But we're going to start off with a nice light topic and that suggests that there are significant parallels between the UK and Nazi Germany. And so I, I realise that in a sense that's, that's a little bit cliched, but I actually want to be quite specific about it because I'm going to suggest that the editor's law has come to Britain now hands up anybody who knows what the editor's law was.
Good, right? So basically this, this was legislation from the early 1930s that Hitler brought in to try to control the narrative. And this was really the beginning of everything that happened subsequently.
So let's just have a a a brief look at this involvement in the shaping of the intellectual contents of the newspapers or political periodicals published in the Reich, whether through writing, news reporting or illustration, or through appointment as chief editor, is a public function regulated by the state through this law. This is very, very similar to
what we're seeing at the moment. The Rice Minister of Public Engagement and Propaganda will determine which periodicals are to be considered political within the meaning of the law. That's a slight typo there, apologies for that. Are we saying parallels with that as well?
With what's going on today? Editors are especially obligated to keep out of the newspapers anything which is a misleading to the public by mixing selfish interests with community interests, or B tends to weaken the strength of the German Reich in Foreign Relations or domestically, the sense of community of the German people, German defence capability, culture or the economy, or offends the religious sentiments of others. We're seeing in that statement everything that we're seeing today.
We're not allowed to weaken the Starmer regime or the Tory regime before that. We're not allowed to criticise foreign policy. We're not allowed to in any way undermine the sense of community of the British people, German defence capability. We can't criticise that. We can't criticise what's going on culturally in the country at the moment because otherwise we end up in prison or the economy. And we certainly in this case they said or offends the
religious sentiments of others. We might consider that, you know, whether that's LGBT or any other kind of similar sentiment that that we might want to criticize today. We can't do that. I'm just saying massive parallels there. Editors are especially obligated to keep out of the newspapers anything which offends the honor and dignity of Germany. We could just replace Germany with Britain here illegally offends the honour or the well-being of another, hurts his reputation, ridicules or
disparages him. Hate crime is immoral for other reasons. Well, the definition of of immorality is something which is changing everyday. Professional courts will be established for the protection of the editorial profession. Now one of the features of the Online Safety Act. It hasn't yet been implemented because Ofcom's implementing it one step at a time and it's a huge piece of legislation. But one of the aspects of that that hasn't been implemented yet is the protection of so-called
journalistic content. So the Online Safety Act is there to limit the freedom of speech of us, of ordinary people or of of so-called independent media. But the legacy media is to be protected and that's written into the legislation that anything that they publish is not allowed to be taken down by the social media platforms.
For example, the Reich Minister for Public Engagement and Propaganda may decree the removal of an editor from the professional list independent of the proceedings of the professional court if he deems it necessary for pressing
reasons of public welfare. This is again is exactly what we're saying where basically the Cabinet Office through their various counter disinformation teams are without question and contact without question contacting social media platforms saying get that organization off.
Right. When we were at the Sounds Beautiful festival, I showed a, a, a comment or a communication from YouTube telling us that not only was our main YouTube channel taken off YouTube, but that any platform which gave us any kind of major coverage would also be taken off YouTube, right? That's, that's, that's the degree that it's going. Then if we look at the January 1933 emergency regulations, restrictions on the right of Assembly, Charles is going to be talking about this in a second.
We have seen legislation in the last couple of years which has put massive restrictions on the right of assembly, and we're now seeing organizations, whether you agree with them or not, being prescribed. And anybody that resembles in support of that newly prescribed organization is arrested and carted off. Restriction on freedom of the press depends on your definition of the press.
But I would argue that there's a massive restriction on the freedom of the press since the Leveson Inquiry, but particularly since COVID, because as the commercial situation of the press has has changed over the last lot of months and years, there's more reliance on government money and government subsidy through advertising for them to keep going. And that makes them less free because they feel obliged to talk about the things that
government wants to talk about. Confiscation of printed works of this information. This is similar to to, you know, deplatforming and various other forms of censorship online and suspension of free speech. So I've this next one, I've shown this before a long time ago, but we've sort of brought it up to date. We'll just want to compare the actual legislation that's been put in place. So that's a Germany shut down free speech.
We've got the Online Safety Act. Everybody should be familiar with that National Security Act. Charles is going to be talking about that. You may be less familiar with that one criminal criminalizing protest. Nazis did that. We've got the Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Act. We've got the Public Order Act, and we've now got the Terrorism Act being used to limit protest and criminalized protest surveillance. We've got the Investigatory Powers Amendment Act.
We've got the Data Use and Access Act. The Data Use and Access Act is absolutely all-encompassing. It takes a Data Protection Act that we had before. It tears it up. It basically says that there is no restriction on the sharing of your content, your data that that's collected by any platform that or by the NHS and so on,
and it can be exported. The Data Protection Act absolutely said you can't export that data outside the country that can now be exported to the United States or anywhere else because of course that that act enables all the AI that we're seeing. It enables the digital ID infrastructure. It enables everything and accountability to law judicial review Act, covert human intelligence Criminal conduct Act.
Does everybody know what the covert human intelligence brackets Criminal Conduct Act does? Well, that's this When did it come into force? 2020 Sorry. 2016 Think so, Something like that. This makes it permissible for agents of the state to break the law in the pursuit of their activities. And what staggered me about this was the the range of agencies which are allowed to make use of this facility.
So you might expect that the police or who else, or MI5MI6, these types of organizations, the military, perhaps there may be some, I'd, I would argue there is no justification for that. No one should be above the law. But but you could see how some people wouldn't try to make an argument, argument for it. But when it comes on to things like, you know, HMRC or the Gambling Commission, you know, this is this is starting to take things a little bit far.
And, and the point about it was there were no restrictions on the laws that they are allowed to break. There was nothing that says that they cannot commit murder, nothing in the legislation that limits this in any way. And so it was quite an incredible piece of legislation, pretty much went under the radar. Not very many people reported on it. We did control of education, the Children's well-being in Schools Bill. That's not an act of Parliament
yet. And we've included the Holocaust Memorial Bill, which Charles, I'll explain why in a minute. But that's, that's, you know, summing up what's either already happened in the last 10 years or is in the process of happening
at the moment. And the thing about it is that if, you know, if if we are allowed to blow our trumpets a little bit here in the news program spoilers, I'll be talking a little bit about a, a comment that the Electronic Freedom Foundation have made about the Online Safety Act. And the thing about it is it's too, I mean, it's never too late. Things can be repealed, but but in a sense, it's too late to start bringing this stuff up.
Now. We were talking about this stuff in 2017. We were telling people, Patrick Henningson and I were telling people in 2017 about the Online Harms White Paper, the white paper which led to the Online Safety Act and what they were talking about. And the fact that throughout all this legislation we're increasingly seeing not only them being enabling acts.
I mean, everybody hears about Hitler and the Enabling Act, but every one of these is an enabling act because they all say that at some point in the future through secondary legislation, the minister, the Secretary of State can, can just change this to do whatever the heck he likes, right. So the point here is 2017, we were, we were warning about this
then. And really what should have happened is that all these groups like the EFF and, and all the other campaign groups that are out there that are sort of campaigning on, on these types of issues really should have grabbed the nettle at that point before it actually became law
and became legislation. And it should have been absolutely made clear to government before it even went to the House of Commons that Online Safety Act was something that was unacceptable or any of these other bits of legislation for that matter. So look, I'll, I'll hand over to Charles then and and we'll go into a little bit more detail on
what each of these does just. Swap slides Just whilst this slide is up, I will just talk a little bit about the the control of education part of it, because that of course is very pertinent considering where we are, which is in the Hope Sussex community, which has made a big splash and massive inroads into redefining education in the right way. Because of course, education in many respects is not now what probably you or I may have
experienced. If we did go from through some sort of formal system, it has changed radically and the reaction against that I would say is entirely appropriate.
But, but particularly on these two bills here, the first one with the with the Children's Well-being in Schools Bill, is that it is seeking to subvert the terminology that's used in that it is creating the conditions whereby children who are educated outside of a school setting are made to sound like there's something wrong with them. So that's that's how this is being reframed.
It's as though it is appropriate for children with special educational needs that can't be met in a school system to be brought out of it. And the reason for that is because when you create this idea that the child effectively has special needs, then in comes the state to be able to surveil and monitor what is happening in the home. That is effectively the way in which that piece of legislation is playing out and needs to be kept a very close eye on.
And the reason I put the Holocaust Memorial Bill in there is you may well have heard me talking about it on UK Column News, which I have done a number of Times Now, if not just in summary. The plan is for the gardens to the South of the Palace of Westminster, which is the Victoria Tower Garden, which already has a number of significant monuments to various movements over the years, the notable ones being universal suffrage and the abolition of
slavery. The idea proposed by the Holocaust Memorial Bill is that an enormous memorial would take over the entirety of that garden and that everything else would in effect be either destroyed or marginalized. But the critical part is that in 1900, an Act specifically stipulated that the purpose of that garden was never to change. And yet the Bill is absolutely uncompromising, saying that it will ride roughshod over that and they couldn't care 2 hoots
about the planning. Westminster Council has refused the planning on a number of occasions, but the government is still talking as though there's absolutely not going to be any impediment to this. Now, if it weren't concerning the Holocaust and there weren't the focus on Israel and Palestine as there currently is, then perhaps this wouldn't seem like such a talking point. But The thing is, there is.
So it is enormously relevant. The other point to bring out, which you may or may not be aware of, is that the only point written down in law concerning the curriculum is that the Holocaust must be taught in schools. That is the only thing in the entire curriculum that must by law be taught in schools. OK, so we're there. There is no doubt that there is absolutely A cause for concern.
And as Mike quite rightly points out, whenever a prospective piece of legislation is drafted, you you have to look at it with a critical eye and think why is that written like that? What is it about those particular terms that enable such and such a thing to happen? And an example here which is being pushed through at the moment. Now in the police, what will be the Police and Policing and
Crime Bill? This is the the reason I've chosen this particular image is because it concerns in this instance something called a respect order. But you may or may not be familiar with the increasing prevalence of what are described as orders. So whether they be, for example, a public spaces protection order. Now you might know this is the
abortion buffer zone. So this enables local authorities to create a zone in which something may be either mandated to happen inside it or to be precluded to be pushed out from it. And this is under the the idea that an order can be created in order to either make something happen or prevent it from happening.
Now the the particular point of law that makes it so troublesome and respect orders are absolutely case in point here, saying they're concerning nuisance, which obviously in itself is not yet criminalised but is soon to be it.
It allows provision for either local authorities or the police to set conditions whereby somebody may end up becoming a criminal without actually committing a criminal act, which is a very dangerous thing to do. And I'll just explain how that works with a respect order in order to avoid what they're describing as nuisance behaviour, somebody who may have been reported for such and such a behaviour that does not meet the threshold of a criminal sanction.
So therefore they have there's no crime report, there's no criminal activity, but they have a respect order imposed upon them in order that they don't create nuisance, whatever that's supposed to mean. If they then breach that nuisance or that that respect order, there is then a criminal sanction. But you see the breach, the order might simply be to go to an area or not go to an area. So there's, that in itself is not a criminal act.
And this, this is exactly how these sorts of orders are coming out. The, the other one would be the serious violence reduction order, which says that it's designed to reduce knife crime. In actual fact, in order to have such an order placed on you, you do not have to have ever been involved in knife crime. I there's, there's not time to explain exactly the details about this, but but this is a very, very disturbing progression.
The other thing, which is again sort of in a way at a different end of the spectrum, but the planning and infrastructure bill hailed by Angela Rayner as being the way in which, you know the the plan, Labour's plan for the future, sorry, plan for change is going to be radically developing this, that and the
other. OK, but 22 fundamental points with this and how it bears relation to the constant refrain that we are doing this in a sustainable manner and it's all about the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and all the rest of it. Actually, what it does is grants carte blanche for a number of different authorities to take what is or could be valuable farmland and put any sort of development that falls under the broad term of planning and
infrastructure on it. Now it gets worse because as if farmland and farming wasn't already under enough threat, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill specifically removes what's called the development premium. So ordinarily if farmland was and in my view shouldn't be, but if it were to be sold for development of say housing, it might attract a development premium of approximately £1,000,000 an acre, which clearly as a landowner is a significant return.
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill enables a type of compulsory purchase that means that they buy at agricultural price. So therefore average maybe seven
8000 lbs an acre. OK, so, so if you think of how that dramatically effects land owners who are told right mate, we want to stick a wind farm there, we want to stick a hospital there, whatever it is and they are only going to recoup 7000 lbs an acre as opposed to £1,000,000 an acre just gives you an idea of the weight of the devious way in
which this is done. The other point to make with in terms of sustainability is that whilst there are many references to the the creation of say solar energy and this, that and the other, there is not a single reference to collecting water. Now we're told we're in a period of drought this year. We're told we haven't had a new reservoir for 30 years. But what we are not told by this bill is how to catch water
ourselves. That I would say for a government that's talking about sustainability and drought resilience is something of an oversight or is it, or is it entirely wilful that in fact we should be dependent upon a failed water infrastructure that is going to prioritise energy and data centres and artificial intelligence. So it's very, very, it's a very, very cynical piece of
legislation. Now another thing again that we've talked about a considerable amount is the what became known really colloquial is the precision breeding regulations. Again, this is sort of, this is on the environment concerning farming, but actually it doesn't just concern that concerns all of you because it is what you may end up eating if you don't pay attention to this kind of
thing. So this is setting the conditions for the production of food or at least what is going to be called food that is produced in a sense artificially. Now they try to sell it by saying that this is a merely an abbreviated process of what is traditionally known as either selective breeding or hybridisation, which means to to try to magnify the optimal characteristics of a particular species, whether it be plant or
animal. You would breed it over the years in a particular way to end up with a plant or an animal in a particular condition. And they're saying no, well, we can do it by modifying the genetic material in order that we simply. Abbreviate the time span. Now that there are a number of issues with this, because Mike will be able to recall the very specific terminology, but this does actually not at all rule out the modification of the gene. So this is in effect a gateway
to genetic modification. There are also not sufficient provisions at all to prevent spread. If this is conducted, particularly in a plant setting. The parameters or at least perimeters that are set up to deal with any cross pollination, cross contamination are totally
insufficient. And the other thing concerns labelling which is going to be set out at least in the first instance in such a way as to say right, well, we'll look, we're going to do it in order that you don't end up with any sort of precision bred organisms on the market. We want to make it clear this is very separate, but actually when you read into the legislation, it would be very, very easy to invert that in order that the market only contains this sort
of material. And when you look at the environmental Land Management schemes that are deliberately taking farmland out of production, all the the other many, many assaults on land owning the production of food, in particular the production of meat and animal products. It is very easy to see again how this could be wielded for great. I'll now very quickly. I think this will also be brought up in the in the news program. But in so far as what can you do?
Yes, very quickly petitions by and large get thrown in the bin. However, they do provide an audit trail. They also enable us to look out of our window and see how many other people think what we're thinking. And in this instance, over half a million people have now signed the Repeal the Online Safety Act bill. So if you haven't done that, I would really encourage you to do that. Sorry, Safety Act.
So there absolutely are actions. And in terms of actions, the other thing I just want to close off by saying, and then I'll just hand to Mike if he's got a couple of concluding remarks, is we talk a lot about the legislation that is there, how it gets manipulated, the stuff that's coming down the pipe, what we have to be aware of. But how about the things that no one ever bothers with, the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870.
Do you remember the time when Liz Truss, in her 15 minutes as Prime Minister, said, by the way, if you want to go to Ukraine and try and kill Russians, I will absolutely support you. OK? She didn't say those precise words, but she absolutely did encourage British nationals to enter into the fray and that she supported that. Now, the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 absolutely expressly prohibits that kind of conduct because technically at least, we are at peace with Russia.
So to enter into or to enlist in the armed forces of a foreign nation that is in conflict with a country that we are at peace with is against the law, unless you've had the express permission of the monarch. I know for a fact, because I've asked both the Home Office and the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office, that nobody has had such permission.
And yet we have people like Jack Lopresti, the former Conservative MP promoted by all the media organisations as going out and handling heavy weapons in Ukraine. Actually, he has a desk job, but that's by the by. So isn't it amazing, you know, the law is there to be picked
and chosen as appropriate. Now the other one, again pertinent going back to the point about the Middle East, is the International Criminal Court Act 2001, under which Section 52 makes it very, very clear that if in any way you support as an individual or as an organization conduct ancillary to genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, you by association are
guilty of those offences. So every single member of at least the current government and the last two governments should fall foul of this piece of legislation. It is conveniently forgotten, I should just say, actually, sorry. Going back to the Foreign Enlistment Act, people have tried to say, well, that's from 1870, yes, you know, no one was around then. Doesn't doesn't really matter anymore, does it?
Which is an interesting one because of course, the offences against the person Act was written in 1861. And I'm pretty sure that if someone came and punched me in the face that that would still carry some sort of effect. So again, this the, the, the cherry picking is perfectly
phenomenal. So that's a quick canter through, I appreciate quite technical, but but it is one of the things to be mindful of. And I think when we consider the big question, which is what, what, what can we do about it? That the, the central point is to maintain the pressure and there are fruits of those labours. OK, admittedly I'm not suggesting that these things get rolled over immediately, but just as one example, Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was repealed.
And this was to do with searching without suspicion in, in the days the the sort of early 2000s when basically anyone with a slightly darker shade of skin could just be searched absolutely Willy nilly, that was repealed. OK, so so this stuff not only can be repealed, but also if there is a groundswell of opinion against it, we can see that other people are out there, other people are thinking what
we're thinking. So I don't for one moment think that this is too overwhelming, too much, too big to deal with. Absolutely it's not. But we do need to talk to each other and inform and report back as to how we've got on and see the pressure. As an example, look at what Yvette Cooper has had to do in the last couple of weeks. She's written in the Observer. She's she's written an effective justification of why she absolutely had to prescribe
Palestine action. Now does that suggest that somebody has made a confident decision as to home Secretary And no, she got it right. I don't think so. Mike, any concluding remarks? OK, well, look, we've got, we've probably got 5-7 minutes or so for questions. If anybody has anything that they would like to ask about that or if that was all a bit much, then 5 or 10 minutes to sit there in complete silence and just absorb it. But but sort of up to you if, if anybody would like to ask, we'd
be delighted to to hear. Increasingly AI makes it difficult to know what's the truth in social media platform news platforms and whilst I regard highly UK column, can you just explain where you get your information and how it's validated? Absolutely. I mean, in very simple terms from the source. So if there, if there were and and and actually, that's a
really, really good point. First of all, not just about AI, but about the sort of Chinese whispers, the use of social media and the way in which stuff gets incredibly badly misreported. And I'm not going down the Mariana Spring route with this, but but this, this is a really, really important point because it's very easy for something to be, you know, simply referring to something as an act when it's still a bill or, you know, just changing the wording or missing
a wording. It's very, very easily done. And I'm not suggesting there's a, there's a deliberate intent there. But in as far as we're concerned, we would always go back to the source. So if it concerns legislation, you and it's it's in draft form, you would go to the Parliament website and you look at the the latest iteration of that and any, any amendment that's there. So if it can't be substantiated by the source document in that we we can't find it, the we would request it.
And if it's, if it's potential to a government or or indeed sort of associated agency, then to go to them to ask them as a valid media enquiry, which again raises a really good point because you should you would think that a response to an organization in a media capacity should be there. There should be no bias. But of course, sometimes there is, sometimes one doesn't necessarily get the response that you should or would if you were working for the Times or
the Telegraph or or whatever. And indeed, their threshold for dealing with follow up questions, certainly in my experience, is that you will get switched off a lot sooner than you would if you were apparently in support of whatever it is they're doing rather than questioning it. But the but the, the short answer is the source. And, and this is where AI and social media and Chinese whispers is can be a proper disaster.
I would just add to that and say, you know, if you're watching UK column news on the UK column website as opposed to the other platforms, we always publish the show notes underneath which include which include all those primary sources that we've talked about during the program. But increasingly, if you look at our written content, as we have always done, by the way, News Guard and and some of the other so-called fact checkers claim that we don't do this.
But of course we always cite the information that that we're talking about in hyperlinks in the article. Now on the mainstream press. Now you will see that they no longer do this. They self reference.
So you will see that, you know, they say something about Plymouth and they'll hyperlink the word Plymouth and that takes you to a page that lists all their content about Plymouth rather than taking to the information about some information that you might find useful about Plymouth or the references, the thing that they're talking about. So they are removing source material. They'll talk about reports where where such and such an organization has published a report about such and such a
subject. But by the way, you can't read it for yourself because we're not going to give you the link to it and it'll be impossible to find, right? Trust us. And that's what the BBC and the mainstream media are all about now is trust. And we're saying no, don't trust us, trust, trust yourselves. We're giving our interpretation, our analysis. We're not saying we're right, but here's the primary source
material. You decide, and if you think you're wrong, you come back and tell us why we're wrong. And that helps us and that helps you. So that's the way it should be in my opinion. The only other thing I would add just just to understand fully this, the very, very cynical environment, which is sort of just just outside of us, is that Twitter X, as it's now apparently called, has a, has a absolutely a bias towards content that does not include links.
So if something is put out there, say a screenshot which purports to be about, you know, something that's happened or something where you would absolutely want to check the source, it is algorithmically much more likely to go far further if there's not a link substantiating the particular point than if there was. So it looks very obviously like this is deliberately too muddy the waters.
OK, so so there are many ways in which this, you know, the whole system is deliberately designed to throw you off the off the sand. Any more questions? Hi, what push back or protest can the public make that the government will take notice of? Well, I think I mean. Right, yeah. Look, look, the first thing I'd say about that is this isn't about the government taking notice. This is about other people taking notes. Similar petition here.
I mean, petitions, we all know petitions are rubbish. They're, you know, in a sense they're a waste of time because the government is not going to take any notice of them. I mean, the government has already replied to that one basically saying, well, we're not going to repeal the Online Safety Act, so get stuffed. It's basically their, their
attitude. We should be using every tool available to us, whether that's through public demonstration or pro or petition or whatever it is to help us get the word out other people that we, we are so censored on social media and so on. What we need is to do things that that social media can't censor because it's too big and they can't possibly censor it. So that's where these tools, and we should only view them as tools, in my opinion, are
useful. So make the demonstration, sign the petition, do everything that we can possibly do, because that means that another person might just see that piece of information and act on it themselves. That would be my thoughts on that.
Yeah, All I was going to add, I mean, it's difficult to set out a sort of particular template, but but one example in terms of let's say direct action, which of course is what it relates to in the 1st place, was a couple of weeks ago, Metropolitan Police Service arrested 466 people in Parliament Square because of the protest about Palestine action. Every single one was released without charge.
So, so there is a point at which a system, particularly a physical system, you know, the Mets have only got a certain number of cells in custody, blah, blah, blah, blah. It becomes far too onerous and far too obvious that public opinion is, is not going to, to, to work with that.
So I think there just needs to be confidence in one's belief and in the fact that other people exactly why I point to petitions, confidence that other people will share that belief and will actually support you in what you're doing. Because I think people are there. I mean, otherwise, crikey, we'd be talking to an empty room, empty tent. We're not. We know that people now are actually going up to get it in through the through the thing. That is true.
I know people at home might think I'm bluffing, but I'm not. So yeah. OK, One, one more. Oh, sorry. 1st as if this works. Oh yeah. So I fell for my first AI hoax on YouTube where Sid Starmer had taken money that he shouldn't and the Supreme Court had ruled that he had to step down. And I thought that sounds good to be true. So I still put it on Facebook. And then the other thing is all your content, the Alex Jones has, the Infowars, he does lots of links.
And you may agree or not agree, but you know, ultimately they said that that what they wanted to do to him was take his content like they could take yours, steal it, repackage it and decredit, discredit it. And if they can break laws like that, how do you protect your copyright? That that's a very good question. And there is no way because as you probably know, a the AI companies are hoovering up all kinds of copyright content at the moment to so-called train the AI.
And this is resulting in court cases in the United States and the UK everywhere. And so far they are generally being won by the AAI companies on AII would just say, you know, this is going to be something which is going to become very, very hard for all of us in the not too distant future. It's already hard because there's so much AI generated content already starting to appear on social media platforms, which is hard to identify as being.
And that's why always going back to the primary source is is important. And so we should be sharing material, but we should be absolutely careful about how we're sharing material and what material we're sharing. And it's very attractive to, you know, if if something is is apparently really hard hitting and, and is exciting and, and maybe it shows somebody up like Starmer up as being the criminal that he might be, then obviously we want to share it.
But that's that's the point where we should be saying to ourselves, hold on a second. And you know, it, it, it is a common criticism of the column that it takes us ages to cover a particular topic. And, and there's a reason for that. And the reason for that is because we're careful and, and we want to absolutely, to the best of our ability, make sure that we're right in what we say. Now, that takes time. And so we're not necessarily covering the latest thing on the day that it happens.
It might be a few days later or whatever, because we we need to take the time to just try to establish exactly what the facts are. Righto folks, that does draw the first session of the day to a close, so I know you've had your hand up, but we.