very good evening. welcome to the neil oliver show on gb news tv, online and on radio with me bev turner tonight, standing in for neil as he takes a very well—deserved holiday. now this week. privacy. do we take it for granted and how much is it under threat? lord blunkett wrote an emotional piece in the mail this week about the need for a biometric digital id service. i'm going to be speaking to a number of experts to consider the and of such the pros and cons of such technological wizardry. i'm going to speaking also to going to be speaking also to reality star frankie essex. reality tv star frankie essex. what does privacy mean to a professional youtuber , and do professional youtuber, and do they have any concerns about living their lives in the permanent public space? plus, we're be debating we're going to be debating whether germans got it right whether the germans got it right this relax the rules on this week to relax the rules on cannabis. but first, update cannabis. but first, an update on latest news headlines.

on the latest news headlines. >> good evening. the top stories. thousands of israelis are gathering in jerusalem calling for the release of hostages still being held by the hamas terror group. it comes as today marks six months since the terror attack on the 7th of october, marking the occasion the prime minister rishi sunak, has said the government continues to stand by israel's right to defend its security. and he added the uk is shocked by the bloodshed and called for an immediate humanitarian pause in fighting. he also urged hamas to release its hostages and implored israel to get aid into gaza. more swiftly . meanwhile, gaza. more swiftly. meanwhile, the foreign secretary has used the foreign secretary has used the occasion to stress that the uk's support for israel is not unconditional . writing in the unconditional. writing in the sunday times, lord cameron said there's no doubt where the blame lies over the death of three british aid workers. and he added this must never happen again. john chapman, james henderson and james kirby died in airstrikes carried out by the

idf on an aid convoy on the 1st of april. the deputy prime minister has denied claims that the uk is failing to prepare for war. oliver dowden is defending the government after outgoing armed forces minister james heappey told the telegraph only ministry of defence officials attended a wartime preparation exercise which was meant for the whole of government. former defence secretary ben wallace has backed him up, saying too many in government are just hoping everything goes away . hoping everything goes away. police have named a man they're searching for after a woman was stabbed to death in broad daylight in bradford city centre. west yorkshire police detectives say they want to trace 25 year old habiba masum , trace 25 year old habiba masum, who is from the oldham area. they were called to the city centre yesterday afternoon following reports of an attack by a who then fled the by a man who then fled the scene. the woman was taken to hospital where she died . and a hospital where she died. and a british man nicknamed hardest

geezer has become the first person to run the length of africa . russell cooke, from africa. russell cooke, from worthing in west sussex, crossed the finish line in tunisia today. he ran through 16 countries in 352 days. the 27 year old said he'd struggled with his mental health, gambling and drinking, and he said he'd wanted to make a difference. he's raised over £600,000 for charity . for the latest stories, charity. for the latest stories, you can sign up to gb news alerts. just scan the qr code on your screen or go to news.com.au alerts. >> so am i the only person who feels that privacy is fast becoming resigned to history, thanks to social media? not all of which is bad, by the way. we can now transmit or receive the minutiae of life's most banal.

some would say private moments, whether at home, on a beach, single or married, joyful or depressed, we can tell everyone about it at the touch of a button. for some, this is literally their job, and that's fine. that's within their control. but there are also rapidly emerging ways in which surveillance is not optional. we've had zero say in whether we consent to this minute by minute intrusion. and this week, the march towards biometric digital id, that is, mandatory surveillance with potential conditions attached moved a step closer. we're already used to seeing our faces reflected back to us at self—service tills. actually i'm not. the first thing i do is stick a plastic bag over the camera. but from this week, some supermarkets will now be scanning your face with age identification ai technology. if you wish to buy over 18 products, apparently it's going to remove altercations with law flouting youngsters. just another way of avoiding a difficult conversation and saying no to a child . of course, it won't stop

child. of course, it won't stop kids buying booze. they'll just sendin kids buying booze. they'll just send in an older teen, except they will no longer be someone at the tail looking over their shoulder, suspecting that the law being broken. let's law might be being broken. let's not kids. let's not worry about the kids. let's just that to just outsource that to a computer and then there's the data harvesting and the mobile phone surveillance that reads your mind, bringing up adverts for products you seem to sometimes merely think about. we've accepted we've all accepted these intrusive phones with zero consideration of or even consideration of legal or even just socially agreed agreed rules around their existence. privacy has fast emerged as the most significant citizen protection issue in the global information economy. of course, every industrial revolution has changed the relationship between the private and the public, even leaving the home to work in a factory rather than plough your own fields altered that dynamic. then the arrival of the camera and the printing press triggered similar moral panics about the risks of misinformation or mistaken identity. but now we are literally edging towards a

digital tyranny. the traditional definition of privacy was drawn up in 1891 by two american lawyers , and it was the right to lawyers, and it was the right to be, let alone or freedom from interfering or intrusion. how quaint. but after world war ii, in the year that george orwell wrote 1984, the un declaration of human rights stated, no one should be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence . family, home or correspondence. we were doing quite well until 2016, when the american patriot act used the 9/11 disaster as a valid reason , some might say, an valid reason, some might say, an excuse to expand the government's legal rights to monitor phone and email communications to keep us all safe, of course. but this fourth industrial revolution that we are in right now , launched as are in right now, launched as the great reset by king charles, inevitably poses the most serious threats to our anonymity, our privacy and our freedoms. when labour home secretary david blunkett tried to introduce id cards to the uk in 2004, boris johnson said that it was a loss of liberty and

that he would rather physically eat his card than present it for inspection. we were doing quite well, but of course the pandemic changed everything and in september 2020, the government announced that they were pressing ahead with a digital identity scheme so that we could securely who were securely prove who we were onune securely prove who we were online to keep us all safe. of course, also now, though, for your convenience, at a time when nothing works and nothing is convenient, blunkett is back on the propaganda trail, announcing that a biometric digital id system which logs your eyeballs or facial features is the only way to solve the small boat crisis. and guess who's in line for the contract? fujitsu as they made such a good job of the post office scandal, the small boats move is very clever. pick the topic that most incenses people and offer this as a handy solution. it might work , but i solution. it might work, but i can't help thinking that illegal migrants wanting to be british citizens would line up to have their eyeballs scanned and registered as legit, but it will

definitely compromise the liberty of us ordinary people who will find all of our data and misdemeanours logged in a central database. next step conditions of freedom attached to be that carbon credits, calories consumed or parking fines unpaid. plus, thanks to last week's scottish hate crime act, you can now add fear of being dobbed in by someone sat at your own dinner table to your paranoia list. make sure grandad doesn't up with his doesn't slip up with his terminology. he can deemed terminology. if he can be deemed to stirring hate, his to be stirring up hate, his words could be logged even if it isn't deemed crime. there are isn't deemed a crime. there are now an estimated 5 million cctv cameras the uk alone. are cameras in the uk alone. are they making your life more convenient? i'd say a hard no. are you safer because there's a camera on every corner? well, crime and conviction figures would prove not. so. who is it all for? the illusion of safety and convenience is always about hiding the ambition to control.

right. let's speak about this with peter ayton, professor of decision research at university of leeds. he's done lot of of leeds. he's done a lot of work into the decisions people make regarding their privacy or lack peter. thank lack of it. hello, peter. thank you very much for joining me, how would characterise the how would you characterise the our relationship with privacy has changed throughout recent years, at least ? years, at least? >> well, the challenges have changed completely . i >> well, the challenges have changed completely. i mean, many things that we used to do , things that we used to do, literally in a very private way with very few people knowing about them, are now done in a manner which, is accessible to all sorts of onlookers and data gatherers. so quite mundane tasks like , internet searches, tasks like, internet searches, dating apps, you know, all of these things are, you know, coming in very recent times and we haven't yet really, evolved ,

we haven't yet really, evolved, procedures to govern , not just procedures to govern, not just the regulations, but our own intuitions about what is reasonable to disclose, what should be kept private in what kind of way is it private, and so on. i mean, there's a multitude of issues there, and it very much kind of changes as well. >> i think our relationship between the individual and the state as well, to some degree , state as well, to some degree, in that we are just the little people and that actually if we do move towards the digital id, centralised government run system, there's something very much about a paternal relationship that the state takes on under that, under those roles perhaps. and that wouldn't necessarily , in my view, be necessarily, in my view, be positive . positive. >> well, i mean, the technology is going to be irresistible, of course. i mean, things are going to have to be dealt with in one way or another. of course, you

know, we have, in theory, in a democracy , we have the ability democracy, we have the ability to develop legislation and regulation to determine exactly , regulation to determine exactly, how people should operate, you know, i appreciate you can be, a suspicious about the, capacity to, to do these things, but the science about this is, you know, that's what i know anything about it, suggests that, people's understanding of, what's at stake is very limited , what's at stake is very limited, and their ability to make the key decisions is also very limited. so privacy and your , limited. so privacy and your, you know, rights over your information almost always is going to involve difficult trade offs of one kind or another. like if you want to gain access to a service, you're going to have to interact with that service in some way and provide data. what data should you provide and what, rights. the holder of those data have to,

exploit them in whatever way. these things are becoming very hard to summarise in a simple way for people to make straightforward judgements about in a way. >> so there is a there is a paradox here because you've never had a time when companies, particularly have to be more, more careful with our data. we've had the gdpr rules, a lot of it actually coming from from the eu in terms of what companies can do with our information . but i think from information. but i think from a personal point of view , there's personal point of view, there's a more kind of pernicious effect which is just this sense that we're being watched . and how do we're being watched. and how do human beings tend to react to the notion of being watched? is there a negative in the longer tum, to literally what it is to be human? >> well, of course, you know, it can sound rather sinister and menacing and perhaps, you know, that's something that we really

ought to be very concerned about. i mean, they are plainly is the potential to exploit data in ways that may not be to the benefit of the people providing those data. and we need protection in order to, to achieve that. as i say, the science on this, to the extent it can inform these arguments, really just shows how difficult it is. so for example, you know, there's when you enter into a, some kind of service arrangement, i don't know, with facebook or whoever , there's facebook or whoever, there's almost always a privacy agreement, which explains how the provider of the service is going to use your data. and the research shows that most people don't bother to read those privacy agreements at all, you know, i put my hand up there, but also the research shows that even if they did bother to read them, they wouldn't be able to understand them. so they're, you know, often they're very lengthy, documents written in legalistic terminology, which

really doesn't leave you any the wiser about what may or may not happen with the information that you provide. >> and that's not coincidental , >> and that's not coincidental, is it, peter? because the benefits of being able to use our data, it's very, very profitable for a lot of these corporations. and it's predicated on the idea that we won't opt out of that relationship . are you also relationship. are you also seeing a time where it's impossible to even function in modern society without being embedded in some of this, tech tech, registration systems, let's say ? let's say? >> well, you hear about people. i was listening to, john cooper clarke on the radio a few weeks ago, who doesn't even have a mobile phone and has never interacted with the internet in any way. but, you know , that in any way. but, you know, that in any way. but, you know, that in a way proves the point. i mean, you've got to be pretty eccentric and discrepant with, the modern world in to , order the modern world in to, order

you know, resist the incursions completely as i say. i mean, the regulation and the legislation is there to be formulated, but from the scientific perspective , from the scientific perspective, i mean, i worry about this as a sort of, challenge to human psychology. like, what can people understand about what's going on, in a manner that enables them to be empowered to make decisions and to recognise lies? the, the, the what's at stake and how to control it. i mean, it's rapidly, eluding the majority of the electorate, i think, in terms of understanding exactly . exactly. >> and that is why we're having this conversation, and that's why you have been the perfect person to talk to about it as well. thank you so much, peter ayton there, professor of decision research at the university of leeds and i find it absolutely fascinating this topic. and i'm going to be to talking somebody from big brother watch actually one of the organisations who can explain a little of what explain a little bit of what peter saying then about why

peter was saying then about why the hasn't up with how the law hasn't kept up with how we, british people maybe we, as the british people maybe feel this kind feel about this kind of surveillance and what's going to be a reality star, an be talking to a reality star, an onune be talking to a reality star, an online influencer, franki essex. she her whole life the she lives her whole life in the pubuc she lives her whole life in the public does she have any public eye. does she have any concerns spending so much concerns about spending so much time that undeletable public time in that undeletable public space you're watching? bev turner on the neil oliver show on . on. gb news. >> looks like things are heating up. boxt boilers sponsors of whether on gb news. >> hello. here's your latest weather update from the met office. we hold on to rather unsettled weather across the uk dunng unsettled weather across the uk during the week ahead. further spells of rain in most areas and often quite windy too. storm kathleen to away kathleen started to move away towards the north and northeast of the now, but notice low of the uk now, but notice low pressure gathering again pressure gathering once again towards southwest towards the southwest and it's

this bring further wet this that will bring further wet and weather over the next and windy weather over the next couple of back to the couple of days. back to the detail this evening and detail for this evening and overnight, and it's a fairly quiet picture many areas, at quiet picture for many areas, at least a time, because notice least for a time, because notice there's wet weather there's a more wet weather coming southwest coming in across the southwest of into parts wales, of the uk into parts of wales, and very blustery showers and the very blustery showers we've recently up towards we've seen recently up towards the will gradually we've seen recently up towards the into will gradually we've seen recently up towards the into the will gradually we've seen recently up towards the into the early. gradually we've seen recently up towards the into the early hours.ally ease into the early hours. temperatures dipping down to mid single north temperatures dipping down to mid single the north temperatures dipping down to mid single the clearest north temperatures dipping down to mid single the clearest spells north under the clearest spells overnight but starting to rise tonight as the cloud and rain comes up from the south and southwest . there'll be some southwest. there'll be some bright tomorrow bright weather around tomorrow across eastern across southern and eastern areas morning, areas during the morning, but showery of already showery bursts of rain already gathering towards the south gathering down towards the south and becoming and southwest, becoming more widespread and widespread across england and wales the afternoon wales into the afternoon and some those quite some of those turning quite heavy. northern ireland, after a bright start, will see some rain in the afternoon. so it's scotland that's set to see the best weather here. plenty best of the weather here. plenty of feeling pleasant of sunshine and feeling pleasant enough winds with enough in light winds with temperatures about temperatures up to about 12 degrees. looks like temperatures up to about 12 degreta. looks like temperatures up to about 12 degre

towards southwest. towards the south and southwest. but are pretty but wherever you are pretty blustery and wet day to come and it stays quite unsettled during the week ahead. perhaps a bit warmer and a drier come warmer and a bit drier come thursday, but generally speaking, very unsettled. >> feeling inside from >> that warm feeling inside from boxt boilers sponsors of weather on

gb news. >> welcome back to neil oliver. live with me, bev turner. while neil takes a break. now, we've been talking this evening about private lives. what it means for you. we've got scotland's new hate crime this and hate crime law this week. and the subject digital id the subject of digital id cropped . lord blunkett was cropped up. lord blunkett was telling keir starmer that he must introduce biometric digital id should become id should he become prime minister tackle small boats. minister to tackle small boats. both of these pose threats to our privacy, i would say, but some people live in a world

where they broadcast their life to the entire globe. one of those is reality tv star and internet personality frankie essex. here she is on the show the only way is essex . the only way is essex. >> well, when i move out, i don't want to. i just want to live here no more. why though, i want to get my own. i want a bit more space and like, do you know what i mean? like you know, i've always. i was like 17, 18. >> yeah, i know you always talk about it, but it's never happened. does it. >> yeah. no. but now 21, i mean, 21 i need to move out now. >> there's a shot. inexplicably, joey essex with no top on there but jacket the kitchen. but a jacket in the kitchen. frankie but you you have little twins so you've twins now as well. so you've chosen this this life, this career, this job, which is about broadcast being who you are. do you have any conflict about that in your own mind? do you have any regrets sets, or is it ever difficult to live in the public spotlight in the way that you do ? >> 7- >> it's not 7 >> it's not really. i ? >> it's not really. i think it was like, obviously it was a big

thing going into it because it was the unknown. like it was all just normal kids really from essex , but my psychiatrist, when essex, but my psychiatrist, when i was younger, she said to me, the only big thing that will ever change, obviously i lost my mum to suicide. so she said the only thing will ever change is me being a mum. that's the biggest impact . so it didn't biggest impact. so it didn't have much of an impact on me, myself. but obviously it has other people and whatnot, you know, but yeah, being a mum has definitely changed me, but it was just a bonus to my life being on the show. >> and obviously when you did the only way is essex , you were the only way is essex, you were opening up your your life to scrutiny. did that come with, difficulties as well, or is it always been fairly plain sailing for you ? for you? >> no, it definitely did with my weight. i must say. the press, this was on me about my weight. and when i look back, i weren't even that big, which was hard for me, 100. and now i look

back, i was like, oh my god, i wasn't even that big. like, i've always thought i was bigger than what i really was, you know? yeah, so that definitely was a big impact. always has been. now for and then after having for me, and then after having the twins, was , a park the twins, there was, a park outside house, and didn't outside my house, and i didn't know there . and, i took know he was there. and, i took the babies for a walk for the first time on my own. so it was like a bit of a proud moment for me. i didn't know it was there until the pictures went out the next day. like i honestly, i didn't see him and i was really upset because i knew the park as well. because you get to know them over the years, you know, they're always there. but generally moved house and generally i've moved house and everything, so i don't know how he i lived, but he found out where i lived, but i really upset and i did i was really upset and i did message him because i had his number and everything. right, and you're and just said, i think you're bang of order. i like doing bang out of order. i like doing them about me knowing them pictures about me knowing with newborn babies because i with my newborn babies because i was and i logan was on my own, and i took logan out pram and i was a bit out of the pram and i was a bit nervous. i was on my own. do you know what i mean? i just thought

if there, i wish he would if he was there, i wish he would have said yeah. if he was there, i wish he would havso.1id yeah. if he was there, i wish he would havso. so yeah. if he was there, i wish he would havso. so inah. if he was there, i wish he would havso. so in a. if he was there, i wish he would havso. so in a way, even though >> so. so in a way, even though you do curate your life on social media and on instagram and got tons of followers and you've got tons of followers on social media, on all of your social media, when somebody does it, when it's not terms, that still not on your terms, that still feels like some sort of privacy violation. oh my definitely. >> before even the >> like before i was even on the show, it joey was on the show, it was joey was on the show, it was joey was on the show, someone sold a story about our andit show, someone sold a story about our and it weren't. it's not our mum and it weren't. it's not someone else's story to sell. it's story. not not even to it's our story. not not even to sell. to say, you know, because joey had never talked about on the show. no one knew the press. no one knew what happened with her unfil no one knew what happened with her until someone sold her mum until someone sold a story of the world story to the news of the world or sun, and was front or the sun, and it was front page. it was awful, like my whole family would through it whole family would go through it kind again, know? whole family would go through it kinyyeah.gain, know? whole family would go through it kinyyeah. can know? whole family would go through it kinyyeah. can you know? whole family would go through it kinyyeah. can you canyw? whole family would go through it kinyyeah. can you can you ever >> yeah. can you can you ever imagine a time, frankie, where you step out of the public you would step out of the public eye completely ? because i don't eye completely? because i don't think people say, oh, instagram is such an easy job being is it's such an easy job being an influencer. think it's my an influencer. i think it's my worst nightmare having look worst nightmare having to look good the having to good all the time, having to have babies looking cute, have your babies looking cute,

all time, life is all the time, when life is probably much chaotic than probably much more chaotic than that, does it get that, you know? does it ever get a bit much ? a bit much? >> i'm not one of them. people who always look $1 million. like i genuinely don't say i've burnt my hands about an hour ago on the hot tap. i'm always out. me and the babies go out. we this morning we went outwith, and the babies go out. we this morning we went out with, to the morning we went outwith, to the nursery to go and get some plants. i just chucked all their mas and underneath i just chucked on a tracksuit. i was like , i live quiet, normal life. like, i live quiet, normal life. do you know what i mean , and do you know what i mean, and your babies are. they're. they're still very little, aren't they, at the moment. but some people might say, well, you've not they don't have a choice now about whether they are ever going have a private are ever going to have a private life. and i imagine you've probably with that bit. >> yeah. what kind of. but i think like with instagram and that just social media nowadays you've got a choice whether you want to post them or not on your social media. i'm not the only one. thousands, millions of people post their children up, you know, celebrity or not,

celebrity. so it's just a choice. me and luke actually did make before they was even here. yeah, we actually spoke about it because it is one of them things. i think it is something you speak about, you know? >> okay. well, frankie, thank you much for joining >> okay. well, frankie, thank you much forjoining us. and you so much forjoining us. and giving your unique insights into your fascinating life. frankie essex think essex there, i think generational issues play a massive part in this. do you do that generation, do you think, and younger give up their privacy at their peril? now, after the break, we're going to be speaking to the founder of that company, little cam. this technology, which can turn ordinary cctv cameras into ones which can identify somebody littering from a car, is it a sinister development? discussing that next you're watching the neil oliver show on .

gb news. oh. welcome back to neil oliver. live with me. bev turner. we're now eight councils around britain have been trialling a new ai method of combating littering. the technology called littering. the technology called litter cam, uses ai littering. the technology called litter cam, uses al to track down litter. is using cctv camera footage which can spot potential miscreants and track them down by registering the car's number plate. i'm joined now by andrew kemp, the founder and ceo of litter cam. andrew, thank you so much for joining me. now you terrify me with your technology, but also, there's one thing i hate more than technology is people throwing litter out of car windows. so you also really confuse me about where i sit on this. andrew, how did it come around in the first place? this technology , it's place? this technology, it's a really, really good question, i guessi really, really good question, i guess i was brought up in a family of individuals who really looked after the, the neighbourhood and instilled a sense of civic pride. my dad would pick up litter in the street after the bin lorry had

been passed, a keen fisherman, and he'd come home with other people's bags of litter , i was people's bags of litter, i was at a crossroads in terms of career change a number of years ago and saw that the government had issued the litter strategy for england and effectively giving powers to local authorities across england to use technology that didn't yet exist. i saw an opportunity and here we are . here we are. >> and have you had to jump through all sorts of legal hoops to spy on people , andrew, to spy on people, andrew, because that is what you're doing , i because that is what you're doing, i wouldn't say we're spying on people. so our customer. oh, yeah, it's a very good comment, so our customers are local authorities , the way are local authorities, the way that technology's been designed, which is software , is to analyse which is software, is to analyse existing cctv cameras if there are littering hotspots or if they've got problem litter areas where there's no coverage we can

provide new equipment at those locations. so we're not a cctv , locations. so we're not a cctv, camera supplier per se , if camera supplier per se, if a local authority does wish to install cctv cameras, there's a specific process that they have to follow. it's part of the home office. it's called the surveillance camera code of practice. so they have to, basically produce an impact assessment to do with data privacy. so there's absolute sort of safeguards in place there. >> but you could, i guess, catch someone snogging someone in the back of their car that doesn't want to be there. and you might out them, you will have that footage . i'm just using a trite footage. i'm just using a trite example of what people might do in their cars that they may not want you to be watching. what happens to that footage? andrew >> so it's not our footage. so again, it's, local authorities that have have got the footage and, and, the software is designed to just detect the

action of littering from from a vehicle. right so there may be a ten, 20, 32nd clip that bans a littering offence . and the littering offence. and the numberplate , so the system numberplate, so the system doesn't capture , footage on a, doesn't capture, footage on a, on an ongoing basis. and store that, and then you collaborate with the dvla , and the owner of with the dvla, and the owner of that car gets a ticket through the post. >> is it proving successful ? >> is it proving successful? >> is it proving successful? >> we're at quite an early stage, really. so the dvla have only recently opened up their systems to be used for the offence of littering from vehicles. right. so it's a fairly new development, i think also the background of local government finance, is proving challenging for them. so we've come up with some innovative financial models that enables them to use our technology on a, on a sort of attractive and accessible basis. really.

>> okay . stay where you are. i'm >> okay. stay where you are. i'm joined by mark johnson as well here in the studio advocacy manager for big brother watch listening to that . mark, what listening to that. mark, what are you thinking from your personal expertise point when you see this new phenomenon of litter cam? well i think the thing that worries me the most is kind of like the mission creep. >> i mean, when we first introduced cctv to society, you know , it done under under know, it was done under under the of, you know, the justification of, you know, trying evidence look trying to find evidence or look at serious crime that was at very serious crime that was taking and think this taking place. and i think this will unnerve because it's will unnerve people because it's the of level of intrusion the kind of level of intrusion into to such a, you into their lives to such a, you know, level degree that you know, low level degree that you could reasonably say, is the surveillance warranted ? is it surveillance warranted? is it justified? is it proportionate? which a really crucial which is a really crucial question. should apply which is a really crucial quthese. should apply which is a really crucial quthese kind should apply which is a really crucial quthese kind ofyuld apply which is a really crucial quthese kind of scenarios. apply which is a really crucial quthese kind of scenarios. andily to these kind of scenarios. and i people find it i think people will find it slightly and invasive. slightly creepy and invasive. you know, with all due respect to andrew, you have to andrew, andrew, do you have to andrew, andrew, do you have to signs up saying we are to have signs up saying we are watching you, don't empty your ashtray of your window. ashtray out of your window. >> maybe those words could be

chosen by a local authority, might work so local authority. so there's going back to the surveillance camera. code of practice. they talk about having signage. also the defra code of practice as well talks about, publication campaigns. so it that can be interpreted by them as signage . it could be detail as signage. it could be detail on their website. they might have social media posts. so it shouldn't be viewed as a, as a, as a way of sneakily , trying to as a way of sneakily, trying to catch out the public for people who choose to litter. >> i mean, it definitely is sneakily trying to catch out the pubuc sneakily trying to catch out the public if they try to litter. do you have similar concerns , mark, you have similar concerns, mark, that we would have about a creeping surveillance state? i'm guessing probably not. i mean, like i say on yours, i'm quite torn because i hate littering. so i am i am a little bit conflicted about it, but i think the mission creep that mark talked about is real.

>> sorry, bev, is that a question to me? yeah >> sorry. carry on. andrew. yeah, i was saying do you have any do you have similar concerns about the way that technology and particularly surveillance is intruding in all of our lives in all sorts of ways? is so surveillance could be viewed as intruding into, into people's lives. >> but i think also they, they would have a responsibility to, to put sort of safeguards in place. if you take a parent as a, as an example , they're a, as an example, they're probably educating children on, on the safe use of technology , on the safe use of technology, and what to post online. it's just been featured on your show earlier on this afternoon in terms of, members of parliament exchanging information that they shouldn't have done. yeah, timely . absolutely. so i think timely. absolutely. so i think the same arguments apply really . the same arguments apply really. >> mark, it's interesting that the idea that we as parents might educate our kids about what they share online. i think those two very different issues. >> yeah. mean, i think so. >> yeah. i mean, i think so. i mean, i think that's slightly

separate. mean, just to pick separate. i mean, just to pick up on a point that andrew made about i, i think about this, you know, i, i think one my big concerns here, is one of my big concerns here, is the kind of extent to which we are now surveilling the population here in the uk. there is nothing necessarily wrong with . where it is with surveillance. where it is targeted. it is proportionate. where there's something some body that you has done body that you suspect has done some and you target some wrongdoing and you target the at but the surveillance at them. but what worried and what i'm worried about, and i think people generally are concerned this idea concerned about, is this idea that surveillance be that the surveillance should be population not population wide. it's not targeted. we're just targeted. you know, we're just looking innocent just targeted. you know, we're just lo

protection obligations. but when it comes to the surveillance camera code, it's a voluntary code. and what's really interesting, i think, is there is something of an explosion of surveillance in this country of cctv and other forms of surveillance. know, we did surveillance. you know, we did a large piece work looking at large piece of work looking at the to which there are the extent to which there are chinese state companies operating surveillance systems in uk, like hikvision tower. in the uk, like hikvision tower. this unregulated this is a massively unregulated space. what seeing space. and what we're seeing is more cameras and more more and more cameras and more and people being watched. and more people being watched. >> mark would say >> andrew. so mark would say there you should there that really you should only watching people if you only be watching people if you know under suspicion know they're under suspicion for something know they're under suspicion for somyyoung know they're under suspicion for somyyou might say, well, that's that you might say, well, that's why the cameras are in specific little hotspots. is that right? is that how you get around that ? is that how you get around that? >> in part. so, we can analyse the streams from existing local local authority cctv systems , local authority cctv systems, cctv estate. so there's no additional equipment there . so additional equipment there. so there would be no, no further intrusion, or proliferation of technology . but absolutely, as technology. but absolutely, as you heard, if there are littering hotspots, we can put

equipment in those locations, to, the action of littering from vehicles if . and then subsides, vehicles if. and then subsides, the local authority can relocate that equipment or use the equipment for other, other reasons. it's for the same the same type of purpose and approach they, target and approach that they, target and approach. flytipping >> okay. interesting. all right. thank you so much, andrew kemp there. the founder and ceo of litter camp and mark johnson advocacy manager for big brother watch. think you're going to watch. i think you're going to stay me, aren't you, mark? stay with me, aren't you, mark? okay, right next on okay, brilliant. right next on the germany , they have the show in germany, they have relaxed the laws on personal usage of cannabis this week. is that something we should consider here? we're going consider over here? we're going to debating that next year to be debating that next year with turner. i'm not with with bev turner. i'm not neil he's normally here. neil oliver. he's normally here. this is

gb news. welcome back to neil oliver. live with me, bev turner this evening. so, new laws in germany came into force this week. which legalised personal possession of cannabis. since the 1st of april, adults are allowed to carry up to 25g of dried cannabis on them and cultivate up to three marijuana plants at home. so should britain follow suit? to discuss that, i'm joined by professor mike barnes, a consultant neurologist and mail on sunday columnist peter hitchens. good evening, gentlemen. thank you so much for joining me. peter, let me start with you here in the studio. so this is germany seeing sense maybe over something which is effectively decriminalised most places anyway. >> now well it isn't everywhere and i don't why it's sense. and i don't see why it's sense. if this were if this were germany saying, right, let's abandon all attempts of the past 70 years to get rid of cigarettes and tobacco. everyone would think they were mad, similarly , a country which now similarly, a country which now proposes to legalise a drug

which is increasingly correlated with severe , incurable mental with severe, incurable mental illness and to some extent also increasingly correlated with violent crime, doesn't seem to me to be sense at all. it seems to me to be sheer craziness. the arguments for it are extraordinarily weak, and the alleged good that it will do. we know practical experience know from practical experience it do the advocates of it will not do the advocates of the of legalisation always the sort of legalisation always claim that it will in some way enable them to control the market, to regulate, to decide the levels of dose and to make huge amounts of money out of tax. but several jurisdictions have already tried this. a colorado and california, notably in the united states and the whole of canada . and the result whole of canada. and the result has been that the illegal market has been that the illegal market has continued to flourish alongside the legal one. i think the latest figures show 33. right. that's government . right. that's government. canadian government figures . 33% canadian government figures. 33% of the trade is still in illicit hands , which is of course hands, which is of course completely unregulated and untaxed and therefore also sells at lower prices. it's a nonsense

and people really are going to have to learn quite soon that if we go down this road, once you've legalised and you've legalised a drug, and once then into mass use, once it then goes into mass use, it's almost impossible to undo the mistake . the mistake. >> professor mike barnes then what germany's logic be to what might germany's logic be to taking this action over cannabis ? >> well, 7- >> well, i ? >> well, i think the logic is overwhelming, really, and peter will not be surprised to know that i fundamentally disagree with him, first of all, you can make the cannabis safe safer than it is at the moment, you you will get rid of impurities to start with. you'll make sure that it's a safe drug to take in safe places, you will reduce the amount of mental illness associated with it. and there is some i don't disagree with that at all, but you'll be able to control that by controlling the level of thc and the risk of mental illness. i have to say, is very small indeed. if we look

at the study in the uk called drug science has been looking at now nearly 5000 people with medically prescribed cannabis , medically prescribed cannabis, that has been not one case, not one case of psychopathy in those people . but the recent study people. but the recent study that showed you have to stop 10,000 men and 29,000 women from smoking cannabis to prevent one episode of psychosis. so, yes, it's a risk, but with proper control, it's a very, very small risk. and i have to fundamentally with peter to say that it does not cause, violence. there's absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever, peter , it's a very convincing peter, it's a very convincing case that mike barnes puts forward there, but we know we've got a mental health epidemic , got a mental health epidemic, particularly in this country with teens at the moment. does anybody really know how much of thatis anybody really know how much of that is being exacerbated by social cannabis use? >> nobody knows because >> well, nobody knows because the done. it's the research hasn't done. it's not done by the state. it's not done by the universities. there's nobody in country there's nobody in this country with any interest in doing

research. big money is research. all the big money is on the side of legalisation. there is enormous amounts of to money made in the money be made in the legalisation this drug. and legalisation of this drug. and a huge campaign is underway at the moment, also internationally to get the treaties, the get rid of the treaties, the united treaties dating united nations treaties dating back the 1930s, which back to the 1930s, which actually illegal in the actually make it illegal in the first and once they can first place, and once they can do that, then the then the whole of the united states, for instance, and this country, which members which is which are members of the security the united nations security council, legalise council, could actually legalise openly, but they can't do it at the moment. and the reason for this relentless campaign is because of the billions that can because of the billions that can be out it. this the be made out of it. this is the next tobacco, i have to next big tobacco, and i have to challenge some things which next big tobacco, and i have to challe mike ome things which next big tobacco, and i have to challe mike barnes ngs which next big tobacco, and i have to challe mike barnes has which next big tobacco, and i have to challe mike barnes has just h next big tobacco, and i have to challe mike barnes has just said which mike barnes has just said the evidence of the of the dangers of marijuana , first of dangers of marijuana, first of all, comes from the fact that it's used very widely , it's used very widely, particularly in schools at the moment. i know of one case, and i direct everybody who's complacent about this to the extraordinary by by extraordinary book by by patrick, by by patrick cockburn and his son henry called henry's

demons. henry attended a very nice canterbury grammar school in the garden of england in kent, and the age of 11 was introduced to marijuana and very regrettably, he became severely mentally ill as a result. regrettably, he became severely mentally ill as a result . and i mentally ill as a result. and i don't think there's really very much question in anybody's mind who was involved. >> young, it is young. >> 11 is young, it is young. >> 11 is young, it is young. >> you're right. but that is where an awful lot of the current market is in, in, in schools at the ages as low as 11. the other thing is what is generally true about legalisation or decriminalisation. decriminalisation of the drug is it doesn't hugely increase the number of people who take it. but what it does do is it increases the number of people who take it regularly and the amount that they take and i think there's a lot of complacency about this. i did some research a few years ago for my book on the subject about the complacent rubbish which was emitted about emitted by big tobacco, about the dangers cancer. from the dangers of lung cancer. from that in the 1950s and early and early and the same sort of early 60s, and the same sort of bilge , i'm afraid, was talked

bilge, i'm afraid, was talked about how there's really nothing to about on the issue of to worry about on the issue of violence. will say is violence. what i will say is that, again, there's study. that, again, there's no study. i've often tried get the i've often tried to get the police tell me about the police to tell me about the whether there's any evidence of drug use of violent criminals, and won't even about and they won't even talk about it because the themselves it because the police themselves have given up enforcing the law. there very closely there is one very closely studied violent crime studied subset of violent crime thatis studied subset of violent crime that is mass killings, either by terrorists in europe school terrorists in europe or school shootings states. shootings in the united states. almost invariably , the culprit almost invariably, the culprit is a long time user of marijuana. >> mike, just respond to that, please. mike barnes yeah, well, you know, i think peter, unfortunately collapses together. >> people with already existing mental illness who go around to mass killings and such, like one can't doubt that. and they happen to have cannabis. there's no direct link. there is no . no direct link. there is no. direct link between cannabis and violence. i'm not going to say people who are violent or mentally ill don't take cannabis. of course some do. some drink alcohol, some take cornflakes in the morning. but.

there's not a direct link between cannabis and violence. i have also, i should say, can i say i have to treat? >> i have to treat mike barnes as a serious person when he says no, nobody gets. nobody gets mental illness or intelligence, no crime as a result of eating cornflakes. he's not being a serious person. we know perfectly know perfectly well. you know perfectly well. you know perfectly you're well, well perfectly well you're well, well equipped that that equipped to know it, that that marijuana major marijuana is a major psychotropic with huge psychotropic drug with huge effects brain and effects on the human brain and cornflakes not. it's a silly cornflakes and not. it's a silly thing to and it demeans you thing to say, and it demeans you to say it. also know to say it. you also know perfectly well that the reason why evidence why there is so little evidence is there's so little is because there's so little study. as i said, now study. and as i said, just now and it perfectly clear, and made it perfectly clear, there so little study because there is so little study because who has any interest in there being a study? there being such a study? there is a huge industry hoping to make enormous money. the enormous amounts of money. the last needs lots of last thing it needs is lots of definitive studies linking marijuana lifelong marijuana with with lifelong incurable mental and incurable mental illness, and other it with other studies linking it with violent crime . go to the website violent crime. go to the website attacker smoked cannabis and see just many crimes are just how many crimes are reported in the local newspapers of this country. week after week after which violent

after week, in which the violent person is a long term user of marijuana and tell me there's no connection, go on mike, respond to peter. >> i'm sorry to quite the point. there is no direct connection between cannabis and violence. i'm not saying people who are violent have not taken cannabis. i'm not saying cannabis. i'm not complacent about it at all. there is mental health issues with long time cannabis use, but properly controlled , that risk properly controlled, that risk is small. it's very small and honestly , i don't know of any honestly, i don't know of any industry that's run better by criminals. why if there is those issues there and there are those issues there and there are those issues there, i think they're overinflated . but there are overinflated. but there are those issues there. for heaven's sake, let's run it properly. let's regulate it properly. if there's income to be had, there's tax income to be had, let the government have that tax income rather than the criminal fraternity. if there's to fraternity. if there's jobs to be had, there's about 100,000 jobs let the proper jobs in the uk. let the proper economic have those jobs economic market have those jobs rather than criminal rather than the criminal fraternity. think there are fraternity. so i think there are risks it. i'm not being risks to it. i'm not being complacent at all, but those risks are minimal and i think

it's better to control and contain those risks by making it legal. >> and one thing i think people use it for what mike, and what would people use cannabis for then, even if it was legalised or criminal? >> i, i do want to make quickly if i may, is actually it may surprise me, but i'm not in favour of immediate legalisation of cannabis because we've got to get the medical market right first. and i was helpful. part of getting the medical law changed back in 2018, and now there's 37,000 people prescribed medical cannabis with a great deal of benefit for chronic pain, chronic anxiety and of course the young children with epilepsy. but we haven't got that right yet. there's about 1.8 million medical users of cannabis this country and cannabis in this country and then got 37,000 prescribed. so we've got a long way to go before we get the medical side. right. and that's what i want to do before we get the legal market. >> so peter, would you be in favour of getting the medical market for cannabis in a in

better shape and more readily available? >> i think it's wholly irrelevant. it may be that marijuana can be used as a medicine. i think the jury is ultimately out on it. i know some the home office is the home office has been very good about about letting experiments take place. and indeed there are a couple of thc based medicines available under certain strict prescription in this country, whether they work or not, i don't know. i do know that the principal campaigner for cannabis legalisation in the united states, keith stroup of normal , said united states, keith stroup of normal, said in 1979, we will use medical marijuana as a red herring to give pot a good name. and i think that's fundamentally what the medical marijuana, the medical is medical marijuana issue is about. should stick to the about. we should stick to the issue of whether it should be legalised for recreational use, which is what is really at question. question here. and when mike barnes says, why not let the government get taxes? why put it in hands of why not put it in the hands of business? legalised business? what legalised marijuana means is big marijuana. it means lot more marijuana. it means a lot more of it means advertising the

of it. it means advertising the proposition 64, which was the model marijuana legalisation model for marijuana legalisation in california in the united states, was specific about demanding the freedom to advertise. remember how many years it took to prevent big tobacco from advertising in this country? what you're basically proposing is the creation of a new big tobacco with a very, very drug on very dangerous drug on widespread sale by big organisations with the government becoming committed to its continued sale because of its continued sale because of its tax revenue . basically a its tax revenue. basically a deeply immoral plan because because of the huge known dangers of this drug. another dangers of this drug. another dangers which will certainly become known if you are successful . successful. >> okay. well, thank you, gentlemen. mike barnes, who's giving part a good name, as peter said in trying very hard with a medicinal community at the and peter the very least, and peter hitchens, clearly , very much hitchens, who clearly, very much disagrees. gentlemen, you hitchens, who clearly, very much dismuch.. gentlemen, you hitchens, who clearly, very much dismuch. right lemen, you hitchens, who clearly, very much dismuch. right s01en, you hitchens, who clearly, very much dismuch. right so apparentlyyou so much. right so apparently that's it for the tv portion of the show. it's a bit different, this one, isn't it? stay tuned for free speech nation, but i will be carrying on on

gbnews.com. we're going to be having a debate on digital id cards, and i'm going to be talking to a mother who's been taken to court because she did not want her son with complex medical condition to receive the covid vaccine. neil we'll be back with you next week. bye for now. how. >> now. >> 2024 a battleground year, the year the nation decides as the parties gear up their campaigns for the next general election, who will be left standing when the british people make one of the british people make one of the biggest decisions of their lives ? lives? >> who will rise and who will fall? >> let's find out together for every moment. >> the highs, the lows, the twists

channel. where.

>> good evening. the top stories from the gb newsroom . thousands from the gb newsroom. thousands of israelis are currently gathering in jerusalem calling for the release of hostages still being held by hamas. it comes as today marks six months since the terror attack on the 7th of october. families of hostages also joined a rally in london to call for their release, saying the six months after the attack have been hell while also marking the occasion. the prime minister, rishi sunak, has said the government continues to stand by israel's right to defend its security and added the uk is shocked by the bloodshed and he called for an immediate humanitarian pause in fighting. he also urged hamas to release its hostages and implored israel to get aid into gaza more swiftly . meanwhile, gaza more swiftly. meanwhile, the foreign secretary has used the foreign secretary has used the occasion to stress that the uk's support for israel is not unconditional. writing in the

sunday