Stabbed we be stabbed in the neck. We will be asking crime and asking how knife crime and indeed crime broadly indeed crime more broadly became out of control across britains cities. Now cities. The girl up until now only owing only known as street, owing to draconian sadiq restrictions. Sadiq shah thermalis after thermalis died last week after a failed battle to pursue potentially life saving treatment. And finally, the courts have allowed her to be named to tell its named and her family to tell its story. Well from story. And well be hearing from her shortly. Her brother shortly. And finally, as the westminster bubble with bubble lost touch with rural britain, one seems to bubble lost touch with rural britai so. One seems to bubble lost touch with rural britai so. New e seems to bubble lost touch with rural britai so. New politicaleems to bubble lost touch with rural britai so. New political party. O think so. A new political party. Rural reaction. Ian has been set up give up to combat eco wokery and give a to britains forgotten a voice to britains forgotten farmers amidst the countryside amidst the increasingly metropolitan countryside amidst the increas political tropolitan countryside amidst the increas political sphere,in countryside amidst the increas political sphere, state centric political sphere, state of starts its now. Of the nation starts its now. You know i want to hear from you. Its a crucial part of the programme. Email me mail gbnews. Com. But now its time for the news of the day with polly. Jacob thank polly middlehurst. Jacob thank you and good evening to you. Well, we can bring you some more details about whats happening the netherlands more details about whats hap|afternoon. He netherlands more details about whats hap|afternoon. Wedetherlands more details about whats hap|afternoon. We heard. Ands more details about whats hap|afternoon. We heard earlier more details about whats ha|theredoon. We heard earlier more details about whats ha|theredoon. Ya heard earlier more details about whats ha|theredoon. Va shooting. � lier on thered been a shooting. Well, from well, were now getting from Police People police that three people are confirmed to have lost their lives following a double shooting in the dutch port city of rotterdam. Those people are a 39 year old woman and her 14 year old daughter. They were killed in the first shooting that took place in the second shooting. A 46 year old male lecturer was shot dead. That took place on a University Campus at the erasmus medical centre. Police confirmed a 32 centre. Police confirmed a 32 year old male was arrested and at the scene shortly after the building went into lockdown and staff were instructed to leave. Dutch police saying the suspect was a student at the university where crews were also battling fires shortly after the shooting made this afternoon. We had to shooting incidents, one of them in a house where two people were injured. The shooter then continued to a classroom erasmus a classroom at erasmus university. Someone university. He also shot someone there. We dont know who that victim was in the classroom, but what we do know is that the person we arrested is a 32 year old man from rotterdam. Old man from rotterdam. News here at home, well, it news here at home, the family of a 15 Year Old Girl stabbed on her way to school has visited the scene where she died as crowds joined a vigil nearby. She ltn arade dam was attacked while she was on her way to school yesterday morning in croydon. A 17 year old boy who police say knew the victim remains in custody after being arrested yesterday morning. A arrested yesterday morning. A statement has been read out by a Church Leader on behalf of the family at the edge of the crime scene. Scene. As the family are struggling to comprehend this painful tragedy that has happened to our beautiful daughter and beloved sister, ellen , our hearts are sister, ellen, our hearts are broken and we are ovennhelmed by sorrow and grief. Sorrow and grief. Sir Michael Gambon has been remembered as a magnificent trickster and the loveliest of legends. Following his death at the age of 82, the dublin born star of the stage and screen who won four tv baftas , died won four tv baftas, died peacefully in hospital last night after a bout of pneumonia. Hes best known for playing hogwarts headmaster, of course, dumbledore in a number of the potter films, as well as being one of the original members of the Royal National theatre alongside guide laurence olivier. His family say he was a beloved husband and father. And beloved husband and father. And just lastly, a 16 year old boy has been arrested after one of the most photographed trees in the most photographed trees in the uk was suddenly cut down the tree at sycamore gap next to Hadrians Wall and close to northumberland was made famous in the 1991 film robin hood. The in the 1991 film robin hood. The National Trust says its shocked and saddened to see the iconic tree on the floor. This is gb news across the uk on tv, in your car, on your Digital Radio and now on your Smart Speaker by saying play gb news. This is britains news channel. Britains news channel. All right. Do not come from the un, the unhcr, the eu, the ecj, the echr or any other bunch of acronyms unelected, unaccountable and overreaching International Body or treaty. Our rights come from our history. Interestingly even the authors of magna carta maintained it was a confirmation of rights rights, supposedly granted by edward the confessor. And thats why the home secretary is right to raise the prospect of withdrawing from the European Convention of human rights as a means of reminding the court that it operates by consent, not divine right. Very interestingly , the former interestingly, the former Supreme Court justice, Jonathan Sumption, has pointed out in his new support for leaving the convention open that many of the rights that it upholds existed in british law long before we signed the convention, he wrote in the spectator today, there is nothing in it. The echr that we cannot enact by ordinary domestic legislation. We can have whatever rights we want if there is a sufficient democratic mandate for them. The real purpose of the convention is to make us accept rights which we may not want. And for which there may be no democratic mandate. Well if being part of the echr means we cannot secure our borders , then there is no our borders, then there is no democratic mandate for such a level of interference. As lord level of interference. As lord sumption goes on to say , its sumption goes on to say, its clear we can replace the convention with a domestic bill of rights. Indeed, the whole of rights. Indeed, the whole nofion of rights. Indeed, the whole notion of rights even predates the magna carta. In 1215, the magna carta. In 1215, william the conqueror, in his coronation oath , promised to coronation oath, promised to maintain historic rights. The antics city of our liberties is quite extraordinary and indeed, unlike any other country and many other countries , including many other countries, including notably the united states, have built their own rights, their own freedoms, their own democracy, their own rule of law on ours. And it is much better for our rights to come from our history than to be misconstrued by a foreign and unaccountable court. Right. By a foreign and unaccountable court. Right. And this is crucial because the court has consistently demonstrated that it will seek to expand its powers and scope well beyond those that we intended to give it when we signed the convention. So in 1978, strasbourg introduced its method of judicial interpretation known as the living instrument doctrine , in which it claims the doctrine, in which it claims the right to develop the convention to recognise new rights that werent set out in the original document, but that, as the judges put it, are in the spirit of the convention. But this not only has no democratic mandate, its purely existing in the minds of the judges , as its not minds of the judges, as its not something that has any support or any basis in any document that this government, this country has agreed to. And its expanded the jurisdiction of the court. So now medals in matters from immigration to environment law to noise abatement that are perfectly well controlled domestically and where domestic law is more appropriate is the right sphere. And thats why the right sphere. And thats why the home secretary is wise to remind the court that we could withdraw from the convention if it wont let us secure our borders. As of let us secure our borders. As of course, i want to hear from you. Dont forget, let me know your thoughts. If you know thoughts. And if you dont know the now, i will tell the email by now, i will tell you once its mail. You once again, its mail. Margaret but im margaret gbnews. Com. But im very pleased to be joined by the immigration discuss immigration lawyer to discuss this. Ivan, thank this. Ivan sampson. Ivan, thank you for coming in. A pleasure. What Jonathan Sumption says is just a statement of british constitutional theory, isnt it . That the supremacy of parliament means that parliament can pass a law, incorporate our rights at any point . It doesnt any point . It doesnt necessarily need a convention . Well, parliament did exactly that in 2000, as you well know, the human rights act was enacted and parliament decided that the human rights act, with the rights protected was what parliament wanted. So though parliament did decide and did enact that act and it was Parliament Sovereignty that brought that law into into force, absolutely. But the human rights act is a very interesting act of parliament because it doesnt give judgements parliament because it doesnt gitthe judgements parliament because it doesnt gitthe court dgements parliament because it doesnt gitthe court orements parliament because it doesnt gitthe court or indeed of the European Court or indeed to judgements of our own Supreme Court. It can only issue a certificate of incompatibility and then parliament would decide whether or not to go further and so on. For example , a prisoner so on. For example, a prisoner voting case, our courts decided it was within the convention, the Strasbourg Court decided it wasnt and it was ultimately for parliament to decide. Surely parliament to decide. Surely thatis parliament to decide. Surely that is better than having injunctions issued by the Strasbourg Court , which then Strasbourg Court, which then seemed to stymie a whole process. Your focus has been on where these rights come from, who , these rights come from, who, whos policing all this is. But the focus should be on the rights themselves and im confused as to what part of the convention you dont like , convention you dont like, jacob. I mean, do you not like the right to life or or the right to free speech . I like the right to free speech . I like the right to free speech . I like the right to life that this court doesnt uphold. I believe the right to life starts at the point of conception through natural conception through to natural death. Confused. Death. So im confused. What Part Convention what part of the convention do you oppose where the rights come from is of fundamental importance because it determines how theyre applied and the court by the living document doctrine, has created a whole swathe of rights that Parliament Never intended. Indeed, the government of the day never intended when signing up the convention. Thats the up to the convention. Thats the problem. With parliament problem. Whereas with Parliament Sovereignty, you the sovereignty, you know the structure of the rights and the constitutionality of the rights. Structure of the rights and the con now ionality of the rights. Structure of the rights and the con now ic hear,v of the rights. Structure of the rights and the con now ic hear, |jf the rights. Structure of the rights and the con now ichear, i heart rights. Structure of the rights and the con now ichear, i hear that|ts. Now i hear, i hear that argument. Ive heard it time and now i hear, i hear that arguragain. ve heard it time and now i hear, i hear that arguragain. Butteard it time and now i hear, i hear that arguragain. But thed it time and now i hear, i hear that arguragain. But the problem and now i hear, i hear that arguragain. But the problem wei time again. But the problem we have is that too much power will be given to the Decision Maker to decide itself. And so what to decide itself. And so what the convention does , it it the convention does, it it protects on lawful interference by the state against its citizens. Thats the purpose of citizens. Thats the purpose of the convention. But actually, parliament has always been very good at that. I mean, if you think during the First Parliament was first world war, parliament was debating have debating whether to have conscription because it thought it such an intrusion it was such an intrusion in rights if you the rights, if you look at the american system, ultimately the Big Decisions get made by judges who have been politicised rather than democrats. Hinckley that than democrats. Hinckley that seems to me to be a bad way to proceed and is what is happening with this living instrument. Well we didnt have the well look, if we didnt have the convention the Rwanda Convention for the rwanda case, lets suppose we lets say there was suppose we were outside the echr , were already outside the echr, were already outside the echr, we would have sent people to a country with the most horrific human rights record whose leader itself arbitrarily detains and kills people. So you would say thats all right. Is it that wed be allowed to do that and the government would have done that . I would say that the best protector is protector of our rights is democracy , because if parliament democracy, because if parliament legislates something that legislates for something that the people want the british people do not want or then or they think is unfair, then that government will lose. And the law will be changed. And that seems to me much more of a living document than something thatis living document than something that is decided by judges who are unaware of the problems, unaware the country , be not unaware of the country, be not involved in our polity. No, i disagree with you. Look, if im going to take my country to court, i wouldnt want my country to be the arbitrator. I would like arbitrator. I would like a selection of judges with the experience of dealing with these matters to decide this case. And what you dont appreciate is whats called the margin of appreciation, which the echr builds in when theres a conflict between the rights of the state and the rights of the individual, then individual, the judges, then balance act on whos got balance that act on whos got the greater power. But thats crucial. Crucial. And thats a important and thats a very important part sampsons part of jonathan sampsons article, because what he rightly saysis article, because what he rightly says is that this balancing says is that in this balancing act, you can choose for it to be done by votes in done democratically by votes in parliament, or you can choose to it be undemocratically it be done undemocratically and unaccountable by judges. And it seems to me that the margin of appreciation is much better done democratically as to what is that balance between the rights of the police and the rights of the citizen by our Democratic Institutions as which can be changed. We can vote against a government. We cant do anything government. We cant do anything against a judgement of the court we dont like. Yeah, sure. But does help but how does that help someone rwanda . Someone who ends up in rwanda . That may the case. But that may well be the case. But look, democracy. Look, democracy. Yeah, because if your fears about rwanda are right and i dont think they are because the governments received all sorts of guarantees about how people will be treated. But if youre right, the british people are fair not fair minded and they would not vote that sent vote for a government that sent people treated badly. People off to be treated badly. Democracy would protect in a five year cycle. But in that period, individuals could face death , individuals could face death, inhumane, degrading treatment to be tortured. And so you need to have that margin of appreciation. Thats really important. But actually most judgements are retrospective anyway, rather than preventative. The preventative element of rwanda is very unusual. Mostjudgements is very unusual. Most judgements come when something unfair has been done and thats why democracy is the better protector, because the political pressure is more immediate. So pressure is more immediate. So a faster process. The look, we know why the home secretary has brought this up. We would be the only country that would voluntarily leave the echr wed be the first. How do we criticise other countries human rights record when we dont want to uphold a completely bogus argument . Well, it isnt. Russia has taken no notice of any of this. Other countries dont take any notice. Belarus and russia are in belarus and russia are not in the echr. Are the countries those are the two countries was wed wed in was recently. Wed be wed be in for and no notice and for years and took no notice and it influenced by the it didnt get influenced by the fact we obediently did what it didnt get influenced by the facwere we obediently did what it didnt get influenced by the facwere told. Bediently did what it didnt get influenced by the facwere told. Itsiently did what it didnt get influenced by the facwere told. Its an ly did what it didnt get influenced by the facwere told. Its an argumenttt it didnt get influenced by the facwe used d. Its an argumenttt it didnt get influenced by the facwe used about an argumenttt it didnt get influenced by the facwe used about internationaltt thats used about international influence used on the green issue as well. Were hugely overstate our international influence and have influence and we have a different constitutional system. Have up. We have a bottom up parliamentary system as opposed to a top down written constitutional system, which is inevitably arbitrated upon by judges rather than by the democratic system. And i think ours is better and more dynamic i now, i disagree with you. You need that that failsafe system to stop abuse of power by governments. And thats what the echr does. Thats what rwanda was an abuse of power does well. The high court of parliament is there to hold governments to account and to stop them abusing power. And the voters have the final say because they wed like to think government would to think the government would make decisions. To think the government would ma unfortunately decisions. To think the government would ma unfortunately , ecisions. To think the government would ma unfortunately , weiions. To think the government would ma unfortunately , we wont unfortunately, we wont always. Well, unfortunately, the reason this has come about is because theres election because theres an election coming year. Coming up next year. Going on that were going to stop on that point. Thank you much, point. But thank you very much, ivan. To me ivan. Dont forget to let me know mel know what you think. Mel gbnews. Com after the break, ill be asking why the eu is pickpocketing to us the tune of £32 million after weve left and as eco wokery come after britains farmers as weve seen in the netherlands , as radio. Welcome back. Im still Jacob Rees Mogg and this is state of the nation. Youve been getting in with your thoughts. In touch with your thoughts. Elena rwanda moral and so elena rwanda is a moral and so i fully support the echr on this occasion on and robert, we must leave the echr as as leave the echr as fast as possible. Brexit was the people telling the world that we do not want be ruled the eu. No want to be ruled by the eu. No independent country would tolerate by a foreign tolerate meddling by a foreign court. Well, talking of foreign court. Well, talking of foreign courts, its been three and a half years now since the glorious day of january 1st, 2020, when britain broke free from the yoke of the European Union. I think its 2021 inches the to be clear, the the end. And to be clear, the European Union is constituted by the commission, the european commission, the european the european parliament, the european parliament, the european the European Council and the European Council and the european justice. Well, European Court of justice. Well, the justice in the European Court of justice in what can only seem to be a prank, handed the united what can only seem to be a prank, a handed the united what can only seem to be a prank, a fine ed the united what can only seem to be a prank, a fine ed £32 united what can only seem to be a prank, a fine ed £32 million. Kingdom a fine of £32 million. Thats about £0. 50 each. And look at £0. 50 its got look at a £0. 50 its got britannia on it. Theyre britannia on it. So theyre taking from each of taking britannia from each of us. Divergence us. Owing to a divergence between uk and eu law about fuel or fools, the uk allows pleasure crafts to use died fuel red diesel effective that has been taxed at a lower rate. But under eu law that is apparently forbidden. A ruling from the eus court in 2018 found the uk was in breach on the matter , but was in breach on the matter, but the uk didnt comply as a result, the commission, the body with all the unelected bureaucrats, we were so keen to get from , applied to the get away from, applied to the eu court fines on the uk. Court to impose fines on the uk. And the court has ruled and so today the court has ruled that britain is liable for £32 million. Well, im delighted to be joined by the founder of novara media, Aaron Bastani , and novara media, Aaron Bastani, and by representative of the telegraph, daniel hardy, to discuss this important matter. And isnt the eu just having a laugh . Its £32 million that they just want to get off us and they just want to get off us and they can because weve left. Well, this is a really interesting because like well, this is a really inte say, 1g because like well, this is a really inte say, the because like well, this is a really inte say, the original use like well, this is a really inte say, the original findings you say, the original finding was in 2018. And then of course, one might argue there was this very ambiguous period with regards to liabilities and compliance because , of course, compliance because, of course, we were leaving the eu and i suppose if you werent being generous , the british generous, the british government, you could say its a bit like not paying a parking fine and fine for several years. And of course means things up. Course that means things add up. What i find intriguing is, i mean paying having to pay the fine the surprising thing here. What i find intriguing is the scale of the fine and of course, the fine is approximate to the size of the uks economy rather than simply Northern Ireland. And dangerous and thats the dangerous precedent particular precedent and of particular interest is the most senior attorney in this recommended, i believe, a fine of ,17 million. And the court seems to have almost doubled that. So it does seem to be an element of maliciousness here, but the precedent is very much on the scale of the fine rather than having to pay it. I think daniel would you just refuse to pay it . I . I suppose one of the interesting things about this is what through what mechanism would the European Court of justice to enforce if justice to enforce this fine if you know his majestys government decided were out of the European Union, this is not our matter anymore. And what our matter anymore. And what would the consequences of would be the consequences of that . I think one of the things that . I think one of the things that we do have to bear mind that we do have to bear in mind is kind divergence is that any kind of divergence that in Northern Ireland is that laws in Northern Ireland is something that could accelerate, it could find us for again, an and thats your point, that we risk getting fines. And if theyre going to be penal fines as and normally they do what the senior attorney recommends, dont they that the ecj normally follows that advice. So practically to double the fines , taking the mickey, the fines, taking the mickey, i think the fines is one part. But like you say, the fact that youre being charged on the scale of the uk economy rather than Northern Ireland and the fact theyve what fact that theyve doubled what he proposed, he originally proposed, i mean, i the uk was lobbying for i think the uk was lobbying for something quarter of Something Like a quarter of a million million million or half £1 million fine if those were the kinds of things emerging every if those were the kinds of thin months, emerging every if those were the kinds of thin months, em few1g every if those were the kinds of thin months, em few years, y few months, every few years, youd , okay, its not ideal, youd say, okay, its not ideal, but thats not where we are. But reminder of why we but just a reminder of why we voted leave, isnt it . Voted to leave, isnt it . Because a trivial thing. Because is its a trivial thing. Its the tax rate on fuel going into pleasure craft. There arent that many of them. Its not as if were smashing up the Single Market or ever were. Its Single Market or ever were. Its just this pettifogging detail that the eus always loved. That the eus always loved. Because even though weve left , because even though weve left, its still wants to have the tentacles of a superstate getting into the uk. Well, thats true. And its like aaron said, you the like aaron said, you know the its to be malicious its there seems to be malicious intent with the increase in the fine amount and thats something that you know like you said reflects the eus kind of desires and its goals. And you desires and its goals. And you know, and thats that that to me comes higher than the actual issue itself, which seems a very minor one. So yeah , and its minor one. So yeah, and its a reminder we were just discussing the European Court of human rights actually. Rights actually. We want to have justice in our own country, our own democracy. Thats why we voted to and theres still to leave. And theres still a very feeling in this very strong feeling in this country ought country that we ought to be doing things for ourselves. True , too. And i think thats true, too. And i think a lot of the brexit vote was parliamentary was about parliamentary sovereignty. Vote for the sovereignty. You vote for the people decisions. People that make the decisions. But a question for people but i have a question for people like have like yourself, which is we have a in country a Supreme Court in this country which brought in by tony which was brought in by tony blair, and yet conservatives havent anything to get rid havent done anything to get rid of the last 15 years. And of it in the last 15 years. And so this idea that parliament is sovereign power should reside with legislators, even if we withdrew from the European Convention human even withdrew from the european cheention human even withdrew from the european che didnt human even withdrew from the european che didnt hurbyt even withdrew from the european che didnt hurby what even withdrew from the european che didnt hurby what the even if we didnt abide by what the ecj , still think theres ecj said, i still think theres a contradiction a massive contradiction there that, talk about. Dont talk about. Yeah, well, i, i think thats a very good point. I would have liked to seen liked to have seen that reformed. Law reformed. I thought the law lords better way of doing lords was a better way of doing it. It. Yeah. Mean, its a very yeah. I mean, its a very valid point. You know, i if you are a conservative to me, you should believe that parliament is the highest court in the land and the Supreme Court seems to have free ride since since have had a free ride since since 2010, is very strange. And 2010, which is very strange. And then, you know, you pick up on then, you know, you pick up on the European Unions interference. Yes. But not with interference. Yes. But not with the Supreme Court. And it undermines democracy. Yeah i think if you if you believe that, then it seems a big inconsistency. Well , time and again on this well, time and again on this program, we cover the epidemic of shoplifting in this country and structural problems with british and tragically, british policing and tragically, today, gb news has covered, as have other outlets, the croydon stabbing that took place yesterday morning. Yesterday morning. This such a sad case. An this is such a sad case. An arade dam was her to arade dam was on her way to school brutally school when she was brutally stabbed neck. Tragic stabbed in the neck. Tragic moments in public life moments like this in public life force us to ask the broader question about and youth force us to ask the broader turitainibout and youth force us to ask the broader turitain. out and youth force us to ask the broader turitain. The and youth force us to ask the broader turitain. The year and youth force us to ask the broader qu britain. The year ending uth in britain. The year ending september 20th, 22 saw 45,639 knife and offensive weapon crimes , 20 increase on the year crimes, 20 increase on the year before , which works out to before, which works out to roughly 125 offences. A day. With the police seemingly stretched now more than ever, the question is how do we deal with this epidemic of knife crime and stop these tragic deaths having well , ive still deaths having well, ive still got Aaron Bastani and Daniel Hardaker with me to discuss this. Daniel, we hear about these cases. They are so sad and the tragedy for the families, this just extraordinary pain they must be feeling and it keeps on happening. It keeps on happening happening. It keeps on happening to other families. What should to other families. What should be done to stop it . What can the police do . What can society do . Well, like you said , its well, like you said, its every parents worst nightmare. Every parents worst nightmare. And i think the solutions are somewhat simple. I mean, you you punish crime. Thats thats the punish crime. Thats thats the way that its done. But it doesnt it doesnt seem to happen, especially in london on that this this has followed through and the argument that poverty causes crime although no doubt somewhat of a variable, its a pretty shoddy. I mean, dunng its a pretty shoddy. I mean, during the great depression, for instance, like crime levels in this country, particularly violent crime, were much lower. And its you hear this argument come up quite often on twitter of, you know , if only, you know, of, you know, if only, you know, thatcher hadnt have got rid of the Community Centres and, you know , this wouldnt be know, this wouldnt be happening. But that seems to me to be ridiculous. I mean , why do to be ridiculous. I mean, why do you think theres a proliferation of knife crime . Well, i think its partly for, you know, a positive is a strange word to use, but its partly because, of course, of our gun laws. So i think thats one at it. We one way of looking at it. We dont as a result dont have homicide as a result of in this country. I of guns in this country. And i think its think obviously you can its worse in america. That is, if you if you want to really hurt. Its much worse. Oh, its got so much worse. Oh, no, absolutely. No, it is. Absolutely. And i think to really hurt think if you want to really hurt or someone, clearly or maim or kill someone, clearly its access its very easy to access a knife. Its knife. Whereas with a gun, its much difficult. I knife. Whereas with a gun, its much difficult. I think, much more difficult. I think, with children , which with regards to children, which is more normal, is becoming more normal, particularly larger cities, particularly in larger cities, something is something incredibly strange is happening. And i mean, we probably do disagree on this. I think poverty a big role think poverty plays a big role in generally. Think poverty plays a big role irthink generally. Think poverty plays a big role irthink theres generally. I think theres a big correlation if you the correlation. If you look at the most violent societies, they tend unequal. You tend to be the most unequal. You might instance, well, might say, for instance, well, japan also has very homogenous society. See, they have the society. See, they have the death penalty. And that makes, death penalty. And that makes, you know, can debate you know, we can debate of whats doing what. But whats clear there is a big clear is that there is a big correlation between low inequality and low crime. But i would say for me, particularly on this issue in croydon and young with knives , young people with knives, generally the family. And generally its the family. And so sort of have been so what i sort of have been irritated by is people saying its stop and search. Its sadiq khan. I its stop and search. Its sadiq khan. I think it goes so much deeper than that. Think deeper than that. I think it goes decades , you know, and goes back decades, you know, and an inability, frankly me amongst too many young boys to be to be raised properly. And i think we can have a conversation about why thats happening. But for me, the family is central all me, the family is central in all of police the of this. And the police have the powers that they need. More police, weve got more police, i think, before or think, now than ever before or certainly that certainly heading in that direction. Isnt that a very good point has just made that the family needs to take more responsibility and the government should do more to support families as well. But it comes thats true. But it comes that the family has a major role to play in this, no doubt. But we have to look at how much social attitudes have changed. I mean, i was looking at some figures the other day that in even as recent as the 1980s, im the idea that children should be born within wedlock , that that born within wedlock, that that was held by 8 of the population. Its now down to between 20 and 30. But people still think a father should be around benefits and the around and the benefits and the tax encourage tax system actually encourage his family life, not to be structured well. That that is true. I mean, that was a big part of. And should that be changed . And should that be changed . Um , i mean, are you bold um, i mean, are you bold enough to say that you should change it so actually have a tax and benefit system that encourages the creation of families . I mean, if it was that easy. Yes. That easy. But yes. If it was that easy. But i think that the disintegration of the family unit goes beyond if it was that simple. You say heres tax. Why you say heres a tax. Why dont all these things take time . Overnight. Dont all these things take tim that overnight. Dont all these things take tim that actually overnight. Dont all these things take tim that actually , overnight. Dont all these things take tim that actually , as overnight. Dont all these things take tim that actually , as forernight. Dont all these things take tim that actually , as for now, it. But that actually, as for now, many , we have made you many decades, we have made you financially worse off by being in a family that has had an effect to daniels point, its seen a decline in people thinking that children should be born in wedlock and so on, because this has created a societal change that has made a traditional family unaffordable for many people. So, i mean , its interesting so, i mean, its interesting because for instance, because so, for instance, i wasnt born in wedlock. My parents married, wife wasnt born in wedlock. My pare a s married, wife wasnt born in wedlock. My parea s on married, wife wasnt born in wedlock. My parea s on thetrried, wife wasnt born in wedlock. My parea s on the wayi, wife wasnt born in wedlock. My parea s on the way. Wife wasnt born in wedlock. My parea s on the way. We wife was a child on the way. We married first because we wanted to environment married first because we wanted to our environment married first because we wanted to our child. Environment married first because we wanted to our child. Dad vironment married first because we wanted to our child. Dad didtment for our child. My dad did a fantastic job. You know, every rugby football match, he was rugby or football match, he was there. Was he was there. He was always he was around he around precisely. He was a fantastic father. And that for me the problem. Are too fantastic father. And that for me men roblem. Are too fantastic father. And that for me men robl|arent are too fantastic father. And that for me men robl|arent living too fantastic father. And that for me men robl|arent living up 0 fantastic father. And that for me men robl|arent living up to many men who arent living up to their responsibilities of being a father. And thats a great father. And thats particularly problematic with sons. But marriage sometimes forces them to that. Its the ideal. Them to that. Its the ideal. Edward yeah, and so , so your edward yeah, and so, so your father sounds great, man , who father sounds great, man, who wanted to do it anyway, but there are lots of irresponsible people who, when they havent got that document, people who, when they havent got that document , feel that got that document, feel that they can play less of a role in their children. Well i would push back i well i would push back and i say that say again, if it was that simple, then i would say, sign me think an me up. But i think an irresponsible man , whether or irresponsible man, whether or not is a problem. Not hes married, is a problem. You shouldnt bringing you shouldnt be bringing a child the you child into the world if you cant responsible them cant be responsible for them because be because of course, you may be married you get married and then you may get divorced. If were divorced. Its not as if were in where you have a in a situation where you have a child wedlock and you cant child in wedlock and you cant leave child in wedlock and you cant leasay, social norms like 50, of, say, social norms like 50, 60 social norms kind 60 years ago, social norms kind of function as guardrails for both the society and the individual. Individual. So if you have if there is a shame function leaving shame function for leaving your family and its strong, then people will respond to that. Whereas now its not so strong and you see the results of it. I think some people feel shame, some dont. But thats the thing. But not in much they in any way near as much as they would done 50 or 60 years would have done 50 or 60 years ago know. Ago and know. Thank to well, thank you both to daniel and to aaron. After the break, well be hearing the tragic story of a tragic personal story of a Family Member of the young lady known only up until last known only as ste. Up until last week she tragically died. Week when she tragically died. And after that, well be talking about britain and whether about rural britain and whether the has the westminster bubble has abandoned. When getting a good nights sleep is a struggle, try nytol herbal. Made with natural Plant Extracts that have been used for decades. Owl hoots. Nytol herbal is used to help you drift off gently. For a refreshing, restful nights sleep, say good nytol. News radio. Welcome back. Our man Jacob Rees Mogg. And youve been getting in touch with your thoughts margaret, dismayed getting in touch with your thnhear s margaret, dismayed getting in touch with your thn hear the viargaret, dismayed getting in touch with your thnhear the eu garet, dismayed getting in touch with your thnhear the eu court dismayed getting in touch with your thnhear the eu court wants smayed getting in touch with your thnhear the eu court wants to ayed to hear the eu court wants to find us £32 million regarding diesel for baits in Northern Ireland. This must be called out and they should be told that we owe. And pat, owe them nothing. And pat, i live in the most impoverished part of the country. Lincolnshire we not have lincolnshire we do not have major with knife crime. Major problems with knife crime. There little correlation in there is little correlation in poor parenting. Must be looked at last few months at over the last few months weve covered the case of a young girl known only as st weve covered the case of a young girl known only as s t in the courtroom who was fighting to have her life saving treatment. Continued after nhs doctors tried to push her into end of life care. Tragically, a end of life care. Tragically, a few weeks ago, street died after her long battle with a rare mitochondrial disorder. But the reporting restriction is on her and her familys name has remained in place and a victory for her family. The court has finally ruled that their daughter , shah thirumala , can daughter, shah thirumala, can now be named. But questions and now be named. But questions and concerns still remain after the court decided to impose continued reporting restrictions on the nhs trust and doctor that treated Siddique Shah generally speaking, reporting restrictions may apply where a person is under the age of 18 or concerns over the fear and distress of a witness. A high concerningly the court is protecting not just the doctor but an entire trust that was making life or death decisions behind closed doors, we saw this during the lucy letby trial , where much of it letby trial, where much of it was conducted in secrecy and key witness doctors were provided with anonymity orders, allowing them to give evidence behind a screen the growing number of privacy witnesses who also happened to be doctors in court is a cause for concern. Reporting restrictions were introduced in order to protect individuals, not allow professionals and professions to escape scrutiny. Well, im very escape scrutiny. Well, im very grateful to be joined now by brother vasanthakumar vasan. Thank you so much for coming in. Thank you so much for coming in. Thank you. This must be such a difficult time for you and for your your family after your sister fought so bravely and was so determined to try and have treatment right until the end. Yes, she was fighting for almost a year. In two months, and she really wanted to get the transparency lifted so that her story could be heard and she could seek nucleoside treatment abroad. But that was denied to her by the hospital that was treating her because there is nucleoside treatment that was possibly available in canada. And that your sister wanted to at least have an attempt to get that. But the nhs just said no. They said no, but they were saying that they wouldnt be in the way of stopping it, but they did everything to prevent it by getting the courts and they were working hand in glove at the end of the day to prevent this from happening. And your sister was 19, so she was over the age of majority. She was able in all normal circumstances, to take decisions for herself. What what basis was there for saying that she shouldnt be able to determine her own treatment . Determine her own treatment . Well, they were saying from the very beginning that she has no capacity to make decisions for treatment and she was for her treatment and she was put into Palliative Care because that was the simplest option for them end of the day, that was the simplest option for them is end of the day, that was the simplest option for them is justend of the day, that was the simplest option for them is just toi of the day, that was the simplest option for them is just to put the day, that was the simplest option for them is just to put into day, which is just to put into Palliative Care rather than focusing getting treatment Palliative Care rather than foctthis; getting treatment Palliative Care rather than foctthis complex ng treatment Palliative Care rather than foctthis complex illness, ment Palliative Care rather than foctthis complex illness, which for this complex illness, which they were not doing. But the mail group ran a long interview with your sister for just a few weeks ago where she was able to answer all the questions. She was able to put questions. She was able to put her case with considerable thoughtfulness. Did the courts thoughtfulness. Did the courts take no notice of that , that the take no notice of that, that the courts didnt . Courts didnt . At the end of the day, my sister was penalised by the courts and the Justice System and they were working hand in glove to prevent everything from sort of they denied the access for her treatment abroad and the denial of your ability to say who you were, to speak openly was one of the real problems, wasnt it . Because you couldnt get your case heard in the court of pubuc case heard in the court of public opinion, nor could you raise funds for sister so raise funds for your sister so that she could afford to have the treatment abroad. Yeah, we werent asking for a penny from the nhs at the end of the day. We just wanted her to be from the hospital be set free from the hospital because she felt like she was imprisoned in the hospital by a group of tyrants. I mean, dont get me wrong, at the end of the day, many doctors were working very hard and the registrars and the nurses, but few people from the nurses, but few people from the Senior Management ruined it for us. So when you went into the hospital to visit your sister, who was it . Was causing the who was it . Who was causing the blocking . Mean, we cant blocking . I mean, we cant mention , what what blocking . I mean, we cant menofn , what what blocking . I mean, we cant menof level , what what blocking . I mean, we cant menof level were what what blocking . I mean, we cant men of level were they hat what blocking . I mean, we cant menof level were they . Tt what blocking . I mean, we cant men of level were they . Whatt sort of level were they . What type person they were . Type of person they were . The clinical lead of that particular ward. And the whole system was based around them and they denied her the access and you received some support from groups to help you because obviously going to court is an expensive business. Raid against you. You have a raid against you. The paid for by the the lawyers paid for by the state, the hospital paying for it. The court funded by the state against that. You really state against that. You really are david against goliath who was supporting and helping you through this process. Supported by we were supported by Christian Concern and indeed from daily mail who and by people who were signing the petition for sodexo so that she could receive the treatment and this was where you really needed to get publicity in. The daily mail did a very good job in highlighting seditious case, but without knowing her name. It was really difficult to get the follow on publicity that you really needed. Yes, we just wanted a name to be publicised so that she could get some sort of help from the nook and corner of the world. But denied to her. And but that was denied to her. And she was devastated when she heard that she was not going to get that sort of treatment and do you the continuing do you think the continuing secrecy in relation to the hospital and the people concerned cover concerned is an attempt to cover up mistake . Yes, because they up a mistake . Yes, because they did a open cut surgery in my sister when she was hospitalised for covid. So that was a huge setback for her. And that was to cover up the mistakes. Cover up the mistakes. So you think the surgery they carried out was a mistake and therefore, to cover that up, they went to the court to say that she had no capacity to make further own further decisions about her own treatment. Treatment. They were pushing yes. And they were pushing her into palliative saying her into Palliative Care, saying that no other options that there are no other options for her and Palliative Care is treating pain and is essentially assuming that there is no hope that that life is not going to continue. Yes but they were even not giving her the basic medications like treating infections with antibiotics and she wasnt given the Blood Pressure medication to keep her Blood Pressure stable. So that Blood Pressure stable. So that was very difficult for us. So they had made a decision really to put a sense of death on your sister. This is absolutely a appalling. Yes. We were shocked as well. They washed their washed their hands off since day one. And your sister was 19. So she was able and she could communicate. She could make these decisions. She didnt want to accept that there was no hope. She wanted to fight. And the hospital insisted that she could not fight. Yeah, she wanted to fight till the very end. Till the very end. And as the family you had no power to move her to another hospital or take her abroad because hospital had gone to court. Yes. You. We were doing everything we can to at least get to another hospital if possible, so that a fresh pair of eyes and hands can treat her. But there was a lot of unconscious bias on how shes to going recover. And they just imposed these draconian measures on a and so you werent able even to get a Second Opinion from another hospital within the nhs that might have been willing to give her another chance , another opportunity. No, we werent. We were no, we werent. We were denied that opportunity. And even though we were given Second Opinions, but they were all looking at my sister remotely and trying to treat her, which i think was very wrong because its a profession where at the end of the day you need the hands care. And sister was hands on care. And my sister was missing. Missing that. Well, and the other thing that really worrying is that that is really worrying is that this which was meant to this privacy, which was meant to protect your sister as the patient has been used to protect people who are covering up their mistakes and that must clearly be wrong. Yes. And thats why justice yes. And thats why Justice Needs to be brought to my sister, even after her death. We are still fighting for her capacity judgement to be overturned. So were for going an appeal and were doing everything that we can possibly do to bring justice to my sister. Well, my sisters soul and the souls of all the faithful departed by the mercy of god, rest peace. Thank much rest in peace. Thank you so much for coming in. Thank you. Varsha and coming would you vote and coming up, would you vote for the rural reaction party. Well come back. I am going to continue to identify as Jacob Rees Mogg, though i teased sixtus earlier by saying i might identify as him for the evening, but not sure would but im not sure it would work. Hes only six anyway. Youve been with your been getting in touch with your mail says. Dear mail logs. Rachel says. Dear jacob, love and kind jacob, please send love and kind thoughts to dear sadiq aishas family. Tom im so sorry to hear about such an awful story. Someone really needs to take a serious look at the nhs and june. Dearjacob, this serious look at the nhs and june. Dear jacob, this should never happen again. Rip sadiq shah my prayers are with you. Thank you. It is such a heart rending story. And the ovenneening bossiness of the bureaucracy to my mind, is quite intolerable. For too is quite intolerable. For too long, westminster has overlooked the heart of our nation increasingly , people are saying increasingly, people are saying that the blob ignores the countryside, as westminster has kowtowed to an ideologically minded, woke and green agenda when it comes to rural issues. One gentleman, ian gregory, has taken it upon himself to challenge this and has created his own political party, the rural action party. Mr gregory rural action party. Mr gregory at the helm of the newly formed party, seeks to rectify the oversight. Hes not. It has to be said, your typical farmer. Hes a seasoned political commentator and strategist with a keen eye for what ails our countryside in a world increasingly dominated by the eco woke. Mr gregory is here to eco woke. Mr gregory is here to challenge the status quo. He takes issue with the ideologically driven policies that have left rural britain feeling neglected. His mission feeling neglected. His mission is clear to bring science to the forefront of rural policy, whether its Animal Welfare, forefront of rural policy, whether ors Animal Welfare, forefront of rural policy, whether or even nal welfare, forefront of rural policy, whether or even the welfare, forefront of rural policy, whether or even the useare, forefront of rural policy, whether or even the use ofe, farming or even the use of electric collars for our four legged friends. But he says this is not just about politics. Its about standing up for our rural communities. And as mr gregory steps on to the stage of rural politics, hes already garnered interest from donors and even celebrities share his celebrities who share his passion for the countryside. So passion for the countryside. So im delighted to be joined now by gregory to talk by ian gregory to talk about this issue, because im a this key issue, because im a rural mp, i represent a seat in somerset and i know exactly what youre talking about. There is a feeling that the metropolitan elite pushed down a whole stream of policies that dont really understand how people live in the countryside. I think the westminster bubble has been led by the social media bubble. There are a whole bunch of very emotive , if very emotive, if well intentioned people who are on the issues of Animal Welfare coming up with particular soundbite solutions. They are good at campaigning and this has led to the Animal Rights movement dominating the issues and science has not had a look in on so many issues. This goes back over 20 years to the original fox hunting ban, where i looking at the burns report, which was the intellectual evidence underpinning this. And it said that there is no science available. So how do you how do we when were trying to think of how to care, for example, with foxes, how know whether foxes, how do we know whether snaring is better than shooting or is better than hunting without science , were blind. Without science, were blind. The people who are fox hunters in this country, the people who are hunt saboteurs , they dont are hunt saboteurs, they dont know theyre in ignorance. They have their own views on the issue and on so many of these these matters , as defra has been these matters, as defra has been building policy without science , its been following twitter , its been following twitter, not evidence. Well, the fox hunting ban was deeply political , and we all deeply political, and we all know why that happened. But the countryside seems broadly to have settled down with that. Now there i do disagree. Now there i do disagree. I disagree with theres still an open wound there and its there and its a question of evidence as well. Earlier this year, i helped to organise a letter to defra , to organise a letter to defra, co signed by 103 vets and these vets were saying, wheres the science . Theyre still saying science . Theyre still saying theres a problem with the science and the well intentioned moves that were made on fox hunting back in 20 years ago have led to a decline , a sharp have led to a decline, a sharp decline in rural fox populations. And also, if i was a fox, the idea of being shot at night would with a wounding rate of nearly 50. Okay, thats very tragic. Tragic. But i do think fox hunting is an issue that people dont particularly want to reopen , that the hunts are reopen, that the hunts are active. Id like to talk about active. Id like to talk about the foxes and the hunt, the foxes like the hunts , as far as foxes like the hunts, as far as i can tell, dont catch many foxes anyway. And did that foxes anyway. And never did that. That its more to do with the social activity and so on. But lets move on from fox hunting to farming and concerns to farming and your concerns about welfare there and about Animal Welfare there and what the government what you think the government should be doing. What you think the government shoild be doing. What you think the government shoi think doing. What you think the government shoi think there. What you think the government shoi think there is a there is i think there is a there is a deep level of empathy that everybody in the countryside, whether its farmers or gamekeepers, whether its people who are activists in this area, they want to do what is right for all kinds of animals. The only way we can deal with this issueis only way we can deal with this issue is not through listening to campaigners. Its a question of looking at the science and us being neutral about which way the science points and not being opinion opinionated because what things would you change from the way they currently are and which campaigns do you particularly object its. The the thing object to . Its. The the thing which is fascinating. Me most is how just weve got a launch event in manchester this sunday, right next to the conservative Party Conference and ive got 200 plus coming to that event and it is extraordinary how upset dog owners are with government policy. That is, government policy. That is, i have been just so surprised with the antipathy that issue has caused to the electronic collars thats on electronic collars, on dogs and how do you stop your dogs and how do you stop your dog getting shot by a farmer . Dog getting shot by a farmer . How do you stop your dog killing rabbits when you dont want it to . Allow dog to to . How do you allow your dog to go to arrange around the countryside without having to permanently keep it on a leash . Permanently keep it on a leash . Now weve got there are so many issues here which need collaboration on and thoughtful policy making, but you dont want regulation, but you dont want regulation, but you dont want dogs off the leash, which in farm land do you . Unless its your own dog in your own land, you you dont want people on footpaths taking their off the because their dog off the lead because it any number of it might chase any number of animals, of animals, causing all sorts of problems. Problems. Live in the but those who live in the countryside when countryside never know when theyre going across an theyre going to come across an animal have animal and their dogs have a much much smell much, much better smell than they do , so they cant alert they do, so they cant be alert to that issue. So my concerns here are that if theres bad marriage between the countryside and the conservative party in particular is going to be resolved, then there needs to be a complete overhaul of this and less bureaucracy. Less bureaucracy. And in my view, the key is weve got to back the motorist because everyone living in rural areas is a motorist we get areas is a motorist and we get hit again. Hit again and again and again. Thats what im always campaigning anyway. Ive campaigning for anyway. Ive given last word given myself the last word because of time. Given myself the last word bec pleasure. Of time. Given myself the last word bec pleasure. Youf time. Given myself the last word bec pleasure. You very e. Given myself the last word bec pleasure. You very much my pleasure. Thank you very much for coming in. Well, thats all from me and thats all from me, from me and thats all from me, from the week. Up next, its mark dolan. Mark, what have you got this evening . Its busy show, evening . Afraidts busy show, evening . Afraid the busy show, evening . Afraid the usualjusy show, evening . Afraid the usual suspects v, im afraid the usual suspects have out the woodwork. Have come out of the woodwork. Jacob, a challenging jacob, its been a challenging couple of days for the channel, but the media commentators seeking to close down gb news i will be responding in no Uncertain Terms in my daily digest. Plus, the eu finds the uk £32 million in eu court well and whitaker will be on the show telling them where they can stick that money. Absolutely excellent. An is a wonderful commentator , an wonderful commentator, an extremely forthright. I think extremely forthright. I think everyone will enjoy that and i think the bbc should be privatised and we should perhaps have a campaign to discuss that. Thats all coming up after the weather. Ill be back on monday at 8 00. Im Jacob Rees Mogg. At 8 00. Im Jacob Rees Mogg. This has been state of the nafion i on this has been state of the nation i on reading nation and i keep on reading that meant a storm that theres meant to be a storm coming, havent really coming, but i havent really noficed coming, but i havent really noticed it. Shall driving noticed it. I shall be driving down the moment. Noticed it. I shall be driving dow programmes the moment. Noticed it. I shall be driving dow programmes thetoioment. Noticed it. I shall be driving dow programmes theto godst. The programmes ended to gods own county, glorious rural countryside and where i shall be there for at least half the weekend for i head to manchester. But im absolutely confident that weather will confident that the weather will be glorious and uplifting and always so nice to be outside london aiden and doing my work in the constituency. That will be a great pleasure. And now its going over to the. Weather its going over to the. Weather good evening, im alex deakin. This is your latest weather update from the met office for gb news. Most of us will get wet overnight. Some heavy downpours moving west to east. Some moving from west to east. Some gusty winds also picking up for a all thanks to this a time. All thanks to this little pressure little area of low pressure could some very heavy could provide some very heavy rain over parts south wales rain over parts of south wales and particular. So have and particular. So we do have a met yellow warning met office, yellow warning in place also parts of place here, but also parts of the and extending up the midlands and extending up towards lincolnshire and across towards lincolnshire and across to cambridgeshire and norfolk in line for some quite heavy downpours, through line for some quite heavy do early s, through line for some quite heavy dotaearly hours. Through line for some quite heavy dotaearly hours. Further1rough line for some quite heavy dotaearly hours. Further north| the early hours. Further north and west. It will turn a little drier the exception being drier with the exception being northwest scotland itll northwest scotland where itll stay further stay blustery with further showers as skies clear temperatures to single temperatures may dip to single figures. Most towns figures. But most towns and cities stay double cities will stay in double digits friday is by and large, a fine day. But early on there will still over will be some rain still over east anglia the south east of east anglia in the south east of england fairly england should scoot away fairly smartly. Plenty of showers smartly. Plenty of showers packing the highlands , packing in over the highlands, the western the the Western Isles and the northern itll stay northern isles, where itll stay blustery. Will blustery. 1 or 2 showers will feed in on the breeze elsewhere, but its a bright and but for most its a bright and breezy good spells of breezy friday. Good spells of sunshine in south. Thatll sunshine in the south. Thatll feel quite pleasant with temperatures up to 21 celsius, mostly elsewhere our mostly 16 to 18. Elsewhere our saturday starts a bit chilly , saturday starts a bit chilly, but mostly starts fine and bnghtin but mostly starts fine and bright in many central and eastern parts will stay that way. However, out west, cloud and rain will start to move into Northern Ireland. Parts of north and west wales then into and west wales and then into northwest england southwest northwest england and southwest scotland. Tending wet scotland. As well as tending wet here, once more turn here, it will once more turn very gusty again. Its 9 00 on television, on radio and online in the United Kingdom and across the world. This is mark dolan tonight. So are the established media running scared of gb news by calling for our channel to be shut down and will they succeed . Ill be dealing with that in my big opinion next. Then my Superstar Panel weigh in tonight. Allison pearson, lord bailey and amy nicole turner. After her bold speech in washington, dc, provokes a backlash from woke commentators. Ask Suella Bravermans critics wrong that she is a political extremist. David campbell extremist. David Campbell Bannerman and Narinder Kaur go head to head in a lively clash is king charles a slimmed down monarchy, a race to the bottom . Plus after they clock up yet more air miles in a 14 day travel spree are harry and meghan, the worlds biggest eco hypocrites . Well, lady colin hypocrites . Well, Lady Colin Campbell and phil dampier deliver their unfiltered analysis shortly. Elsewhere, as analysis shortly. Elsewhere, as number 10 floats the idea of taking us out of the echr should rishi sunak just be done with it to finally stop the boats , ill