 We were all ready to get go at 8pm and then it turned out we had no sound and you can't have a new show without sound. I'm joined today by James Butler who is going to tell us all the revelations that have come out of the Paradise papers. Don't you think a new show without sound would be refreshing? We'll go into that later. We won't. We'll also have an interview later with Suzanne Moore about what the sexual harassment scandal in Westminster tells us about gender politics in wider society. First an update on what is going on in Westminster, what has come out over the last eight days. Since last weekend it's obviously in the wake of the horrific allegations against Harvey Weinstein. A light is being shone on widespread sexual harassment and abuse in Westminster. On the Tory side, allegations include those against Michael Fallon for sexually harassing two female journalists along with making lewd comments to his cabinet colleague. Since resign stating his actions had fallen short of the high standards expected of the armed forces, he doesn't seem to feel the need to resign as a constituency MPs what he thinks are the standards of British voters is still unclear, is it 7-0? I don't actually know what his constituency was. So we have Stephen Crabb who sent suggested messages to a 19-year-old who'd applied for a job in his office, Michael Garnier who'd called a female assistant sugar tits and got her to buy sex toys for his wife, Michael Garnier who called a female, oh that's the one I just did. Christopher Pinscher has been accused of sexually harassing a Labour MP and making an unwanted pass at an Olympic rower whilst wearing a bathrobe. The rower Alex Storey described Pinscher as a pound shop Harvey Weinstein. And Poulter has been accused of inappropriate behaviour towards free female MPs and putting his hand up the skirt of a woman in a commons lift. The list goes on and on and on, it goes all the way up to Damien Green. What does this Damien Green who's been accused of inappropriate pass at a journalist and also having extreme porn on his parliamentary computer, the Damien Green, I mean all these events are horrible but there is one event that's come out of it which I quite like which is when you get a Tory cabinet minister with a human against the police which means that one of them has to have lied, it's a lot like when Andrew Mitchell allegedly called a cop a pleb and then there's a debate, one of them is lying, I don't really care which one comes out worse in this case. In the end James they will both lose, in the end they will. What does this tell us? It appears Westminster is full of more than a few entitled men who use their power and privilege to prey on usually younger men and women. It shows the fact that these have all come out now and not earlier shows that either women were too, didn't feel confident coming forward with these allegations or that when they did they were systematically ignored, in fact we know it's both. We know that Dan Polter was reported by a fellow MP in 2010 but the complaint was completely ignored, that's by an MP, imagine if someone complains with less stature than an elected representative in the House of Lords. We also know that Theresa May got regular updates about the misdemeanours of her MPs and a source close to the PM said that sexual harassment was often tied up with affairs and gambling addictions as just another naughty thing that can be used to win votes in the House of Commons. Of course misogyny is by no means limited to the political right, there's also been awful allegations that have come out in the Labour Party, most prominently Bex Bailey last week who came out and said that a senior official in the party had raped her and that when she'd gone to an official about that to report on that they'd told her to, so I'm getting slightly distracted by TV over there, they had told her that it would damage her career if she went forward with it, there's also been allegations against Clyde Lewis, Ivan Lewis and Kelvin Hopkins, all of whom have denied them. What should we do when there's an allegation against someone who otherwise might have the politics we agree with? It's completely obvious you take that claim seriously, you do not assume it's a conspiracy, at the same time you don't assume their guilty due process is important. Talking of due process, the Labour Party have clearly failed in this regard in the past years, mainly by ignoring victims of abuse like this. I spoke earlier to Rhea Wolfson who sits on the NEC about the changes that the Labour Party have promised to make, I started by asking her what concrete agreement the NEC came to last week about how Labour can change in the future. This is Rhea Wolfson from Glasgow. You know harassers and abusers are in every industry, in every section of politics. The issue I want to focus on is how it's dealt with by the party. Clearly Bex Bailey was quite specifically saying that the current procedures aren't good enough and many people have come out agreeing with that. What changes are the NEC going to be making so that this can't happen again? Yeah, so what has happened recently is we've changed the procedure. So I think there was there was a lot of complaints before that people just did not know. So people were available to make complaints because they didn't know what was going to happen once they did that. And people were understandably allowed to start a process that they didn't understand. So what is now available, which I think is a really positive step forward, is an exact break. It's available on the Labour Party website of exactly what will happen once you either call the hotline that we set up or email the complaints email. These will be handled at first by what we call Sophie Gojir, who is the head of complaints. I've asked that as much as she's happy that that name is out there. Some people know that they're not just emailing a blank inbox. It's going to be picked up by anyone. That's not the case. So now people can understand that process and it's also clear within the process that you kind of go down a formal or an informal route, depending on where you're comfortable. And also that victims will never have to face the person that they're accusing as we've heard that is a huge problem for people. And so that's clear as part of the policy. There's a lot to happen. Most recently, since the complaints have come out, the Labour Party has said it's going to work with an independent expert body to advise the process so they can give advice when people first call the hotline and to advise us as we go through this process. And part of the process is that people's case will be heard by three NEC members. That's not out of the whole. There's a whole NEC. There's a small group of NEC members who will be specifically trained by external organisations to prove to hear these different cases. So you're saying three people on the NEC will be trained about how to deal with complaints. One of the things that was specifically brought up by Vex Bailey was that women feel it's more difficult to come forward when they think the person who's judging the case might know the accused. People on the NEC are some of the best connected people within the party. If you feel like the person who's abused or harassed you is high up in the party, how can people have confidence when the person judging that claim may well know the person who harassed them? Yeah, I think what's clear as part of the policy is that all cases will be anonymised before they go to the NEC member, before they go to that panel. It will then go on to the NCC, which is our body. So if it's going to disciplinary, this is getting a bit technical, but the NEC doesn't have power to make any kind of conclusions in terms of disciplinary action. What it refers to is the National Constitutional Committee, which is a body that's always been in position to hear disciplinary cases, and there are much less NECs become a bit of an infamous body where people know exactly who's on it, whereas the NCC is removed from that process to make those judgements. But cases will be anonymised. I think it's a conversation that we have to have because it has been raised fair enough by people who have been victims. So it wasn't part of the discussion that we had when we passed this policy. But if it turns out that the people who are victims of these awful, awful experiences, that is what they want, then I think we have to have that discussion seriously. At least hope that people can have a heart in the policy as it stands for now. And in terms of what punishment we should expect, are we expecting slaps on the wrist, people to be given an opportunity to change, or are we expecting zero tolerance and expulsions for any instance of harassment and abuse? Again, it's ultimately it's a conversation for the NCC to have on that, you know, I would be incredibly disappointed if we ended up seeing slaps on the wrist, you know, we have to be safeguarding our members, that's the priority. And ultimately, in a lot of kidneys cases, what it's going what that was in is people have to be removed from party structures. And particularly people who have abused their power. In the past, the business people who have held positions either as employees or CLP position holders, they cannot be in a position where it allows those people to continue to have power in our party. But there's a wide range of options available. And again, part of the shirk of virtue reports always come back to it, talks about how we need to have a better process, because it used to be you either were suspended or you weren't or you got a warning or you didn't. And that was it. And actually what the shirk of virtue report recommended is we have a much better process of dealing with that. And that also means that we shouldn't encourage lifetime bans from the party, except in exceptional circumstances. So people have made kind of historic mistakes. Obviously, this is very context specific, we should be able to have that conversation with individuals. And I do support that, you know, we're applicable not in every case, depending on the kind of the severity of the instances. But there's so much to be done in terms of our processes, you know, I think that having this process be very transparent will help. But there's so many things we have to do in our party to continue to encourage accountability and transparency, because it's the only way that people can actually have faith, not only in the body's making these decisions, but you know, as early members coming through the party, to make sure that they've got faith, that they will always be treated with respect, just so integral to the function of our party and be able to be able to execute our values. We know harassers and abusers calm and serenity. It's a little bit stressful before we are going to bring back an old feature. When we experimented with briefly, it's whopper of the week, the biggest whoppers of the week. There were some, there were quite a few candidates this time around. On Saturday, the leading candidate was Charles Moore, who had this fabulous take on the Westminster scandal. This scandal shows that women are now on top. I pray they share power with men, not crushers. Keep it in the bedroom, Charlie. On Sunday, this was overtaken by Peter Hitchens with this horrific take. What will women gain from all this squawking about sex pests? A niqab. Weird. But at the last minute around 6pm, information was released that one of the world's biggest whoppers of all time had given us another excuse to call him, to call him a whopper. It's the one, the only. It's Bono. And James, this is your cue to tell us what we know from the Paradise Papers. Yeah. Well, look, I mean, you could target Bono for many reasons. You know, his vastly overinflated ego, the music, the substitution of self-righteousness of politics. I think that's a big one. But he's here for his kind of cameo appearance in the Paradise Papers. These are, like the Panama Papers, an enormous leak of files from largely, or about half of them are from this big offshore law firm, Appleby. It's, you know, it's also politically important, you know, that includes corporate registries from 19 jurisdictions as well. So these are registries of companies that are in these kinds of secrecy jurisdictions. And you'd be amazed at what you can do offshore. You know, you can register your yachts, your aircraft, you know, your property. You can even use offshore companies to pay school fees for your children. So, yeah, I mean, Bono is here. This is all done to avoid paying tax. Well, yeah, I mean, that's, that's, that's where most of these stories are coming from at the moment. And the big theme in the Guardian splash on it is tax avoidance. But these companies can be used for other things as well. We'll get on to that. And the things we're initially learning from them is that one is that the offshore empire is bigger than most people thought this is really, really huge circuit of companies and jurisdiction. So it's a kind of integral part of global capitalism that it merits here. Big part of that is sheltering the rich from domestic taxation. So it sharpens that divide. Really important, and politically though, it's legal if it's done correctly. Now some of these look like they might have been done a bit dodgily, but most of them seem to have done correctly. So the political issue is, is that okay? Should that be okay? I'm now Bono, Bono is here, has hit the front page. It's kind of a funny story because he's invested in this company that was originally registered in Malta, then in the guns, in guns in the Channel Islands, in order to for a stake in a Lithuanian shopping centre, where he's sheltering some of his wealth, basically. So, so, when we have Navarra millions, we, if we had Navarra millions, we would have done this show from Bono's Lithuanian shopping centre for now. Hopefully there's an image of Yeah, I mean, look, I mean, that, you know, in itself, it's kind of an unremarkable story, right? And the reason that it's in Malta is that you pay 5% on profits from company, Guernsey zero, zero tax from company profits. But it's a small story itself. It points to the use of these companies, these offshore structures by celebrities, by the great and the good, to kind of shelter their wealth. So much say that the other story today about celebrities is about the cast of something called Mrs Brown, Brownton Brown Boys, which I don't know any better. Delacrisis and the band. Delacrisis and the band. You can take that as a recommendation or a reason never ever to watch it. Yeah, so, so their wage is being paid, much like Jimmy Carr was through these companies, all the shelters and foundations. So this is a very, very common story. So there's a, you know, a basic story about hypocrisy there. Basically, the reason it's a top story is that Bono is a wanker. But the point is that it's very common in the world. Well, that brings us on to the Queen. The Queen is in there. The Queen is in there. And, you know, as everyone knows, I think the French have the idea about the monarchy. But, you know, she has invested all the Dutch is Lancaster, which takes care of her material. So such a Lancaster, by the way, founded in 1399 to do this. They've invested 7.5 million pounds in the Cayman Islands. Fun. Which is invested in various retailers, including this work, this kind of grim rip-off merchant, Brighthouse, which incidentally shelters their profits by a kind of lutz and orphan stuff. And these people kind of rip off vulnerable people by renting them consumers. I think the Queen is interesting because she is the figurehead or ceremonial figurehead or actual monarch of many of the places in this company, the Registers, British either crowned dependencies of British and that makes sense. I think the British Empire is having kind of its last glorious scar of being, you know, oh, come and shelter your money from us. And they're being a kind of financial structure where you have, you know, if you're rich or able to kind of come to the city of London, be bear a thing and then shelter your money in another kind of segmented bit of what we've done for them. It's also right among other people in power. Eminal Street is also in these papers. Another type of thing. Another one is Wilbur Ross, who is Trump's commerce secretary, himself a billionaire. He's been revealed as having close links to a company run by Putin's family or some of Putin's family, including some of her own dissensions. He's retained those companies while he's holding the post. So that will be, I imagine, a big story at some point. So what I want to talk about is that is not a tax avoidance story. It's about a loan from the Great Evil Mining Company, Glencore, who have who are on in the papers as having loaned to this billionaire, Dan Gertler, 45 million in order to secure a mining contract in the Katanga Coppermine and the Democratic Republic of Congo. And the condition is that so it's repayable if that loan's not repaid. And the suggestion is that those millions would have been used to ease the way through through the Congolese government. So, you know, this guy, has been cited by the UN as giving Kabila 20 million to buy weapons for his army against, you know, against rebel groups in exchange for a monopoly on the country's diamonds. 2013 report says mining deals struck by these companies have deprived the country of more than one point three billion dollars in potential revenue. Gertler's very close to the DRC government. His lawyers say blah, blah. He cares about the poor. He cares about the needy, blah, blah. This is just a standard international transaction. But ultimately, it seems to me that, you know, if you cared about the poor and the needy, you'll be working with Glencore. Glencore break sanctions. It broke sanctions in apartheid South Africa. It broke sanctions in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It has been accused of environmental pollution, of poisoning rivers, of child labour in its African minds. And it matters because we knew about these kind of practices. We knew about them before and we knew about them before. As far as Glencore was concerned, but here they are on paper for the world to see. So this has happened before, right? We had the Panama papers, which again showed us that very rich people try and avoid tax and also that very rich companies are quite happy to bribe people in poorer countries. Is these all allegations, I'm sure. Not proved yet, or at least I don't want to say I've proved them. What does having this out in the open change? Will this change anything and what should the demand be? How do we make sure that this information is translated into action that means that countries can collect tax that can be spent on services and that this kind of bribery in developing countries is not possible any longer? Yeah. Well, look, I mean, that is the political question, isn't it? And there's a danger that these scandals can be drip feeds where they just enlarge our sense of like, that's just the way the world is that, you know, this is just the kind of corruption that you come to expect rather than building into a wave that kind of sweeps these people away. But I mean, you know, one of the things that it reveals is the extent to which we already know this stuff. And most scandals, I think the modern age like this, the expensive scandal, for instance, was like this that we knew it was going on. You know, and the danger is that it becomes tacitly accepted as like, oh, it's just the cost of doing business. So so I think it's important to not adopt that kind of, oh, shrug it off. And, you know, that's just the way the world is. You can't necessarily do that, do anything about it. Because it's not true. There's nothing socially inevitable or socially necessary or indeed socially good about the existence of billionaires or indeed the structures that are devoted to protecting their wealth. So it's important, I think, because of that, but it's also important because tax avoidance itself, that issue is hugely important. You know, we live in a culture in which the stories that get told to us, we're all in this together and so on, are just not, they don't match up with what gets revealed here. And it's very easy to become nihilist about it. Tax avoidance is an asset. It eats away at the things that bind society together. It eats away at common commitments when you see people in power saying, I actually don't have to have a stake in this society. It leads to a kind of really destructive political nihilism, a really corrosive political nihilism. So we pull off the veil of secrecy in these offshore tax havens. We refuse or we campaign for a ban or nominee shareholding. So you have to be named on the things that you own and you enact sanctions against them. You say that any company or any trust that has business dealings with these places that take this money offshore, well, we're no longer having it. You're not doing business here. And we need, of course, a publicly available register of trust, which Theresa May has just refused to do. Bono, you're a whopper. The Queen, you're a whopper. Glencore, you whoppers and all you, you rich motherfuckers, pay your tax before we expropriate that wealth. Anyway, one of the reasons we were a bit late today is that our main cameraman, Gary, is currently in Bonn, filming Clare Hymer and Dahlia Gabriel reporting on COP 23. It's the environmental summit that happens every year and brings together the leaders of the world and generally they don't come to any agreement. I know that Clare and Dahlia don't have that much faith in what will get decided inside the summit. They've been reporting from the demonstrations outside. This is Clare and Dahlia reporting from the Social Movement's demo at Bonn. My name is Litte Moem and I'm from Litte Moem and I'm from the island of Togelao. I am training the marching today because we are the first nation to go underwater if we don't stop fossil fuel. So we're here to demand the world to stop fossil fuel and fossil fuel. That's it. Hello, this is Dahlia Gabriel reporting from Navarra Media. I'm here at the Climate Justice March, which is happening the day before the COP 23 negotiations begin. It's obviously really great to see all these people out here showing solidarity and trying to show an element of civil resistance to climate change. We're also seeing a lot of the kind of problematic tropes that have been present throughout the history of the European climate movement being reproduced here, a lot of talk of just saving the environment without much focus on the people that are implicated on that and who are the people that are the first to die from climate change. So we're going to go around, check things out and see what climate justice means to the people marching today. Climate change is a reality and is hitting the Pacific right at the moment. And climate justice really is seeing the world commit to transitioning away from fossil fuels and into renewable energy right now, not tomorrow today. Climate justice to me means that people who have had nothing to do with causing this problem don't suffer and don't suffer from the fact that other wealthy rich greedy mostly I would say players have benefited from this system and aren't suffering. Our communities suffer from climate justice because we are dependent on our livelihoods. We are farmers and we are growing crops for ourselves. But if there's no rain, then we can't plant. In the United States, Trump and his friends are easy to deal with. And this is a dangerous thing. And it will reach the land and the land no matter where we are. That's why we demand that our countries and our government make the right decisions for all of us. I think we can improve without the right decision. So this will be a game for all of us. As a woman that lives in the Pacific, for me, climate justice is important because it ensures and prioritizes that everyone are included within climate responses regardless of your background, your ethnicity, your sexual identity and your gender expression. And for us, we are still strongly pushing that everyone should be included. Everybody should have fair access to climate to climate actions and no one should be left behind. My name is... Are we on? I'm joined now by Suzanne Moore, columnist at The Guardian. You've written some brilliant pieces actually in the last two weeks about the Westminster sex scandal or the Westminster sexual harassment scandal. I want to start by asking you've written that there is a danger that this scandal will be minimized, that sexual harassment will be minimized and nothing will change. Can you expand a bit more about what you're worried about here? Well, already today, I mean, so this is just a week and a week and a half of this stuff. We can see the backlash, we can see some of the stuff you referred to earlier in the Sunday papers. Women had made allegations like Kate Mulvier being destroyed by the male. And one of the things that I said is that, you know, we get these kind of mercenaries of patriarchy, often female journalists who come in and discredit other women and say, well, I coped with it, you know, there's that argument. I coped with it. Why should anybody, these special snowflakes complain? There's an argument about that some men are making. How is anyone basically going to get off with each other without harassing people? They seem not to understand that people could indicate interest in each other without actually harassing people. And it's also to connect the personal behavior to the bigger political behavior, the structures that people are working in. It's really important to say this is not just Westminster, this is not just Hollywood, this is happening in a, you know, supermarket in an office. It's a system by which women, often women and younger people without power are abused by powerful people in their workplaces. What can what's going on in Westminster tell us about other workplaces in Britain? You've written that this shows that Westminster is finally coming up to the 1970s. But do you think it is qualitatively different what's going on in Westminster, what particularities are there with the Westminster sexual harassment scandal and the condition of women in work generally? Well, Westminster is this sort of small contained environment that operates with its own rules and some of the things that we've seen are a complicity. For instance, the political parties will control the way that they deal with this stuff by saying, we've basically got dirt on you. I mean, the Tories are known for it. I'm not saying they've never done it, but we know, we have sort of evidence that the Tories will say, you know, we know that you're having an affair, you vote this way. So that kind of thing, or you like young boys, you vote this way. So that's a complicity and abuse that's set up within a system. And, you know, the other thing is that most people, normal people, when they go to Westminster, feel this is a very strange place with very odd strange rules. It smells really weird. It just smells strange. But a certain kind of person, public school, people go there and feel at home. And what they feel at home with is often being this kind of single sex environments where people are really other. I mean, who are these people who cannot be in a lift with somebody without touching them up? I mean, it's an extreme sort of behaviour, exacerbated by the fact that, you know, as people have said for years and years, it's a place with seven or eight bars. One of the bars is for bishops, so not even MPs can go in. No bars, so you've got all these bars, but no childcare. You know, this is the kind of strange organisation of Westminster. And the other thing is the symbiosis between politicians and journalists. The world of journalism is very hypocritical and will trade or sell on information. So these things all prop each other up and it is not good for anybody, often you get young, ambitious people, men and women, who just feel that they can't say anything, or just can't cope. One of the things that's really sad, I think at the moment, is that some people are saying, well, especially these kind of, these sort of harridan women who say, I can cope. I can cope. Actually, where are the people who couldn't cope? You know, you just couldn't hack it. You just didn't want to live like that. And there's a lot of people that, you know, should be in politics, should be in journalism, should be in positions of power, that just aren't. I want to actually focus on that, what you've commented on about the relationship between journalists and politicians, meaning that this hasn't come out, because I actually think that hasn't been discussed very much. It's been written a lot about how the whips having a vested interest in having secrets on politicians makes them inclined to not make that a formal complaint, because it's quite useful to have a secret on someone. Do you think journalists have been doing the same thing? I think certain journalists and have been part of this because of the lobby system. Because if you are locked out of that system, it's said that you can't get stories. I mean, the only two bits of journalism that I find so closed is fashion journalism and political journalism. I went to a fashion show once and people were crying, because they couldn't get into Versace, because they'd slagged off the last Versace collection there or they weren't letting them. They couldn't do their jobs. And there's a little bit about the way the lobby operates, which I don't think any organization should, especially now, have anything to do with it. They just should not agree to... Because it's politicians setting the access and the rules by which journalists operate. And out of that comes all this kind of quite sideways, bizarre behavior and clubby behavior between gangs of guys. No, I think journalists are part of this problem, because a lot of journalists have also, in the kind of... I'm so cool, because I know this stuff about people way. You know, journalists will exchange information like, oh, we all knew he was gay. Didn't you know that? Or, you know, all this sort of stuff. And they will also excuse certain... You know, journalism is also very mild dominated, but they will excuse behavior, especially... I mean, I'm not talking about necessarily the rape. I'm talking about known, known sort of harassers who just regularly wear down women. And that happens. And it's very hard when you go into Westminster. When I first went to Westminster in the 90s, you know, my editor said, I said, well, how do I get stories? And he said, and obviously it was years and years ago, he said, would you just wear a short skirt and stand in central lobby and catch the eye of MPs when they come out of discussions, debates? And I was like, what? I mean, I literally stand around and he said, you know, and their view was, as a woman, you'd have the advantage because you would catch the eye of these... And then they take you to lunch and then you'd talk about the various things going on in the lobby and then they might put their hand on your... And the other thing was this culture of lunching, which I was suddenly involved with, which I'd never, you know, not something I'd ever had anything to do with these long lunches, lots of alcohol. The other thing is that that has changed in Westminster. They just used to be pissed all day. A lot of drinking all day long. No, it's true. I think a lot of them still are pissed all day, right? Or is that the lords now? The lords and the bishops. But there's some are, but it is less than it was. But, you know, you could... The reason that they have to be in the bars apparently until 10, 11, 12, whatever, is because they're waiting for the division bell. But what you've got is also a lot of people who don't live with their families. You know, those ones that get called having a moment of madness or not knowing what they're doing or what about... I mean, there must be loads of them. I'm surprised there's not more of them really. They do live a very bizarre... We ask MPs to live a very bizarre lifestyle. But they are completely propped up. They're propped each other up. I mean, I heard Caroline Nuka's talk the other day about the difference between the European Parliament, which is arranged in a circular way, whereas the arse is an adversarial. So, you know, it used to be that when a labour woman got up to speak, the Tory guys start weighing her breasts. You know, they make that action. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now, that's in public. What are they going to do in private, exactly? I think it's easy to dwell on the kind of repulsive behaviour of these odd, older, rich, posh men. And sometimes what happens is you forget the actual consequences of it, which is that it discourages women from going into politics. It stops people progressing in their careers. Have you seen any progress in the last 20 years that gives you hope that that might change? And what do you think this particular scandal now, these allegations coming out now, will change? Well, there has been progress. And obviously, the more... Not all women are going to speak up, and not all women will change things, but we need more women in politics. I mean, that's not in question for me. I am really heartened by the fact that younger women will not, and younger guys, just are breaking this silence and making connections about the structures that they work in, and not just saying, well, I asked for it, or I didn't know what I was doing. They are fundamentally saying, I do not want this to happen to me in the workplace, and they are giving each other confidence by speaking up. And what I hope happens now is that the pressure keeps up, and it doesn't become, really, I think you said it's not really a party political story. It's a huge political story, because the next bit has to connect Westminster to the everyday stuff that women, the harassment that women put up with. And that's a huge ask, because we're talking about patriarchy. We're talking about... And Westminster, of course, symbolises absolutely the heart of power, and certain people feel comfortable with that. But I am heartened by what's happening now. I mean, it's been a long, long time coming. It does feel like a down-breaking. And the strength of it is almost, for me, I can see it in the backlash. People are trying very, very hard to say, this is a bit of flirtation, and they won't be able to say it because some of the allegations have proved they just won. And it sounds ridiculous at this point, as well. It does. Cezanne, well, thank you so much for coming to the studio today and joining us. This was The Fix. We'll be back in a week's time, hopefully on time. In the meantime, check out Navarra Media's Climate Week, all week from Bonn. See you next week.