0:00

Page Ninety Four: A private eye

0:02

poke cast hello. And welcome to another

0:05

episode of Page Ninety Four. My name's Andrew,

0:07

How To Marry and I'm here in the

0:09

private Office joint as ever by Ian Hislop,

0:11

Adam a Queen and Helen Louis with his

0:13

talk about the events of the last week's

0:15

and who knows maybe the next week's two

0:17

and one event that a Helen you've been

0:19

looking into a recent they is a change

0:21

in the laws in Scotland or what's any

0:23

more that in. Okay, a list of as

0:25

he blown up on if the first of

0:28

April and the law came into force for

0:30

it was actually passed and twenty Twenty one

0:32

it's called the Hate Crime and Public Order

0:34

Bell and essentially the aim of it was

0:36

to consolidate all existing hate crime legislation into

0:38

one easy to swallow package as it were

0:41

an but the controversial thing than it did

0:43

which was extremely controversial even as it went

0:45

through the Scottish Parliament was introduced this new

0:47

offensive stirring up hatred that even then it

0:49

got water down. There was original proposal was

0:51

that libraries and bookshops would have been able

0:54

to be prosecuted. For selling offensive or loaning

0:56

offense material, say things like that get watered

0:58

down but all the way. Three, They were

1:00

concerned that this was a very liberal law

1:02

and sure enough now it's finally come into

1:04

force. Those concerns of come Up Again. What?

1:07

Is stirring up. Well,

1:09

it's it's. basically trying to say that if you

1:11

so there was a lot of discussion about whether

1:14

no intention mattered. Did you need to intend to

1:16

be offensive on this and doesn't need to have

1:18

an objective effect or and hate crime? So there's

1:20

always a question. What is it? Just as experienced

1:22

by the person? And as as I

1:24

can see your eyes are already slightly misting

1:26

and you will go. Over the are you

1:29

all get in the point the stuff is really difficult how

1:31

they didn't make. To be based on personal conceptions

1:33

of of will have his offensiveness right in

1:35

the same with it and throw you know

1:37

this inlet libel. There's always the idea of

1:39

a kind of reasonable person. There are obviously

1:41

a very large spectrum of beliefs about what

1:44

constitutes hateful baby, always mentally abusive behavior, and

1:46

so it has to some reset to Sept

1:48

say who who gets to decide what's hateful

1:50

And that's part of what's at issue here.

1:52

The problem. Is ah she seems be the they've

1:54

said that. Will. police scotland

1:56

get to decide because usually

1:59

legislators don't this but they essentially say

2:01

yes you're right this is a very badly drawn

2:03

out law and it's very imprecise

2:05

and who knows what it means

2:07

let's ask the police now for

2:10

those of us who've been rather

2:12

more skeptical about the entire Scottish

2:14

establishment over the years than say

2:16

the SNP it might be

2:18

argued that police Scotland have been a

2:20

touch too close to those

2:22

in power over the years and

2:24

their definition may just be whatever

2:27

pleases the party in power I'm

2:29

not going to be so cheap as to

2:31

say why don't they look into real crimes

2:33

like who nicked that camper van because that

2:35

would be pathetic that would be beneath you

2:37

but you're right there is a problem a

2:39

couple of months ago police Scotland said we're

2:42

not going to investigate all level low-level crime

2:44

including some things like theft but they have

2:46

pledged they will investigate every single thing that's

2:48

reported under this law I'm sorry to

2:50

be really thick about it what am I going to

2:52

be banged up for in sterling

2:54

right that I won't be in

2:56

Sunderland unless you could make a

2:58

split across the border so added

3:01

age disability transgender status intersex status

3:03

and religion now there were already

3:05

provisions on race and ethnicity for

3:07

stirring up hatred on those grounds so that that

3:10

was already covered however though we all know to

3:12

the one characteristic missing from that list is sex

3:15

so that's supposedly because there is going to be

3:17

a separate misogyny bill coming down the track however

3:19

ash Reagan who was in the Scottish government as

3:21

a junior justice minister is now defected to Alba

3:24

said I actually feel like I was

3:26

misled on that I was told that all the women's

3:28

groups didn't want misogyny they wanted a separate bill and

3:30

I don't actually now think that that was true my

3:33

hunch and suspicion is that misogyny is a very

3:35

difficult thing to prosecute it's also not in the

3:37

Equality Act because you know

3:39

it's calling someone a bitch misogynistic abuse well

3:41

yes it is but it is also extremely common

3:44

and there is a kind of point in

3:46

which the police cannot be expected to get

3:48

involved in absolutely everything someone actually said I

3:50

mean read the bill they said the reason

3:52

we didn't include women In the

3:54

bill the sex in the bill is because we

3:56

didn't feel the bill would really work very well

3:58

for them and. Going to

4:00

do a better one later. Well if you're going

4:02

to do a better one like could you know

4:05

better one for the other than these Cassidy really

4:07

quarter loss of already been split The physicists is

4:09

not the builds put through the moment is Matt

4:11

it is up. What the political thing I don't

4:13

understand is why does Hamza Yusuf for the zoo's

4:16

not having a great time as leader. Why?

4:18

Did he go ahead with this? Is really

4:20

interesting. wasn't in the Twenty sixteen Hollywood manifestly from

4:22

the Us and pay was something I kind of

4:24

came off with on their N Bass and it

4:27

was a time when they were i think a

4:29

slight in the banks that because of Jeremy Corbyn

4:31

leadership had just spent. They spend a whole lot

4:33

time saying went much further to the less than

4:35

labour you know whether it's true voice of was

4:37

a progressivism is than the company or so it

4:39

sounds him on that. So they pivoted the same,

4:41

were actually much more competent and so I think

4:43

they were in a in that post in a

4:45

Corbyn era of of of opposing labor in Scotland,

4:47

they were trying to look for new identity again.

4:50

And I think they look to this is

4:52

him that was very distinctive and could be

4:54

very Snp focus the sending the gender recognition

4:56

reform bill. This was a progressive country and

4:58

they were progressive policies and therefore this was

5:00

the kind of legislation they want to pass.

5:02

The problem being I think the Scotty Civil

5:04

Society is buried small and lots of the

5:06

groups and charities they were asking for him

5:08

for. On this where people who received grants

5:10

from the Snp know this may have been

5:12

in power knife in Scotland from for more

5:14

than a decade not very seriously times by

5:16

the Liberal. The conservatives were both in the

5:18

minority only route. So I think what. It

5:20

was of the sort of initially interesting

5:22

idea, but that just did not receive

5:24

sufficient. scrutiny threatened that the process a month

5:26

has passed it spastic it comes in one of

5:29

these awesome was fascinated by this is this is

5:31

replacing the bus from a lot of how many

5:33

hundred years we all know after the scottish enlightenment

5:35

about off as a funny sort of us will

5:37

will spill on bus such a bit the religious

5:40

amid dissemination of sorting of hatred on fans of

5:42

religion is is is one of them as in

5:44

this bill was pops up like illustrious but i'm

5:46

are thinking back to when we when something similar

5:48

of was was introduced in it in britain remember

5:50

the of with racial religious hatred act taunted him

5:53

and in two thousand seventh that was on. the

5:55

third go he was stymied by the lord's

5:57

a couple of times it's tommy boss rowan

5:59

atkinson I remember leading a pang popping up saying,

6:02

but I do vicars, that's one of the comedy

6:05

things I do. I may be slightly simplifying his

6:07

argument there, I think. And it's perfectly reasonable, there's

6:09

an incredibly long tradition of laughing at vicars in

6:11

British humor. And it's

6:13

many hundreds of years old, and this was taken

6:15

as one of our rights. Whether one is allowed

6:18

to laugh at him arms is

6:20

another thing, and Brown Atkinson, he didn't have

6:22

an equivalent. But in Scotland, that will be

6:24

an issue. And that's something that you have to, in all

6:27

hate crimes legislation tries to do, is what's

6:29

the difference between an ideology and a person?

6:31

And sometimes that's very clear cut, and sometimes

6:33

it's not. So the one that has obviously

6:35

become a very high profile is the

6:37

fact that J.K. Rowling is basically dead people. She's

6:39

called a load of trans women men, essentially, and

6:41

used male pronouns for them. And said, you know,

6:43

come and lock me up. And that

6:45

is the debate that is now gonna be forced into

6:48

the open about, is that actually hateful to people as

6:50

individuals, or are you opposing a particular ways

6:52

of thinking about gender? Well, it goes back

6:54

to stirring up, doesn't it? If I'm insulting

6:56

someone in their home based on

6:58

these newly protected characteristics, when let's say age,

7:01

for example, because that's one of these five

7:03

new ones, isn't it? Yeah, if I

7:05

mean, if you say call someone a silly old sod,

7:07

as you shove them out of the way on the,

7:09

you know, and is that becoming aggravating, is that worth

7:11

the police's time to add that as an aggravating factor?

7:14

From a personal and professional point of

7:16

view, there's some debate about whether satire

7:19

and comedy comes under this

7:21

bill. So most of the

7:23

jokes about Biden that have been

7:25

in the publication recently, haven't

7:28

been policy based, a number of them, I

7:31

would say have been directed to the fact that

7:34

he's very, very old. Are you saying

7:36

we're gonna have to smuggle copies

7:38

of the magazine over the border? I

7:41

think this is quite romantic and body print, Charlieish,

7:43

and I like the sound of it. Copies of

7:45

the art, he's very old, you know, he sometimes

7:47

speaks quite slowly. It's

7:49

the Walter Scott novel. There'll be cutting sections

7:52

out of the joke pages at the border,

7:54

I won't mind. Be like Fahrenheit 451, people

7:57

have been memorizing jokes, telling them quietly

7:59

in part. in Edinburgh. But that doesn't make

8:01

sense because there are people who don't want you to make

8:03

jokes about Biden's age. I wrote a piece about his

8:05

age and people said this is very offensive, it

8:07

doesn't say anything about his cognitive capacity, you shouldn't,

8:09

this isn't, you know, you're attacking someone's personal life

8:12

and that's, you know, that is an argument that

8:14

people do make. And again they

8:16

didn't make it clear so one spokesman

8:18

says obviously this doesn't apply to comedians

8:20

and satirists and performers and then

8:23

another person says well it might and

8:25

it seems to be up to the police again. So

8:28

say your one-hour actor, Edinburgh, is entirely

8:30

devoted to the failings of the police

8:32

Scotland. Is that

8:34

stirring up hatred? It's such a vague term isn't

8:36

it? So it seems a very unlegally term to

8:38

me, stirring up, that it can be, I mean

8:40

if you're drawing attention to someone else's stuff

8:43

online about this stuff or

8:45

writing a story about a neo-nazi group that

8:47

then ends up, you know, in a backlash

8:49

lots more people join that. I mean does

8:51

would that count as stirring up? I think

8:53

the language is exactly as abusive or threatening

8:55

or insulting and I, the

8:58

word use of insulting is slightly alarming to me because

9:00

I like, I quite enjoy insulting enough for people on

9:02

all kinds of grounds but the defence is

9:04

about being you have to prove that it's reasonable and

9:06

it's one of those things where it's just, my

9:08

aversion of reason or your aversion of reason will maybe

9:11

entirely different who's the arbiter here. It does seem to

9:13

me that J.K. Rowling has, is kind of, she seems

9:15

to be absolutely determined to become a pre-speech martyr on

9:17

this particular topic but she was going on, there's very

9:19

much an intent now, I mean because you

9:21

said she misgendered several trans people but

9:23

actually I mean what she did was

9:26

list a load of convicted sex offenders,

9:28

Chucky Monroe Bergdorf who is someone she

9:30

has a problem with and India Willoughby

9:32

who's a, you know, a former

9:34

newsreader, right, but it was very deliberately done

9:37

as a provocation wasn't it? So I mean that

9:39

in that case intent was very definitely there,

9:41

yeah, maybe didn't even need to be. Well I think

9:43

the interesting thing is the question about whether or not,

9:46

has she created a shield about this law

9:48

ever being used, right, in the sense that people could

9:50

go, why are you coming after me and not J.K.

9:52

Rowling? Or, I know,

9:54

I just thought about the equivalence with

9:56

abortion laws which, you know, I think when you

9:58

cover them in Northern Ireland, They would

10:01

go after people who were slightly defenseless and say, just

10:03

plead guilty and we can make this go away. And

10:06

I think that's my slight worry about it,

10:08

is if you have somebody who, say, mentally

10:10

ill, does some very bad tweets, but they're

10:12

not in a position to defend

10:14

themselves, really, are they just going to go after

10:16

people like that? And actually, is that a good

10:19

use of police time? Are those people really going

10:21

to learn anything from experience or is it just

10:23

going to compound an existing problem? That's

10:25

my question about it. And are we now

10:27

waiting to see exactly that? What does

10:29

happen next and how it's used?

10:32

There are people who think it's overblown. So Adam

10:34

Tompkins, who has a voice I respect, he was a Conservative

10:36

MSP and a law professor, said, you know, actually, now that

10:38

we put in some of the more safeguards in it, some

10:40

of the provisions have been watered down, I'm

10:43

not so worried about it. So

10:45

I think there is a case where it doesn't actually necessarily

10:47

lead to anything. I'm just, in principle, opposed

10:49

to laws on statute books that the police

10:51

can use against political opponents of the regime,

10:54

right? If this was happening somewhere else, that's

10:56

how you would describe it. And

10:58

there seem to be two things that worry me. One

11:00

is specifically, because it happens all the time with

11:02

the eyes, is this idea of third party reporting.

11:05

If someone else says, I was really offended by

11:08

this piece on your behalf and then reports you,

11:10

as people often do to regulatory bosses,

11:12

is that okay? Usually you're

11:15

saying, well, shouldn't the person

11:17

doing the reporting be the person

11:19

who was supposedly harmed by it? And

11:22

that strikes me as, you know, given lobby

11:24

groups and groups of people

11:27

who band together to do third party

11:29

reporting in occasions which are not always

11:31

justifiable, that struck me as a problem.

11:33

The other is this, I mean,

11:36

it is pure Orwell now. We've now got,

11:38

if the police

11:40

decide this hate incident isn't

11:42

criminal, it's a non-crime hate

11:44

incident, and it's logged. So

11:47

the fact that someone said you were up to no

11:49

good, the police say it's not a

11:52

crime, but it is a hate incident.

11:54

So what does that mean? It's very like

11:56

the old Scottish verdicts have not proven his

11:58

opinion. Which means... Guilty but

12:00

don't do it again that that is

12:02

a glove gov the familiar. Oh yeah

12:05

the known crime hey incidents of i

12:07

think really troublesome I'm not quite sure

12:09

have a kind of just citizens. And

12:11

mm and a being a big backlash them when they

12:13

were brought in but every time I've heard about one

12:15

of them. So essentially if you get someone complains against

12:18

you don't have noom get notified. Of a seating

12:20

a chance to go with that person model with

12:22

have known him an overall a Lundy I and

12:24

minutes once in a the all the things you'd

12:26

expect is gonna do. Process is so. There's an

12:28

instance gotten murdered Fraser who's of consent them

12:31

as pay most reporters and on crime hey

12:33

instance A comparing saying that being non binary

12:35

was like identifying as a cat and he

12:37

only found out about it because he got

12:39

reported to the authorities in the Scottish parliament

12:41

who then told him but that things have

12:44

been on his record. And without him

12:46

having a chance to contest the or argue the point. Right

12:48

and what? and is the no charge of

12:50

being just lame. Assist

12:53

assist with us again. I would probably

12:55

vote yards wrong position to crack jokes

12:57

matter how to ask about how perfect

12:59

for. Another

13:02

note of affidavit about upset as young as elementary

13:04

very delicate we say adam things the internet's we

13:06

switched off for couple of ask everyone says to

13:08

combinations are absolutely everything as we just switch the

13:10

into their off for several hours. everyday we will

13:12

have to go out in the fresh air are

13:15

things that would solve the most of the problems.

13:17

Images of us. A Thrive.

13:20

As a policy platforms when it goes and does phenomenon

13:22

think I can projects I'd certainly some a boy's

13:24

gonna happen most which is going to be that they

13:26

will be a load of free speech martyrs ups determined

13:28

which also miss that we a load of people me

13:31

other side or up to be determined to continually report

13:33

them to the police and and under mom but they

13:35

do get jobs that we will floppies, time wasted

13:37

on on something whoop whoop whoop family member and up

13:39

in and thing and you know in the end of

13:42

it all sorts of other stuff that we should be

13:44

investigating having a message as in Scotland be that be

13:46

that I'm very expensive. camper vans, oh rapes, And

13:48

murders. Do. Think I'm

13:50

Jk Rowling enjoys. The. Supporters

13:52

of the publications the previously labels

13:55

there is boring old less to

13:57

get his own about the West.

14:00

Quality. and like terrible novels that are, it's

14:02

a little bit or on the side of

14:04

the redistribution of wealth is east he did.

14:06

You think it's just par for the goals?

14:09

My enemy's enemy in a very funny. That

14:11

has become of title. Have read the Telegraph

14:13

despite all of her career up until that

14:15

point basically sending as everything that they they

14:17

supported. I think you're right, there is I

14:19

think adam you bring up something which I

14:21

do. I think I do worry by in

14:23

the backlash to this which is people now

14:25

feeling that need to say deliberately offensive things

14:27

just to prove that you can and I

14:29

can understand the impulse behind it. but actually

14:31

I think in a saying is we respect

14:33

some coaches to people is better done as

14:35

a his politeness a society rather than as

14:37

a legally enforced demand that is obviously gonna

14:39

make people wanna kick against. It. And that's

14:42

again. Othello. We won't have deliberate mister

14:44

during to seems putting aside the cases

14:46

of of of convicted sex offenders who

14:48

have always been from for put a

14:50

false woman get into women's prisons are

14:52

not denying that they were there but

14:54

it's a tiny him unwrap leno. It's

14:56

like taking the men who arrested in

14:58

operation Spammer oversight sadomasochistic sex Macys as

15:00

I'm sensible game am always like taking

15:02

flying lessons as as as as websites

15:04

will statement it is is a different

15:06

time and you wondering whether the Jk

15:09

was meant to be a shields but

15:11

if so it's it. Was as badly drafted

15:13

a tweet as the actual lore is because

15:15

sticking in two people on the end of

15:17

what have you think about Monroe speaking in

15:19

the woods is not the same as the

15:21

rapists and putting them all in the think.

15:24

It's. Not very clever as it up of have

15:26

more sympathy take him out for. Be having by

15:28

some the same people telling me I'm a big it

15:31

takes. But I agree with you about the fact that

15:33

it's maybe not healthy to lump in desperate concerns. And

15:35

that was an omelette. the one thing I would always

15:37

have. I take her only stamps. He loves Iraq.

15:40

And I think that she's decided this isn't as soon

15:42

which he is going to make. Some noise.

15:45

and therefore that comes with it's a lot people

15:47

disagreeing with even in terms that ranged from the

15:49

abusive to the polite and but that is a kind

15:51

of function of being a kind of campaigner in

15:53

the way that is that she's done this i mean

15:55

i think for me if and when that some

15:57

as that the i basically agree with her and

16:00

so I'm happy to say that even while saying I probably

16:02

wouldn't have phrased it in their own time. So

16:05

Humsey Yousa for example, drawing the drafting of this

16:07

wouldn't answer whether or not it was hateful to say they're

16:09

only two sexes. And that's the kind

16:11

of thing perhaps we should have clarified along the way. That's

16:15

not the police certainly. Yeah and the victim's

16:17

minister couldn't say whether or not misgendering was prima

16:19

facie a hate crime. Again that's the kind of

16:21

thing you just need some clarity about. How much

16:23

wiggle room is there? I think there's

16:26

a huge difference between following someone down the street screaming

16:28

abuse at them and saying

16:30

something as a generalized statement about an

16:32

ideology. And I don't think that the

16:34

legislation clarifies really the difference between those

16:37

two things. Well that's exactly a sensibly argued

16:39

tone as opposed to saying, look at all

16:41

these people, some of them are murderers, some

16:44

of them aren't and some of them are presenters. I'm

16:46

not sure that's hugely helpful. I don't want to, I

16:48

don't want to alarm you all but I found a

16:50

segue to what we're going to talk about next. Okay

16:52

cool. Speaking of the

16:55

internet being turned off and

16:57

things being taken offline, something

16:59

else has been taken offline. It's

17:02

a long run up I've taken. Very good, very good. I've

17:04

already embraced. You can see where I've gone. This is the

17:06

second thing we wanted to talk about today which is Talk

17:08

TV. That's almost

17:11

a brilliant segue except that it's not. It's been

17:13

taken off air and put on line. That's

17:15

the problem. It's going offline which confusingly means it's

17:17

going online only. But it's been taken off. And

17:21

it hasn't yet. That's going to happen

17:23

in a couple of months. But other than that,

17:25

it was definitely worthy of the one show. I

17:27

don't like the mid-show segue critiques at all. So

17:32

Talk TV is going online only. It's being

17:35

taken off air. So Piers

17:37

Morgan's show I think has already done that. Yep. He

17:39

was the early adopter. He migrated

17:41

already. Yes. And this was announced

17:43

quite recently and we've

17:45

come to GB News a fair bit on this podcast before but

17:47

Talk TV a bit less so. And I just

17:50

wanted to kick us off with a quote from Scott Taunton.

17:53

And we've just been talking about Scott

17:55

Taunton in a way. Scott... Scottish Taunting?

17:57

Scott Taunton? Never mind. They

17:59

get worse. Yeah, aren't

18:01

we glad I didn't go with that one? He's

18:03

the president of broadcasting and he told staff in

18:05

a briefing I just wanted to see what you

18:08

thought of this as a reason for moving Talk

18:10

TV online early. Two years ago He said we

18:12

would not have been brave enough to launch a

18:14

channel without a linear presence But audiences of all

18:16

ages have moved fast and smartphones and other primary

18:18

device As far as

18:20

news is concerned. We are therefore intending that Talk

18:22

TV comes off linear television from early summer Do

18:26

you buy that? Hang on, it said two years

18:28

ago in 2022 no one had heard of the

18:30

smartphone. No one was using them. Very niche technology

18:32

Well, what's Contonation is actually doing there is to

18:34

use a technical Broadcasting term

18:36

talking complete bollock because actually News UK who

18:38

run Talk TV, Rufus Mo Nox company Put

18:41

an awful lot of money an awful lot

18:43

of time into seeing whether there was any

18:45

appetite for a linear TV TV channel And

18:47

they concluded many years ago that there wasn't

18:49

and they would be much better off doing

18:51

some kind of programming on demand There was

18:53

talk about and actually this is a way

18:55

that technology has moved on but about fire

18:58

sticks and people having little things

19:00

They would be able to plug into a

19:02

port on the side of their telly Yeah

19:04

We're able to watch Murdoch TV on that

19:06

and there were all sorts of things that

19:08

were explored but it was very definitively concluded

19:10

and the news was Expressed to all staff

19:12

by by Rebecca Brooks the CEO of News

19:14

UK that there was not a viable Financial

19:16

future for any sort of linear TV channel at

19:19

which point she was overall by Rupert who said

19:21

he liked TV channels And he wanted one anyway,

19:23

so they did it and it

19:25

crashed and burned exactly as they had predicted it

19:27

would and now they are Going back to it's

19:29

sort of plan a it's plan a and a

19:31

half I suppose where they're gonna have this weird

19:33

sort of it was always a bizarre hybrid anyway

19:35

because basically it's a radio station For most of

19:37

the hours of the day It's just talk radio

19:39

with a camera pointed at it and talk radio

19:42

is a pretty successful radio station But then they

19:44

decided to do this prime time thing where they

19:46

would have Piers Morgan and they would have Tom

19:48

Newton done No longer there. They would have Sharon

19:50

Osborne who barely ever turned up for her show

19:52

anyway And it would be this sort

19:54

of all singing or dancing TV station, but no one

19:56

watched that at all Yeah, it's the

19:58

old motto, isn't it? Go non-woke go

20:01

broke. There's

20:03

two channels now we've had. I just can't wait

20:05

for the rest of them. But it also suggests

20:08

what does success look like in that space,

20:10

right? So I think GB News, correct me

20:12

if I'm wrong, hasn't done amazingly well financially,

20:14

but as a means of influencing the direction

20:16

of the Conservative Party, it seems to be

20:19

incredibly good, right? You're saying we should

20:21

be grateful? Because it's taken them to

20:23

its lowest pathway together and they're about

20:25

to disappear. Right, I think no size

20:27

of the Tory party to the ground.

20:29

The only people crawling out of the rubble will

20:31

be presenters on GB News. But you know what

20:33

I mean? I think it's very popular with the

20:35

Selectorate who picked the next Tory leader. If you think these are

20:37

a group of people who voted for Liz Truss freely out of

20:39

their own, you know, without any coercion at

20:42

all. GB News gets talked about, it's completely disproportionate

20:44

to the number of people who are watching it.

20:46

And it's not just on the right, it's not

20:48

just the Tory's electorate because it winds up lefties

20:50

as well. I mean, it has this extraordinary profile

20:52

and they're pretty good on the stuff they put

20:54

out on social media and they get good. So

20:56

if you're not looking to make a profit, and

20:58

it's very, very far from making a profit, it's

21:00

hemorrhaging money, GB News. But that isn't what it's

21:02

there for. It's there so that Paul Marshall and

21:04

the other investors can have their say in the

21:06

political sphere and in the culture wars. And it's

21:08

been extremely effective as that. Talk TV never quite

21:10

managed that. I mean, it was much more professionally

21:12

run in terms of Ofcom complaints. I'm not sure

21:14

that there have actually been any. GB News has

21:16

had multiple ones. No one watched it. Well, probably

21:18

years. I mean, they could be doing actually anything

21:20

and no one would know it. We did say

21:23

before we came into this podcast, Ellen said to

21:25

me, I don't really know much

21:27

about Talk TV. To be honest, it's fine. We

21:29

can say whatever one no one does. No one's

21:31

ever seen it. I know. It's like Bigfoot or

21:33

the Yeti. It's rumored to be out there somewhere.

21:35

People have heard things and seen footprints, but

21:37

no one actually knows whether it is or not.

21:39

But that's a weird thing about Talk TV and

21:41

GB News and how GB News has been so

21:43

influential. It is in a TV space

21:46

that is quite similar to the mail because

21:48

one of the elements of this discussion is

21:50

how much or how quickly or which papers

21:52

are going to switch to supporting labor before

21:54

the next election and whether they're doing

21:56

so because they can see the writing on the wall.

22:00

they're trying to get out ahead of public opinion, they're not

22:02

actually leading it. And most

22:05

papers have much smaller readerships than they did 30

22:07

years ago, so they are much less influential

22:10

than they were. Even back then, they were

22:12

probably following public opinion as much as leading

22:14

it. But one point made recently, I

22:16

think there was a piece in The Guardian about this,

22:19

is that the BBC is still

22:21

obsessed with reading the papers and takes a

22:23

lot of its lines and discussion points from

22:25

there. And GB News has done exactly that

22:27

for Paul Marshall, whereas Talk

22:29

TV hasn't really. Right, there's

22:31

a commercial version of you just want to run a TV

22:33

station with a load of adverts on it that makes you

22:35

a load of money. And that in the cable news era

22:38

was a really good thing to do. You just had a

22:40

mass viewership thing. Now, as you say, with GB

22:42

News, it's much more like the traditional reason for

22:45

owning a newspaper. You wanted to be a kind

22:47

of player. But yeah, I mean, I have to

22:49

say, the only things I ever consumed of Talk

22:51

TV were clips of Piers Morgan shouting at sort

22:53

of 20-year-olds who'd ill-advisedly wandered onto his show. Those

22:55

are still going, as we said, even though he

22:57

is no longer going out on the channel every

23:00

night at eight o'clock. That's

23:02

still, I mean, it's very odd hybrid now, because as I

23:04

say, it hasn't shut down the linear TV channel. But I

23:06

had a look at their website just before we came in.

23:08

And it's flogging a lot of catch-up

23:11

and listen again, but most of it for talk

23:13

radio shows. A lot of

23:15

it for Piers Morgan, who doesn't go out on the channel

23:17

at all, but he's just branded himself as Piers Morgan Uncensored

23:19

now on YouTube. And also this new thing, which we've written

23:22

about in the last couple of hours, called Sun TV, which

23:25

appears to be possibly the replacement for

23:27

Talk TV, no one's quite sure. At

23:29

the moment, it consists of one show,

23:31

one weekly show called Never Mind the

23:33

Ballots, do you see what they've done

23:35

there, with Harry Cole, the Sun's political

23:37

editor, and Kate McCann, who is now

23:39

the political editor

23:42

of Times Radio, having been the political editor of

23:44

Talk TV. So they're shuffling people round between all

23:46

of these different outfits, and they don't seem to

23:48

be sure how to distinguish between them themselves. So

23:50

that's all part of the Talk TV offering now.

23:52

So I would say there

23:55

does seem to be an awful lot of confusion

23:57

at News UK at the moment about exactly what's

24:00

going on with it and what they're going to do with

24:02

it. This confusion about who's been blamed for it because of

24:04

course when it comes to the actual job losses which are

24:06

going to result from the shutdown of Talk TV, do

24:08

you think it's any of the senior executives who are

24:10

responsible for this day barcode going? Go on, have a

24:12

wild guess. No and

24:15

I mean the pieces in the eye have

24:17

repeatedly suggested that it's all Rupert's fault because

24:20

he was told not to do this and he did it anyway

24:23

so the chances of him taking the blame

24:26

are fairly slight. This is Rupert who you

24:28

will recall retired from the day-to-day running off

24:30

of News UK about six months ago didn't

24:32

he? But I think he's still having quite

24:35

a big say in what goes on there.

24:37

Well explain this then which Helen brought up

24:39

is when it comes to the

24:41

Sun newspaper Rupert is,

24:44

I say Rupert because we're

24:47

obviously incredibly friendly, he

24:49

is always willing to say it's the

24:51

Sun what won it usually if he's changed

24:53

sides the day before the election or

24:55

even after if necessary so he will

24:57

always shift. His television output

25:00

is always right-wing why is that?

25:04

It's Rupert. I told you

25:07

not in the office. So

25:09

embarrassing. If they knew that

25:14

I was in daily contact. You

25:17

said it's always right-wing but I consumed

25:19

a bit of never mind the ballots which I have to say

25:21

is they bring in your anti-lameness law is

25:23

going to be in serious danger along

25:25

with the skies electile dysfunction and I

25:28

thought you see Andy I hope you

25:30

feel better about some of your puns

25:32

there. But the Sun TV did an interview

25:34

with Keir Starmer that was I thought very

25:36

notable in the fact that it took him

25:38

very seriously the subsequent coverage and the thing

25:40

said oh actually this Keir Starmer guy he's

25:42

not the kind of terrible communist you might

25:44

have thought. Front-page splash which is in a

25:46

way more of an endorsement the first episode

25:48

of this new new politics show and front-page

25:51

splash which I would say in terms of

25:53

actually getting in front of viewers and readers

25:55

eyes is a lot more important than anything

25:57

in the editorial column. That's really interesting. Harry

26:00

Cole conducting the interview with him. It

26:02

was indeed. The son's political... Yeah. So

26:05

he was last seen... I mean, his last encounter

26:07

with Starmer was putting him in a front page story

26:09

saying, Starmer travelled around the world

26:11

freeing monsters and rapists and killers and pitos

26:13

and when they were all on death row.

26:16

And what an awful thing that was to do. At the

26:18

moment, they are very much trying to have it both ways,

26:20

the son. So we have a very, very approving interview with

26:22

Rachel Reeves and I think they mocked her up in a

26:24

Thatcher wig to say she is the new Thatcher a couple

26:26

of weeks ago. Truthfully. You get Trevor Cavanagh

26:29

saying, ah, no, they are all useless, they are all

26:31

terrible, they are all lefty. So at the moment,

26:33

they are kind of looking which way to go. The

26:35

son always... It is never the

26:37

son what won it, but it is always the winner's what

26:39

won the son. I mean, Rupert always backs a winner and

26:41

son editors as well who are allowed. A bit of a

26:43

say of their own, I believe, always

26:45

want to back a winner as well. But the idea that

26:47

it is some line term... I have to do whatever Rupert...

26:50

I mean, there is this great myth that has kind of grown up

26:52

around 1997 and the idea that the

26:55

son swung behind black. Well, they did do that. Do you

26:57

know when they did it? Was it

26:59

the 4th of May? Not

27:01

quite that, but the polling day was May 1st. It

27:04

was March 18th. Wow. So it

27:06

is really, really late on in things. And everyone

27:09

says, and it is because he went over to Hayman

27:11

Island and he went to the Murdoch conference and he

27:13

sucked up to him. It was two years after that.

27:15

I mean, there was two years, a lot more work

27:17

going into it as well, which I am sure is

27:19

going on in the Labour Party at the moment because

27:21

they will be working as hard to... very, very hard

27:23

to get the endorsement of both the son and the

27:25

times because there is still this tradition that newspaper endorsements

27:27

matter in some way. I am not sure that has

27:29

ever actually been true. I mean, the mail at the

27:31

moment seems to be sort of equidistantly hostile to the

27:33

Tories and Labour. So there is going to be some

27:35

interesting triangulation that goes on when this election does get

27:38

called. It strikes me that Tory

27:40

supporting newspapers support not the

27:42

Tory party as it currently is

27:44

in government, but a Tory party in their own

27:46

heads consisting of Sue Ella Braverman and Nigel Farage,

27:49

who is not even in the party, and a

27:51

few others. So they are... They

27:53

are not traditionally Tory supporting. And I

27:55

am interested that once we get past

27:57

the election, will papers like the Célago

28:00

the express, the mail, will

28:03

they know anyone left in mainstream politics

28:05

or will they focus entirely on the

28:08

fringe? Are we going to have our

28:10

first reform supporting paper? That

28:12

would be interesting. That is the direction that

28:14

the Telegraph is going in. If you look

28:17

at all of their coverage, they are way

28:19

to the right of where the Tory party are. They've

28:22

just signed up as a columnist, so that gives you an idea of where they're

28:24

at in the Tory party,

28:26

as she barely is these days. It's

28:28

possible, you know, stranger things have happened. But there's

28:31

also a problem between the kind of Liz trust

28:33

libertarianism and the kind of what the UKIP offer

28:35

was, which was, yes, very right wing on

28:37

things like immigration, you might say, but also very

28:39

strongly in favour of a social security welfare. As

28:41

you say, Adam, the triple lock on pensions, I

28:43

think it would be suicidal for anyone to repeal

28:46

against that. So there is a kind of space

28:48

for a party that is socially conservative,

28:50

but actually fiscally is more in the place

28:52

where labour is. And I think that's where

28:54

reform is probably trending. Don't reform

28:56

support nationalisation of various key industries.

29:00

It sounds like you know who you're voting for. But

29:03

they're polling pretty well, as far as we

29:05

can say. I think reformer ahead among men. All

29:07

men. And they're only making votes,

29:09

thank you. Not all men, Adam. All young

29:12

back then. The Express, by the way, on

29:14

Tuesday morning this week was calling for a

29:16

referendum on immigration. Just sort of a

29:18

yes to do you like it? Do you want it? We have

29:20

one of those. Yes or no? Right,

29:22

we have one in 2016. We were pretending that was about something else.

29:25

Ian, who's the icon of indoors? Um,

29:27

Judge Chec Rupert. It's

29:31

still unsure, sorry. Talking

29:33

of things that men like. Let's go

29:36

finally to the Garak. Well, three of us can go to

29:38

the Garak. Actually, not the one.

29:42

And Matt, the producer, you're also welcome to come

29:44

to the Garak. Oh, thanks guys. It's

29:46

very supportive. Come on, knock on. Is that

29:48

all right? Right, this is the Garak Club, founded in

29:50

1831, named after the great actor David Garak, who was

29:52

no longer alive at that time. But

29:55

the club's stated purpose was to be somewhere

29:57

that acts as a man of refinement could

29:59

meet on equal terms and

30:01

I'm quoting it, tend to the regeneration

30:03

of the drama. And

30:06

that is something that Garak has been doing in the last

30:08

few weeks because there have been all sorts of, there

30:11

have been resignations, there has been brouhaha

30:13

over the fact that it's a men

30:15

only club, you know, very high profile

30:17

membership, Kama Bash, Bonneville, Suchet, Gove,

30:20

you name it. All the great actors of every age. The

30:24

great shapeshifters of our time. And

30:26

there has been this long running campaign to change the rules and allow

30:28

women in, which has not so far

30:30

proved successful despite, you know, loads

30:32

of the members really being absolutely

30:35

desperate to make this change. For some reason

30:37

it just hasn't happened. The first thing is also

30:39

when they had a referendum there was a majority in favour of changing

30:41

the rules to admit women. It was, but it's just you have

30:43

to have a two thirds majority. It was pretty nice. It was 50.5%.

30:47

Yes. Come all Brexit Andy.

30:49

If you don't like a two thirds majority,

30:51

you would have liked one over Brexit, I

30:53

bet. There was

30:55

an overwhelming mandate from the Garrick members to

30:58

keep it men only. And this has blown

31:00

up recently partly because the Guardian have printed

31:02

a large number of the members'

31:05

names, which have included all these pillars of

31:07

civil society as well. Yeah, and it was

31:09

a huge scoop. It was written by Amelia

31:11

Gentlemen, which given that it was about

31:13

gentlemen's clubs, was incredibly funny. And

31:16

the list itself was revealing.

31:19

I mean, partly because of the names that

31:21

didn't appear to it. But I gather there

31:23

was they had to go through some procedures.

31:25

That right, Helen? Well, I understand is it

31:27

because of privacy concerns, you can't

31:30

just blast out the entire email list.

31:32

So there has to be a public interest justification

31:34

for making someone's private club affiliation public.

31:36

So that's why I think that list

31:38

is very much focused on senior civil

31:40

servants, judges, you know, people who have

31:43

a role in shaping laws or shaping

31:45

policy, and therefore their membership of an

31:47

exclusive club is therefore a matter of public interest.

31:49

So it was decided a high level at the

31:51

Guardian that there was no public interest in naming,

31:53

for instance, Amelia Gentlemen's father-in-law, Stanley

31:55

Johnson. Yes, very, very keen

31:57

on women from a lot of things we've heard about.

32:01

I really respect a million for this because she must have

32:03

known the massive amount of piss taking it was going to

32:05

be offensive before anyway and I thought you'd respect that.

32:08

Hey we had to phone up Simon Jenkins last week and say

32:10

they're not naming you either are they? He,

32:12

it turns out, very supportive of women members as

32:14

well. So many of them. Yes, yes. Yes, you've

32:16

got a column on there. Can you give me

32:18

the gossip Adam? Who in Flute Street is a

32:21

member? Well they're

32:23

in the Guardian's coverage of it but

32:25

not in the male's coverage of it.

32:27

Paul Dacre, editor-in-chief of Associated Newspapers, very

32:30

much in the male's coverage of it

32:33

but not in the Guardian's, former member

32:35

Alan Rusbridger, ex-editor-in-chief of the Guardian, who

32:37

resigned in 2010 shortly after Lord Miner's.

32:42

Lord Miner's, yeah, yeah, who had been boss of

32:45

the Guardian Media Group and then went on to

32:47

be city minister and there were still a lot

32:49

of questions over tax and things weren't there. Oh

32:51

really? Yeah, he was blackballed and Alan Rusbridger

32:54

resigned that year which he's probably quite grateful about now because

32:56

that would have been a bit embarrassing, wouldn't it? It

32:59

would, I mean, again, I think the

33:01

Garak, we should say that it's

33:03

always been the source of enormous

33:05

amusement. Francis Wien, former i-journalist, found

33:08

some coverage of the Garak

33:10

in Reynolds' newspaper from the

33:12

1st of August 1858 and

33:15

this is what Francis Wien reads over

33:17

his breakfast but it does say the

33:20

Garak Club is one of those snob

33:22

snuggaries that are bound in London. It

33:24

consists for the greater part of

33:26

comic authors, wig journalists, 10th rate

33:28

artists and it goes

33:30

on, fast barristers, faded dandies,

33:33

Irish and Ethiopian melodies,

33:36

unspeakable MPs, Rooey

33:38

Nobleman, impudent showmen, it

33:40

just goes on and on with this extraordinary

33:42

list. And it says the point of the

33:45

Garak Club has as its

33:47

object the cultivation of prigism and

33:50

is a place for inveterate tough

33:52

hunters. What's a tough hunter?

33:55

A tough hunter is someone who's a snob. Is

33:58

it a social climber or a snob? And

34:00

I know that's your personal experience. Yeah, yeah.

34:03

I was actually Tough Hunter of the Year.

34:05

Uh, when I got schooled. I

34:08

like it, I mean, as a comic author and, I would say,

34:10

tense rate artist, I quite like the sound of the garak. I've

34:12

never, I used to walk past it all the time. Where is

34:14

it? It's on, um, it's in Common Gun. I'm not even allowed

34:17

to look at it as a woman hunter. No,

34:19

you are allowed in on,

34:22

uh, Ladies Night. Ladies

34:24

Night. I don't know if I've got

34:26

the... Kina behind the bar, the male

34:28

stripper, which unfortunately is an actor over 70. But

34:32

it's not, I was quite surprised to find it's not the

34:34

only all male club in London, is it? There are still

34:36

several women that don't admit women. Yeah, white,

34:38

I know is one of them. Because I think the male used to

34:40

have its Christmas back bench dinner there, and I always thought, what

34:42

if a woman needs to be invited? But luckily it never

34:44

came up. I've been

34:46

to several clubs that foot of men, and they're

34:48

all generally dance dancing with their tops off. So,

34:51

I mean, this is the image I have of

34:53

Paul Dacre and Simon Heffer and Simon Jenkins getting

34:55

there. And he's off with the salmon and cucumber

34:57

ties and up on the podium. How do I

34:59

go about it? I think it's a different sort

35:01

of men's club, Adam. Oh, no. The

35:04

names are extraordinary. So the other all male clubs,

35:06

as far as I can tell, are the Beefsteak,

35:08

the Travellers, Brooks, Boodles

35:10

and Whites, which did allow the Queen

35:12

in, but I think under sufferance, as

35:15

long as she promised not to act up. There is, I

35:17

should say, one women's only club, which is the University

35:19

Women's Club, which is over in Mayfair. So

35:21

there is a total terrible discrimination against

35:23

men, is perpetuated in that one. But you have to

35:25

be the university to go to that one, or a specific university. I

35:29

think so. I think it's just generally...

35:31

Because all of these clubs do have

35:33

quite a strong financial discrimination in their

35:35

structure, which is... You've got to

35:37

be rich. You've got to be rich. And

35:40

the Garrick, as Prabdai pointed out

35:42

early in the 80s, it's bores

35:44

only. And

35:47

generations of non-boring people have tried to

35:49

get in as members. But

35:51

every time they're outvoted and the bores

35:54

win again, we have found the

35:56

Garrick Club immensely funny for the entire longevity.

35:59

the magazine and we ran a

36:02

fantastic successful ad for a new

36:04

Barbie doll which is the Garret

36:06

Club Barbie which has a wine

36:08

stained tie and a blazer and

36:10

soup stained trousers. The point about

36:12

this doll was she pulled the

36:14

cord and she reminisces

36:16

about meeting Kingsley Amos and

36:19

the master of the roles and how Sir John

36:21

Gillgood had spotted Dick and Custard. It is

36:24

one of the mysteries as to why women would

36:26

actually want to belong to this club. And I

36:28

think that's where the judges came in isn't it?

36:31

Yeah I think if you were for example Lady

36:33

Hale who was the Supreme Court Justice I think she

36:35

once spoke about it because she said basically all of

36:37

my colleagues are all going and hanging out together all

36:39

the time and there is a whole thing, oh one

36:41

mustn't discuss work at the Garret but it is

36:43

a bit like the way that there was a big feminist backlash against

36:46

people going to strip clubs after work or golf

36:48

clubs and those being the kind of way where the lads

36:51

all did their deals together that that is very

36:53

exclusionary if you're the only woman in a male

36:55

dominated field. I don't know I've got

36:57

friends who aggressively don't care about this issue at all. That's

37:00

fair enough but I think in the Garret which

37:02

is he was meant to be an actors club

37:04

and the reason everyone writes about it rather than

37:07

whites or Beatles is because it's not full

37:09

of boring old judges it's full of supposedly glamorous

37:11

actors and that's meant to be the draw

37:13

and the funny thing is if you go in

37:15

and you look at the wall it's entirely

37:17

pictures of actresses who obviously aren't

37:19

allowed to be members. So

37:22

fabulous pictures of you know all the greats and

37:24

then oh no but they can't come in. How

37:26

weird, have you been there? I'm

37:29

always in there and

37:32

I go in with

37:34

Rupert Murdoch and we

37:36

talk about who we're going to marry next and

37:40

again you just couldn't do that if there were

37:42

women around. Just one piece of coverage of this

37:44

there was a in one of the gentleman's pieces

37:46

in The Guardian she was speaking to

37:48

one member of the clergy who was a member and said

37:50

to her the resistance is

37:53

crumbling it feels like 1989 when

37:55

Trunks started to be knocked out of the Berlin

37:57

Wall. wall

38:00

of like pastry and beef Wellington. I

38:04

know, it is. I'm going to find that women have

38:06

been deprived of their basic human rights and listened into

38:09

by the Starzy on the other side of the Carrick

38:11

Wall. What about my human

38:13

rights, you drink a great claret at

38:15

lunchtime? There is

38:17

a good bit of news is that they've

38:19

been looking at the legislation and the club

38:21

rules. It's not actually legally

38:23

but the club association rules and they

38:25

brought in Lord Panic. If

38:27

you remember he very successfully defended

38:30

Boris Johnson during Partygate. So,

38:32

good luck, Ned. And he's noticed that

38:38

in the original wording it's

38:40

the word he is continually used for a

38:43

member but this doesn't mean that he is

38:45

a man. He can apparently

38:47

now, Lord Panic has agreed with

38:49

Michael Belloff QC that he

38:51

can apply equally to men and women. Which

38:54

is sort of bringing us round full circle in terms

38:56

of segways right to where we began this conversation. I

39:00

remember doing feminist language theory all the way through

39:02

and it was always kind of like actually if we

39:04

just say the man the hunter, that's fine because that

39:06

actually means humans. So I think in a

39:08

way it's kind of all the brutal things to be brought

39:11

down and saying that he applies equally to everybody was

39:13

a very fashionable position if you were a reactionary

39:16

in the 1980s. So that's now going to screw them over

39:18

and let women in. It's

39:20

sort of poetic justice I think. I'm just thinking about

39:23

J.K. Rowling applying to become a member. Is

39:25

this going to make people's heads explode? I

39:29

think it is. You can just bore on

39:31

about your favourite headhunter. Nancy, you should be

39:33

very welcome. And

39:36

that's it for this episode of Page 94. Thank you

39:38

very much for listening. We'll be back again in a

39:40

fortnight with another one and if you would like to

39:42

drop a line about any of these things you can

39:45

get to us on podcast at private-i.co.uk We

39:48

welcome your questions, comments.

39:52

Please visit us at podcast.private-i.co.uk. We

39:54

love hearing from you. This episode as so

39:56

many of them are, was produced by Matt

39:58

Hill of Rethink Audio. Thanks for listening, bye

40:00

for now.