This does have mate. Well, >> the parallels between the Henry Novak killing and George Floyd are undeniable. The difference is this. Henry Novak actually was who the left pretended George Floyd out to be. If there had been a situation where a black kid was walking down the street and a white guy stabbed him to death and then the cops Handcuffed the black dude while he was bleeding out and sided with the white dude who had just stabbed him to death, I don't think Mark would be up here saying, "Let's not make this a race issue."
>> This is an opportunity for us to think about policing differently. Uh either reform or in my tradition abolition. >> Mark, when you say abolition, are you actually advocating for abolishing the police altogether? >> I am. Yes. Right now you have Nigel Fraud and he said the following. I suggest the rest of us respond to this with pure cold rape. I can't breathe. The chilling words of 18-year-old student Henry Novak as he lay dying in handcuffs, falsely accused of a racist attack by the man who just stabbed him as it turned out to death. The
v the video is harrowing, but it should be seen far and wide by as many people as possible. >> My head. >> Are you injured? >> Yeah. Hey, I've got swollen eye, little bruis. >> All right, just step back a little bit for me. >> Grab his other arm. >> Come running around the corner. >> What's happened to you? All right. >> You've been stabbed. Whereabouts? >> Don't think you have, mate. And then >> Well, the police officers didn't believe He'd been stabbed. One of them actually told him directly. They read him his rights and
cuffed his hands even as he lay dying. The officers did believe Vicram Diguar, Henry seek killer, who stayed at the scene of the murder he just committed to falsely accuse his dying victim of a racist assault. The parallels with George Floyd are clear, but it's not about martyrdom. It's about how society and culture responds to tragedy and outrage. Black Lives Matter Had global support to begin with, but unity in a crisis doesn't last for long. Facts change. People fight about the solutions. Fanatics in other camp used the public's passion to push fanatical ideas. And that's
how BLM mutated into an obsession with racism and identity handinhand with believing all victims and assuming guilt. That's how you end up with official guidance from police chiefs which says that officers should treat white people and minorities Differently. Our commitment to racial equity means producing equality of policing outcomes for people from different ethnic groups. says the equality of policing outcomes should be directly connected whether you commit of the crime and nothing else. It's hard to imagine that any of this language would exist without the postb climate of hysteria which led to branding everything from cricket
to the actual countryside as institutionally racist. But since this whole thing is about overcorrection about bad reactions to genuine outrage, we have to look at what's happened since. Henry's father said this. We do not want his death to be used to create further division, hatred or tension. We want his story to make our street safer for everyone. Well, Nigel Farage in a so-called emergency address then said this. Henry's family have responded to this in just the most Extraordinarily dignified way. But I suggest the rest of us respond to this with pure cold rage. All right,
on Q. There were violent protests and clashes with police in Southampton where the murder happened. Last night, Toby Robinson whipped them up with a speech talking about Pakistani Muslims who had nothing to do with his killing. Elon Musk has led the charge online as many US commentators are seized on this horror as proof that white people have Been victims all along. The truth is, the same people were the loudest critics of identity politics. The idea that characteristics like skin color should define everything and that one group inevitably abuses the other. the other can't see the
trap they're falling into or more likely they can and they're doing this for vengeance. We should all be insensed by Henry Novak's murder and demand it never happens again. But nothing ever gets better if you simply Repeat the same mistakes. Well, joining me in the studio for the first time actually is Michael Nolles, host of the Michael Null show. Michael, you're in England, you're in London, you're in my studio. It's a trifecta of joy. >> It's good to be with you, sir. Thank you for having me. really great to see you here to talk at
the Oxford Union amongst other things, but it's great to have you here particularly for what is going to be I think a very pertinent debate uh And I'll be very interested in your views on this. We're also joined by Mark Lamont Hill the host of Bet News by Majad Ali the author of the left hook newsletter and Dave Smith host of part of the problem. So a really top class panel for a really important debate here and and let me start with you Michael if I may about this because we all remember the George Floyd
uh horror and it was from my perspective. I wrote it this at the time I believe it now. He should Never have have died. It was a horrific thing to watch on video. Uh the reaction was enormous globally. Some felt it was an overreaction. uh others looked for fault in George Floyd, but ultimately I felt it was a police officer massively uh behaving in a way which should never have been tolerated and and indeed he's now incarcerated. Here we have again in the UK we have a uh at least one police officer but a group
of them were there But one who just not only refused to believe that Henry Novak had been stabbed but the police collectively bought into the killer's story that he had been the subject of racial abuse and that that was what was really going on here which turned out all to be complete nonsense. I don't want to read too much into this as some people want to people calling for civil war and the rest of it. I don't want to read too little into it. Michael, this to me was a horrific thing which is a stain
on the British police and I do think was a direct consequence of a lot of the fallout from the BLM uh period where I think a lot of institutions swung the pendulum too far the other way and began to make terrible miscalculations as we saw in this moment where their first thought was to believe a claim of racism which turned out to be untrue. What is your perspective on This? Well, the parallels between the Henry Novak killing and George Floyd are undeniable. They use the very same words, the very same dying words. I can't breathe.
The difference is this. Henry Novak actually was who the left pretended and tried to make George Floyd out to be. That was the big difference. You know, we can look at the killing of George Floyd and say it was very sad and it shouldn't have happened and this could have changed or that could have Changed. But the fact is the police were there because George Floyd had committed a crime. George Floyd ingested four times the lethal limit of fentinel. George Floyd then resisted arrest for minutes and minutes on end. And and so the use of
force by Derek Schovin was a use of force of last resort. In this case here, you have uh this poor guy Henry Novak who is bleeding to death on the ground. And the police actually are showing you a two-tiered system of Justice that actually is racially discriminatory. that is all of the things that we were told were going on with the George Floyd case. Uh the the difference is in in this case there was absolutely no explanation, no justification whatsoever. It was the police taking the side of a perpetrator over the victim, refusing to believe
the victim, I think pretty clearly on the basis of his race. Martin Lamont Hill, your response to that. >> Uh there are a few things that were said. So, one, uh, the police, uh, in the George Floyd case certainly used excessive force, and the force that they used wasn't a last resort. There were other measures they could have used, including not having their foot on his neck. Uh, even after he was subdued, they still used excessive force. I think that's sort of indisputable at this point. And yes, a crime was committed allegedly, but police are
often around When crimes are committed. You know, the the whole job of being a police officer is to manage circumstances and situations when crimes are committed. Uh and too often in this country and in your country, we see that when crimes are committed, police are an escalating force rather than a deescalating force. Uh I don't think this is a moment to say, "Hey, you know, the truth is white guys are the ones who are catching all the hell or non-black or brown people Are the ones catching all the hell when it comes to policing in
this ostensible two-tiered system of justice." I think a better way of thinking about it is this is an opportunity for us to think about policing differently. This is an opportunity for us to think about uh force differently and this is an opportunity to think about uh either reform or in my tradition abolition differently with regard to policing uh in the streets and policing in our Neighborhood. >> AB when you say abolition hang on hang on Mark when you say abolition are you actually advocating for abolishing the police altogether? I I am yes but I I
think it's more important >> you have no police force at all I >> that is what I'm saying and I'm offering alternatives to policing so it's not that we you know we fire all the police And let let the citizens run themselves. There are other mechanisms and and systems that we can install that would like public safety forces, like drug treatment forces, like uh violence interruption forces that would do the jobs that police are currently doing, but better prepare those forces to create safe environments and safe neighborhoods. But but I just want to finish the
the other thought before we get distracted by the abolition point Here. Um >> it's a pretty big point to the debate, I have to say. I mean, you know, I hear you, but >> it's just calmly distraction. Let's abolish the police. I mean, that's an extraordinary thing to say. >> Well, I I'm glad that you find it extraordinary, but it's no more of a distraction than pointing to George Floyd's alleged crimes when we're talking about an incident that happened All the way across the Atlantic. In both cases, we could focus just on this incident. And
that's what I'm just trying to do as I finish this last point. Uh, which is a very simple one. Uh, what happened here was awful. The police should be held accountable, but we shouldn't be see I don't want to see violence in the streets. I don't want to see people harmed. I just want to take this as an opportunity to figure out how we can handle this situation Differently. And that doesn't mean giving different outcomes to people based on whether they committed the crime or not. Even if I commit a crime, I still shouldn't be
beaten or shot or or or or stabbed. I shouldn't be choked out of my life. No matter what happens, I should still be given an opportunity to have a fair hearing, a fair trial and due process. And that's for everybody. I don't care what >> he was, Mark. I mean, I guess that's the Point. The reason there's a George Floyd parallel here is because of the claims of two-tier justice and racial discrimination and those very words, I can't breathe. And the re the distinction I'm pointing out here is in the case of George Floyd, he
was resisting arrest. The police didn't immediately go to putting their knee on his back or on his neck. They tried to subdue him and he was acting erratic. Perhaps in part because he'd ingested Four times the lethal dose of drugs. And in the case of Henry Novak, none of that occurred whatsoever. Henry Novak was bleeding out on the ground and he said, "I've been stabbed." The killer said he hasn't been stabbed. And the female cop says to the killer, "Yeah, I know, but I guess we have to check anyway, don't they?" I there there was
a two-tiered system here. There was racial discrimination. I guess I'm just pointing out that what happened to Henry Novak is the real version of what people pretended happened to George Floyd. >> Well, I mean I mean look, I I'll bring in Dave Smith here. I mean, Dave, my my opinion about both is that neither man should have died. Now, I will qualify that by saying that it from all the professional accounts, it is more likely than not that Henry Novak would have bled out anyway, whatever the police did. And it's important to to caveat the
debate, I think, with that knowledge That that was what was established in court. They all said, all the experts, that in that situation, it would be highly unlikely that he would have survived. However, what we've now seen on video in our own eyes, as we saw with George Floyd in a very different way, but we saw completely unnecessary, very prolonged kneeling on somebody's neck until he passed out and then died. To me, that's completely unacceptable, whatever the circumstances leading up to It. In relation to Henry Novak, we saw an unbelievably callous disregard for an 18-year-old
man who was literally dying in that moment on the ground. And they didn't not only not believe him, but they had immediately believed his killer who had invented this version of events which suited him based on race. And I think the line that can be drawn between the two is I do think that the hysteria that followed George Floyd's killing and I think that's an accurate word. Whether People agreed with the level of it or not, it was hysterical. I'd never seen anything quite like it around the world. led to rioting all over America. That
the direct line is surely that the pendulum that swung violently then against institutions to be more racially sensitive DEI programs and all the rest of it. I think there is a causal link here to the thinking of these police officers in the UK in the way they handled this Incident. And that is why I think there is a genuine link notwithstanding the deaths of two people. What What do you think? >> Um well, I guess I largely agree with what you're saying and I do think that in in the case of George Floyd, I I
think pretty clearly like and and Michael is right. There was a point where he was resisting, but by the time they had him down, he was subdued. There was no need to have their knee or leg on His neck for that long. And yes, I think it was a tragic situation. And I think that the cops were were, you know, did not handle that the right way. But to Michael's point, listen, if just say in the UK or in the United States of America, if there had been a situation where not a person who was
committing a crime, a low-level crime, and then had an incident with police after that, but just a black kid was walking down the street and a white guy stabbed him to Death. And then the cops handcuffed the black dude while he was bleeding out and sided with the white dude who had just stabbed him to death. I don't think Mark would be up here saying, "Let's not make this a race issue." And I think that's the thing that's a little bit frustrating for guys like me and Michael Nolles who agree on everything. My show my
show will be coming to the Daily Wire next month. Um uh but uh but look, the point is this. It's not only is it this Is how much it's a two-tiered system of justice that Michael didn't even mention. The Seikhs are the only ones who are allowed to carry these knives in public. You're telling me that your security agency, your government has actually disarmed its own? There is one group of people who's allowed to have this weaponry and one who's not. And by the way, Englishmen who are hangeremonial. >> It wasn't very ceremonial in this
case, Was it? >> Well, hang on, hang on. But just to be clear, >> but no, but you're making it seem as if six are allowed to have weapons and no one else is. And that's I'll bring you back in. That's literally the case. That's literally what the rule is. literally the case. >> Let me just explain what the >> I will tell you what the rule is. >> Mark, I will explain because actually It's my show last time I checked. So, if you just let me do the talking for a second, >> which is
that it it is an interesting case because actually it is allowed for Sikhs to carry ceremonial uh knives in this way in a way that it wouldn't be for me to do the same. Um, however, interestingly, it's pretty much the same rule in America is our understanding that you can do that as well. So we check the kurpan law in the USA. Carrying a kerpan is generally protected as an exercise of religion under the first amendment but is regulated by states and local knife laws and banned from federal facilities and airports. So there is a
slight caveat there. >> Yeah. But Pierce, we got something else that cancels out that problem, you know. >> Well, they call guns. Yeah. Yeah. But let's not get me going on your gun on your gun rules because we'll be here all Well, I just I'm just saying listen, I Don't want I know you're not going to agree with me on this, Pierce, but I would just my advice to all Englishmen is that you find it to be your religious belief that you have a right to a handgun in the face. Well, the other way to
do self-defense, well, the other way to do it is to is to go the way that France and Germany have gone where they have actually banned Seikhs from carrying the kerpin because they do think it it Creates a two-tier system in society, which I think is inarguable. The question is whether if you have it and Bianca Nobel who does uh history uncensored uh for me has done a very good explainer which will include as part of the show tonight about the history of the keran about the five ks that are part of the seek faith
and so on which is it's not irrelevant because the vast majority of seikhs of course wear the keran and never do this kind of Thing and in fact if you take the kerpan under British law out of its scabbard then in that moment it becomes a crime time. So, you can't actually take it out and brandish it or use it. It has to remain in its sheath. So, I think it it's complicated. It's not as simple as it seems. But, but it does create Dave uh as you uh just touched on, it does create a
two-tier system where if you're not a seek, you can't carry that knife in my country without breaking the law. But if you are, you can. And on Mr. case as was established in the court. This seek abused that right in the most grotesque manner possible and it turned out he had a fetish for knives. He had them all over his house. His family did. Um so you know this this is one of this appalling situations where he's he's completely abused the system and the trust put in that system and the seek community and his family
conceded that in their in their statement. Let me Bring in a jar hat here. Um, putting aside the issue of whether SEK should be allowed to carry the kerpin and that will be, you know, it wouldn't surprise me if the UK follows the path of of France and Germany and outlaws it so there is consistency with everyone in the country. It would seem to me to make sense to do that in light of what happened here. But the link the link between what happened with George Floyd and what happened with Henry Novak. Do You see
an issue here with JAT with the extraordinary fallout from what happened with George Floyd in making institutions reach a place in their heads where they start to calculate things in a way that is actually fundamentally flawed. So let me talk about the similarities and maybe there can be some uh commonalities here and we can unite. Number one, when there are victims who are saying I can't breathe, maybe the police and maybe the rest of us should Believe them. Uh that's what happened here where Henry Noak who was a young man. It's a it's brutal. It's
absolutely disgusting tragedy. And I don't see anyone here villainizing Henry Noak. I don't see anyone here valorizing or praising the police officer. That's the difference here in the United States of America that Michael Nolles's boss has tried to get a pardon for Derek Schovin, the convicted murderer of George Floyd. I don't see anyone here saying, you know What, this police officer, he did the right thing. I don't see anyone villainizing uh Henry Noak as they villainized George Floyd. But we could all probably agree on that the fact that I well some of us can agree
on that what happened in both those videos was tragic, disgusting, obscene. Uh secondly uh I think all of us are saying the same thing is that some of these police officers uh they should be held accountable for their actions. I believe There should be full investigation and this police officer should be questioned and asked why or why did you not believe a stabbed dying bleeding uh man? Why were the last words that he heard is I don't believe you mate that is horrific. Uh third and I think this is where we should listen to the
words of Henry's father. I want to quote him. Henry's father said, quote, "We want to use Henry's heartbreaking story to make change for the better. We do not want His death to create further division, hatred, or tension." I want people to sit with that for a second. This is Henry's father. They just buried their son who was killed in the most heinous way. And then the police, that one police officer, those two or three police officers did not believe him. He said, "Do not use and exploit and abuse his death to create division, hatred or
tension." That was the same thing that George Floyd's family said. Now, what's Happening right now in England? You know this peers, this is why I think this conversation is very dangerous. Right now, you have Nigel Faraj who listened to that and he said the following. I suggest the rest of us respond to this with pure cold rage. You know what's happening right now in Southampton? Tommy Robinson, that fraud. I think you and I agreed. Complete fraud. criminal, racist, complete clown. Uh he's sitting there encouraging his hooligans to go After Muslims. The killer is not a
Muslim. Now they're already in Southampton attacking police officers uh aggressively uh trying to protest against all innocent sick people even though it was one deranged sick man. Uh what happened two years ago, Pierce, and this is why I want us to lower the temperature. You know this probably Michael don't doesn't or Dave doesn't. Tommy Robinson uh who was in Cyprus vacationing this coward released false Information and blamed a young Muslim. It wasn't a Muslim killer. What happened is for the next month in 29 cities all these hooligans, all these white supremacists, all these people who
are fans of Nigel Fraud and Tommy Robinson, what did they do? Pierce ri. They beat up police officers, injured 300 police officers. They attacked all innocent brown and black folks. Uh there was looting and rioting. You see the same thing happening right now. So maybe we Should lower the temperature. Listen to Henry's father, not have I don't know, opportunists exploit this for their own agenda for rage bait. I know Daily Wire is dying right now. Maybe we can lead at the last rights if anyone here is Catholic. Uh good luck, Michael. Dave, I would recommend
not going to Daily Wire right now if you've seen uh the hemorrhaging of the money. But I digress. You do what you have to do. But maybe don't engage hate mongers. >> Don't engage in these hate mongers. And look at what happened two years ago. Pierce, you saw this happen two years ago. Let's lower the temperature. >> Well, the reason I I try to cut in was we we lost your sound as you explained what that was two years ago, which was uh an incident where an appalling incident where three young girls were killed by
a deranged uh maniac who initially the reporting was that he had come over illegally on one of the small Boats on the southern border of the UK. And that turned out to be completely untrue and and that fact led to a lot of the rioting and disinformation that was doing the rounds. just to explain what what we couldn't hear you saying. That's why I was I was trying to cut in, but we got you back for the for the rest of it. Um, yeah, I mean, Michael, Tommy Robinson's an interesting case on this because he's
got he's he's tied himself into quite a few knots with this story Already. I want to play what he said uh at the protest down in Southampton. Let's take a listen to this. >> I've spoke about this for 20 years. I said you'll be a victim of a race gang, i.e. Pakistani Muslims will be beating up a white kid. The police will turn up. They jump on the white kids. Every time I've seen IT MY WHOLE LIFE, THEY JUMP ON THE WHITE KIDS. WHAT THE whole world has now seen in Henry's video is what we
all know. Anyway, it's a different treatment For white people compared to non-whites. And we've seen this spread through every single institution in our country. >> Now, the start of that, which is just before that clip starts, he says, "I've spoken about this for 20 years. I've I said you'll be a victim of a race gang." and men says, "I.e. Pakistani Muslims we believe." Now, Pakistani Muslims had nothing to do with this, right? And this is a classic Tommy Robinson play where he tries to smear Muslims over something They have nothing to do with at all.
Everyone knows that. Um, and one of the reasons might be, and I'll play a second clip here. This is him talking about Sikhs several years ago. If we need immigration for our aging population to keep up with pensions, if that's the reason, then bring in Sikhs, bring in Hindus. Yeah. Bring in Filipinos, bring in people who will integrate, assimilate, and work. All the history of Luton Town, this is now an Islamic town. >> And if this were a seek town, would you have the same problem? >> I wouldn't have a problem, though. >> Tell me
why. >> No. Cuz the seek community integrate, assimilate, and they work very hard. There's no dominating gangs. They're not attacking our culture. In fact, they integrate and and they feel and they become British. >> Come to our event. Wait until you see The diversity of our crowd. You'll see many Sikhs, many Hindus, many Persians, many Jews, many blacks, many, many, many, many, many. >> Well, that may explain why he tried to turn the debate in the moment at the protest to Pakistani Muslims because he'd been so supportive of the SEK community. Uh he now says
those comments that we just played have been taken out of context as part of a [ __ ] narrative. And he says this >> now this is one rogue [ __ ] within the seek community. Think of all the rapes every week. Every week by members of the Islamic community not just that those quoting the Quran whilst committing acts of terrorism and jihad every week. >> Pretty extraordinary Michael. And this is my problem with Robinson is I think he's just a massive uh Muslim hating grifter. is that again what he's trying to frame there is
well it's a one-off Incident involving a seek because he knows he's on record defending the seek community rightly actually based on on what he said there but his desperation to try and bring his wider anti-Islam anti-Muslim rhetoric into this is laid bare once again and again they have nothing this had nothing to do with any Muslim this is problematic isn't it >> well nobody's ever accused Tommy Robinson of being an Islamophile and It's certainly the case that Muslims didn't have anything to do with the killing of Henry Novak. But the public response to that killing,
the reason that the killing is uh so notable politically, not merely at the level of human tragedy, does certainly involve Pakistani Muslims. Is anybody seriously going to argue that Pakistani Muslims have not been involved in lots of crime over the years, lots of stabbings and one of the other biggest political Issues in the country, namely the grooming gangs, which we will point out long predate the George Floyd uh riots and the George Floyd killing. And so in this way, I actually don't think that American wokeness, liberalism is totally responsible. >> You know what Tommy Robinson
never does? He never points out any violence by white people ever. by white Christians and yet the vast majority of crime in my country is still Committed by white people. Now this obviously the proportion of the population is much higher but actually he never ever I mean this idea for example that only a seek has stabbed somebody to death right what happened was appalling absolutely appalling but there will be a lot of knife crime up and down the country in the last week in in this country and I can pretty well guarantee the vast majority
will not have been committed by seikhs right but He will never ever talk about any crime crimes committed by white people. And that that to me is part of the problem here. That is what's creating a lot of the tensions is that he likes to create an impression that it's only the Pakistani Muslims committing all these crimes. So even when there's a crime committed by a seek against a white English young teenager, he has to immediately deflect back to Muslims and Islam. >> But well, Tommy Robinson doesn't talk about marginal tax rates either. I mean,
in defense of Tommy, what he's talking about, his chief political issue is migration and the Islamification of the United Kingdom. And that those are real political issues. Obviously, the British people care very much about it. They voted for the Brexit. They didn't get the Brexit, unfortunately. They didn't get much of what they voted for. >> Well, because the Brexit doesn't really Exist in the way that we were sold. I mean, that's the It's been 10 years, and the truth is Brexit was sold to the country by a bunch of snake oil salesmen. >> The Brexit,
obviously, the voters did not get what they wanted. And so the the reason that the the killing of Henry Novak has such political importance. I think this is the point we have to keep coming back to. It's not just because a lunatic seek stabbed a poor innocent White boy. Uh that's awful. I don't obviously that doesn't indict all seeks. I don't even know that that's an argument to to get rid of the ceremonial knife. The the reason that it has political import is because of the police response because what people saw was that the police
were always giving deference to migrants or children of migrants over uh white people. They were all they were siding with the criminal over the perpetrator. And we have seen That happen again and again and again. That's the story which predates George Floyd. That's why I bring up the grooming gangs is because the police looked the other way. There were so many reports of Pakistani grooming gangs who were abusing English girls. >> And that is true. I mean, Martin Lammon Hill, that is that is undeniably true. And so, whatever I think of Tommy Robinson, there's no
doubt he's been very vocal about the grooming gang Scandal, the rape scandal. Uh, and it involved almost exclusively Pakistani uh, British Pakistani Muslim men committing these heinous crimes against young white English girls. That was what that scandal was. And at every tier of the establishment, if you like, from very small, local up to uh the federal government, there was a consistent pattern of cover up, whether it involved law enforcement, politicians, uh local state officials or whatever. There was a Sustained period of covering this up going over many, many years. And that has why tensions in
my country are so inflamed. And it is undeniable that the scandal happened and the cover up happened. And so people like Tommy Robinson have entered a vacuum here where they can whip people up. My issue with what he's done here and the reason I played the clips is that he's tied himself into this ridiculous position where he's on record defending Sikhs and So to try and deflect he he goes back to Muslims again. But you know there's a lot of a lot of tension here which people like him are fermenting because it suits them. But
you can't deny that there isn't underlying that cause So again, you said you said a few a few things that I think are are worth responding to. Uh first, if there is a Pakistani Muslim grooming gang/candal going on, then it should be addressed and people should be held accountable. I Don't take issue with that. I think we can all agree on that. I think where we disagree, not necessarily you and I, you and I, but other people, is how that gets tied into this moment. It's the It's the opportunism of taking this moment and using
it to abuse or to beat up on or to scapegoat other groups. That's where I take issue. Uh I I think it's a sort of disingenuous uh analogy uh or comparison to say, well, he's not talking about marginal tax rates either. But if if his primary agenda were tax policy and he were talking about the reasons and the and the sources of tax revenue and he suddenly left out a big chunk, that would be an issue. Similarly, if you're talking about racial violence, if you're talking about racial unrest, if you're talking about all the things
that make the the racial landscape in the UK what it is, I think you have to be honest about all the things. It would be like if in the United States, I didn't talk about black people when I talk about crime or violence or poverty or these other things. And it isn't the whole story, but it has to be part of the story. And I think that it's a little odd to leave it out. Uh earlier, David said that I, you know, if the tables were turned somehow, I wouldn't be denying uh that race matters
here. Again, to be clear, I never said that race didn't matter here. What I'm suggesting here is that there Isn't a two-tiered system of justice where white people are on the wrong side of it. If, for example, the person in handcuffs bleeding out were a Jamaican immigrant or were a black American who'd come over or were West African migrant, I don't think that they would have been treated any differently. The issue here, as Piers pointed out at the beginning, was a level of deference to the claim made by the seek that something happened to him.
And I don't think that's the Worst thing. If somebody says, "Hey, I was I was just the the victim of a racial attack." I understand why police may even be more sensitive to that right now. But you have to listen to the person in handcuffs bleeding out. But I think we'd have to be living in bizar world to believe that if the person in handcuffs were black, they would have been trusted and listened to more. There is no history in any western country, whether it's the United States, whether It's Europe, I'm I'm not, but just
let me allow me to finish the point. There is no history in the history of policing where that shows that black suspects in handcuffs who are beaten up or bleeding out have been believed or trusted or shown extraordinary difference by law enforcement. I think the issue I think it's one thing to point out uh the the over uh in investment in the in the statement of the seat gentleman, but I don't think it's honest or realistic to Suggest that only a white guy would be ignored and neglected in handcuffs. There's just no there's no mark.
Okay, hypothetical here. The guy who's been stabbed five times and is bleeding out on the ground saying I can't breathe is a seek man. And the the guy who's claiming that he wasn't really stabbed and there was some racial incident is a white guy. Let's say the roles were exactly reversed. Not to go to some trit racial political nonsense, but I guess It's illustrative here. If you're if the roles were reversed in this situation, you seriously believe that the police would not have acted any differently. >> Uh I seriously believe in this counterfactual hypothetical that
you if the complainant >> Yeah. Yeah. Agreed. These are all I'm saying these all of them are. I'm not I'm not taking a high ground here. I'm just I'm just stipulating the same thing you are. If uh if the if the Complaintant is a white guy and the person in handcuffs bleeding out is black, there's a whole history in the United States and in the UK of this happening >> or seek in this case. See, in this case, in the UK, yes, I'm I'm accepting the terms of your of your hypothetical. I'm saying yes. I
don't believe the police operate any differently. Not because you got a bridge in London to sell you. Ridiculous. >> That's great. But but but allow me to tell you the reason why since you asked me. The reason is because I think that we have a problem with policing. I think uh we don't do thorough investigations. I think police are too reactionary. I think whether the person is black, white, red, or yellow, we don't respond properly. That's not to say that all races get treated the same. But I think there's a fundamental problem here. But again,
finally, there's no evidence that Black people get treated better by police. >> Let me bring in or brown people. >> Let me bring in the others. Yeah. You want to say that? >> Well, Pierce, yeah, I want to talk about double standards. I want to remind everyone what Henry's father said again. We do not want his death to create further division, hatred, or tension. Nigel Farage said, "I want us to respond with pure cold rage." Nigel Farage of Reform UK is, you use the word grifter, and I think that's a really good word, grifter, exploiters,
people like him and Toby Robinson using exploiting this heinous strategy to cause further division and hate. They're cosplay crusaders. They're wealthy men. They're not going to get their hands dirty. They're not there with the hooligans, but they're inciting this mob. Do you know what Nigel Farage said when there was a white cop in England, a Metropolitan police officer, his name was Wayne Kins? He kidnapped and murdered Sarah Everard. Do you know what Nigel Farage did when it was a white male cop who kidnapped and murdered a woman? He on his own released a fiveinute video
saying, "Hey, hey, hey, you can't blame all men and cops. Come on now. This was a one-off. It just happens to be one bad male cop. Don't blame all cops. Don't blame all men." That same Nigel Fraud the day that uh uh Henry's father said, "Do not use his death to create further division, hatred, or tension said, "Oh, cuz it's a brown killer. Respond with pure cold rage." And it's really not a oneoff. Watch out. That's why it's really interesting that Michael Nolles of the Failing Daily Wire, the world's smallest violin. Michael, good luck. You'll
land up, I'm sure. >> It's amazing. My paychecks keep coming in. The producers never seem to come True. We talked a lot. Go on, Wajhat. Yeah. >> Yeah. You said, you said this and I hope people play this clip. In defense of Tommy, you said in defense of Tommy Robinson, Tommy Robinson, fraudster, hooligan, thug, violent instigator. Do you know two years ago in Southampton when he incited this mob to go against all black people, brown people, immigrants, citizens, Muslims? Do you know that there were neo-Nazis there? Do You know there the white supremacists there? Do
you know that they beat up cops? And do you know whose name they were chanting, Michael? Tommy, Tommy, Tommy. So, you go ahead and defend Tommy Robinson and you go ahead and defend Nigel Far. I >> think I will. I think I'll defend both of them. Yeah. >> Please, please do. Good for it. And rage farm and maybe you can buy another Rolex Rolex D. Just maybe just one response, Piers, because you you bring up uh this point and you say it's it's outrageous. You know, Nigel claimed in this kind of extreme fringe case that
it was just a one-off and you can't blame all men and blame all cops. And so, what why not here? The reason why not here is because it is not a one-off for the police and the political authorities to give undue preference and deference to migrants and to children of migrants and to people on racial grounds. That's not a one. Well, That's the point I want to bring. All the data proves otherwise. Let me bring in exploiting this. Let me bring in Dave Smith. He'd been waiting with unusual fac. Let me let me bring in
Dave Smith and thank you for your >> They're just grifters. They're all race grifters. The the other point to all this, Dave, is something I touched on earlier, which is whether the fallout from the George Floyd uh incident and Killing, whether that has had a a bad effect on institutions in the way they now deal with incidents like we saw with Henry Novak. Now in the UK, the Independent Office for Police Conduct IOPC is now reviewing a 2025 guidance document. So last year from a national police chief's council which says its goal is producing equality
of policing outcomes. It doesn't mean treating everyone the same or being colorblind. Now police minister Sarah Jones says the Document gives the wrong impression. This particular document is a sort of values document. It's quite a short document. I don't think it forms a basis of training or police activity. It is an official MPCC document. Yes. And it's being reviewed. We think the language is wrong and gives the wrong impression. Now, the MPCC text reads, "Exactly. Our commitment to racial equality means producing equality of policing outcomes for people from different ethnic groups By responding to individuals
and communities according to their specific needs, circumstances, and experiences with understanding that these will be radicalized and with the uh sorry racialized and with the aim of reducing harm. It does not mean treating everyone the same or being colorblind brackets racial equality. Now they can say now that it's being misconstrued and taken the wrong way, whatever, but it is quite possible that this is filtered through Police forces up and down the country and that they've been effectively instructed not to treat everybody's the same, not to be colorblind, to be aware of people's racial ethnicity in
incidents like this. And that that is why they were moved in the moment to believe the seek when he came up with this nonsense story. Uh and why they didn't believe the white guy bleeding to death. I'm not saying that is what happened. But I'm saying it is a Possibility given this guidance and that the guidance wouldn't have existed, I don't think, without the George Floyd fallout. Hence the line that I think is quite possible to be drawn. >> Yeah. Well, I mean, look, uh, Pierce, you know, if you just since you bring up the
George Floyd fallout, I mean, what you're talking about were like the worst riots of my lifetime, billions of dollars in in property damage. There were dozens of people who were murdered In the George Floyd riots, and there were hundreds of vicious assaults and just terrorized civilians all around this country. And largely what the police did was stand down and allow it to happen. Now, there were, of course, cuz the police always give you the worst of both worlds. There were also some examples where they threw, you know, uh, smoke grenades into crowds of peaceful protesters,
but they didn't stop the actual violent rioters. And look, again, As we were talking about before, no one, certainly not me or Michael on this panel are saying that this is indicative that it's all seen like this. But again, look at the facts on the ground. You have one class of people who are allowed to carry this weapon on them. You have another class of people who are totally disarmed and not allowed them to defend themselves. And in the moment when there's an accusation of of bigotry, that's enough To get everybody to freeze and go,
"Ooh, we better heir on the side of not being the bigots because they know, as we've learned over the last 15 years, that that's what's going to get your face in the paper. That's what's going to go super viral. That's what will actually lead to violent riots and things along that nature. And you know, to your point, Pierce, as everyone should know this already by now, but as soon as you start thinking of equality of outcomes, You're an enemy of justice because there's no such thing as collectivism and justice. If you're thinking at all in
any part of your mind as a function of police work that the overall result of this has to be that different groups end up being prosecuted in the same way. The only thing you should be thinking about is the justice in the immediate short run. And there's absolutely egalitarianism is just such a revolt against nature, a revolt against common Sense. The idea that every single group should end up at the same end goal is ridiculous. It's like expecting it's like running a race. It's like, no, one second. >> White supremacy is better, right? Hold on.
>> Fascism is better, right? I don't think I don't think Dave saying that. Let me just get my last finish point. Let him finish his point. Finish the sentence. It's like running a Race with the expectation that everyone will finish at the exact same time. That's not how human beings work. We end up in different places. But I think the problem and Mark Lamont Hill just I want to move on to something else before we finish. But when when the police are giving out official guidance from their authorities that it does not mean treating everyone
the same. I'm sorry, but as someone you know who lives in the UK, I'm appalled that any of the police Forces in my country would be led to think that we don't treat everyone the same. that the starting point for justice at any level should be that everybody is treated the same surely. >> So my response to that uh first is that the expectation from those of us who've been doing this work as activists as organizers is to have the same outcome not in uh judicial decisions not in terms of jury verdicts but in terms
of treatment meaning that every single one >> is treated the same. >> You would agree? >> So appears two statements were made. one by statement. Uh, Pierce, two things were said. One by David, one by you. I'm addressing David's point first and then I'm going to respond to yours. I'll do them both in 20 seconds. The the the outcome um of the outcome that David were talking about isn't that everyone ends up the same. Obviously, if I commit a crime and you don't or vice versa, we Shouldn't have the same outcome. But if we commit
the same crime, we should get the same sentence. We should have the same due process. We should be arrested in the same manner, etc., etc. That's what we're talking about. So, the idea here is not that we all run a race and in cross the finish line at the same time. It's that it's that we all get timed by the same stopwatch. It peers to your point. I think everyone should be treated equally. Uh we do have to Consider context though. For example, if I live in a city where there are a lot of anti-semitic
hate crimes, I expect to see a more a heavier police force in the Jewish neighborhood than the neighborhood than the neighborhood where there aren't a lot of hate crimes happening. For that, as an example, that's not treating everybody the same. Treating by everybody the same literally would mean every neighborhood gets the exact same. But that line, I mean, I Would say I would say they could go a long way to solving a lot of the problems around this case if rather than saying it does not mean treating everyone the same or being colorblind, they revise
that to say it does mean treating everyone the same and not being color blind. Right? In other words, you should treat everyone the same, whatever their color is. >> But people aren't treated the same. >> No, but they should be. We should all Agree. that we should all agree, but they're not. >> We agree. We agree. They should be. Exactly. They should be, but historically they aren't. That's the problem. >> But if you But if that's the problem, if that's the problem, then your comment would be that there shouldn't be obstacles in people's way or
people shouldn't be treated different. You wouldn't make a comment about outcomes. Outcomes means that no matter what happened in between there, we want them finishing in the same place. And I'm sorry, but some groups are more criminal than other groups. Dave, David, David, David, you first you you ignored you you ignored the point that I made which was again the issue here is not outcomes irrespective of how people behave. The issue here is outcome in terms of how they are treated in the system. I literally responded what an Outcome is a moment what an outcome
is. I heard you no David David no David David that's not that's not true. I was part of the plan I was part of the organizing committee for the planning document. We were very specific in talking about outcomes in terms of uh uh how how people perceive uh the the process of going through the criminal justice system, how people perceive or are are factually treated with regard to access to a lawyer. These Are the things we're talking about. Outcome doesn't just mean the disposition of a criminal case. That's not what we were talking about when
we organized the document. I'm literally telling you it's not >> okay. But then there are multiple outcomes when you organize there are multiple you there are mult let me finish my thought like you as me let you finish the thought. There are multiple outcomes that we're talking about. You're taking one specific idea of outcome and making that a straw man. I'm telling you that the thing you're talking about, I agree with you. No one should get a different outcome in in terms of criminal prosecution or arrest based on whether they're black or not. If I
commit a crime, I should have the same outcome as you irrespective of what your race is. We agree. So, we don't have to argue about that silly. SHOULDN'T WE HAVE TO ARGUE about that Silly point? I'm talking about something different. >> Mark, just to come back to this. If there is official guidance that says it does not mean treating everyone the same or being colorblind, surely actually in the system that ultimately we would all like to see, we would treat everybody the same and we would indeed be colorblind. If those two things happened and genuinely
happened, that would actually be racial equality utopia Because nobody would be adversely judged according to their skin color and everyone would be treated the same. Now, I don't for a moment suggest that is what's been happening, right? I don't. And we see and and this we're seeing with George Floyd, we saw it one way with uh with Henry, we're seeing it another way. But actually ultimately if the new guidance just reversed that statement then we might go some way to getting somewhere. >> No. >> Well I know you don't think so but anyway look the
statement is in response to the realities on the ground. That's all I'm saying. The statement is in response but it's funny because the right way when it comes to racial profiling when it comes to racial profiling the right is always like wait a minute the black people are committing all the crimes. Why don't we put the police there? Why don't we search the Black people? They say let's not be color blind. Let's acknowledge who's doing the crimes. And yet somehow now we want to be color blind. >> Okay, let's move. >> It's a double standard.
It's a grift. And just listen to Henry's father. I want to say it again. Listen to Henry's. Anyone who's working in the UK, anyone who's watching in the UK, notice the people who are exploiting this for racial divisions and then look what Happened two years ago. Did it make your life better when there were riots? Did it make it help your quality of life? >> We should we should play back to what you two guys were saying during the summer of 2020. Can anyone on the internet find like a besta compilation of what you guys
did in the wake of George Floyd? >> And I want people to play back what Dave just said who's against egalitarian and Michael who's in favor in defending Tommy Robinson. Let's play. >> Okay. I want to very quickly move on to to Trump calling Benjamin Netanyahu [ __ ] crazy because I think we can't ignore that little bombshell that dropped this week. Uh Michael Nolles um some extraordinary stuff where Axios reported that Trump lost his temper with Netanyahu over specifically Israel's escalation in Lebanon and reportedly said to him, "You're [ __ ] crazy. You'd be
in prison if it wasn't for me. I'm saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this." Now, uh with sort of chilling predictability, sources in uh from the Israeli government immediately said this was all complete fiction. And then today we had Donald Trump saying this >> said, "Are you effing crazy? What are you effing doing? Um uh I helped you stay out of jail." Is that true? Did you speak to him in those terms? >> I did. I I wouldn't say angry. I was a Little bit perturbed at his uh constantly
fighting with Lebanon. there we actually heard from the president of the United States own mouth that in fact it was true which was hardly surprising because clearly it'd have been briefed to Axios from probably Trump. Um but but I notwithstanding that it was interest it was quite interesting to me that Israel's first response from the government was to try and dismiss it all as a bag of lies until Trump just Ignored that and said it's all true. Um, but there's a wider point here, of course, which is this increasing flash point about Iran and the
fallout and about what Israel is doing in Lebanon at the same time. And I want to play you a clip from this show, Michael Nolles, a few weeks ago. I'm not freaking out until week six. He said it would take five weeks. I'm going to freak out on week six. I don't care how my oil futures are doing. Uh, he has A very good record. He's the only president in the last quarter century on whose watch Vladimir Putin hasn't invaded a country. His attack on Iran over the summer was excellent. His decapitation of Venezuela took
88 minutes. He dropped the MOAB. He killed Sulammani. He's just done very, very well on foreign policy, which is why for now I say let him cook. However, >> well, we've let him cook now for 13 weeks. You said you would be freaking Out at week six. You're showing remarkable calm, Michael Nolles, for a man who ought to be hyperventilating now given what an absolute quagmire of a mess it actually is. Do you accept now that my own view about this from early on, including in that debate, which was this was heading into just a
gigantic mess with no easy endgame or win, was probably more accurate. >> Pierce, don't you know this is my freaking out? I have very low blood Pressure. I keep my cool all the time. But what's funny is from the beginning before the war started on the very day we were broadcasting the day that the war began and consistently ever since then I have not changed my view one bit which is that had I been on the NSC nobody invited me I would have made the arguments against the war not because I don't think the Iran
regime has it coming not because I don't think it could be in America's strategic interest To change things in Iran but because I didn't think there was a reasonable probability of regime change there maybe we can set back the nuclear program I guess that's a worthy goal but from the standpoint of proportionality. I didn't know that the goods to be achieved in a major war in Iran were really worth the costs. That was my position before at the time of the strike and afterward. Now, President Trump would say the war did only go on for
6 weeks and we've now Been in a ceasefire ever since then, which Roinger straight of hormuz but but my analysis of the situation remains exactly the same. >> You know, the the the issue here is if you go all the way and you push for regime change, one it might not work. two, it might get uh it might might end up being worse than it was before. And three, there's absolutely no political appetite for it whatsoever. And then the only other alternative is a deal that Probably people are going to be unsatisfied with. But from
the beginning, I've pushed for the deal. I just don't see how a major regime change war is going to work here. And so what you're seeing with President Trump and Netanyahu where you say, is did he really? Did he not? It's helpful to the White House for that news to get out. Then the Israelis downplay it. So now I kind of believe the White House and but then Trump admits it. And so what is it Really? Even that situation hasn't changed which is the US and Israeli interests have diverged at this point on Iran. Israel
does not want an end to the war. Israel wants regime change. Iran is a greater threat to Israel than to the United States. Israel's support is collapsing in the United States, even among Republicans. So the I think the Israelis are looking at this as the last chance to really give them hell in Iran. And if I were the Israeli prime Minister, I wouldn't want a peace deal either. But if I'm the American president, I want a peace deal. I think that's probably the best case for the American interest given where we are right now. That's
going to irritate the Israelis. They're allies. Our interests align a lot of the time here. I think they're diverging and that's why you're seeing these two men yelling each other. >> But I mean, >> I think that's the important part of the Story. >> Well, well, hang on. Well, Ja, the I would say the the likelihood is that Donald Trump will get out of this war sooner rather than later because of the catastrophic political damage is causing not just to him personally, but to the Republicans. They got the midterms coming and so on. What's very
hard to see is how he's going to claim any kind of pirick victory if the Iranian regime remains in place as seems very likely With the Ayatollah's son replacing his his uh killed father. You have the IRGC clearly still in a firm grip on the country. No popular uprising at all of the kind that Netanyahu had promised Trump would happen if they decapitated the the leadership. And the Iranians, even worse perhaps than any of this, is despite suffering a lot of damage to their military uh capacity, which is undeniable, uh they have managed to turn
the straight of Hormoose into perhaps The most powerful weapon of all. And they've been holding the entire world over an economic barrel where 20% of the world's energy goes through, including fertilizer, gas, and oil. Uh and every time anyone tries to put more pressure on them, they fire off some rockets at their Gulf State neighbors which causes them untold havoc and economic damage as well. Um I don't see how this ends well for President Trump and I caution that from day one. And I fear that he's going To have to get out of this in
a way which if you compare it to say the Obama deal that he's always ridiculed it's going to end up being uh I would imagine something that's very hard to deny will be an ignominious retreat and failure. >> As a result of Donald Trump's failed war of choice uh we have replaced and killed the older dying Sulaman uh Kamei with a younger more radicalized Kamedi. Straight of Hormuz was open, now it's closed. Uh 12 uh servicemen have died. Thousands of Iranians and Lebanese have been killed. Our Gulf allies now are retreating and seeking uh new
alliances. Our bases are under attack. The price of gas has gone up to 450 and according to the Trump administration, it's going to keep going up till 2027. Some people might say go up to five or six bucks. The price of groceries, which was already up due to Trump's failed war, a trade war of choice, is going to keep going up. He betrayed his base and said No forever wars. Now he has this unwininnable quagmire. He's it's he can't win. Also, United States looks weaker because United States with the world's greatest military might cannot force
Iran to open up the straight of hormones. So then he goes between with his tail tuck between his legs to China to get it to open up. And China said nope. He has his allies try to open up. They say nope. He already has a black eye. He's lost. This is the only way Out. The only way out is for Donald Trump to say I made a mistake. I'm the only president in the past 47 years, no Republican president, no Democratic president was dumb and reckless and stupid enough to follow Israel in this quagmire. Donald
Trump was the only person who chose to do it. And as we know from New York Times reporting, even the people around him, Marco Rubio, Coats, JD Vance, said this was a mistake. But Benjamin Netanyahu came in And buttered him up and Donald Trump said, "Okay, Benjamin Netanyah, do what you want." And then you had wararm mongers and Zionist fanatics and war hawks like Ben Shapiro who went all in for this war. And I'm gonna say this because I just listened to what Michael said. There's a great line from Born Identity. Look at what they
make you give. Young conservatives. Look at look at Michael right now. Look at what they make you give for the sake of his boss Ben Shapiro. He still goes allin on this failed war. World's smallest violin playing for the Daily. >> Hold on. I still go all in on this failed war. It's it's very interesting why you jiat because it seems you really want to debate my friend Ben Shapiro and I don't know if he'll have you on. I don't know if he knows who you are. So maybe not. But in any case, the thing
that I said >> well I would love I would love I would Love to have my old friend Shapiro. Unfortunately, he hasn't talked to me for a year and a half since I began to be critical of Israeli government. Um maybe you could put a word in for me and see what >> I'll give him your number pier. I I'll pass. >> No, no. I've tried texting him. He used to reply all the time. But ever since I began to criticize the Israeli government, there was a complete Drawbridge between Ben and I said this before
too many times as a guy as a guy who who prize himself as being the king of free speech and I don't think it's fair to judge Michael here by any issues with Benjamin. But I do think it's interesting to me that that he would do that to someone like me when I'd always got on well with him. But also that he's gone very quiet recently about this war. Well, Pers, if it makes you feel better, Ben has been not texting me back for Long before I criticize the Israeli government. So, I I got I
got years on you on that. Wat's making a point though that's totally ridiculous. He's saying, "I'm all in on the war when I've said before, during and and after or in in the present moment that I was very skeptical of the war. I would have argued against the war. I didn't think that you had a reasonable probability of regime change and so I would argue for restraint." Now, I don't know what Wajihat's point is about saying this is entirely about Israel. It's obviously not entirely about Israel. line though, Michael, where you say if for now
I say let him cook, can we all agree that perhaps the meal uh hasn't come out of the oven very satisfactory? >> Now we're just waiting for dessert. I I hope I hope there's a cherry on top of this Sunday, but I agree with you. It's very hard. >> Let me give the other two guys a chance To cover this. Just just quickly if you if you may Dave Smith we've talked about this a lot but you know this whole splinter now between Trump and Netanyahu I think was entirely predictable because as Michael said they
have they have parallel objectives here. I don't think that the Israelis want to have any sort of peace deal with Iran that leaves the regime in place or leaves them with their we haven't even touched on enriched uranium. None of that has been Voluntarily handed over and it's not going to be. Why would they? They've got all the leverage to quote somebody uh in the White House Oval Office. They got all the cards. >> They got all the cards. Um and there's an irony there's an irony to that because militarily, Dave, it's inarguable. The Americans
and Israelis militarily have caused a lot of damage to to the Iranian military, but they haven't won the asymmetric war, which Has turned out to be more important. >> No, they've they've been destroyed in the asymmetric war. not only haven't won it, it's this is going this is going to go down as one of the biggest defeats in US military history. And it's it's different than even our previous defeats where essentially we just got into prolonged conflicts, but okay, we can't really overthrow the Vietkong or we can't really overthrow the Taliban and so eventually we
leave. This is going to Be different where we're going to transform Iran into a global power. Let me just be clear here. I don't believe the Axios reporting and I don't think other people should too. If you check Axios's track record throughout this war, it's just been a ridiculous, the most cartoonish version of a mouthpiece for the administration. In fact, Pierce, as you recall, it was way back last Thursday that they reported that the deal's been finished and is just Awaiting President Trump's certain members of Axios have a direct line to the president whose own
view about what's going on depending on what hour of the day it is, can change quite dramatically from we're about to launch Armageddon on Iran to we're getting on famously with Hisbala. There's a lot lot of. I don't believe I don't believe any of this. But even if it is true, I mean, come on, dude. Donald Trump launched this war with the Israelis back last Summer and the same exact thing happened when he wanted the offramp. They start, you know, bombing the crap out of Iran. That was the famous time when he said all of
them don't know what the [ __ ] they're doing out there. So the listen, the bottom line here, Pier says, none of you guys are condemning this in strong enough language. This was the most [ __ ] decision a president has ever made in my lifetime. In 2026, after the entire failed global war on terrorism, You're going to say that's what America needs? Another regime change unwinable war in the Middle East. I mean, come on. We had national consensus that that was the last thing we wanted. And Trump was the candidate who ran on the
explicit promise of no more of these wars. >> Unfortunately, Michael, I can't get you back in. I've got to give I've got to give uh Mark a final very quick uh say about this just to finish things off. Mark, >> well while I wouldn't share David's use of the rword there, I I I I do share his repudiation of of this war. I I think that it's obvious that this isn't just as opposed to what the media is representing. This isn't just a failed bromance between Netanyahu and Trump. This is, as Michael said, a divergence
in US interests and in Israeli interests that I hope will finally finally after since the beginning of the Kennedy administration, finally get the United States out of it, out of this bizarre, unhealthy, unhelpful, disastrous, and unethical relationship with the state of Israel. Israel and particularly Benjamin Netanyahu as he as he aligns more and more with the far right like it Bengavir and others, he has an investment in a doctrine of permanent war. He needs Israel to be in a permanent state of war for his own interest to advance and which is what Trump was saying
in terms of saying I want to keep him out of Prison. Yeah. So Israel's interest is to keep fighting. The US is isn't is uh and so we have to separate here. We have to let it go. >> What is clear is that polling all suggests that Israel is getting more and more globally unpopular not least in America. And that is a heartbreaking situation as they should >> for Israel and for Israelis apart that this is happening because of the actions of their of their leader and their Government. And every time I now see Ben
Smodri open their mouths, they make Israel more globally unpopular. And you know how they are still members of a government in Israel is completely utterly beyond me. They are complete psychopaths. And so, you know, anyone who thinks otherwise is it prefers to side with psychopaths as far as I'm concerned. Um, anyway, uh, we got to leave it there. Thank you very much indeed for an excellent panel. Uh, that The right of seek people in Britain to legally carry a ceremonial dagger is now under review. The history of why they do it and why they're allowed
to do it. It's a fascinating story which is about to become a divisive debate. Bianca Nomo, host of history uncensored, explains how we got here. Henry Novak's killer, Vicram Digua, was carrying two blades. A small traditional kurpan, the seek article of faith, concealed under his clothing, and a Second much larger 21 cm dagger, so 8 in worn openly. And it was that second blade, the external one, the larger one that killed Henry Novak. So the word kurpan comes from two words in Punjabi. Karpa meaning grace or mercy and an meaning honor or defense. It's translated
differently. It's not a knife in an ordinary sense. It's one of the five articles of faith. The five Ks that every initiated seek is required to wear at all times. So others include kesh, Uncut hair, car, a steel bracelet. And they're not optional. They're obligations of faith commanded by Gurugo Gobin Singh in 1699 when he founded the collective of initiated seikhs. Now the kuripan is typically a curved single edge blade usually between 3 to 6 in long worn in a wooden sheath on a strap called a gatra most often under clothing and the seek code
of conduct prescribes no fixed length for that blade. Now the UK seek federation says the kurpan Symbolizes dignity courage a solemn duty to protect the vulnerable and stand against injustice. So seek organizations in the UK have been emphatic that any blade carried with violent intent or used offensively ceases by definition in their view to be a kurpan at all. So in seek tradition the 17th century was marked by conflict with Mughal power and the persecution of religious freedom. There was this guru guru te bhador the ninth guru who was executed on the Orders of a
mughal emperor in 1675 and he's revered by seikhs for sacrificing his life to defend freedom of conscience. So his son guru goens singh later founded the kalsa in 1699 the community of initiated seeks whose visible articles of faith included the kerpan. So that embodied the duty to defend the vulnerable, protect the freedoms of others when power is being used against them. And obviously sacred blades exist in Buddhism, Hinduism, Other faiths as well. And they often represent protection, justice, the cutting away of evil, a duty to defend the innocent. Now the only knife that you can
carry in the UK without any justification at all is a folding non-locking pocketk knife with a blade of 3 in. So that's 6.7 cm or less than that. Anything beyond that requires a lawful excuse. So that could include carrying a blade for work. If you're a carpenter or a chef, national costume, For example, you can carry a Scottish scandu, a small knife traditionally put in a guy's stocking as part of Highland dress or for religious reasons. And that religious defense for possessing seek ceremonial blades existed under the criminal justice act of 1988. Then the offensive
weapons act of 2019 clarified and extended protections around possessing and ceremonial supply of certain larger seek swords. Obviously some swords like ninja swords straight Blades between 14 and 24 in are banned. So in Henry Novak's case the court heard that digua belong to the nihang tradition in which some seeks carry a second visible blade. So the judge said it was possible that Digua had a legal reason for possessing the larger dagger when he encountered Henry, but that any pro protection ended when he drew it and attacked an unarmed 18-year-old. Hence why Dra was convicted not
only of murder, but of possessing the bladed Article in public. Now, I've done martial arts weapons training for over 14 years in the UK. And under UK law, I can legally transport to and from a licensed club swords like a katana or weapons like nunchucks as long as the travel is direct, the weapon is not visible, and the purpose is training or reenactment. But the law doesn't permit me to carry any of those swords for display or self-defense. And I say that because it underscores That as the religious defense does that when it comes to
many blades in the UK, it's the purpose and the context that determine the legality and not the blade itself. Persensed is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask for only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcast. And in return, we will continue our mission to Inform, irritate, and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent, uncensored media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.
