Laurence Fox and Dan Wootton
- Thread starter Ollygon
- Start date
Wizaard
Well-known member
You associate being a feminist with being left wing. Utter nonsense.
JJpool
Well-known member
So we've had Gordon Brown get involved, Adam Boulton, MP's and many political commentators, many calling for the channel to be shut down.
How sad and what an agenda some have.
Yet the BBC protected Savile and other channels have had people who have done things infinitely worse. A presenter says something wrong and crass, got rightly punished and suddenly it should be shut down by ofcom, with Boulton admiting that is upsetting the broadcast ecology.
Laughable. Meanwhile the channel is going from strength to strength. It's helping change the narratives and the trusted media are fearful of it, that's for sure. People wanted it shut down before it had even broadcast a single word.
How sad and what an agenda some have.
Yet the BBC protected Savile and other channels have had people who have done things infinitely worse. A presenter says something wrong and crass, got rightly punished and suddenly it should be shut down by ofcom, with Boulton admiting that is upsetting the broadcast ecology.
Laughable. Meanwhile the channel is going from strength to strength. It's helping change the narratives and the trusted media are fearful of it, that's for sure. People wanted it shut down before it had even broadcast a single word.
JJpool
Well-known member
Nope, only put the 2 things she is together.
Lala
Well-known member
I have never had an agenda and was all for a channel with a different viewpoint, although it wasn't for me and I haven’t watched it.
These 2 idiots have behaved abysmally.
Degrading a woman and sniggering away like a couple of bullies. If 2 presenters on the BBC behaved that way we wouldn’t be having this discussion, they wouldn’t be seen again for dust.
It‘s unacceptable to broadcast such misogynistic vile lewd comments on any mainstream news channel.
As someone who works in broadcasting I can tell you this is definitely not true. Their operation was a shambles, all ran from one desk in the corner of a room somewhere without basic broadcasting functionality (not because of their politics, because they are cheap and have inexperienced people working for them). They are the 33rd most watched channel by monthly average in the UK, in between 5Action which pretty much only shows old black and white cowboy films and Gold, but not even the actual Gold channel, just Gold +1. They are slightly ahead of a channel called Pick which I have honestly never heard of. I don't think they have the cultural footprint on the UK you seem to think, nor do I think they are 'changing' narrative or ideas. Their only success is now pumping out hundreds of short form YouTube videos every week in the hope one gets a bit big. I can see them riding this for sure, and it will help them stick around. But they are serving up content to an audience that already agrees with them on everything. They aren't changing anything, just another echo chamber existing solely from the help of YouTube algorithms
JJpool
Well-known member
Yep they behaved poorly and have been rightly punished. I like the no nonsense approach of some of their content, but as said no need for crude personal attacks, just attack the argument.
However the response has been predictably silly from some areas.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
So, no answer to my question. I didn't expect one.
Wizaard
Well-known member
Changing the narrative. Mental Tory MPs interviewing other mental Tory MPs. Lee Anderson fawning over Suella tomorrow
How does that meet the impartial and balanced narrative they're supposed to adopt as part of their licence agreement?
Talk your way out of that.
JJpool
Well-known member
Initially maybe, they had tons of tech issues, not now they don't.
You don't really compare news channels to everything else, you compare vs other news channels.
It was only the other day they beat sky and bbc across a whole day for the first time ever, they are definitely making waves and putting some noses out of joint.
It won Britain's most loved news brand.
They now have over a million subscribers on YouTube in very little time and much of the viewing isn't by traditional methods more and more. Most old people fall asleep with channel 1-5 on or just leave it on for comfort. Online is the future.
Of course they are, they are adding a much needed voice, an alternative argument, difficult topics many shy away from, often in line with what normal people think as opposed to the media elite in a London bubble. Of course they don't always get it all right, but people can making their own minds up. It's hardly surprising a channel that's more open and allows more opinion occasionally will get into trouble.
Like ot or not, the 'trusted news initative' fear the rise of channels like this and smaller independent channels and that's why there will be pressure to shut down or more controls brought in, as we are seeing already.
JJpool
Well-known member
They don't have a charter like the bbc.
They have labour people on fairly often, I guess it's up to them if they don't want to present as much.
I don't watch much of them, although Lee Anderson is alright at times.
They have Andy Burnham on quite often, Barry Gardiner etc.
Yes, they do still have tons of tech issues. I was sat metres away from the operational playout desk that was running it up until a few weeks ago, trust me, it's still a cheap mess held together by duct tape.
GB News trails behind the other main news channels that Ive heard of and I imagine this is even more so in terms of their live coverage online. Online is the future yes, well, it's the present. BBC are great at that. GB News from quick website analytic searches get most of their clicks from crappy articles like 'What Jesus really looked like FINALLY revealed' and 'Next James Bond: Newcome odds SLASHED'. Hardly changing narratives and adding to important social debate. Most of their YT videos have an awfully low number of views for a channel with a million subscribers. Most are in the low thousands, but then they will have a couple of week that really pop. Clearly playing a numbers game where they just shit out content 24/7. I have no doubt this will continue, don't get me wrong. But it's an echo chamber. Serving up slop to people who are already watching the same type of content, so the YouTube algorithm knows to give them more.
Its also funny that all of their broadcasting comes from London and you're talking about them being outside the media elite in London. Nigel Farage is a wealthy ex investment banker in the City. Jacob Ress Mogg is a literal member of the aristocracy and knight of the realm, Michael Portillo was the MP for Kensington and Chelsea. Camilla Tominey is privately educated at a school which it would cost you 40 grand just a primary level to put your kid through now, and has worked for NBC and the Daily Telegraph. Dan Wootton seems to have worked for every Rupert Murdoch paper in existence. Tom Harwood was privately educated and is from Cambridge. I could go on. It was a channel set up by establishment journalists like Andrew Neil and all they have done is employed conservative people largely from within the media largely rich and privately educated and all they do is tell right wing people things they like to hear. The idea this is 'changing' society is nonsense.
This is an odd but telling response to someone simply civilly discussing a topic from the advantageous viewpoint of having worked in the same transmission suite as GB news and pointing out objective facts about many of their presenters. You seem to view someone having actual knowledge and doing any sort of research with disdain.
JJpool
Well-known member
When the channel started it was terrible from a tech pov, what it's like behind the scenes I'll have to take your word for but the quality is what you'd expect now.
News is like that, some isn't that interesting and some flys. When pumping out tons of videos a day not all will interest and take hold, its about content and timing, luck etc. But it's growing and more regularly there are bigger numbers, it's only been going a few years compared to giants with complete dominance and forcing people to pay like the bbc. As for YT algorithms that's how the platform works for all people.
It is helping change things, we've had the don't kill cash campaign that was successful, Farage and the banking saga helped bring in new laws, although he could have done it without them on his own YT, much needed common sense put out like in the latter stages of covid and after, views that turned out right but weren't aired by thr main media which pushed the government narrative. Just by adding an alternative voice to the usual, tou mention slop but you get that on a lot of main channels,
It doesn't matter that they broadcast from within London or have wealthy people on, they are appealing and speaking the language of common folk. They jave plenty of other presenters, Michelle Dewberry for eg.
You don't like it, you don't have to, it's a free world... well...
JJpool
Well-known member
It doesnt even broadcast in HD and the graphics are a mess. Maybe it isn't descernible to you, and if you dont care or notice it's no big deal, but whenever I have watched it, it looks awful. It's kind of by the by, but since we are talking about it, I cant stress enough how cheap it looks - and is.
News isnt like that. Most news doesnt produce clickbait. You wont see the BBC writing crap clickbait like that. It's bile, dross, just something for SEO and to get clicks from facebook. It produces no journalistic value whatsoever. It's embarassing.
Farage is a very influential person in British politics. When he talks people listen. The story was covered by every major news channel. I can't see a case that this story wouldn't have happened without GB News. The BBC made an error in reporting what Coutts or Natwest told them, I cant remember which, but in fairness the CEO did lie to them, IIRC, and they apologised and corrected. They weren't burying it, they just got it wrong, it happens from time to time.
You have said they were taking on the media elite bubble, I would say pointing out that they exist as part of the media elite bubble is quite relevant. I find it quite revolting that Jacob Rees Mogg can be said to be 'speaking the language of the common folk', and often times I think people who think that don't really know what 'common folk' think. Most working class voters support net zero, for example. Most will be voting Labour at the next election, for example. We could talk about this much more in depth, but last week I saw Rupert Murdoch. Literally Rupert Murdoch, the King of western Media and literal billionaire, saying he is fighting against 'elites'. Nigel Farage discovered this years ago, and Donald Trump, with his toilet made of gold, realised it too. How people get suckered into these insanely rich people who drink a pint of beer and pretend they are part of the ordinary working people, I will never know. And I find it incredibly patronising to the wealth of diversity in the working class. The idea that you can broadcast from behind a pub bar and 'talk common sense' and that's just going to unluck the votes of millions of northerners I find incredibly patronising and insulting
Reece Mogg and Farage appealing to common folk is bizarre.
I'm common folk but I choose to see through them, far too many look up to them, this in a large way explains why this country isn't as good as it should be.
Tangerinemoss
Well-known member
Interesting JJ is calling it a news channel. I thought the regulator was letting them live by non news channel partiality? If it was anews channel, many of thier practices would be ruled out.
I suspect what`s appealing to some is the perceived legitimacy Reece-Mogg and the like afford to attitudes that would be less fragrant coming directly from the Tommy Robinsons of this world.
It`s much the same message couched in a different accent, an expensive suit and it went to a better school, but it carries the same pungent sentiments - generally around immigration.
JJ would rather hear his views confirmed from well dressed people at GB News than little Tommy.
Some good posts from Foggy on this thread, but even an obvious expert like him will have little impact on someone as desperately `invested` in the GB News message as JJ...
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
I think this is correct.
They should not be able to call themselves a news channel as it leads to some of the gullible thinking that they are broadcasting err news - so I think that they should be forced to change their name. What they actually broadcast is opinion, most often right wing opinion frequently laced with bat-shit crazy conspiracy theories. They are not required to have the same journalistic standards as a real news organisations like ITN, Sky, BBC, C4 etc.. A disturbing development is that the government seems to treat them as if they were actually were a legitimate news organisation, so for example GB News got the third question in a recent presser with Sunak.
Had the misfortune of coming across a video by the Tate brothers where they are asked about the tragic murder of the girl in Croydon. Just ends up in them shouting really loudly about it wouldn't happen if young men listened to Andrew Tate.
Scary thing is people actual listen to these people and people like Russell Brand. Too many idiots with loud voices and no opposition.
Scary thing is people actual listen to these people and people like Russell Brand. Too many idiots with loud voices and no opposition.
JJpool
Well-known member
The TV channel is SD I think but on YT it's 1080p, I don't really care about TV, I don't watch it.
But I'm sure they'd up it as it grows or if advertisers weren't boycotting from the get go. People could have waited for it to broadcast before wanting it shut down, definitely no agenda there...
Modern articles and content uses it and it works, that's a reality. It's annoying on many areas, you might see an article that says "this one food that leads to a happier life"
You think, typical clickbait nonsense, not clicking that. Well go on then out of interest what is the bloody thing, quick look, scroll down past the first paragraphs, ahh it's cheese, brilliant.
I said that could have happened elsewhere, but he still used it to help him, I mentioned other things too.
They certainly aren't in the media elite but I've never cared what people are, only if their message is hitting home.
Most people will have been fed things on net zero and most want to make a difference, but it's when it comes to people being hit in the picket and their lives completely disrupted, it's already been shown their support is not what you think when that happens. Yes some people at times pander to what people want to hear, but they do that on all sides.
There aren't many politicians that are like the common folk now, Labour don't stand for what they used to, I used to vote for them, not anymore.
They may well win but is anyone really any more confident in them, it's quite worrying some of the things they will do.
But I'm not actually that bothered, sometimes a change is needed as it's gone stale, not sure they are what's needed but we're stuck with a crap system that limits choice and I won't be voting either, if at all.
People absolutely hate the Labour Council in Blackpool, tbh I've often defended them in some areas. Whoever is in power will be absolutely verbally battered and it's the times we live in and we see it in many areas across society and on social media. Meltdowns, abuse, intolerance, hate under the guise of inclusion.
Looking at the bbc youtube, which is clearly a very well established news brand, they don't seem to get 14 x the number of views GB News does, given they have over 14M subs. So I don't think it's doing too bad considering.
JJpool
Well-known member
That's your choice, if NF says jump I don't say how high, but he's a strong communicator and is right on a lot of things, not everything. Does he play the crowd and know how to influence, of course, but any decebt politician does. For some reason people feel the need to abuse others who choose to consider different views. The left can be very intolerant, anyone who doesn't see the world like they do must be one of their favourite lables.
JJpool
Well-known member
Well that's seems how it's categorised for comparable ratings. It has news sections and news related opinion and discussion. Some is far more sensible than the haters, who probably have never watched, care to admit, with people from both sides of an argument.
People going off about what happened and they've rightly punished the people involved, it was inappropriate. But look at things the bbc has done and others.
More recently they had people on who were openly racist, making silly observations about the colour make up of a royal balcony.
Yet did their presenters, who did and said nothing to challenge it, get punished like Wootton who didn't say anything to Fox? I think we know the answer.
JJpool
Well-known member
Na I read and get all sorts of news, from anywhere, but I do watch some stuff on there and it's perfectly fine. I'm not that invested just not afraid to defend it and I won't bow to the unfounded hate from certain sections.
Their YouTube operation is just uploading clips from their live news channel, it goes through a pretty poor hd up conversion but seems to top out at 720p.
They have made a clear editorial decision to employ people like Laurence Fox whose only claim to fame in this arena is being divisive. That's the only thing he does. He burns LGBT flags and does blackface to get a reaction. GB News wants to be in your face politically incorrect and that's how they get their viewers. You can't then complain that advertisers don't want to be associated with it. Free market. They made their bed now they lie in it.
Yes I do think it's typical clickbait nonsense because it is. Zero journalistic quality whatsoever and these are driving most of their website hits. I bring this up to make the point that most of their views on their site are not regarding topics and debate that 'change the narrative'
They certainly are in the media elite. I've gone through the list of presenters. They are all from ex mainstream news channels or papers and privately educated, from London. It was set up by Andrew Neil. It has backing from Dubai. The CEO Angelos Frangopoulos ran Sky Australia for 18 years, another of Murdoch's minions. Half the presenters are working in government. You literally cannot get more establishment than that. Face it, this is not the plucky, scrappy underdog that you want it to be. It's rich elitists making conservative content that you like because you are conservative. That's fine! But let's not pretend it's something it isn't, it's insulting.
My point about YouTube is that it is algorithm based. GB News doesn't have penetration into the centre, or the left. It isn't a mainstream news outlet. It is a fringe right wing channel that right wing people watch. If you watch videos of people slagging off woke things and getting angry about immigrants or that Disney has a gay person in their new film, GB News will appear on your feed. The YT algorithm is relentless. It's a complete echo chamber. Everyone watching already agrees. Again, fine, it's perfectly natural. But it's not challenging anything.
bollieboy
Well-known member
GB News is joint owned by Sir Paul Marshall and Legatum Ltd. Paul Marshall was privately educated at Merchants Taylors before going to Oxford University and then doing an MBA in Fontainbleu so he is definitely part of the establishment..
Legatum is based in Dubai and was founded by Chris Chandler. Chris Chandler is a New Zealand billionaire so a real underdog.
What a story of a plucky, anti-establishment upstart.
Yep, and it's not as if there is a left wing version is there? Apparently conservative voices are silenced and yet here they with this elitist backing and loads of media veterans setting it up and joining it, and it is staunchly, editorially, right wing, and I would say quite strongly right wing too, not moderate. Would that ever happen with a left wing channel? No chance. I'm not even saying I want that to happen, but it's just the fact that these views are so part of the establishment, just watch Suella Braverman's speech the other day, for example, which makes its pretences otherwise so insulting. Would a strongly left wing media channel get such financial backing with some of the might of Britain's media behind it? I can't even imagine it. Frankly I don't want to, I hate this American style news/debate channels. That's why I would prefer GB News go away. I would hate our broadcasting to become more Americanised with presenters yelling down the camera their political opinions.
Halifax71
Well-known member
This is spot on.
The calls for it to be shut down are ridiculous, and I'd even argue dangerous as both Sky and the BBC have openly called for it.
Sooty59
Well-known member
I find many people are drawn in innocently into believing some of the agenda driven guff that’s spouted on many media platforms. Whilst it’s quite difficult to get a balanced view & I’m certainly not the best person to argue what is right & wrong. But deep down I think we all know. That is genuine people with a morale compass, but sometimes it’s hard to grasp & some do get sucked in.
Have they? When?
Tangerine Manc
Well-known member
I like the channel , not like the biased bbc or now lefti sky news
but fox deserves sacking , can’t say what he did , have an opinion yes , but not insult someone
what I hate is trail by media or social media , and now all the channels asking to cancel GB news , they are worried what free speech does instead of one sided news
but fox deserves sacking , can’t say what he did , have an opinion yes , but not insult someone
what I hate is trail by media or social media , and now all the channels asking to cancel GB news , they are worried what free speech does instead of one sided news
Tangerine Manc
Well-known member
The hypocrisy from bbc news , remind them of Jimmy saveile and Rolf harries 
itv news with Phil scohfield , don’t remember GB news asking these to be closed down
channel 4 and russ brand
itv news with Phil scohfield , don’t remember GB news asking these to be closed down
channel 4 and russ brand
Old_Laytonian
Well-known member
It's hardly News is it? It's just opinions
Halifax71
Well-known member
Just one example. Where is the impartiality - breach of Ofcom rules
Last edited:
So one Sky presenter who is appearing on another news channel, not acting on behalf of his employer, but giving his personal opinion, which he is entitled to. Sorry I fail to see how this draws the conclusion 'Sky and the BBC are calling for GB News to be shut down'.
I agree, and also don`t think that it should be shut down for this incident, although I have only heard calls for it to be so from Adam Boulton personally, and no official comment from the BBC or SKY.
Free speech and freedom of personal expression (within reason) is important, and should be embraced, even if it doesn`t chime with one`s own views.
Shame GB News didn`t extend this curtesy to Guto Harri when, as a presenter, he took the knee on air.
He was suspended immediately by GB News. Cancelled some may say.
Hey ho!
Halifax71
Well-known member
As always my main focus on the BBC. They have a duty to be impartial - not just under their internal rules, but also ofcom rules.
This was their flagship news debate programme and the consensus was the shut it down. A stance left unchallenged. Once again no doubt a telling off from Ofcom will be the only outcome.
What is ultimately sickening is this was the main headline, above the 15yr old girl being stabbed to death.
You only need to read this thread to see the absence of any degree of impartiality.
What does this thread have to do with impartiality? It's a forum where people are sharing opinions, we aren't bound by the ofcom code here.
You've said the "consensus" was to shut it down. This doesn't happen in the clip you sent. It's just Adam Boulton speaking, nobody else. As you mentioned, it is a debate programme. If someone has an opinion it should be shut down, that individual is entitled to it. I will also note that you are portraying it as if he thinks it should be shut down because of what Fox did, listening to what he actually said he refers to multiple continuous ofcom breaches. Again, this is not 'BBC and Sky' calling for a shutdown. It's one person's opinion.
Macseasider
Well-known member
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
If you listen to the clip, yes, Boulton speaking for himself calls for GB news to be closed down
At the end of the clip you can hear Darbyshire saying 'Do you agree?' to the other panelists. This actually demonstrates BBC impartiality, not the opposite as you claim.
Anyway, speaking of partial broadcasting, here are links to two of OfComs findings on GB News;
I think that if you searched you probably could find others as well.
So you can see that GBNews has breached Ofcom guidelines at least twice.
No doubt that Dan Wooten's show breached guidelines the other night as well given GBNews response.
My question for you is;
If a broadcaster is repeatedly ignoring the rules which it must abide by what is an appropriate punishment?
If GB News is unable to follow the same guidelines that other broadcasters are bound by then the ultimate sanction must be to suspend or ban it. It's up to GB news to get their house in order and obey the same standard that every other broadcaster has to or risk being shut down. If they do get shut down one day, it will be their own fault and not some massive conspiracy. For Ofcom to be effective they have to have some teeth otherwise what is the point of Ofcom?
Last edited:
JJpool
Well-known member
Unfortunately he types essays so usually the replies are too.
JJpool
Well-known member
I only watch on my phone and it looks fine. I don't really focus in or want to zoom in on Farages face in UHD...
They got him on because he's outspoken, even one of the bosses said he sails close to the wind, but this time he overstepped.
There are topics that do well every time. Royals content does very well for e.g. it's no all about a catch title, although many use them, it's about the content.
What do you expect, it's going to be run by a farmer and his wife is it. Poor people don't tend to start news channels. It's nothing like media elite, although they have some people on there who are better off, some from other backgrounds, you seem to be focusing on the few that suits.
It has more conservatives on it because it more right leaning and labour are a joke these days who don't represent the working class like they used to. They certainly aren't the establishment and if you think that I don't think you quite get it. It's about the messaging not the background of some who are on it.
I'm not a conservative. I've voted for them for brexit only, voted Labour before. There's probably more I agree with than some labour policies as im on the right, but I'm certainly no conservative.
You've clearly made your mind up and are seeing the worst, because that's what you want to see and that upto you. But it's growing in popularity and is adding a voice to many who felt they were being represented by the mainstream. Deny it if you want, but it's true.
JJpool
Well-known member
GB News ad chief abused by hateful mob at media industry love-in
Advertising agencies urged to stop 'intimidation' after shameful incident at awards ceremony
www.gbnews.com
I don't recall much is ever said when it's people on the channel on the end of something, like unnecessary abuse.
Some would probably say we'll they're a hate challenge so it's fair game, when it's not a hate channel at all.
Worth reading his full letter at the end.
Last edited:
At this point I think you need to tell me what "media elite" is. Because apparently it doesn't include people who have worked for mainstream news in very high up positions for years, doesn't include knights of the realm and doesn't include privately educated city bankers. The most powerful people on screen and behind the scenes are rich and long established in mainstream media. I've pointed out the person who set up the channel, the people who fund the channel, the CEO of the channel, several of its key presenters. This clearly a pretty comprehensive view of the people with the most influence.
Yes a lot of the content they do which is popular is the royal soap opera. Wittering on about Harry and Megan doesn't strike me as vital public interest journalism tbh, and I see no difference between this and coverage which already exists in red top tabloids.
The working class are currently supporting Labour. You might not, but all polling shows Labour has a heavy lead in the old Labour heartlands. You can't seriously tell me that the Deputy Conservative Chairman interviewing the Home Secretary is 'anti establishment'. I can see you want it to be, but unfortunately it just isn't is it? It's people within power interviewing other people within power. It's the Conservative party that has been in charge for 13 years now.
I don't know what you think I've made my mind up about. I'm aware it is popular among a certain audience and I think it will continue to do well in this regard. But I also know quite a bit about how this industry works, having studied and worked in it for over a decade now. I know for a fact that it's a right wing channel and we have had a right wing party in power for 13 years. I know for a fact the people in charge are mostly from big mainstream broadcasters and from privileged backgrounds. I know for a fact how the YouTube algorithm works and how it creates echo chambers, and I'm well experienced enough to spot when a channel is playing into that, like GB News is. Clearly you like to think of it as the outsider that is destroying the traditional way of doing things, but I can't see any evidence that it is reaching an audience that didn't already agree with everything it was saying in the first place.
todayistheday
Well-known member
working class, in the UK its more like the workshy class.
Tangerinemoss
Well-known member
Personally, I don't think OFCOM should shut them down, but they should make them change their name, as they are not a news programme. Let thier backers lose a fortune, if they like, shouting into the void.
Plenty on here enjoy their output, fair play, but can I ask whether you are comfortable with the Deputy Chairman of the Tory Party, famed for telling refugees they should Fxck off, doing an interview with the Home Secretary, with absolutely no balancing view? You see, in my old fashioned view, that is a Party Political Broadcast, not a news programme.
Plenty on here enjoy their output, fair play, but can I ask whether you are comfortable with the Deputy Chairman of the Tory Party, famed for telling refugees they should Fxck off, doing an interview with the Home Secretary, with absolutely no balancing view? You see, in my old fashioned view, that is a Party Political Broadcast, not a news programme.
JJpool
Well-known member
Have you watched it? That's not really accurate. Can watch the show yourself on the 2nd link.
Some good shows on tonight, some balance and interesting debate, it's not the going red in the face and screaming at the wall type stuff some seem to think.
Dewbs & Co | Friday 29th September
Plain-speaking, straight-talking - Michelle Dewberry delivers her individual take on the day's news.Keep up to date with the latest news at https://www.gbnew...
www.youtube.com
Lee Anderson's Real World | Friday 29th September
Lee Anderson brings the Real World to the Great British public, as the silent majority finally have their voices heard in the Conservative deputy chairman's ...
www.youtube.com
Lee Anderson had a range of views on and his interview with the home secretary was a conversation, putting opposition points to her, getting answers then giving a response from labour.