the best interests of this country and its people and act in that direction. Head off in that the job of the government is to look at all options available and act in the best interests of the people. That is its job. It is too incompetent, too lazy and just doesn't care. And that's why it doesn't do these things. So that, that's just one option. The stable salt reactors are another, please go on to our manifesto and read about that. There are options. We do not have to see a rise by 50% in our energy bills, but we don't have to. And that's before I even get on to tax increases to pay for the NHS. The top expenditure of the government of this country, by the way, welfare pensions top NHS second. Both need to be looked at. Both need to have, particularly the NHS, waste and mismanagement targeted and the money needs to be spent more wisely. And don't for a minute think that I don't want to help people. I do. I actually think people who can't work should get more help than they're getting and they would get more help than they're getting if we had an economy that worked and a welfare system that worked. We don't. We have a shambolic economy and we have a shambolic economy because we are ruled and governed by incompetence and have been for a long, long time. Let me just give, this is a document that was sent to me by someone who has, it was absolutely expert in this area. And I am, I'm going to get him on. We're going to do a special stream on this. I'll get him on to talk about, he's worked in this field for decades and we're going to have a proper discussion about it. But let me just describe a little bit about fracking and what he has sent to me. Okay, so what is it? Hydraulic fracturing known as fracking is the process of using water, sand and chemicals to relieve, to release deep deposits of oil and gas. A company is very, very nice plain simple English, which is what I mean. A company first drills a deep vertical well near the shale of deposits. It then creates horizontal branches from the main vertical shaft. Next it blasts a mixture of water, sand and chemicals at high pressure into these branches. The pressure smashes nearby rocks, enabling the oil and the gas to flow into the branches and therefore the main well. Despite all recent attention, this process is not new, it's first developed in 1947. Why are people paying attention now? Despite a brief period of interest in fracking during the energy crisis of the 1970s, up until recently it was considered to be too expensive to be of much use. However, the rise in energy prices over the last decade combined with improved technology has made the process economically viable. In fact, the technique has led to an oil and gas boom in parts of the US. According to America's energy information administration, the amount of crude oil produced in American oil fields has risen by 50% over the last six years. Around 40% of that is down to shale oil. It's had a huge impact on the US economy. So how does this affect the UK? Well, with politicians across the globe looking enviously at America's newfound oil wealth, many other nations have been investigating whether they might have previously inaccessible shale deposits to exploit, and Britain is one of the lucky ones. Last year, experts from the British Geological Survey announced that they think there could be up to 2,281 trillion cubic feet of gas in the ground underneath Lancashire. To put that into perspective, this is more than four times the size of the main American shale field. It is not the only shale-filled field in Britain either. There are several bits of belts of shale in England as well as Scotland and Fermanagh in Northern Ireland, while not all of these will prove fruitful. It is likely that given time and the right development policies, our total reserves could taunt Britain into a major player in world energy markets. Opponents have seized on the fact that in a few American cases, fracking has been linked to contamination of groundwater supplies. Monetoriously, preparatory drilling was blamed for several earthquakes in Blackpool in the spring of 2011, leading to a temporary moratorium. Campaigners also point out that the UK is far more densely populated than North Dakota, and that's true. Which in turn means that the potential disruption could be much later. Another major problem is that landowners don't own the mineral rights under their lands, so they can't benefit from it. Finally, at these objections valid, the latest evidence suggests that water supplies are safe, provided there is a sensible level of supervision, as for earthquakes, Professor Ray Davies of the University of Durham thinks that fracking causes as much seismic activity as falling off a ladder. It's also worth understanding that this isn't new, fracking has been taking place on a small scale in mainland Britain for decades. Okay, that's a very brief overview of fracking, what it is, what it's done, use of it in America, what it could do for Britain, the potential downsides of it. At the primary, primary point of this is that you've got, we have got to look at other ways of producing our energy, that's the point. And I just don't, you know, I don't believe, I genuinely don't believe that the government sits down and thinks about all its options. I really don't. It should, but it doesn't. I don't believe it for a minute. It should, and that's what a government, if I was in government, that was certainly what we would be doing. Okay, I'm just having a quick look through some of the comments on here. Do let me know what you think about fracking, a few different conversations going on here, actually. Okay, another thing I want to cover is green taxes. And a lot of this is why it's a huge part of why our energy bills are so high. So let's look at that in a little bit more detail and see the impact. What impact do these green taxes actually have on our bills? It's a good article I found from the Daily Mail and it's from January this year. So it says, as we enter the new year, the British public faces a perfect storm of cost of living pressures rising inflation and property prices. Property prices demand massively greater than supply, but don't talk about the population increase. It's got nothing to do with it, apparently. And perhaps most serious of all, rocketing energy prices. According to off-jam, households are paying an average of 1,277 for their gas and electric, a figure sure to rise sharply over the coming months. So let's get on to the green taxes. 15.3% on your gas bill, 15.3% is for environmental and social costs. So 15% of your bill on your gas bill is a green tax, basically, environmental and social costs, whatever that is. On your electricity bill, it's 25.5%. As of January this year, January just gone, 25% of your electric bill is a tax on rubbish, nonsense. A quarter. You could cut immediately, they stopped the absolute charade. They could immediately cut a quarter of that bill, but they won't. Now, where is all that going? This article goes on. This covers a bewildering and ever-growing number of green schemes, some of which are anything but green. We know this. I mean, you only have to look at the wind farms tonight. This is an absolute sham. I mean, part of the, one of the reasons I've read and reading about this is that the wind farms aren't generating, they're not generating energy. You don't say. Of course they're not. It's ridiculous. Let me tell you something that may shock you. You know these big massive structures? Do you know how much energy it takes to make them, first of all? It costs the fortune, takes up a great deal of energy just to make them. They still need the old-fashioned energy to back them up. And no one, no one has no, knows or plans what to do with them. In 50 years' time, what are we going to do with them all? There's no plan to get rid of them. They're not going to work forever. And no one has quite said what's going to happen when this is ridiculous, ridiculous. We are governed by idiots. I'm sorry, but we are. Let's have a look at where these 25% is going. Renewables obligation. This article said, this was the original underhand scheme which forced consumers to subsidize renewable energy at a cost of 6.3 billion a year, paid by both domestic consumers and business users of electricity. Energy suppliers are obliged to buy a certain number of renewable obligation certificates for every megawatt hour of electricity they sell to consumers. The scheme introduced in 2002 was closed to new generation plants in 2017, but consumers are still paying to fund contracts issued in the past. Generators were awarded 20-year contracts, meaning that consumers will still be paying for the scheme until 2037. You just look, just the words, renewable obligation certificates. How bureaucratic is that? Unbelievable. Going on, I'm actually going to, I put a link to this, it's very long, but it's very, very good. And it's very interesting. We're running out of time, so I'm going to put a link into the comments for you to have a read of it. But just one more, climate change levy. This is a straightforward tax on the burning of fossil fuels, paid by owners of gas and coal-fired power stations and other industrial users. So paid for by the owners of gas and coal-fired power stations, who are going to pass the cost of that on to guess who? There's also one more, a green gas levy, as if gas-fired power stations, which still provided 35% of our electricity in 2020, were not taxed highly enough. The government has just dreamed up another levy designed to subsidize the development of biogas, a fuel derived from vegetable matter, which can be fed into the gas grid. This theme begins in the spring. It's just, you've got to read this, read this article, it's actually excellent. And it's genuinely mind blowing. But a quarter, a quarter of your electricity bill pays for this rubbish. And just renewable energy certificates, you just know, you just know, unbelievable. I've just posted also the manifesto. Okay, let me get to a few questions. I do want to show you this video, which I know you're really going to enjoy. It starts off with Greta, Saint Greta. Right. Oh, here's a good question. Do you think Mayor Kant wants a lovely Imam as the new Met Commissioner? Quite possibly actually. It's quite something when Cresedidic's not PCNF. I'm going to have a look at that. We'll have, we'll visit the Cresedidic issue next week in a bit more detail. There's never enough time, is there? I'm sure, I'm sure you're being tongue-in-cheek about the Imam part, but maybe you're not. Maybe things are that bad. What it's interesting, there seems to be a little bit of two in it. There's a bit of a rail break in there, isn't there, between all the parties in London. I don't know, political parties, but the elite, the top of the heap in London. I will, I'm going to have a look at that Cresedidic issue next week in a bit more detail. Did you see the video of 16-odd just beating up a homeless man in Toronto? Our society has imploded on the 70 years of Conservative Labour rule. We have a UK knife and let's ever get to the third world now. You know, third world, a lot of people use the expression import the third world, become the third world. And I know it's a little bit controversial and some people might say it's, I don't know, let me be clear about a couple of things. The world is full of difference. It's got different cultures, different values, different peoples. And why movement around the world is not new? And it's not wholly and entirely negative or wrong thing. It's just that when you take people from one society, which has developed completely differently to another society, and you pick them up by the hundreds of thousands, pick them out of this part of the world and put them into this part of the world, and they're completely, completely different, completely different sets of values, completely different behaviour, you're going to get conflict and clashes. And people are going to bring their behaviours with them. They're going to bring their values with them. And if they come from violent societies where violence is a lot more normal than it is or used to be for us, violence is going to come. And I can remember watching a documentary about violence and gang violence in London, and yes gangs exist, criminal gangs, organised crime, it exists. But I remember seeing a gangster himself saying things have gotten so much more violent because people are coming in from mostly African countries. And the violence has been cracked up. So you've got like machete violence, for example. And that is a reality and you know, there's no, someone will screech racist and the rest of the usual tripe. But reality is reality. And we are not all the same in every respect. We have things, as human beings, we have things in common. But we are also vastly different because we've developed completely differently. And when you import vast numbers of people from completely different cultures, you're going to import, if violence is normal in a certain culture or certainly more normal than it is to us, you're going to import that violence as well. That's just how it is. So yes, 70 years of, or longer, of rule by these two parties has made us less safe, less civilised, less united, less proud, or less proud of completely, it's almost a criminal offence now to be proud of British culture or British values and to identify with them, to defend them. It's created a fractured country, which doesn't even know who it is anymore. A frightened native population, frightened to speak its mind, frightened to defend itself, taught, actively taught, to hate itself. That's what it's created. And yes, we are significantly less safe and less civilised than we were. Okay. Paul asked me, how much would you give the pensioners for their energy? It's not really, I wouldn't give, it's not about, look, if I was in government, but energy wouldn't be this price. That's the point. They wouldn't need extra money for energy because they'd be able to afford it. They'd have a decent pension and they'd be able to afford it because energy wouldn't be this expensive. It's not enough, it's not good enough and I don't like it when governments do this. They'll cause a massive crisis and then say, here's a couple of hundred quid. It's still not enough to cover the bills, but they caused the bills to be this high in the first place. If I was in government, they wouldn't be that high. That's the point because I would prioritise making affordable energy for the people here and that our elderly people will have a decent pension to live on. Do you see FGM in the UK as an abhorrent practice and as serious as rape gangs? It's not as common as rape gangs. It is an absolutely abhorrent, disgusting, rotten, cruel, barbaric, seventh century, uncivilised, misogynistic. Child abuse is putting it mildly and it should be punished. I would say with enormous prison sentences, but actually most of the people practicing it here wouldn't be British citizens. So we've got no money rights here. So if you practice FGM and you live in this country, we should revoke your ability. You don't have a right to live here, but your ability to live here should be revoked. I think people who practice FGM should be aborted and never allowed onto British soil again. And that is actually the worst possible punishment for them. Secondly, we should use our common sense and understand that if you take Somalia for example, Somalia has an FGM rate of around 98%. So what do you think is going to happen if you have massive immigration from Somalia? You're going to have FGM. Two and two is four. Immigration from Somalia brings FGM. So stop it. You don't want FGM in your society. Don't have immigration from Somalia. Common sense. Right, there's a couple of questions here which are essentially the same. What do we do to break the two-party state and apart from donating? What are we going to actually do? We are a political party and like I said at the beginning of this, the only thing that politicians actually care about is being threatened at the ballot box. So what we actually have to do and I know I'm not being flippant or dismissive, we need to do several things. We need to protest. We need to make our voices heard. Several disobedience even. But our job as a political party is to go out and campaign and try to win seats. Initially, a job we have to do is inform people about our existence, inform people about these simple answers to this country's problems and they are simple answers. Only the very profound but often in life the most profound things are simple. What we need is to drive home and it takes everything, it's effort, it's uphill, it's a long, it's a journey. But you have to be on that journey and you have to stay on that journey and you have to know why you're doing it and concentrate and focus on why you're doing it. We're doing it for the people of this country. We're doing it for this country. I do this for this country and when you have that kind of inspiration, motivation is not the right word but what inspires us to do this? I'm doing it for Britain. I love this country, I love its people. So I've decided that my effort, my life's energy will be spent on the political campaign side of fighting for this country. There are many ways of fighting for this country. This is one of them. We have to get up and go out and inform people that we are here, that they don't have to do, they don't have to put up with incompetent governments. They can shake things up and vote for new people and I know it's frightening our people are slow to change but that's what we have to do. That is what we have to do and for example we'll be doing it in Telford Saturday week. I'll be doing it in Hartlepool and many others who will stand for election across the country in May, that's what they're doing. They're doing what they have to do, they're doing what they can do. This bit, our bit and you must never let go of what inspires you to do it. What inspires us to do it is this country and I love it and it's as simple as that. Okay I'm going to finish with a video like which is that you are really going to enjoy this I think and if you haven't watched Paul Rogers' videos do. They are really, really, very, very good and last mention of two things, Telford on the 26th, give Sharon a shout, inquire is that for britain.uk, do you want to come along and what was the other thing? Oh yeah, our Edward Colston campaign haven't heard back from Save Our Statues unfortunately, well there you go. It's this Wednesday night so if you want to come along to it's a zoom call but like I said we're not going to drag this out, we're not going to drag, we're going to crack on with this. So we're going to make decisions on the night and we're going to get on with it. That's what we're going to do. So if you want to be in on that meeting Wednesday night give Sharon a shout again inquire is that for britain.uk and I will make sure you're on that zoom call on Wednesday night. Right okay thank you as always everyone, thank you for tuning in. I will be when am I, where am I, where am I, where am I? We'll be back on Rumble. I've started the Hartlepool campaign that's another meeting that I have this week to put on my ducks in a row for the Hartlepool campaign so instead of live streams on that from now on I will be updating and the videos is being, the website is being updated, are various different plans and bits and bobs but the Rumble thing I will Rumble on with. I might change the topic of it a little bit because I think COVID and climate change are very similar so but anyway the Rumble at 8 o'clock on Wednesdays will continue. I'm signing a new series of policy videos this week. I want you to please share them if you can. I'm going to, of course you can so please do, I'm going to, what else am I going to do? Yes we're going to talk about the energy crisis in a bit more detail. I'm going to get Clive who has worked in this for years and years and years to explain our options in nice and plain English. I haven't looked out for that. My Hartlepool campaign has essentially started. If you are wishing to stand as a candidate please get all your bits and bobs with Mike Speak when sorted out and we'll get out there and we will let the world know a footstep at a time because that's what we're doing. That's what we're going to do for the country we love. That's what we're doing. That's what inspires us. Okay you're going to like this. I'll see you back here live next week. Take care and thank you for sharing. You all come to us young people for hope. How dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words and yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth. So on what basis does Greta give all these predictions? Give all this alarm? You know there must be incredible evidence for her to have the power to address the world, the United Nations and many governments. Children being let off school to listen to her. So what is the underlying science behind these incredible predictions Greta? Mr. Chairman, Ms. Thunberg, thank you for your involvement here today. I commend you for your willingness to testify and get involved with public policy. In the past when you're talking about climate change you have said, quote, I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. What particular study or scientific report did you read that made you come to this conclusion? Thank you for your question. First of all let me just clear that those are metaphors. In speeches you often use metaphors. Of course I don't mean literally that I want people to panic. So there was no scientific study that made me come to that conclusion. So we now live in a world where without any scientific foundation whatsoever a young girl unfortunately has some mental problems is allowed to not just speak to the UN and be applauded for it but to actually travel the world giving this message of fear to children and have no scientific basis whatsoever for doing so. We the people thank you. In a way we haven't made much progress because back in the 17th century when we had the witch trials we had children like a nine-year-old girl who accused people of being witches and those people were executed. To me it's the same thing without any foundation in truth or science. Children accuse people of certain events and they then get society to act on what they're saying. The only difference now is instead of nine it's 16-year-olds so supposed to be made about seven years progress. In Wales and the UK they have actually declared a climate emergency. I suppose that seems okay on the basis of all the big film stars saying there is one but you can be sure it is not the science. Extinction Rebellion is of course no better still not based on science. Here are some clips of the Andrew Neal interview with them. Weather related disasters there seem to be a lot of them around at the moment and people die from them but on the latest figures I've seen a hundred years ago weather related disasters killed half a million people a year. Today it's 20,000 a year still 20,000 too many but it's a reduction of 95,000. It doesn't lead to the 95% the reduction of 95% it does not lead to a death of billions. You're scaring people with this rhetoric aren't you? I think there's a danger of scaring people simply because we're not taking it seriously enough and people are feeling really you know desperate that we're heard on this and unfortunately you know alarmist language works which is why we're discussing it right now. But does it work? It could. I mean I've seen young girls on television part of your demonstration particularly the school ones when they they take the day off to demonstrate crying because they think they're going to die in five or six years time. It's not necessary. Crying because they don't think they'll ever see adulthood and yet there is no scientific basis for the claims that your organization is making. The young people that I've spoken to aren't crying because they think they're going to die in a few years it's because they don't see their children as having a future they don't want to have children and they're worrying about you know coastal regions going underwater. What regions going underwater? Well let's take Al Dore's prediction because New York should be underwater by now but it isn't and he wasn't the only one predicting that. You know the Maldives going underwater are the countries and island nations going underwater. Yes much was made of the Maldives going underwater but actually a NASA survey from satellites showed that the Pacific islands are all getting bigger as are the ones in the Indian ocean including the Maldives and to be more specific as per this report the Maldives as long with other islands have grown by some eight percent over the last six decades. The mass displacement that's happening the weather extremes which may may be on a downward trajectory but climate scientists are telling us that they will be on the increase. So she accepts that these events are on a downward trend not an increasing trend are what we're being told they will increase. Actually there is no justification for that at all. In fairness to that lady she did after that interview leave extinction rebellion and started to promote nuclear power as the solution. For the last 50 years we have been bombarded with predictions like the ice caps melting and they haven't like New York going underwater and it hasn't like the Maldives disappearing and they haven't. Why are we listening to these people they are wrong time and time again and you'll always find one great thing they'll predict the future no matter how many false predictions they made in the past we're supposed to ignore that. Recently a producer tried to arrange a debate between myself and two world famous professors both of whom had written books on climate change and in that sense we're on the alarmist side of the argument. I was very happy to take both of them on on the stage but unfortunately one of them insisted on controlling the meeting as well and they also made it clear they can't allow any discussion that would cast doubt on the science. This made the whole exercise pointless but nevertheless when challenged on the alarmism this emergency question the answer was that they thought the emergency was somewhere between 300 and 1000 years away and yet both these figures are worldwide famous professors. The only reason they're not releasing their names is because I consider even though it wasn't mentioned that our Zoom talks were confidential. The talk revolved around me having a discussion with them against their views on climate change me on one side and the two professors on the other and to do this on a major venue in London. The talks broke down because not only was it two against one which I could quite accept but because they also wanted to be the arbitrator the controller of the discussion with one of them controlling it and I thought you know wrong. The main concern was I couldn't be allowed to put anything up that challenged what their version of climate change was which made the whole point of the discussion meaningless. We now live in a world where this subject cannot be openly discussed. We are called climate deniers almost like holocaust deniers almost like flat earthers etc which is absolutely absurd. Science demands free speech demands critical examination because without it it is not science.