The government governments saying to regional stability such as the transfer of weapons to terrorist groups. The Prime Minister rishi sunak, making clear the ministry will be supporting a prevention of a further escalation of the conflict in the area. The British Armed forces on standby and theyre there to deliver practical support to israel and partners in the region. Can they partners in the region. Can they say, to offer deterrence , peace say, to offer deterrence, peace and reassurance . Yes. Well, the and reassurance . Yes. Well, the governments also been organising flights for british nationals in israel. The first is due to leave tel aviv for the uk today. The foreign secretary, James Cleverly, has been urging british citizens who want to get out to register their presence. Out to register their presence. S those eligible have been told not to go to airports unless theyre instructed to do so. Meanwhile the palestinian president has condemned violence against civilians. Rocket fire against civilians. Rocket fire landing in gaza city and Mahmoud Abbas saying the killing or abuse of civilians contravenes morals, religion and international law. His comments international law. His comments come as vital medical supplies run dangerously low in gaza with the International Red cross warning the situation is deteriorating by the hour. The deteriorating by the hour. The only remaining power station stopped working yesterday in gaza city. Fuel supplies powering generators for night time hours also dwindling and could run out tonight. Night time hours also dwindling and could run out tonight. Well, and could run out tonight. Well, the us secretary of state has described the hamas terror attack as depravity in the worst. But speaking during his trip to israel today, hes reassured the israeli Prime Minister that as long as america exists , as long as america exists, israel will never have to defend itself on its own. Benjamin itself on its own. Benjamin netanyahu, the israeli Prime Minister, insisted hamas should be treated in exactly the same way as isis and tony blinken said he knows the terrorist group hamas does not represent the Palestinian People or what he called their legitimate aspirations. The us defence secretary is also travelling to israel tomorrow. To now news israel tomorrow. To now news away from the israel hamas conflict. An mp for the Scottish National party has defected to the tories today amid reports of toxic bullying culture in the partys westminster group. Lisa partys westminster group. Lisa camerons defection comes as she was facing a selection battle to be the candidate for a seat in west of scotland. She said shed been a victim of group bullying at westminster and shed even suffered panic attacks as a result. The Prime Minister , result. The Prime Minister, rishi sunak, says hes delighted ms cameron has joined the scottish conservatives and Bernie Ecclestone has been handed a 17 month suspension sentence after pleading guilty to fraud. Today, the ex formula to fraud. Today, the ex formula one boss will also have to pay £652 million to hmrc. He appeared at Londons Southwark crown court this morning after failing to declare more than £400 million of overseas assets to the government. The billionaire turns 93 later this month. He had been due to face month. He had been due to face trial in november after hed previously denied the charge with gb news across the uk on tv in your car, on Digital Radio and on your Smart Speaker by saying play gb news. This is britains news channel. Britains news channel. 39 years ago to this day, the 12th of october 1984, the ira bombed the grand Brighton Hotel dunng bombed the grand Brighton Hotel during the conservative party conference, Prime MinisterMargaret Thatcher and members of the cabinet had been staying at the cabinet had been staying at the hotel for the conference. Five died in the five people died in the explosion and 34 were injured when the attack. When researching the attack. Today, a bbc resource for students the ira as a students described the ira as a terrorist organisation who targeted british troops with bombs and shootings. That seems pretty clear cut then. So why is it now that the bbc is having such difficulty in calling the evil terrorist group which has used such despicable violence in israel . Hamas what it really is a terrorist organisation. Our National Broadcasting service seems to prefer to describe members of hamas as militants or insurgents and attackers. Insurgents and attackers. Militants simply mean someone who is engaged in warfare. An insurgent is someone fighting against a government or invading force. The definition of a terror list, though, is a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation , especially against intimidation, especially against civilians , in the pursuit of civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. This is what has happened. Hamas has killed children. Hamas is a terrorist group and describes it as anything else is in defensible. In a letter to the chairman of ofcom yesterday evening for top lawyers rightly pointed out that an amendment to the terrorism act in 2021, his majestys government legally recognised hamas as a proscribed and terrorist organisation , terrorist organisation, according to the bbcs own impartiality guidance. Due impartiality guidance. Due impartiality does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles such as the rule of law. There really is no excuse for this shameful fight to apply gloss to evil , for this shameful fight to apply gloss to evil, bbc for this shameful fight to apply gloss to evil , bbc journalist gloss to evil, bbc journalist john simpson said in a message yesterday that it wasnt the bbcs job to tell people who were the good guys and who are the bad guys. As the bbc didnt seem too worried about making those kind of delicate distinctions ones when in the past alone, articles on its past year alone, articles on its website explicitly used the word terrorist headlines reporting terrorist in headlines reporting the a terrorist in the death of a terrorist in mozambique and a Court Case Involving terrorism charges in sheffield. When our apolitical, sheffield. When our apolitical, sovereign prince of sovereign and the prince of wales are able to describe hamas as what it is a terrorist organisation, it is appalling that the bbc has the audacity to hide behind the ghastly weasel words of its own patronising style guide, which of course it writes itself as one of my panellists this evening, henry hill wrote in conservative home this week in treating the israel palestine conflict as a special case latent anti semitism begins to manifest itself if the corporation is perfectly happy to use the word terrorist for other attacks in other places, we can only conclude the reluctance to condemn hamas reveals its lack of a moral compass in failing to call hamas exactly what it really is. If the bbc loses its really is. If the bbc loses its value of impartiality and becomes partial on behalf of evildoers was always. I want to hear from you, mel. Margaret gbnews. Com but im particularly pleased to be joined by one of the signatories to the letter, lord wolfson , who co signed the lord wolfson, who co signed the letter to ofcom yesterday. The letter to ofcom yesterday. The case you were making was that the bbc has not shied away from referring to terrorists in the past. Referring to terrorists in the past. Why should it make an past. Why should it make an exception for israel . Well, thats right. I mean , well, thats right. I mean, our case really rests on three legs. There are three parts of it. First of all, as you said in your introduction, just the normal use of english language, the word terrorism word the word terrorism is the word which be used to describe the word terrorism is the word whithappened used to describe the word terrorism is the word whithappened on ed to describe the word terrorism is the word whithappened on saturday, ribe the word terrorism is the word whithappened on saturday, may what happened on saturday, may 2nd. As a matter of english law, hamas is a terrorist organisation. They are organisation. They are proscribed as a matter of law here. Support for them is illegal and i hope actually that the police will be stronger in in dealing with pro hamas rallies, im afraid, which weve seen. Rallies, im afraid, which weve seen. The third point is, as you seen. The third point is, as you say, the bbc has used the word in other contexts. You mentioned ira, also al qaeda it called the terrorist attacks in paris in the nightclub, a terrorist attack, which it undoubtedly was , is. And the question which we are left with and which was the basis of our letter to ofcom is why is this different . Is there a broader point here that the way karate, for want of a better term , seem to think of israel as term, seem to think of israel as being different . So the bbc wont say terrorism , wembley wont light terrorism, wembley wont light up the arch , but black lives up the arch, but black lives matter has been very wishy washy in its statements about what has happened, that there is a woke reluctance chance to defend israel when israel is attacked. Israel when israel is attacked. I dont think black lives matter has been wishy washy at all. I think black lives matter has been very clear in its support for what happened on saturday. Im afraid whats happened over the last 72 hours is that people have shown their true colours. We have seen true colours. We have seen tremendous support out both for israel and for the Jewish Community here. As you say , from community here. As you say, from his majesty the king at the top through the prince, prince and princess of wales, the Prime Minister , the im a tory peer, minister, the im a tory peer, but i will say that keir starmer has been resolute on this issue as well. Ed davey has given some very good statements across the political stance. So weve seen a lot of support, but weve also seen people who should be speaking out. Why . Because they speaking out. Why . Because they spoke out in other contexts and thats the point. Its the difference in treatment at which concerns so many of us. Concerns so many of us. Concerns so many of us. And thats really interesting, isnt it . Because you dont expect people to tweet on its not on everything. Its not compulsory your on compulsory to put your view on every but there are every subject, but there are some notable celebrities and organisers, asians, put organisers, asians, who put their on every thing their views out on every thing who resoundingly silent. Who are resoundingly silent. Well, yes, i mean, gary lineker, for example, if i can pick on him, he drew a lot of publicity when he compared the governments immigration policy to 1930 germany. Well what happenedin to 1930 germany. Well what happened in israel on saturday was 1940s, germany. More jews was 1940s, germany. More jews were killed on saturday, deliberately than on any day since the holocaust. But as far since the holocaust. But as far as i know , the only thing gary as i know, the only thing gary lineker has so far tweeted about is to applaud the bbcs stance in not calling Hamas Terrorists , which is absolutely extraordinary from somebody who normally fills the ainnaves with his view on anything and everything. Well, im sure hes been extremely busy on other things and he hasnt managed to get to condemning get round to condemning unambiguously a terrorist atrocity. Atrocity. And with the bbc, john simpson, one of its most distinguished former foreign correspondent, has said in his tweet that he thinks that the bbc is right, but he carries a lot of weight. Distinguish that figure. Do you think the bbc has to separate itself from the British State . We put we put the tweet up for people to read on on the screen. Do you think hes right that the bbc must always be even more impartial than anybody else . I dont think the bbc should be taking its instructions from the government or the state. I like fact that the bbc is like the fact that the bbc is editorially independent. Ant, but if were going to have a state broadcaster for which we all have to pay the least, we can expect is that it abides by what i would call moral norms. What i would call moral norms. It what they are it calls things what they are and what john simpson didnt deal with in his tweet was the fact that the bbc in so many other contexts, as weve discussed just now, has used the word terrorism. I mean, whats clear is that the bbc guidelines do not preclude include the use of the word terrorism. Im roger of the word terrorism. Im roger mosey, the former head of Bbc Television news made that very clear in an article in the guardian. But also that the bbc guidelines, they written by guidelines, they are written by the have practical, day the bbc to have practical, day to effect. To day effect. And if there is an exceptional circumstance , exceptional circumstance, theyre guidelines. Theyre only guidelines. , absolutely. But would well, absolutely. But i would say isnt even an say this isnt even an exceptional circumstance. Exceptional circumstance. Obvious . Exceptional circumstance. Itsious . Exceptional circumstance. Its absolutely obvious. Its absolutely obvious. Its absolutely obvious. Come to wembley, and to come to wembley, wembley isnt going to light up the it says that it will the arch. It says that it will have a minutes silence again , have a minutes silence again, thats different behaviour from how wembley normally behaves isnt it . And thats the problem. Its not that football should be political because perhaps itd be best if it werent at all, but that it should be consistent. Well, i think, i mean, i declare my interest. The declare my interest. Im the chair of the football regulatory authority, which Committee Chair of the football regulatory autheity, which Committee Chair of the football regulatory authe fa. Which Committee Chair of the football regulatory authe fa. Ihich Committee Chair of the football regulatory authe fa. I think Committee Chair of the football regulatory authe fa. I think sportwmmittee chair of the football regulatory authe fa. I think sport hasittee of the fa. I think sport has really two choices. It can either totally stay out of politics or it can deal in politics. Now, what the fa has doneisin politics. Now, what the fa has done is in 2016, after a terrorist attack in turkey, it lit the arch in 2015 after the massacre in a nightclub in paris , and it lit the arch. And in fact, before, for every next premier league game, the marseillaise was played at every ground. After this terrorist attack. When partygoers, festival goers were mowed down in their hundreds, all of a sudden, were told no lighting of the arch will wear a black armband and have a minutes silence. My concern is, again, silence. My concern is, again, why . Why the difference in why . Why the difference in treatment . The inconsistency and the English Football Team took the English Football Team took the knee and joined in with whole black lives matter approach during whatever football championship it was playing a couple of years ago. Playing a couple of years ago. Well, i think what we have to do is we have to decide, do we mean what we say or are we virtue signalling . And if we mean what we say, we have to continue to do it even when its tough. Now, i appreciate the fa may be concerned about the security implications, although i should say the security implications dont come from the Golders Green bridge club. But if we want to fight terror as a society, we need to be resolute about it. And that means not giving in. Is there something more sinister about this . Is there an implicit anti semitism in the unwilled menace to condemn terrorist attacks on israel that on any other country would be condemned more forthrightly . Well im always very careful not to throw about the charge of anti semitism. Anti semitism. What i anti semitism. What i would hope is that the fa come out and explain very clearly what they havent yet explained, which is this what is the difference between the terrorist attack in turkey and the terrorist attack in paris on the terrorist attack in paris on the one hand and the terrorist attack in israel on the other . Its that explanation which im hoping that the fa will provide and they have not yet provided and they have not yet provided and they have not yet provided and the bbc has of course made a statement which i can read out. It says the bbc is editorially independent. Our role to explain precisely role is to explain precisely what is happening so that the pubuc what is happening so that the public can their own public can make their own judgements. Our long judgements. Its our long standing position, including dunng standing position, including during conflicts standing position, including during israel conflicts standing position, including during israel and flicts standing position, including during israel and hamas between israel and hamas in gaza, been that we do not gaza, has been that we do not use the term terrorist without attribution with the attribution in line with the bbcs editorial guidelines. Bbcs editorial guidelines. Well, you can make of that what you will. Itll be very interesting to see what ofcom has to say and i hope they respond to you very quickly. Well, i hope they do as well. And obviously, if there are any substantive developments, im sure theyll make their way onto the news and onto your programme. Well, lets hope so. Very much thank you very much for joining lord wolfson. Dont joining me, lord wolfson. Dont forget me know your forget to let me know your thoughts. Margaret thoughts. Mel margaret gbnews. Com. Thoughts. Mel margaret gb news. Com. Next, with gbnews. Com. Coming up next, with reports that hamas has been funded cryptocurrency, funded by cryptocurrency, can this be trusted . This form of money be trusted . Ill be asking a bitcoin expert listening to gb news radio. Listening to gb news radio. Welcome back. Im still Jacob Rees Mogg and this is still state of the nation. Youve been getting in touch with your thoughts. As john says, if the thoughts. As john says, if the bbc were a private company, then i suspend my i could simply suspend my service paying them. Service and stop paying them. And terrorism is and tony, terrorism is terrorism. Are no sides on terrorism. There are no sides on this subject. Its now merged in the first half of this year. The Terror Group Hamas and its allies received over £108 million in crypto currency. Million in crypto currency. Theres questions about how hamas funded its devastating attack israel. Grow attack on israel. Grow cryptocurrency is one method, which allows terrorist organisations to avoid Global Financial sanctions. However it is apparently possible by tracing the blockchains or records behind Crypto Payments to find out who the donors were so it could be that hamas sponsors will be uncovered after all. Well, joining me to discuss the rise in cryptocurrency is leyla halperin, author of undressing bitcoin. Leyla thank you very much for joining me. Can you just explain how bitcoin works in simple layman terms . Works in simple layman terms . Yes, absolutely. Yes, absolutely. Great to be here. So bitcoin is simply peer to peer digital cash. Is simply peer to peer digital cash. So theres basically cash. So theres basically a decentralised blockchain. I send you one bitcoin and you will see that on the blockchain. Youll see that i can youll see every single transaction that has ever happened and its completely decentralised. So in terms of avoiding sanctions , that might avoiding sanctions, that might be why you think that you can circumvent different sanctions because theres no jurisdiction. We shut down the blockchain we can shut down the blockchain , okay . So it cant be shut down. It can be sent end to end and therefore its a fantastic mechanism for terrorists and criminals. Is that a major problem . Problem . So its actually not so as of yesterday, october 10th, the israeli authorities actually shut down the crypto accounts of those that they think are associated with hamas or palestine liens or whatever it is. So you have to understand that these Cryptocurrency Exchanges that hold the bitcoin, they have to operate and abide by the different regulations of the country which theyre operating in. And so the government has the authority to shut this down. Now, of course, there is the chance that theyre not using these centralised exchanges and they are, of course, trading peer to peer, but with of the different but with many of the different cryptocurrencies, the cryptocurrencies, especially the ones use the ethereum ones which use the Ethereum Network and circle , network like tether and circle, well, can actually be shut well, these can actually be shut down because these companies that that provide these cryptocurrencies, can shut cryptocurrencies, they can shut them down using something very simple like a blockchain analytics explorer. They can basically shut them down using the government. And this happens the government. And this happens many times and even bitcoin, like i said, you know, you cant you cant shut down bitcoin , but you cant shut down bitcoin, but you cant shut down bitcoin, but you certainly blacklist the you can certainly blacklist the addresses making almost addresses, making it almost impossible people to trade impossible for people to trade peer to peer and actually use the funds to finance these wars. Okay. But if you blacklist okay. But if you blacklist some of the names, thats not going to have any effect. If its iran trading with north korea , is it so people can get korea, is it so people can get around that if theyre willing to trade with criminal outfits . To trade with criminal outfits . Oh, thats a very good point. However, what i will like to draw your attention to is the fact that 3 to 5 of global gdp annually is laundered using fiat currency, using cash. When it currency, using cash. When it comes to crypto less than 0. 1 of all bitcoin transactions, including crypto , is not is used including crypto, is not is used for Illicit Activity less than 0. 1. And so cash is the best way to actually finance these wars. To actually finance these wars. Okay, thats a great argument in a way, but surely it depends on the relationship between the percentage of crypto that is criminal and the percentage of ordinary cash transactions that are criminal. And you need to look at that balance rather than the amount, because most the total amount, because most transactions are in fiat currencies. Currencies. That is correct. But that is correct. But ultimately the blockchain is entirely transparent and so people can see every single transaction that has ever happened. Transaction that has ever happened. So and not just the happened. So and notjust the transactions ever happened. You can also see every single transaction thats associated with that supposed terrorism or or circumvent or circumvention of sanctions. And because it is of sanctions. And because it is entirely traceable , well, if entirely traceable, well, if iran is doing whatever its doing with north korea, the us , doing with north korea, the us, the uk, we can all see exactly what is happening. The entire world can see it and then can add their very own sanctions on top of that in other ways that they wish to do that. But the point is that its entirely traceable that fiat traceable in a way that fiat currencies, cash and no other means of medium of exchange is. Well, brilliant. Thank well, thats brilliant. Thank you, leila, for that. Extremely clear how you can clear explanation of how you can be if youre a criminal be tracked if youre a criminal using bitcoin. Youre using bitcoin. If youre a criminal watching, doubt you criminal watching, i doubt you are. We dont have criminals watching news, if you watching gb news, but if you are, watch with me now is are, watch out. With me now is my tessa my panel of broadcaster tessa dunlop editor of dunlop and Deputy Editor of conservative home henry hill. Tessa bitcoin financing and criminality. Hundreds of millions washing about is this something we should be concerned about . Well, its interesting thing because i think twas ever thus in terms of financial security. In the early 19th century, we were very reluctant to convert to paper money. Heaven forbid wed much rather be weighed down with our gold and singer and our jingles and our jangles. And in fact, america were very late to adopt paper currency. It was took the civil war, i think, the american war, i think, for the american to adopt it. So there will to state adopt it. So there will be teething problems. There are loopholes, i thought loopholes, but i thought actually lila made a great argument that if i give you a counterfeit suitcase, by the way, ive left yours in the green room of money appreciated. Who can tell if ive worn gloves . But actually bitcoin whizzing between my server and harrys, which it will later tonight . Well but it isnt it a way that criminals act that all one ever hears about bitcoin . Is that its used for criminal transactions and Money Laundering and so on, and the whole essence of it is, is suspect. Suspect. I mean the primary use case for most crypto currencies is buying drugs on the internet and with a secondary use case as a speculative investment vehicle. And there are specific programs which allow you to try and muddle up this traceability that you have with bitcoin. So i think was shut down recently. Think it was shut down recently. There called there was something called tornado you took your tornado cash where you took your illicit whizzed illicit bitcoin and it whizzed it load of legitimate it up with a load of legitimate bitcoin to try and muddle the transactions. Yes, but i think the significant which transactions. Yes, but i think the didnt significant which transactions. Yes, but i think the didnt hearficant which transactions. Yes, but i think the didnt hear about which transactions. Yes, but i think the didnt hear about is which transactions. Yes, but i think the didnt hear about is thathich we didnt hear about is that there actually one there is actually one cryptocurrency called monero, which third which i think is the third largest, is a completely largest, which is a completely anonymous. Has completely anonymous. It has a completely separate blockchain it is separate blockchain and it is not any individual. Not traceable to any individual. And most the serious and so most of the serious criminals which is why criminals use that which is why we hear about it. We dont hear about it. We about and when we talk about serious criminals, are we including hezbollah . Because i heard convincing heard a very convincing professor who said professor last night who said thats a huge one of their huge roles, aside from roles, if you like, aside from lobbing fuelled grenades lobbing terror fuelled grenades and rockets. Is actually money and rockets. Is actually a Money Laundering. Business laundering. Its big business and jobs. Laundering. Its big business and they jobs. Laundering. Its big business and they dont jobs. Laundering. Its big business and they dont have jobs. Laundering. Its big business and they dont have theiris. And they dont have their headquarters, incidentally, in lebanon. In lebanon. Theyre probably in qatar somewhere and qatar or somewhere else. And its like the ira drug its like the ira with drug dealing, its like the ira with drug dea like this often where like this often happens where terrorists develop to becoming. Self sustaining networks. But self sustaining networks. It worth getting back to it may be worth getting back to the were discussing the issue we were discussing earlier with lord wolfson about the bbc the about the bbc and its reluctance because were reluctance because you were happy to use the word terror. Why bbc not to why is the bbc not willing to say that hamas is a Terror Organisation . Its interesting. I gave this its interesting. I gave this a great deal of thought this afternoon to the point that i rang one of the journalists, bbc staff journalists worked there for 40 years. I rang him at great expense. He was in south africa to download his his thought process. And i find thought process. And i find myself in sympathy to an extent with the bbc. Ive gone as a representative , as a freelancer representative, as a freelancer for the bbc, working in Foreign Countries and where its Great International value is. And some of britains huge soft power is in the credibility of the bbc brand and whether we like it or not, jacob, that there is there are people listening and we want them to hear what the bbc says because its an incredibly effective empirical fact sourcing body. And to, to load terms that might encourage them to switch off and for them to say its one sided. And incidentally, this same journalist gave me the example just today, tessa, he said , i just today, tessa, he said, i was lampooned and somebody put a bbc article down in front of me because said x number of because it said x number of israelis killed x number of palestine ians have died. The bbc is subsequently changed that article language can be so loaded and at the moment we need to take the heat out and not ratchet it up. It can, but henry, it seems to me the bbc is willing to call terrorists terrorists in other circumstances. And there seems circumstances. And there seems to be Something Special about israel. I think thats the problem. Problem. Think it would still be i think it would still be misguided if if the bbc had misguided if the if the bbc had a general principle against calling terrorists, calling terrorists terrorists, but it would at least be understandable. But as you know understandable. But as you know , i wrote in my piece yesterday the bbc uses the word terrorist all the time. It applies the word terrorist to groups all the time. Israel seems to be the only exception, or palestine and hamas. And thats deeply unfortunate because it means its a yet another example like weve seen with the far of an organisation singling out the israel palestine conflict for special treatment. I dont know if i think thats correct, actually. Did they constantly refer to sinn fein as the political wing of, for example , the ira as for example, the ira as terrorists . I dont know that they always did. If we go back they always did. If we go back as far as the second world war, and i know because ive studied it extensively, the bbc tended to emotion its to remove the emotion from its reporting. Allowed others reporting. They allowed others like me to do that. And like you or me to do that. And if we go to does use the word terrorist, sometimes it does. Sometimes the ira terrorists and thats the and it will say thats the terror act. And it will say thats the terr ir act. And it will say thats the terri dont think they would be i dont think they would be in any doubt. Reason in any doubt. And the reason we know about the terror acts at the weekend is one of the reasons extensive bbc reporting. But just bbc reporting. Butjust bbc dug itself into but just bbc dug itself into a being so stubborn on a hole by being so stubborn on this. What happened over the weekend was shocking, so weekend was so shocking, so shocking, all shocking, so evil, which is all the you dial the more reason that you dial down the heat around the words you use to platform others to allow you have to show allow them. You have to show your horror has actually your horror at what has actually happened on happened and that when it was on such a scale and so obviously a terror attack that bbc has terror attack that the bbc has made look anti israel by made itself look anti israel by not using the word. Two really quick points there. Youve made a brilliant case for why its so important in our media landscape. We both have gb news, which has expressed that horror and youve delivered the heat x2 tracking the heat from the light which the heat from the light which the bbc showed those horrific pictures , those images, they pictures, those images, they have light and you deliver heat and you need both in a in a vital media landscape. And the second point is you could flip that around and say Amnesty International and the un have referred to what israel the way in which israel governance, both in which israel governance, both in israel and in the palestinian occupied territories as apartheid. The bbc does not refer to the israel to israel as an apartheid state. It allows other people, Amnesty International, to say that , but international, to say that, but it doesnt say that itself. I think amnestys position is pretty ridiculous. Well, the un and the un backs it up just to be clear. I mean, the un is a is a corporate body of. Yeah, i think i think i think one point i would make is that the british, its editorially independent but the the British State the bbc is the British State broadcaster and in the United Kingdom hamas officially kingdom hamas is officially a proscribed terrorist organisation. So therefore i think referring to think that actually referring to them terrorists is the them as terrorists is the neutral to do. And you neutral thing to do. And if you refuse to do that, youre actually editorialising. On a minute, but now hang on a minute, because theyre not refusing to say acts are terror. No. Yeah, but no, but theyre refusing to say that hamas is hamas are terrorists and by law, hamas are terrorists and by law, hamas are terrorists and by law, hamas are a proscribed terrorist organisation. But theyre platforming them organisation. Btheireyre platforming them organisation. Btheireyre pacts. ming them organisation. Btheireyre pacts. Itsig them with their terror acts. Its there all to see. Right. But there for all to see. Right. But then would use the then why would they use the name . Well, look at nelson mandela. South africa had him as a all he had a terrorist for all he had perpetrated was a perpetrated the people. He was a freedom and remains hero. I think the bbc has dug itself into a hole and if it had any it would dig itself any sense, it would dig itself out. However, ill have my panel back me again next. But we back with me again next. But we talk are they talk about prisons. Are they becoming and can becoming too full and can we really afford delay really afford to delay sentencing rapists to gb news radio. To gb news radio. Welcome back. Our man, Jacob Rees Mogg. And this is state of the nation. Youve been getting in touch with your thoughts. Kenneth says, how can licence payers trust the bbc if it cant call terrorism by its proper name . And david, if youre against cryptocurrencies because theyre transactions are not traceable , then you must also be traceable, then you must also be in of moving cash from in favour of moving cash from society replacing with society and replacing it with Digital Currencies the same Digital Currencies for the same reason. It happens reason. Not quite. As it happens , but that may be another discussion. For the first time discussion. For the First Time Since two thousand and seven, Police Chiefs are gravely concerned prisons in concerned that prisons in england and wales would have no more room to contain newly sentenced criminals. With just 124 spare places in the male pnson 124 spare places in the male prison system, Crown Court Judges have been advised not to jail criminals, including rapists and burglars, and instead hand them sentences in the community. Not only will this fail, those who have suffered thefts, attacks and assaults hands these assaults at the hands of these individuals, poses a risk individuals, but it poses a risk to the public of further incidents. If criminals incidents. If these criminals are back society. Are allowed back in society. Well, panel is still here. Well, my panel is still here. Tessa henry hill. Tessa dunlop and henry hill. Henry whats happening is a conservative government and we cant even lock up criminals. Well, i mean, the conservative government has kept shutting prisons. I think thats probably problem. Hmp probably the main problem. Hmp lancaster renovated one lancaster recently renovated one of pnsons lancaster recently renovated one of prisons with the lowest of the prisons with the lowest recidivism closed ken recidivism rates closed by ken clarke in 2011 hed clarke in 2011 because hed really wanted close it in the really wanted to close it in the 1990s and he didnt like the fact was a castle and fact that it was in a castle and im slandering him. Thats fact that it was in a castle and im heslandering him. Thats fact that it was in a castle and im he saidiering him. Thats fact that it was in a castle and im he said ining him. Thats fact that it was in a castle and im he said in his him. Thats what he said in his autobiography. Hmp Shepton Mallet few ago. Mallet closed a few years ago. They able to they havent been able to redevelop the redevelop it because the developer permission, developer didnt get permission, so Shepton Mallet so its currently Shepton Mallet prison. Go. Prison. Oh, there we go. Yeah. There was only one yeah. And there was only one room the entire prison. It room in the entire prison. It was the oldest prison in england and it was the only, there was only window out of which you only one window out of which you could see grass. Yes. And i do could see grass. Yes. And i do suggest that might not be rehabilitation. Thats not. Thats thats not. That may be worse than some hypothetical prison we never built. But its better than the no prison that we replaced it with. And the thing is, they didnt even get to redevelop it. The only didnt get the they only didnt get permission. Its currently permission. So its currently maintained as a show prison, which filming and which they use for filming and which they use for filming and which you can get tours of. So basically it was a staggering like said, it was oldest like i said, it was the oldest prison. It was, yeah, but it was a real gates would creek and real the gates would creek and your keys would jangle your thing of keys would jangle and properly had and it was properly but it had porridge beyond. Porridge and beyond. Cells servicemen but it had cells servicemen dunng but it had cells servicemen during the war wasnt it. It became sex offenders and it became a sex offenders pnson and it became a sex offenders prison it had cells we could prison but it had cells we could put people in. Problem is that weve and the problem is that weve closed prisons like that. And its true that theyre its true that maybe theyre deficient some ultra deficient compared to some ultra modern they in modern prisons that they have in scandinavia, built scandinavia, but weve not built any of those. And so the result is had a net loss of is that weve had a net loss of pnson is that weve had a net loss of prison space and now thats coming. Hang on. We cant only put it down infrastructure. If i may down to infrastructure. If i may just little light in true just shed a little light in true bbc style and give you some statistics. Between 2009 and 2009 prison 2009 mean the average prison sentence from 13. 8 sentence went up from 13. 8 months. So 13. 8 months or however long that is just over a year to 18. 9 months. Thats a considerable leap. The average sentence has gone up by a third in a decade, and its about to go in a decade, and its about to 9 up in a decade, and its about to go up even more because the government just mandated that prisoners should have to serve two thirds rather than half of their sentences before qualifying release. Weve got and i think so weve got and i think thats brought to thats whats brought this to a philosophy of criminalising society. And it didnt just start with you can park some of you guys. You can park some of the blame. I know, but but because went up under because murders went up under new the prison. Because murders went up under neibut the prison. Because murders went up under neibut its the prison. Because murders went up under neibut its note prison. Because murders went up under neibut its not the son. But its not the criminalisation action, its the honesty sentencing it honesty and sentencing that it seems there used to seems to me that there used to be really thing for be a really easy thing for politicians. Politicians stand be a really easy thing for polandms. Politicians stand be a really easy thing for polandms. Wed cians stand be a really easy thing for polandms. Wed have stand be a really easy thing for polandms. Wed have longer up and say wed have longer sentences. Its really important. Would important. And people would be sentenced years. Sentenced to years. And voters love it, dont they . That. Lock them up. Sure they do. And then youd release them more and more quickly that ratio of quickly so that the ratio of sentence to time served changed. And push and this has just begun to push it back a bit so that people serve time theyre serve more of the time theyre sentenced and thats honesty sentenced to. And thats honesty with the public. If youre going to do but if youre going to do that, you to build more that, you need to build more prisons. Thats the prisons. And i think thats the problem. Take a theres prisons. And i think thats the p|perfectly take a theres prisons. And i think thats the p|perfectly honesttake a theres prisons. And i think thats the p|perfectly honest politicaleres a perfectly honest political debate whether not you debate about whether or not you want more people in prison and fewer prison all fewer people in prison and. All right. Youre going to right. But if youre going to take more prison or longer take them more prison or longer serving sentences, route, you need to build the prison space. While our and just quickly, while our pnson and just quickly, while our prison gone up, the prison numbers have gone up, the really offending rate has not gone down. These longer gone down. So these longer sentences, people sentences, when people are eventually released because the vast prisoners vast majority of prisoners are released, not released, they are not re offending they re offending less, i. E. They havent lessons havent learned their lessons through the longest. Really important thats a really important issue. Do you get recidivism issue. How do you get recidivism down . Were to go on down . But were going to go on because may be going into because we may all be going into pnson because we may all be going into prison drivers. Well, i hope prison as drivers. Well, i hope it wont be quite that serious, but. But million, 2 million drivers could be wrongly identified for by ulez or identified for fines by ulez or speed cameras every day. Speed cameras every day. Automatic number, plate recognition has a 3 failure rate. And because fines are being churned out as a fundraising mechanism by all sorts of councils and so on, a small percentage of a large number makes a lot of people, and this is deeply unfair when innocent motorists, many of whom are simply trying to go about their daily life, are suddenly finding theyre getting fines which they shouldnt be getting in it seems in the first place. Now it seems to me that fundamental that the rule of law is that, however minor the offence, you should only be charged if there is proof against you beyond reasonable doubt. Yes and the motorist is treated as guilty until proved innocent. Until proved innocent. I dont like agreeing with jacob. It just goes against the grain. Its difficult sometimes grain. Its difficult sometimes to sit in the same room as you. It was not that bad. It was not that bad. No, im being facetious, but ive got to say, i acquired a car during covid to visit old women i was writing about, and i very rarely use it. Im not a nervous driver, im nervous driver, but im not hugely experienced. And im hugely experienced. And im telling you that the few times i used it almost without fail, i got some kind of fine or penalty for going into boxes, for being in a bus lane, for parking in the wrong place. Once i parked at morrisons and i discovered it wasnt the supermarket car park and i got another fine. And i got another fine. Literally, i think there was a sort of 3 or £400 in two months. I stopped using the car. I need to it. It is. It turns us to sell it. It is. It turns us all into criminals. Youre right. I dont like that. Right. And i dont like that. And this is really unfair that a 3 failure rate in a criminal Justice System working on number 3 failure rate in a criminal justice isstem working on number 3 failure rate in a criminal justice is outrageous1g on number 3 failure rate in a criminal justice is outrageous. ] on number plates is outrageous. And these fines arent small, right . Like my little brother drives and, you know, he already pays a substantial chunk of his post tax income on ulez every month. He he missed one payment. Apparently missed apparently he missed one payment. Apparently. Maybe it was its a £90 was a fault. And its a £90 fine. Oh, its massive. Its £12. 50 a day whatever. 90. £12. 50 a day or whatever. 90. Thats huge amount thats a huge amount when you think the of people think about the number of people who may have to drive for work in who arent on large in london who arent on large incomes, think about what £90 represents monthly. Represents out of their monthly. They rely on you its absurd. They rely on you for getting and forgotten for getting and ive forgotten so with that trap so many times with that trap in the middle. The congestion charge pay £10 year charge that i now pay £10 a year for they, if they catch for so that they, if they catch me, they immediately it me, they immediately put it through. Get the £90 through. So i dont get the £90 late charge or whatever the whole thing is rigged to make money. Like another tax money. Its like another tax isnt effectively so isnt it. Effectively its so rather this current rather than saying this current conservative administration taxes are at a record level of £0. 37 in every pound, which is what it is. In fact, the truth what it is. In fact, the truth is, if youre a driver, its about £0. 42 in every pound. So youre a great historian. This is mediaeval, isnt it . That mediaeval monarchs used fines of financing fines as a means of financing the monarchy . Yeah. To away the monarchy . Yeah. To get away because taxes taxes are unpopular. Unpopular. Im doing this. Im doing this. Are the same. You are you are the same. You are a mediaeval crook. You are still part the administration. Part of the administration. Doing it . The sheriff are you doing it . The sheriff of nottingham going thing about jacob is hes the nearest i get to power so i have to sort of get it all out of my system. But the motorist is being harried in this way, partly because thats the way to get to net zero, that its if you make motoring pleasant people motoring less pleasant people will do less. Youll put off will do it less. Youll put off driving about changing driving and its about changing behaviour and the government doesnt really want to admit that its trying to change behaviour to get to net. Maybe maybe im too maybe i, maybe im too cynical, but i actually think its inverse. Think its more cynical, but i actually think its neterse. Think its more cynical, but i actually think its net zero think its more cynical, but i actually think its net zero stuffk its more cynical, but i actually think its net zero stuff is ts more cynical, but i actually think its net zero stuff is a; more cynical, but i actually think its net zero stuff is a really the net zero stuff is a really good cover story for just shaking people down for money. I think the councils think thats what the councils care awful lot more. Care about an awful lot more. Its youve got its really nice if youve got some noble thing you can some kind of noble thing you can put on release, but this put on a press release, but this is about because the thing is, if theres that £10 service, right, people know right, most people dont know that that that exists. You know, that exists, they dont exists, but most but they dont advertise it, do they . Theres not signs up saying can sign not signs up saying you can sign up this handy thing so that up for this handy thing so that you get charged. You automatically get charged. You could that you know, they could that would be really useful to have be a really useful thing to have on billboards outside on those billboards outside buses. It there . Have buses. Is it there . No, you have to hear about it on television. News news. Gb news on gb news. Gb news on gb news. The channel of heat. But just just very quickly, i disagree with you. Wont surprise you with you. It wont surprise you to hear, jacob, that drive to hear, jacob, that i drive a hybnd to hear, jacob, that i drive a hybrid my fines not hybrid car, but my fines are not less the diesel guzzler less than the diesel guzzler next to me. No i drove a hybrid for a yeah, and you dont get fined any less. So why would that be . You dont get any less. You dont get any less. And youre driving around this battery most of this very heavy battery most of the less the time, which makes you less fuel its fuel efficient. Its not necessarily that green. Well, i dont i think harriet may a point its not may have a point that its not really about zero. Really about net zero. It is perhaps about getting cars off the road because especially cities, congestion cars off the road because especiethey cities, congestion cars off the road because especiethey cities, cwbejestion cars off the road because especiethey cities, cwbe efficient means they cease to be efficient because many because theres too many of them. Again, improved them. But again, improved public transport. But theyve done everything to it disagreeable for the motorists. Theyve set the traffic lights often. Lights to be red more often. Theyve lanes, theyve narrowed the lanes, theyve speed theyve reduced the speed limits. Theres a real attack on motorists with this bit just being icing on top of the being the icing on top of the unfairness problem being the icing on top of the urthat ess problem being the icing on top of the urthat theres problem being the icing on top of the urthat theres an problem being the icing on top of the urthat theres an awful problem being the icing on top of the urthat theres an awful lothlem being the icing on top of the urthat theres an awful lot ofem is that theres an awful lot of stuff that you simply cant take out transport. Out of private transport. A lot of live in you know, a lot of i live in london. I dont own a car. Lots of people who live in london already public transport. Already use public transport. Its served. But an its very well served. But an awful lot of people who arent its very well served. But an awful somewhere. E who arent its very well served. But an awful somewhere nearo arent its very well served. But an awful somewhere nearo station its very well served. But an aviwhoomewhere nearo station its very well served. But an aviwho needihere nearo station its very well served. But an aviwho need are nearo station its very well served. But an aviwho need a vanlearo station its very well served. But an aviwho need a vanlea all station its very well served. But an aviwho need a vanlea all kinds1 or who need a van or all kinds of other stuff they cant just get off the road and sell their car. And that means that this kind of stuff, you know, syntaxes supposed and syntaxes are supposed to try and discourage behaviour, if discourage behaviour, but if that driven that behaviour is driven by necessity, going necessity, its not going to do that. Its just to screw that. Its just going to screw money out of people. That is a brilliant point on which were going to have to end here we welcome back. I continue to identify as Jacob Rees Mogg. And now its time for the book club its im very pleased to welcome the return of the book club where i sit down with an esteemed author and discuss his latest literary offering. Im particularly pleased to be joined evening professor joined this evening by professor nigel regius professor Nigel Biggar RegiusProfessor Emeritus of moral theology at the university of oxford and author moral author of colonialism a moral reckoning , author of colonialism a moral reckoning, and author of colonialism a moral reckoning , and professor reckoning, and professor biggars recent book addresses some of the key questions surrounding british history. Was the British Empire driven primarily by greed and the lust to dominate . And was the empire essentially racist , as to dominate . And was the empire essentially racist, as nigel, your book covers a vast swathe of history. Its a huge scale. Inevitably in something that lasts for many hundreds of years. There will be good things and bad things. How do you try. And bad things. How do you try. And judge over such a period and over such different behaviours in different places . In different places . So the first thing, jacob, is simply to explain that there was good as well as bad because the story being put about it by lots of folk now and being being absorbed is that the British Empire was nothing but a litany of racism and oppression and cultural repression. And so cultural repression. And so i just wanted to say, look, there was good as well as bad as for trying to trying to weigh these things up to decide which was more significant. Things up to decide which was more significant. I things up to decide which was more significant. I dont things up to decide which was more significant. I dont think you can what you can say is that there was nothing the British Empire that was was like, the British Empire didnt have a kind of crazed heart that was devoted to massively murderous racist genocide. And you can also add that that the British Empire achieved a number of very good things. To what extent was it driven by money and people like clive of india themselves of india made themselves enormous by their enormous fortunes by their efforts in india. They werent entirely free from corruption. Entirely free from corruption. Was that a primary motivational force . Force . Certainly was a primary motivational force, and i myself , and i suspect you too, have no objections to making money. No, no, no, no at all. To make money. So the east india company, why was it in india at all . To trade, to make money . So trade was a major motive, but it wasnt the only one. I mean, the reason that lots of brits ended up in north america was they they left poor conditions in the uk, left famine in search of a better life, and then sometimes, yeah. And the search for a better life then had an effect on the original inhabitants. So youve got tasmania , india and youve got tasmania, india and youve got tasmania, india and youve got the aborigines there who die in very large numbers. Is that one of the great blots on the British Empire, or is it something that has been misunderstood . Well a lot of people call it genocide. People call it genocide. And my view is that genocide is the wrong way to describe it, because genocide should be defined as the intentional and systematic intention to eradicate a people. And there is no evidence that the Colonial Government in tasmania intended that. And indeed it sought to protect aboriginal tasmanians from settlers as best it could. From settlers as best it could. It failed and many people died. But there wasnt an evil intent, which is important. And that also applies to slavery. Now to begin with, there clearly is an evil intent and we are great slave traders and then we become the first country in the world in the whole of history to be determined to abolish slavery. How you balance that slavery. How do you balance that out in your book, the initial evil, but then this remarkable christian good . Evil, but then this remarkable chrwell good . Evil, but then this remarkable chr well ,]ood . Evil, but then this remarkable chrwell , inod . Evil, but then this remarkable chrwell , i the sense i make of well, i the sense i make of thatis well, i the sense i make of that is to say that, yes, slavery 450 years was really bad. But by the way, everybody in the world was doing it. And there was something of a moral revolution in in in england, in the late 1700s, driven mainly by by non conformist protestant christianity that came to the view that some people, only other people as their absolute property was morally unacceptable. And so britain unacceptable. And so britain became one of the first states in the history of the world as you said, not just to abolish you said, notjust to abolish slave trading and slavery, but then to spend 150 years of the rest of its life suppress buying it from brazil to new zealand, and for pointing things out like this, you got an incredible amount of abuse, that there was amount of abuse, that there was a strong feeling of. Shoot the messenger. Yes there was. There was. And my view is that having having looked at what some of my critics say is that the abuse was not driven by a concern for the truth about history. It was dnven the truth about history. It was driven , i think, by a terror driven, i think, by a terror that my view is actually might get heard and the truth might be exposed. Theres a sense of reflecting on the kind of response i got, a sense of panic on the part of the opposition , on the part of the opposition, putting yourself into the mind of the opposition, if you can. Why . Why do they want to say why . Why do they want to say the empire was bad when it the empire was so bad when it clearly wasnt . It was clearly mixed. It clearly did some wonderful things. It created extraordinary states. It civilised, it spread the rule of law and democracy. We it was one law and democracy. We it was one of the gentlest empires the world has ever known. So why do people want to say that . It was nothing but evil . I think it has to do with the self perception and social status of these progressive crusaders. Because if they can make out the west and the record of the west is at stake here, the west and its imperial past to be be the worst thing that ever happened to the world. Then they get to play the crusader in shining armour on the white horse. But its not really that horse. But its not really that they care about the oppressed or they care about the oppressed or the disadvantaged. Its really the disadvantaged. Its really about them. And i first noticed this when during the protests to, to bring down rhodess statue in oxford and you had this bunch of rather privileged students complaining about rhodes. Who was he dead 120 years. Meanwhile in south africa, jacob zuma is looting the south african state, much more concerned about historic failures than current disgraces. Well , nigel, failures than current disgraces. Well, nigel, thank you very much indeed. I present the book on audiobook and i would strongly recommend it. It is truly excellent. Thats all from me up next is Patrick Christys patrick. What is on your bill of fare tonight . Yes well, we have uncovered some absolute shocking footage of anti semitism on the streets of britain. Well be showing you that. Well be talking about what on earth is going wrong in british society. Has multicolour tourism despite tourism actually failed despite us told that diversity is us being told that diversity is our strength . Ive got our biggest strength . Ive got ann im going to Ann Widdecombe on. Im going to have lady c as well for a bit of a royal update. Kelvin mackenzie joins whats to love . Joins me. Whats not to love . Sounds absolutely oh, that sounds absolutely terrific. Be coming terrific. Thatll be coming up after weather. Ill be back after the weather. Ill be back on 8 00. Im on my way on monday at 8 00. Im on my way to down somerset now. Lucky old me. Weather be me. Where the weather will be absolutely jacob absolutely delightful. Im Jacob Rees Mogg. State absolutely delightful. Im jacob rees nation, state absolutely delightful. Im jacob rees nation, and state absolutely delightful. Im jacob rees nation, and ill state absolutely delightful. Im jacob rees nation, and ill see state absolutely delightful. Im jacob rees nation, and ill see you te of the nation, and ill see you on monday. Hello, im alex burkill. Heres your latest gb news weather update. Its going to turn windy as go turn wet and windy as we go through tonight into tomorrow. Through tonight into tomorrow. But then something colder is on the as we into the the way as we go into the weekend. We an area of low weekend. We have an area of low pressure the south west of pressure to the south west of the uk and its this thats going track across england going to track across england and through and wales as we go through tonight friday, bringing tonight into friday, bringing some rain and strong winds some heavy rain and strong winds further there will be some further north there will be some showery rain pushing its way southward and with pressure southward and with low pressure nearby , northern parts of nearby, northern parts of scotland are going to be blustery and windy as we go through night as could through the night as well. Could be bit chilly for some be a little bit chilly for some parts of scotland. Milder further south, temperatures in the celsius, it is the mid teens celsius, but it is going be a wet and windy going to be a wet and windy start to friday and staying wet and windy as we go through much of day. The heavy rain could of the day. The heavy rain could cause some problems on the roads. Is quite roads. Some spray is quite likely. When factor in likely. And when you factor in those were likely those strong winds, were likely to a bit disruption. The to see a bit of disruption. The high totals rain, high totals of rain, particularly over the welsh mountains, some mountains, could lead to some flooding. The risk flooding. And theres the risk of across southern of some thunder across southern parts well. Staying parts as well. Staying quite warm though. Warm in the south, though. Temperatures 20s temperatures in the low 20s here, further north, even here, colder further north, even though it will brighter and though it will be brighter and sunnier with some showers into saturday, a chilly perhaps frosty start for many of us. Then plenty of showers feeding down on cold northerly winds. So its particularly towards the north east of scotland where therell frequent and therell be most frequent and heaviest. They are going to heaviest. But they are going to become widespread as become a bit more widespread as we the afternoon. We go through the afternoon. Even chance of wintry even the chance of some wintry ness over scotland before sunday and mostly dry. But and monday looks mostly dry. But chilly gb news. Good evening here with gb news. And our top story tonight , the uk is sending spy planes and two Royal Navy Ships to the eastern mediterranean. A new plans to support israel. The plans to support israel. The aircraft will begin patrols tomorrow to track threats to regional stability, such as the transfer of weapons to terrorist groups. According to downing street. The Prime Minister, street. The Prime Minister, rishi sunak, adding the military support would prevent further escalation and were told the British Armed forces will be on standby to deliver practical support to israel and partners in the region and offer deterrence and reassurance. Deterrence and reassurance. Well, the governments also been busy organising flights for british nationals in israel , all british nationals in israel, all with the first flight still due to leave tel aviv tonight. The foreign secretary James Cleverly urging british citizens who wish to get out to register their presence in country. Those eligible have been told not to go to airports unless theyre told to do so. Meanwhile, the told to do so. Meanwhile, the palestinian president has condemned violence against civilian populations as. As civilian populations as. As rocket fire tears through buildings in gaza city, Mahmoud Abbas said the killing or abuse of civilians contravenes morals , religion and international law. His comments come as vital medical supplies run dangerously low in gaza city. The International Red cross has warned the situation is deteriorating hourly. The only deteriorating hourly. The only remaining power station stopped working yesterday and fuel suppues working yesterday and fuel supplies for generators are low. Well also tonight, israelis have held a candle lit vigil for the victims of the terror attack by hamas on their country. Dozens of onlookers could be seen gathered around a fountain lighting the circle of candles and comforting one another whilst reciting prayers. One of whilst reciting prayers. One of the people who donated the candles for the vigil says each flame donated represents each of the victims of the attacks. More the victims of the attacks. More than 1300 israelis have been killed since saturday, including 200 soldiers. Meanwhile, more than 1400 palestinians have been killed in israeli strikes. Now killed in israeli strikes. Now in paris tonight, French Police have been breaking up. Pro palestine demonstrations after frances interior ministry