Why is the US lecturing Britain on free speech?

This is a Global Player Original Podcast.

I said what I said, which is that we do have a of course a special relationship with our friends in the UK and also with some of our European allies, but we also know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British, of course.

What the British do in their own country is up to them, but also affect American technology companies and by extension American citizens. So that is something that we'll talk about today at lunch. We've had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom and uh uh and it will last for a very long time.

Very very long time. Well no, I mean I certainly we wouldn't want to reach across US citizens, and we don't, and that's absolutely right. But um in relation to free speech in the UK, I'm very proud of our history there. That was Keir Starmer pushing back. with the Vice President J. D. Vance back in February, before J. D. Vance turned up and took over the Cotswolds. A report has come out today from the State Department.

saying that there has been backsliding on free speech, that there have been serious restrictions on free speech in the UK. Does America have a point or is this a flagrant case of pots and kettles? Welcome to the newsagents. The news agents. It's John and well, it's just John. Anyway, given that Donald Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf of America. And then banned the Associated Press from the White House briefing room because they wouldn't call it the Gulf of America.

Are the Americans really in a position to lecture on free speech? Given that people's social media accounts are being examined when they arrive in the United States and if the US authorities find things they don't like, they can be refused entry. Again, are you in any position to lecture? And given that some people have had visas revoked, By the United States, people who live there, on the basis of maybe their opposition to the war in Gaza, again. Who are you to lecture others?

But lecture is what America is doing right now. And this State Department report has come out which is highly critical of various countries, including Britain, about its backsliding on free speech.

Does it stack up? With us, I'm delighted to say, is Natasha Clark, LBC's political editor. So, first of all, for people who haven't read this, Take us through the report. So this is actually a report that's that happens every year. It's called the Human Rights Report twenty twenty four, twenty twenty five. So it looks at a variety of things. It looks at, you know, extrajudicial killings, it looks at coercion, it looks at how government

respond to the population, looks at free speech, it looks at loads of different things all across society and basically gives everybody marks on how well they think they're doing. And this United Kingdom one that you you've just mentioned

But it's not it's not brilliant, let's be honest, for for the United Kingdom. Um it's basically saying the human rights situation has worsened in the United Kingdom in the last year. It talks about significant human rights issues, it talks about credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression, including enforcement or threats of criminal or civil laws, it talks about threats of violence motive by anti Semitism, and it talks a lot, a lot about freedom of speech.

I really feel that reading this, basically it's sort of a twenty page report, it's quite short actually for for for many reports. They've done one into every single country around the world. But for this and especially the the sort of uh big chunk on free speech that the sort of start of this report, you can absolutely feel the fingers of Trump's administration all over the language of this.

They talk about um you remember the Lucy Letby New Yorker article that was geo blocked? They're using that as an example of freedom of speech being limited. They talk about the Southport attacks and how online afterwards they talk about how various government and local authority figures

wedi bod wedi'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i' Um they of cour they don't r reference it directly, but we know how much JD Vance uh and other people in the US administration, Elon Musk of course, formerly of the administration, have talked about the idea of freedom of expression being under threat.

And this report was feels to me like it's them saying, here's all the list of all of the things that we think the UK has done wrong in freedom of expression in the last year and put it all in one report. Does it stack up? I mean, let's leave aside whether it's hypocrisy or not, given America's own less than perfect record in this. But do you think that these complaints about Lack of free speech. I mean, you know, we do this podcast. I've never felt That there are things to

I cannot say. There are things I cannot say because they break the law of libel. we have offences of, you know, kind of hate speech and whatever else. But those are the laws of the land. Yeah, and it does talk about contempt actually and obviously that's a discussion that we're very much having in the UK right now, isn't it? Where are the laws of contempt and sh where should they basically be drawn?

And Nigel Farage very much has been testing the limits of that. You know, we're unable to take Nigel Farage press conferences at the moment live because of the risk of contempt and what he and his party have been saying has regularly breached those broadcast restrictions. And this report does talk about the Online Safety Act, which obviously at the moment is just being enforced.

There is obviously a lot of chat about whether the debate there has gone too far and, you know, people on X claiming that they're having their freedom of speech censored. It's only just come in, but I think they probably do have a a few of the points there. Well I was just going to intervene there because I thought it would be worth it.

You know, if you're not a journalist and you're not covering court cases in the way that you and I have done, you don't know what the Contempt of Court Act is. But essentially If someone is arrested you can say someone has been arrested following an incident in which such and such is alleged to have happened. Once they've been charged, a man has been charged or a woman has been charged, it follows an incident in which da da da da And then until it gets to court.

You can't say much more than that, or you can't do anything that would make a fair trial less likely to succeed. Because if you say something that jeopardizes a fair trial, then you can be us the journalists, the broadcasters can be hauled up before the judge for contempt of court and face potential imprisonment. So yeah, you know, you could argue that the Contempt of Court Act is out of date

in a social media setting. Of course it is. And that that's absolutely why the law commission are looking into this right now. But you know, when they've got when you've got a big chunk of this report which is talking about potentially prejudicial reporting or ongoing court cases, specifically talking about how UK contempt laws forced the US magazine The New Yorker to geo block British subscribers from reading this article, which was about the Lucy Leppy case at the time.

Those laws were put in place for a reason, but they are being incredibly critical of that, of the Online Safety Act.

of the Scottish Government implementing hate crimes. They talk about as well, you know, the abortion buffer zones that J.D. Vance it seems to be very, very interested in that's another one of the cases which is critical in this report, basically saying that people should be able to go and stand within those abortion buffer zones. They call that uh a limitation on freedom of speech. Even though in certain states in America those laws exist as well.

So it's not just that Britain and again it's just a different attitude towards I I think it's such a fascinating area this because you know, if I walked into a theatre and screamed fire And then people panic for the exits and people die because of that. Well I'm exercising my right of free speech, but I've caused social disruption in the process of doing things. And you've caused you've caused some harm in a few things, right. So that's exactly what the online safety act is sort of trying

to to put in place for the social media age. Yeah, I mean I I I know that it's a popular thing among the Hard right to say you know, the mainstream media I suppose I don't know whether a podcast would be ever considered mainstream. The definition of Yeah, so that we are suppressing free speech. I don't think we are at all. But you know, am I going to say call someone something racist, use hate speech? I mean no,'cause I think it's unpleasant and vile. That's decency.

That's not a suppression of free speech. So it seems to me that this is a really curious definition. that the US administration has alighted on. That essentially it's free speech that they don't like. that they want to suppress, but everything else, if it's you know, expressing their viewpoint, it's fine. But counter viewpoints and that's fine. I think that you know, we have a scabbrous free press in this country where there is freedom of speech. I don't know. Do you feel limited?

I think the contempt laws are definitely out of date and I think it is right that that the Home Secretary that the Law Commission are looking at those because they do feel out of date and it does feel today the police for example, have said actually that we should be releasing more information about the identities, the nationalities, the immigration status in some cases.

of particular individuals because it obviously did mix up quite a lot of hatred and obviously misinformation around the Southport attacker and I think the police probably could and should have done more in that case. Rwy'n credu bod hynny'n digwydd bod hynny'n digwydd bod hynny'n digwydd, bod hynny'n digwydd, bod hynny'n digwydd, bod hynny'n digwydd, bod hynny'n digwydd, mae hynny'n digwydd.

it does, like I say, have the fingers of the administration all over it. You know, the the line that really jumps out to me is this this idea of two tier enforcement. Two tier care, heard that one before. it's this idea that, you know, Nigel Farage keeps repeating that we've got two different types of law in this country and

standards are different basically in in in different cases. But look you know, it says following the Southport attacks, censorship of ordinary Britons was increasingly routine. That doesn't feel right to me. That doesn't feel right to me at all. Um and it it does feel like I'm reading a report Which obviously has got lots of

ideas about what actually is happening in um in my country, but it doesn't feel like I'm reading a report about my country. It also talks quite a lot about the British Virgin Islands and Bermuda, which are two jurisdictions we have absolutely nothing to do with. It is not

governments that we actually can control in this report either. So yeah, I mean f i it's just it does feel a bit like pot calling kettle black in some ways, right? Yeah. And the other thing that I've noticed and we've got to talk about J D Vann.

being in the Cotsworlds right now. The timing couldn't be crazier in the in crazier. And this is the story that someone fr in the village of Dean, which is where Vance is staying. This person said, told the observer, We have had the police knocking on every door. They wanted the names of everybody living there and details of their social media. I know several people refused.

Bloody right. None of your bloody business. If you want to come to the Cotswolds, you're very welcome. We hope you enjoyed Dalesford and all the super expensive fare that is on sale there. We hope you enjoyed the honey coloured stone of all the beautiful buildings in the Cotswolds. But I'm sorry, US Secret Service, if you want to come, Britons live there. They do not have to give over their social media account details to see whether they are a supporter or an opponent of JD Vance.

If you want to come to Britain, you're very welcome. But you accept Britain for what it is. And I just think this is such a glaring example of the ludicrous nature of them, this kind of very powerful country where the vice president comes and we've got to s sing to their tune. No way. And look, Thames Valley police have pushed back saying, No, this hasn't happened, this hasn't happened. You know, there are reports that this has happened. If they are true, that's pretty extraordinary, isn't it?

yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw cases of freedom of speech in this country. The Online Safety Act of course has been something that Elon Musk has been talking about for a long time, that other others in government have been talking about right for a long time. Sure, raise it. Let's have a discussion about it. Let's talk about it. Allies can disagree and, you know, Keir Starmer in his

Is pushing for the recognition of Palestine is very much of the opinion that we can disagree with the US in many, many ways. And, you know, that allies should be able to have these frank

honest conversations, but you know, just three week three or four weeks before the state visit, you've got such a a report which is incredibly critical about us. I mean it just d I I I can't remember a time where usual diplomatic rules would apply in this case. There are reports as well that that this report has been basically hammed up by the US administration, that's been

sort of tilted away from away from criticisms i of Israel, for example. Um and obviously El Salvador, we know that Trump has a close relationship with the president there. That's with the supermax prison where these people are being shipped off to the migrants are being shipped off to. where there is no respect for human rights, where they were filmed having their heads shaved, having to bow, being filmed in their underpants.

Yep. But that's okay. But that's okay. But apparently i according to according to many r reports that we've seen here, the Trump administration has been rewriting and scaling back that news report in retrospect to

human rights in El Salvador and you know, it talks about the war in Gaza and Israel and and says the government took credible steps to identify officials who committed human rights abuses in Gaza. Well, I think there are a lot of people in Gaza that have something to say about that. So Just while we've got you, so JD Vance has obviously been with Lamy. Uh which is kind of seems an unusual relationship.

He loves the Cotswolds. W wh why not? But JD Vance is not meeting Kemi Badenock, the Tory party leader. No, he's not. He's meeting with Robert Jenrick. Um, he's meeting with Chris Philt, the Shadow Home Secretary, but not Kemi Badenock. They claim a diary clash, but

I'm not sure about that one. If I were Kemi Badenok I'd be bending over backwards to me with JD Vance, but yeah, seemingly something that's that's not being worked out. It's not a great look for her to to not get that FaceTime with him. Well you'd have thought that the photo would be worth quite a lot, particularly

when Nigel Farage is. Exactly. And that's exactly it. And I'm sure that we're we're gonna have the whole situation when the Trump visit the actual Trump state visit happens in a couple of weeks' time where we will have the

who did get FaceTime with Donald Trump, who didn't. Um and we had that with, you know, Nigel Farage a couple of weeks ago. He wasn't invited to that state dinner with with Emmanuel Macron when he came because, you know, he has five MPs. He's he's not on the political radar in terms of that third party. Um and he doesn't get that access. But yeah, it seems quite crazy that Kebby Badenok's not leaning into that a little bit further. I thought she would be, but maybe not.

Natasha, thank you very much. In a moment we will be back with what is going to come out of the summit in Alaska between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.

This is This is a listening exercise for the president. Look, only one party uh it that's involved in this war is going to be present. Um and so this is for the president to go and to get again a more firm and better understanding of of how we can hopefully bring this war to an end. That's Caroline Levitt, Donald Trump's spokesperson in the White House briefing room. Really lowering expectations about what people can expect to come out of this meeting in Alaska. Now

If you want to be f kind of glib, you'd say, Well, it's a far cry from the I'm gonna solve this on day one of my presidency. It's all got a lot more complicated. Now they're not even talking about the possibility of a deal. But Donald Trump is going there to listen and you think Is that really what a kind of coming together of Putin and Trump is about? That it's just about Donald Trump having a good old listen to what Vladimir has got to say.

The normal kind of process of summits between world leaders and a summit with so much at stake as this one. Your civil servants, your foreign office advisers.

will have been working like crazy on a draft communique of things that could be agreed, of testing the ground, of where there are still differences, and essentially you don't have the summit until such times as you are so close that you know that you can get the two leaders together and with a flourish they produce their fountain pens from their inside jacket pocket and sign a document which will kind of set the seal on this great coming together of two great powers.

It seems like nothing of the sort is happening here. And that is of a piece with what happened in Donald Trump's first term. The summit with Putin in Helsinki, the first summit with Kim Jong-un in Singapore, which was just effectively a handshake. and giving Kim Jong-un

Huge presence on the world stage and bringing him in from the cold. Great victory for Kim Jong-un. And then they had their meeting in Vietnam and that all went to shit and there was no agreement. There was no joint press conference at the end of it. With this one, it seems that the White House is already saying Don't expect too much. So what can we expect?

Well let's speak now to Professor Mark Galliotti, historian and writer specialising in Russia and security affairs, and he's the author of Putin's Wars We Need to Talk About Putin and the Vori, Russia's super mafia. Mark What do you think I mean we focus so much

on Trump and what Trump hopes for this summit in Alaska. What about on the other side of it? Putin and Russia? Well I think from Putin's point of view it's almost like one one can see this operating at three levels. Um just simply the fact of having a sit down with Trump on American soil, e even if until eighteen sixty seven it was Russian soil, um in Alaska is a win and it's particularly a blow to all those efforts to try to isolate him and Russia.

Secondly, on Ukraine. He I think hopes to get a deal which would essentially be freezing the front line lifting of sanctions, and anything more he can squeeze out of it, knowing full well that this deal may never actually materialize, because the Ukrainians still do get a say.

But in that case it then makes the Ukrainians the villains of the peace as far as Trump's concerned. And thirdly A lot of the discussion in the Russian media is actually about a whole new chapter in Russian American relations, cooperation on the Arctic, on oil exploration and all that kind of thing. Again, I think he's trying to basically bypass Europe and the all the various of attempts to undermine the Russian economy and isolate the country. So let's unpack. Uh go almost try and be

methodical about it and I'd unpack those three things. Let's start with Putin as well. There has always been that part of Russian superpower relations where it wants to be seen As the great power, as the country, as the leader of which cannot be ignored. And so, from that point of view, it is quite a gift. that Donald Trump is bestowing given recent history the last three and a bit years.

It is a gift, but on the other hand, you know, w we have to be blunt. Attempts just simply to isolate Putin haven't worked. I mean, actually what they have done is they have driven him closer to China, closer to India. I mean I think there is a point where we have to realise that however much, yes, it is a gift. Sometimes you just have to talk to bad people in order to hope that either you get something positive out of it, or at the very least you stress test their expressed commitment to peace.

So yes, it's a gift, but that shouldn't be the reason to not do it necessarily.

But do you think it will be any different? From the summit that they held in Helsinki with that bizarre news conference afterwards where kind of Trump more or less said, Yeah, I know what my intelligence agencies say about Russian interference in the election, but Vladimir's assured me it didn't happen and I don't see why he would have done. Well look, in that time and y and it was indeed a rather surreal experience.

That time in some ways Trump had a very clear personal objective. You know, he didn't want the Russia Gates story continuing further, so he was happy to try and and kill it off. In this case, it's a lot more complex. And it's interesting that even Trump has been actually walking back slightly his expectations. He's now more or less saying, well it's a chance to to get to talk and and find out what happened. So I think from Trump's point of view, in some ways he can make this whatever he wants.

He can say, Look, I spoke to to Putin, he wasn't able to convince me, that's it, we walk away. Or he can say, We've got a deal and then essentially blame the Ukrainians or the State Department or whoever if it never materializes on the ground. This is all about theatre and that's what really Trump enjoys.

Does it present any risks for Putin? Does Putin get cornered if he doesn't play nicely? Does Trump say right, we're slapping additional sanctions and secondary sanctions on, you know, India and China and the like for what they're doing? There are risks, inevitably, and it's one of the reasons why the Kremlin likewise has been very much trying to control expectations.

and suggest that they don't think that necessarily some grand bargain is gonna come out of this. Yeah, I look if this turns out to be Putin's equivalent of that horrible oval office meeting. where Zelensky, Vance and Trump near enough ended up in in in in an open row, then exactly there is the risk that that that Trump will double down on support for Ukraine. But I think first of all, unfortunately, Putin has demonstrated himself to be quite a good Trump Wrangler.

Secondly, actually the amount of leverage that America has is not as great as I think Trump might assume. Sanctions and secondary sanctions, you know, more or less have have reached the the limit of their likely value w without it being essentially self harming for America. And you know, when it comes down to it, look, Trump I don't think wants to be involved in Ukraine. He's looking for an excuse to walk away. So let us come to the second point that you raised.

in your f you know, in that first answer that you gave, which is about the war in Ukraine and what might happen. We've just had a statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry essentially saying our position has not changed One iota. one Copec. It stays exactly where it is. We want the same demands effectively. They want total victory. They want capitulation from Ukraine. So

Again, this seems rather pointless to be having a summit about it when the Russians are going in and saying, you know what? We've already made clear what our stance is. The problem is this, that Russian style of negotiation, and this goes back to Soviet times and even before, tends to be exceedingly hard nosed. You always go in demanding a ludicrously maximalist set of positions.

Because you anticipate that you're going to be haggled down in the end and everything you want to present it as some kind of of uh terrible uh concession. So we don't know, and again this is the value of testing it. We don't know if this is a negotiating position. The Foreign Ministry comes off hard and then Putin can say, but Donald I'm willing to make a deal with you because you are such a master deal maker.

Or whether it is genuinely the case that they will say, No, no, no, we we we demand that the Ukrainians withdraw from Donetsk, we demand that the Ukrainians reduce the size of their armed forces, which is a complete non starter. You know, absolutely, if if the Russians stick to that, there is no deal to be made.

There have been hints coming out of Washington and Moscow that at least in the Putin Whitkov discussions the Russians sounded more conciliatory. Now, it may be that Whitkov just didn't really understand what was going on. That's been posited. It may be that in fact Putin was just simply soft-soaping him. But again, until we actually get those two guys together in a room, we can't test that.

Presumably that moment, though, has potential huge risk for Zelensky. If it comes out and Trump says I think what Vladimir has proposed is perfectly reasonable. Ukraine, what are you gonna do? And then suddenly Ukraine become the naughty boys who apparently look like warmongers for not going along with whatever the plan is.

that Putin and Trump have cooked up. Yeah, absolutely. And I think there is an extent to which the Russians this is their main expectation. They don't really think that they're going to get a deal. But they do think that they're going to be in a position to have something that looks enough like a deal that Trump will be sold on it, and then it'll be Zelensky's job, and indeed the Europeans' job, to say, no, this this will not work.

and then they hope that that Trump will be angry with them, not Russia. The only thing that has to be said is that One of the advantages of, for example, the current uh sort of meeting that's taking place today, hosted by the Germans, which includes Trump and Vance involved, is that although on one level the Europeans are very much the outsiders in this process, Given that the Americans would expect the Europeans to be doing the heavy lifting of any post deal.

settlement, the reconstruction of Ukraine, the securing of Ukraine and so forth. This does give the Europeans an unexpected degree of leverage to say if you expect us to do X, Y, and Z, Well, these are our counter demands. And that's the kind of transactional hard nosed politics that Trump actually does tend to understand.

Is there a danger that this becomes seen like a I don't know, a Ulta two point oh? Ulter at the end of the Second World War, you see Churchill, Stalin, Truman getting together to carve Europe up. Without any of the European nations there being represented, in a sense, it was the superpowers deciding the future. Isn't there an element of that?

in the Putin Trump meeting and you think, Well come on, what about the Ukrainians? What about the Poles and the you know, the Baltic states in all of this whom who have got real concerns? Yeah, of course the the difference at uh the the end of World War two was precisely that there were American and Soviet troops arrayed across the continent and there was a lot of you know much more sort of direct leverage. Look, I think Putin would love this to be a Yalta two point north.

Precisely because he hankers after as a good sort of last generation Homo Sovieticus, those good old days when the Soviet Union was an undisputed great power. Russia is not that. Russia cannot I mean frankly, Russia can't even at the moment suppress the Ukrainians' desire for independence, let alone anything greater.

So yes, I think the notion of the Alta two point north fits into how Putin would like Russia to be. It also fits into Trump's notion of foreign policy. You know, Trump, like Putin, essentially thinks that the world is made up of a handful of great powers. And everyone else, well the only question is who gets to tell them what to do. The thing is the world is not like that. And even if Trump says, Well yes, Ukraine's gonna have to give up this territory and do that

Well, the Ukrainians get to say no. It will be hard for them to continue fighting on if for example the Americans completely turn their back on them, particularly within the intelligence sharing which has been so vital for the long range strikes that the Ukrainians have been launching deep into Russian territory. But on the other hand, it is possible. The days when actually either were Washington and Moscow together could just could just simply divide up the world, they're gone.

So, you know, I think again this is going to be one of those cases where two men's ambitions may well find themselves running up against the realities of modern geopolitics. Yeah, I mean you made that point about the Russian economy. And yep, it's two percent of GDP. It's smaller than Italy. Uh you know, America is twenty-five percent of the world's GDP, Europe is another twenty-five percent

Russia looks small. But if you look at stockpile of weapons, I think Russia has got forty five percent of the world's nuclear weapons, and I suppose that gives them a sort of might, a sort of power that can't be ignored. Sure. I mean obviously the G D P comparisons don't really work because it's not like the Russians are buying their equipment from from foreigners or whatever, it's it's ruble on ruble. But yeah, so th the nuclear issue.

Nuclear weapons are are very odd construction really.'Cause on the one hand they they do make you a great power, they mean that no one ultimately can conquer you and suppress you. But basically you can't really use them for anything else other than blowing up the world.

They didn't allow us the Britain to to stop Argentina taking the Falklands. They meant that we still had to go in and you know on on in a ground war topple Saddam Hussein in Iraq and such like. You know, so I think yes The fact that Russia is a nuclear power gives it a certain stake, which is why it's uh still a permanent member of the UN Security Council. But on the other hand, what the Russians have found is really the best use of nuclear weapons otherwise is just trying to scare people.

And even Putin's rhetoric on nuclear weapons, not only did it alienate the Chinese for a while, but it also begins to become a little bit threadbare after a certain point. Yeah, that is such an interesting point. So

What is Trump after? Is it a normalization of relations in the sense that Come on guys, can we do some business together? Can we get access to your markets? Can we get access to your rare earth metals and all the rest of it? Is that what this is about as well? As well, yeah. I mean again I I do I do think we had this strange thing of Trump clearly wanting to see himself as a peacemaker and a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

But clearly th certainly the way that the Russians are trying to pitch some kind of wider agreement to him is exactly this sense of there are economic advantages. Together we can carve up the Arctic, which is an increasingly important area for exploration and and trade. We can give you, in return for sanctions relief, privileged access to the Russian market. Which you know, i is is not inconsiderable, but particularly exactly it's it's oil, it's gas and it's it's rare earth.

Now the irony is that even if there is this privileged access, I do not see American companies queuing up to leap back into Russia any day quickly. But that doesn't really matter. It's a bit like Trump's deal about subsurface minerals in Ukraine. Even if nothing really comes of it. Trump wants that sense'cause you know, he sees himself as the CEO of USA Inc. in many ways. He wants to get that sense that he's got some kind of unfair and special economic advantage for America.

And if it never plays out, well it never plays out, but he can has that warm glow of being the effective chief executive. So let's spin forward to Friday afternoon, Alaska time. Summit ends. Trump goes back to Washington, Putin goes back to Moscow. What's your guess? What's your guess? Of what comes out of this

I mean you're a rotter for asking because I try my best to be a rotter. Absolutely. Well, congratulations. No, I mean I think look, it is possible that we will get some kind of a deal that would then most likely run into the sand when people actually try to operationalise it. I also feel that we might get a consolation prize.

say an air ceasefire, so both sides stop the long range drone and missile attacks on each other's cities and infrastructure. Because that's something in a way that you know it'll give the Russians a chance to rebuild their arsenals.

It gives the Ukrainians some breast bite and the chance to rebuild their air defences, and it gives Trump the chance to say that he's achieved something that no one else has. So in some ways that's the if all else fails option that that I think we we might end up seeing come Friday night.

Before we go, we are now Almost three years into the reign of King Charles the Third. And he has distinguished himself in that time in an awful lot of what he's done. He's also had to cope with illness. He has tried to kind of steady the ship of the monarchy. of the Queen. And free portraits were offered. To every public body around the country, so that they could hang a portrait of King Charles III in their university, their town hall, their village hall. Anywhere that was a public building.

Well, the Guardian is reporting this morning. that over forty six thousand public bodies have spurned the offer. of hanging a portrait of King Charles in a prominent position of whatever it is, their academic institution, their hospital, their you know, you name it. So no one wants to hang a picture of King Charles. Now, I don't know, does this mean that we are going cool on the monarchy, or do we just not like the iconography any more of hanging portraits of dear, revered leaders of our nation?

in public spaces. I don't know. But oh my word, what an awful lot of portraits of King Charles that you'll be able to pick up very cheap very soon. As forty six thousand public body said Nah, you know what? Thanks. But no thanks. We'll see you tomorrow. Bye bye.