on the radio box this week. i'll be talking to esteemed german economist professor richard werner, who coined the term quantitative easing. and i'll be asking him, amongst other things, about the future of money, yours and mine. i'll then be joined by american tech entrepreneur jennifer arcuri to contemplate bitcoin. what is it really? and finally, we'll be delving into the debate on assisted dying to decide whether the laws in the uk should be changed to give those wanting to end their lives the right to do so. all of that, plus plenty of discussion with my panellists , discussion with my panellists, futurist and lawyer andrew eborn. but first, an update on

the latest news headlines. >> a very good evening from the newsroom. i'm sam francis. let's take a look at the stories leading the news tonight . rishi leading the news tonight. rishi sunakis leading the news tonight. rishi sunak is under pressure from some of his own mps and opposition parties after a disappointing set of local election results this week. the conservative mayor for west midlands , andy street, was midlands, andy street, was defeated by labour's richard parker, while sadiq khan is beginning his third term as london mayor after securing a majority of 275,000 votes. well, while opposition leaders are claiming those election results show that we need a general election now, they say government minister mark harper insists the conservative are focusing on the priorities of the british people . the british people. >> i think all conservatives now need to get behind the prime minister as the chairman said in

his article this morning and take that message to the country. we see from the analysis the experts have done that the results show that the position is closer than the polls are suggesting. so it's everything is delightful for the next election, and we're absolutely up for that fight . absolutely up for that fight. >> mark harper there. in other news, a candlelit vigil has been held today for a teenager who was stabbed in north east london earlier this week. 14 year old daniel anjorin was attacked on his way to school by a man with a sword. four other people, including two police officers, were also injured. we've heard tonight that in northern ireland, a man has been left with potentially life changing injuries after he was found nailed to a fence. police there have described that attack in the residential area of bushmills as sinister and brutal. officers who attended the incident also said two vans had been set on fire in the pubuc had been set on fire in the public car park, near to where the man was found. police are now appealing for anyone with information or who may have dash

cam footage. they're asking to urgently call 101. a man has been arrested on suspicion of organising people trafficking across the english channel. the 38 year old, who claims to be an iraqi, was detained in preston in the early hours of this morning. it relates to crossings that were made in november and december last year. he was detained as part of an investigation into an organised crime network. and finally, before we hand back to neil, we understand that water is gradually being restored to more than 32,000 homes in east sussex after a pipe there burst three days ago. southern water has issued an apology to its customers after businesses in hastings and in saint leonards on sea said it had been catastrophic . in a statement, catastrophic. in a statement, the firm said they hope the full return of water supplies will happen between now and tomorrow morning . for the latest stories, morning. for the latest stories, sign up to gb news alerts by scanning the code on your screen, or go to gb news. common

alerts. >> i hear a lot of talk of revolution . i say revolutions revolution. i say revolutions are for mugs. mugs playing into the hands of more of the same. there has never been a revolution by people like us. real people . not that made lives real people. not that made lives better for the likes of us. not once. any revolution, so—called any revolution that you've ever heard of has been a bait and switch, advertising one thing to the desperate. and then selling them something else entirely. the french revolution was one group of powerful types, seizing control from other powerful types . and to hell with the types. and to hell with the poon types. and to hell with the poor, the huddled masses. the rich stayed rich and the poor were sold a dummy. some heads were sold a dummy. some heads were parted from some shoulders for the sake of revenge and sadism . but nothing changed for sadism. but nothing changed for the better. not for real people like you and me. the russian

revolution was more of the same . revolution was more of the same. the royal family, the romanovs, were murdered by freshly minted communists, while everyone else, the hapless millions, were told they owned nothing and would be happy. millions of real people were murdered as well, just for good measure and nobody got a steak dinner except the members of the politburo . it was ever of the politburo. it was ever thus. the revolutions are for dupes.if thus. the revolutions are for dupes . if you think a revolution dupes. if you think a revolution now will make things better for the poor and the downtrodden, there's a bridge across the thames. i can sell you for cash. the mob is always , always the the mob is always, always the tool of the rich and powerful. the mob breaks windows on demand, sets cars on fire, hurts or kills some passers by, maybe. and then the rich and powerful have the excuses they need to sendin have the excuses they need to send in their troops and enforce new emergency legislation to end the violence and make everyone safe. the leash is shortened , safe. the leash is shortened, the wheel turns, and all the real people have a little bit less than before. as benjamin franklin said, those who would give up essential liberty to

purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. revolution means do nor safety. revolution means do no more than let the next lot of rich and powerful people get ficher rich and powerful people get richer and more powerful at the expense of the same old, poor and powerless, those left with the broken windows and burned out cars and businesses, and holding out their hands in hope of help from those that saw to the setting of the fires in the first place. don't think i'm only taking a pop at communists ehhen only taking a pop at communists either. fascists are the same as communists . all the ists and communists. all the ists and isms are exactly the same. you couldn't get a cigarette paper. between the outcomes of fascism and communism , communist and communism, communist revolutions and fascist revolutions and fascist revolutions end up in the same place with the poor and powerless looking up at mountains of corpses. all revolutions are for mugs. what we need is not a revolution. no more revolution forever. in fact, what we need is not a revolution, but a reformation. and before anyone starts shouting, i'm not talking about religion, about anyone's religion. i'm talking about a

reformation of the way we deal with each other, treat each other, how we act as individual, sovereign human beings. in the autumn of 1517, a german priest called martin luther posted some thoughts on the town noticeboard . he was angry about a fellow churchman roaming the streets nearby and telling people they could avoid hell by handing over money. get out of jail free cards if you will. the pope at the time wanted a fancy new church in rome, saint peter's, and wanted to pay for it by selling plots of land in paradise. with that in mind, he was more than happy to have his salesmen tell those that could afford it , that they could do as afford it, that they could do as they liked when it came to sinning, just as long as they were prepared to pay the price in hard cash. roll up, roll up, you sinners sin all you like. hand over the coins and heaven is yours when you're done. luther was not impressed, to say the least, and believed the only way to heaven was through faith, something money couldn't buy. he asked, why does not the pope,

whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest crassus, build the basilica of saint peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers. the pope got angry and excommunicated martin luther talk about cancelling, and luther took the paper work and luther took the paper work and burned it in front of a wide eyed crowd. if the intention was to silence dissent, to censor, well, that went well. didn't it? luther wouldn't shut up. and so the world was shifted on its axis and forever. note to self, never shut up. technically, that wandering churchman who so annoyed martin luther was selling what you call indulgences . there's nothing new indulgences. there's nothing new under the sun, as we say, and indulgences are on sale again. carbon tax, for example , is carbon tax, for example, is payable for burning petrol and what have you for heating or air conditioning, your home, for eating meat, for having the audacity to breathe will shortly be affordable only for the rich. the rich will buy in the manner of the indulgences of old, the freedom to burn as much fuel as

they want in their private jets and super yachts. they'll live in homes made warm or cool as required, with more carbon . required, with more carbon. they'll eat what they want, go where they want, live as they want, and they'll pay for the privilege in the manner of the indulgences. as they will buy their way out of purgatory. they will buy the carbon allowances of the billions of people that you and me, that can't afford to do. likewise, the billionaires will live as they please , buying will live as they please, buying their way out of any trouble, just like the rich who thought they could pay their way out of purgatory and straight into heaven in the days of martin luther, there is nothing new under the sun. it's always the same and always will be the same until there's a societal reformation we see all around us now. the rich do what they like, get richer and get away with it, while the poor pay the price. the poor are given toxic rubbish to eat while the rich enjoy the profits of the sale, the poor get fat and sick and sad, and the rich get richer. selling them potions and pills. big pharma got rich on the proceeds of pushing gene therapies in response to covid 19, and

uncounted numbers got sick or died as a result. three years later and the truth starts dribbling out, astrazeneca have admitted their product can cause blood clotting and in time, no doubt, the compensation will be paid to their victims. to some of them at least. but who will foot the bill on account of the terms of the emergency use authorisation under which the product? all such products were rolled out to the unwitting public, and the indemnity that went with it. any compensation will surely be paid not by the company, but by us. those that took the jabs and those that didn't look to the company and they waive their get out of jail free card. so it was the same if you're rich, if you've already got the money and the power, then you're in the clear and the little guy is left to carry the can all the way to hell. everything is free to those that can afford it, and ruinously expensive for those that can't. money talks and nobody walks when you get right down to it, it's all about the value placed on human life, on every human life. and if you look around you

now, you'll see that the powerful value their own lives most highly. while dismissing yours and mine as no more than flickering lights on a computer screen. dots on a spreadsheet. there's half a million dead in ukraine, maybe more. no one with the means to do so cares enough to count in gaza, the dead palestinian men, women and children are piled in their thousands. but the narrative of war has changed in recent weeks. once upon a time, ukraine was sold to us in the west as the defence of democracy now that ship has sailed, that fakery has failed. and so the puppets ermined lords among them, are selling tickets to the charnel house as value for money and a good investment . the rich and good investment. the rich and powerful make no secret now of how they believe they are different from us, better than us, deserving of better lives than us on account of their wealth and connections in the end game being played. now, the objective is nothing less than the immiseration of those not already ruined . taxes of every already ruined. taxes of every sort are hyped. taxes that never existed before are created and

enforced . none of the money enforced. none of the money collected will be spent as advertised to fix roads, build hospitals, secure the borders, boost innovation and employment tax on individuals. serves no other function than to take it away from those that earned it. and that might use it in pursuit of better lives. when you live in a world in which the powerful seek absolute total power than the intended destination for the rest of us is feudalism and serfdom. the way things have been for most people, like us, for most of recorded history, they say power corrupts , but i they say power corrupts, but i say rather that they already corrupt, are attracted to power. once in power, it's do as i say and not as i do. half a millennium ago, the rich and powerful sought to buy their way out of purgatory while continuing to sin all they wanted. now, the rich and powerful assume their wealth entitles them to behave in exactly the same way. here's the thing it's not a revolution we need, because a revolution only serves those already powerful. what's required is that reformation . martin luther, he

reformation. martin luther, he of the first reformation, protested that every human being was responsible for him or herself . indeed, had to expect herself. indeed, had to expect to stand before god and give account of him or herself. it was no good looking to the church , to any institution for church, to any institution for salvation. it was about taking and accepting personal responsibility. no one's coming to save us. quite the contrary. the only solution , the only the only solution, the only salvation, lies within each and every one of us. so stay awake. keep pointing out and calling out the liars. we won't comply. our way out of tyranny. stop swallowing all the crap. and i mean literally. it's time to look after ourselves, to take care of ourselves because there's no cavalry coming. stand up straight and stand strong. if the last few years have taught us anything , it's that the us anything, it's that the defiance of every individual does make a difference. the road we take next is not up to them. it's up to us. andrew a reformation rather than a

revolution . revolution. >> you're absolutely right. and i think what we now need is sort of respect for fellow human beings. and the reality is it's a lot of things, rather than being a penalty as you say, for doing wrongdoing, it's a licence fee. and those who can afford to do the wrongdoing pay that licence fee can get away with it. so it's actually also an evolution rather than a revolution. i think the more that we can understand each other for humanity's sake, that's got to be good. and what i find extraordinary and we've just got the results of various elections coming out. the biggest winner was actually apathy . you look at the turnout apathy. you look at the turnout in things like blackpool. what was 32? i think somewhere else it was like 22. it means that people can't be bothered. so what does that tell us about the people at the moment? why are they not engaged? >> it feels as though we're living in parallel realities. the political class at all levels , you know, from you know, levels, you know, from you know, from westminster down are going one way and the and the mass of the population , it would appear, the population, it would appear, don't care where they go. yeah. and yet they still wield

ridiculous control over our lives. >> i think you're absolutely right. i always say that trust comes in on foot and leaves on horseback. i think trust in politicians, in the media and in in various other things in the police is at an all time low. so how do we restore that trust? we need to look at those sort of issues. >> do you think you're right? you're right to invoke apathy. i mean, don't you think that uncomfortable onerous though it may be, it will come down to, to more of us taking on responsibility vie the decades of expecting that other people were going to make sure the lights came on and the rubbish was collected, they're over. >> i think that's right. and we've had a heavy reliance where on experts and everybody, suddenly we just basically swallow whatever the expert in inverted commas says to us. now that's very, very dangerous. so and all of a sudden in this social media age, what's happenedis social media age, what's happened is people everybody's an expert on everything, whether it's on the constitution, whether it's on vaccines and so on and so forth. everybody with an opinion espouses that opinion, however ill founded. i think it's more than ever. we have to question everything. and what i always find whenever i

come on your show with you, some of the reading, some of the comments on social media, well, you're not doctors. how can you comment on it? well, all we're doing is questioning it. you have to question everything. every question is legitimate and as soon as we get experts who can't agree, we've got a problem that's absolute right that the idea that we should just abdicate responsibility for everything is, is a slow death by a thousand cuts. >> we have to we have to pay attention, read for ourselves, understand for ourselves. we've got to go into a break already. after which i'll be joined by german economist professor richard werner to talk about the reality of money. you're watching the neil oliver show on gb news. don't go away.

>> welcome back to the neil oliver show . oliver show. >> professor richard werner understands perhaps better than

just about anyone else, where money comes from. who creates it, and why the banks have so much power over our lives . much power over our lives. welcome to the show, professor. >> hello. thanks for having me on the show , we keep hearing as on the show, we keep hearing as a population , year after year, a population, year after year, decade after decade, almost about imminent financial crash and burn. but somehow or other, it's averted and avoided it. in your opinion, will the crash ever come? and if so, when ? ever come? and if so, when? >> well, i thought that's one of the certainties that we can be quite sure of that, we will get another financial crisis. if you look at the track record of the central planners, the more power we've given them over the past half century steadily, gradually, given more power to the central planners in charge of the banking system, the more cnses of the banking system, the more crises we've had. initially, it was a case of highly frequent business cycles, but essentially

their amplitude has increased and their frequency, and we're really talking about boom bust cycles and that's what they've been delivering. so, in that's a consistent track record. and you see, one reason is that we give them more power each time after each crisis. and for some reason, we believe them when they say, oh, you know, we couldn't have prevented that. it's because we don't have enough power. give us more power. then next time it won't happen. and each time we give them more power. and that's how it's happened consistently. >> so with that in mind , if and >> so with that in mind, if and when the next crash comes, what metamorphosis would you predict? you know, obviously we've some of us have been predicting for some time now central bank digital currencies, digital ids and the rest. will this be the moment when those , shadows enter moment when those, shadows enter our lives ? our lives? >> well, i think that's certainly what the central planners have in mind. and in fact, there's a lot of

similarities to what happened in the 1970s when the official narrative tells us, oh, it was some exogenous shock. you know, it's always , you know, outside it's always, you know, outside things that that, create these crises, we're told, so there was this inflation because of the oil shock, but actually it was quite, quite different. it started in 1971 when the united states defaulted on its international obligations to change the dollar into gold . change the dollar into gold. they didn't want to hand over the gold. they delinked the dollar . and then, of course, the dollar. and then, of course, the dollar. and then, of course, the dollar fell. and to prevent a further fall, they did several things. number one told the other central banks under their sort of auspices in europe and japan to print money like crazy. so 7172 central banks just wrapped it all up . you know, the wrapped it all up. you know, the money creation, because of their control of the banking system, accelerate bank credit creation as well. that caused the inflation. the oil price shock happened later. you know , the happened later. you know, the oil price quadrupled in january 74th when for the first stage,

inflation had already peaked in mid 73. in quite a few countries, you see. so the official story doesn't add up, and then they arranged for another anchor for the dollar , another anchor for the dollar, switching from gold to the petrol dollar by getting saudi arabia, to sell oil only against the dollar and invest 80% of the proceeds in us treasuries, plugging the twin deficits budget and, and balance of payments deficit in the same, game. now it's very similar to what happened in 2020 and the years following because again, we're told, oh, it's a war happening. and then an energy shift. and that's why we've had inflation. absolutely not true. what happened first was march 2020. the central planners revved up money creation like crazy, and that caused the inflation 18 months later, as i warned at the time when i saw the data. and by may 2020, i expected significant inflation because it was massive credit

creation, forcing the banking system to massively expand credit creation. and the central banks themselves as well, but of course they're blaming it on this , you know, external forces this, you know, external forces and, and also they've been working to rearrange the international financial infrastructure and, they're looking for new anchors or shifting from the petrodollar , shifting from the petrodollar, which has ended because now saudi arabia is also selling oil against other currencies. the chinese currency , because we chinese currency, because we know the brics economies are aligning and they've decided they don't want to use the us dollar. so it's very clear that there's more and more countries , there's more and more countries, that are moving against the dollar and that, puts pressure on the system and accelerates the need to have a different anchon the need to have a different anchor. and it looks like ideally what they'd like to do is have a central bank digital currency, which is less a currency. it's a control tool, and then they feel they're in charge again. so i think that's something that's definitely one step too far. and we have to speak up and stop this now because, you know, there's no

coming back from that one. if we give them central bank, digital currency, programmable money, which is really potential money, you know, conditional money each time you want to use it, essentially you have to send a quick application whether the central planner says yes or no to you at that spot in this geographic location for this particular purchase at that particular purchase at that particular shop, buying that particular, say, book by that author. and if they don't like it, it's not going to happen. and you think they can't do that? well, they'll use ai against us. you know, that's one of the key functions for the central planners to have the tools to manage us. and of course, some people will get special personal treatment. you know, as we've seen with some people that get cancelled. so, that's, that's the current plan, i suppose, based on what they've told us. >> andrew eborn, it's a it's a terrifyingly confusing situation in which we find ourselves, is it not? yeah. you're absolutely right. this endless, this endless litany of a litany , this endless litany of a litany, this endless litany of a litany, this endless sequence of financial

cnses endless sequence of financial crises , each one of which seems crises, each one of which seems to be rectified in favour of the bankers and the rest of us are left floundering. wonder what just happened . just happened. >> you're absolutely right. and as i said at the top of the show, what we do is so reliant on experts who hide behind jargon that we don't understand what's going on. and actually, banks have been dropped by most economists since the 1980s because they're only intermediaries. so you've got to look at, well , where does your look at, well, where does your money come from? and what's the reality of that sort of side? and what i love about this sort of explanation is get rid of the jargon, unpack it in a way that people can understand. >> professor vernor, i'm very much a very mindful that most people maybe, perhaps especially the younger generations coming through, simply have no idea, nor could they have any idea of what money actually is , where it what money actually is, where it comes from, who creates it, what if you could pull the levers? what would you insist that people understood about the reality of money, well, the fact that, for example, concerning central bank digital currencies, which is a bit of a, you know, a

misnomer to sell it to us, but telling oh, us, it's new, it's central bank digital currency, we haven't had that actually. we've been using bank digital currency bdc for several decades because banks create money when they give a loan, and because of that power in the hands of the banks. and the banks, of course, are supervised by the central banks, it is important to have a decentralised banking system with many, many small banks in countries that have achieved that, they performed much better. that's how china did it. they started out with the central planners dream of one bank, the central bank, and no other banks soviet system. then deng xiao ping came to power in 1978 and he, he wanted a system that works. and we know a decentralised system which works much better and is actually much more resilient and delivers in the uk. the problem is there's too few banks . what we need is too few banks. what we need is small banks, because the big banks don't lend to small firms. and if you have many, many small banks, they lend to small firms,

then you get money creation on then you get money creation on the ground by many small, banks that lend to the local firms for local business expansion , job local business expansion, job creation, it's much higher job creation, it's much higherjob creation, it's much higherjob creation and economic growth, not inflation and not asset bubbles and crises. it's when you have a centralised system like the uk, five big banks dominating banking . they don't dominating banking. they don't want to lend to small firms. they want to do big deals with big customers. so they lend to the private equity funds. the hedge funds, financial speculation, property loans, real estate lending . and that real estate lending. and that creates these boom bust cycles and banking crisis. so what we needis and banking crisis. so what we need is we need to create many small banks. and in the uk i've been working on that. we need to set up community banks, i think a lot of people would like that to have a local bank, local headquarters, the bank managers locally being the ones that make the decision and the regulators should look kindly on this because a system like this is actually more resilient to shocks and crises, and it delivers for the country. and

that's what the uk needs. other countries also create a local community banks. >> professor werner, i love the sound of that local community banks. also, you've reinforced my central bank my suspicion that central bank digital currencies are a solution problem, solution without a problem, they're solution to a problem they're a solution to a problem that's there . i wish i had that's not there. i wish i had more time. please come back and give us more of your insight on this fascinating subject. professor richard werner , thanks professor richard werner, thanks very much. a break, a break again, after which i'll be chatting to american tech entrepreneur jennifer arcuri about her take on crypto currencies and in particular, the future or not, of bitcoin . the future or not, of bitcoin. you're watching the neil oliver show on gb news. don't go anywhere

welcome back once more to the

neil oliver show, where my next guest is american entrepreneur jennifer arcuri. welcome to the show, jennifer , how are you show, jennifer, how are you doing? hi, neil. i have i'm very well having me. it's a pleasure. i've just been talking to a german economist, richard werner , about the reality of money, about where money comes from , about where money comes from, about where money comes from, about the power that control of money gives to bankers and central bankers in particular. but within that area, cryptocurrency alternatives to cash. you have very strong opinions about bitcoin in particular, do you not? can you illustrate to me why that is so ? illustrate to me why that is so? >> well, first of all, i love that you're having this conversation . it's really great conversation. it's really great to see it take, mainstream television. it is important. i know a lot of people are concerned about their money, and

i think basically it comes back , i think basically it comes back, to a very basic, fundamental of the life cycles of currencies. and as we're seeing now, this life cycle is coming to an end. this currency and as as history has shown us many years before, will always reset back to gold . will always reset back to gold. it will never be bitcoin. bitcoin is not scalable . bitcoin bitcoin is not scalable. bitcoin cannot take on the traffic. and this whole idea that it's some, you know, value store of value or digital gold i know there's a lot of bitcoin maxis out there that will hate me for saying this, but that just simply is not true. there is no intrinsic value of bitcoin , i'm a very, value of bitcoin, i'm a very, pro advocate for digital assets in the crypto space. i am extremely pro blockchain, but never bitcoin. i believe bitcoin is being used as a trap. another trojan horse and as you and i have mentioned many times, i see them manipulating the prices of

gold and silver to particularly keep the nominal price down so that banks have the, ability to buy in. and at these low manipulated prices. and then as you've seen the years of the narrative shift on bitcoin , narrative shift on bitcoin, bitcoin is a beta. bitcoin was introduced after the last, you know, a, 2008 crash. so then we bnngin know, a, 2008 crash. so then we bring in this exercise of digital currency. and at first it was the drug users. and the cartel. and now they're picking it up and bringing it into mainstream. and a lot of people bought into the concept that it was outside the system. neal, you and i know that's just simply not true. it's completely inside the system . when they inside the system. when they created a bitcoin etf, they created a bitcoin etf, they created an ability to short the market. they now are controlling the system. >> jennifer, can you explain there's many myths around bitcoin . bitcoin. >> can you explain to my audience why why bitcoin has

reached continues to reach the values that it does. you know i remember it coming in in a bitcoin was worth whatever you know less than a dollar. i haven't looked at it in the last ten minutes, but i've seen it recently up at around $60,000 for a single bitcoin. how can that scale of fluctuation be possible ? possible? >> so i, i know a lot of people because of my bitcoin doubts will will try to make out that i don't understand what i'm talking about, but the time to buy in on bitcoin was ten years ago. neal. not now, you know, ten years ago when you were able to build the rig yourself and build it. now it's just too expensive. it's costly and labour intensive . i mean, even labour intensive. i mean, even if you did continue this , you if you did continue this, you know, the mining and building out the proof of work, you know, this scalable consensus protocol that bitcoin runs on is never

going to be an optimal world currency. it's not going to be what people use on a daily basis. it's not a store of value because there's no value to it. hold that thought. >> jennifer arcuri andrew eborn do you have fomo? do you have fear of missing out on bitcoin, or are you glad that that ship sailed with. >> i think as soon as i was heanng >> i think as soon as i was hearing jennifer speak, i think and you were asking, well, what is this explanation for these crazy valuation? they are crazy fomo, fear of missing out is what drove it because people want to. they hear everybody say, we're multimillionaires for doing nothing overnight. that sort of greed factor . doing nothing overnight. that sort of greed factor. but i think as i always like to do, is, is break down the jargon because a lot of people will be watching here and say, well, we don't really understand what is a bitcoin. and i think whoever better than than. jennifer, just to explain in simple terms what it is. >> jennifer just a it is. >> jenniferjust a quick almost a yes or no answer. do you think that bitcoin was always brought in, was always going to be a trap ? or do you think there was trap? or do you think there was an earlier period where it might have been something else

entirely, or was it, was it simply created, as you say, as a, as a, as a trojan horse or as a, as a, as a trojan horse or as a trap for the gullible ? a trap for the gullible? >> well, it was created after the last financial crisis. so i absolutely believe it was an exercise, a beta exercise to get people in and ultimately knowing that we are coming to the end of this life cycle , of fiat this life cycle, of fiat currency, you know, what better way to shovel the plebs into the paddocks of bitcoin? you know, look over here while we do this, you know, there's nothing that's going to replace physical gold and silver. centuries have shown us this. and as far as you know what is bitcoin . well everyone what is bitcoin. well everyone talks about it being this decentralised currency . that's decentralised currency. that's actually a misconception. it's a software that is centralised under a foundation and it determines if bitcoin has improvement, needs improvement protocols known as bips. and they're adapted under this software. so the individuals make the changes to how this software works. and this goes back to the mining because now

that we've been mining 1015 years, the rewards are just not there. and it's too costly and expensive. the electronic overhead to run these mines. so there's really no point in running this. so this mathematical protocol, this , you mathematical protocol, this, you know, equation that people are looking in as, as a store of value, this, this piece of digital gold. well, that's just not true. nothing is going to replace real gold. >> i'll have to jump in there. and it's not centralised. >> this is another myth. just wanting to make this clear. i mean it's becoming more and more centralised every day. we see this with the bitcoin etf. the minute they created that they created a market. >> and once again you have frightened me about bitcoin. i come through i go through highs and lows. but once again you have put the fear of god into me concerning bitcoin . thank you concerning bitcoin. thank you jennifer arcuri. after the break i'll be debating whether the laws in this country governing assisted dying need to change. you're watching the neil oliver show on gb news. don't go away.

welcome back to the neil oliver show . tv legend esther rantzen, show. tv legend esther rantzen, presently fighting her own battle with serious illness, has called on all mps to attend a debate in parliament about changing the laws on assisted dying. it's a conversation that might go on forever as we weigh up medical ethics versus personal choice . today, i'm personal choice. today, i'm going to endeavour to begin that conversation with my guests mp andrew bridgen, who feels the laws should stay as they are, and activist peter tatchell, who says it's time for change, good evening both gents. andrew, if i

come to you first, sir, what are your concerns about the possibility of modifying changing substantially the rules on assisted dying ? on assisted dying? >> well, this is not the first time that parliament has debated this. we debated and voted on it last time in 2015, i spoke against the motion and voted against the motion and voted against it and it went down. i don't think the fundamental facts have not changed since that debate nine years ago. i think we have to remember that despite lots of people lobbying the ones in my constituency and from around the country who who are in favour of assisted dying or the right to decide for themselves, they're generally very strong characters, quite capable of standing up for themselves. but neil, i think we have to remember the law is there to protect the weakest in society , very often the society, very often the strongest can look after themselves . and i was approached themselves. and i was approached in 2015 by a large number of

doctors who had grave reservations about any changes in the law to legalise assisted dying questions around the ethics that they'd have to operate under, and the oath they've given when they became medics to do no harm. who was going to administer all of this and grave concerns that vulnerable elderly would feel pressured either by society or by their relatives, to end their lives prematurely. and if we've got a choice between 19 people who want to end their lives and can't , and one person who can't, and one person who doesn't want to and is coerced into it, i'll go with the latter i >> -- >> peter tatchell, andrew bridgen, you know, saying there, that the vulnerable are always at risk by definition in what way would you say that the law can be changed to meet the needs of those who who wish to have a assistance in dying and those who might, one way or another, find themselves manoeuvred into

that position against their better judgement. >> well, first let betterjudgement. >> well, first let me say that 84% of the public and the vast majority of doctors say that where someone has a terminal illness and hasn't got long to live, where they're suffering, or where they have an illness thatis or where they have an illness that is physically damaging and harmful to them, causing them pain , they should have the pain, they should have the opfion pain, they should have the option to choose when and where and how they die. now i understand and people's concerns about safeguards, but baroness meech's bill has very strong safeguards . so it would assisted safeguards. so it would assisted dying would have to be approved by two independent doctors plus a high court judge. it could only be applied for by a person aged 18 or older who was of sound mind , who had given their sound mind, who had given their permission freely and who had a terminal illness with less than six months to live. so those are very strong safeguards needs.

and i think, you know, when it comes to, dying thing during life, we all expect a good quality of life. i think people all should also have the right to a good quality of death, prolonged suffering and agony that i've seen a couple of my friends go through is not kind. it's not compassionate. it's not what we should accept . what we should accept. >> andrew bridgen it does sound from what peter is saying , that from what peter is saying, that the safeguards are there, that the, the, the process as laid down, properly followed, ought to protect the vulnerable and everyone else. but clearly you clearly suspect that there are there are workarounds in there that would be to the detriment of some. >> well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. we've seen in canada that they've bought in legalised assisted dying, and we've had the terrible situation where a young lady in her 20s has suffered a catastrophic vaccine,

harms from the covid 19 vaccines and as a make up the state are now offering her assisted dying as a way out as a compensation. that's, things in in both the legal system and in our hospitals don't always go according to the protocols, as we know, and not always the protocols are right. i think this would be very much the thin end of the wedge. i think it devalues the lives of those who might seek that will put them put in this position. but i think it actually devalues life in general. and i think it would be a very, very dangerous step. and the thin end of a wedge , and the thin end of a wedge, peter, the canadian situation, i would say is troubling. >> i've been watching developments in canada with great interest and a lot of concern is, is andrew bridgen right to say, you know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions? does this open the doom intentions? does this open the door, this sound what you're describing sounds protected by plenty of safeguards. but is it the on ramp to a wider motorway

that could lead to where canada is now ? is now? >> i understand those concerns, but the bill, as presented by baroness meacher, does not give any get outs, does not give any possibility of expansion or extension. it is very, very tightly defined and that's why so many doctors support it. they understand and the need to protect the vulnerable and i agree, but if you look at canada, that's not a model. that's being proposed here in the uk. and of course there are other countries like belgium, new zealand and six australian states where they have similar policies and they are working well. the feared abuses have not happened. and we need to say, and i say this as a person who saw two of my friends die very long, painful deaths to see them for week after week, month after month, suffering in agony with no prospect of any cure. that was just so painful. it was so painful for them for and me to watch it, knowing that they had

no hope of any cure, no hope of any treatment. they did have palliative care, but it wasn't good enough. it didn't prevent the pain and suffering. >> andrew eborn you know, a lawyer, you understand that this from a from a from a legal perspective also how how how do we help doctors and patients walk the ethical tightrope between what seems decent and what's and what might be illegal? sure. >> you're absolutely right. and under the suicide act 1961, just clear about this assisted suicide is an offence. it's punishable by up to 14 years in prison, peter is absolutely right. there's a quality of life you're entitled to. right to life, but also dignity and death. and i think what what andrew's talking about with respect is about the safeguards, if you like, to make sure those safeguards are in what's currently before parliament is you're putting those safeguards in. and i think that's what you need to look at. if the people deserve a quality of basically being eased out of pain , if you being eased out of pain, if you like, and there's some of the

terrible circumstances that we hear about and esther rantzen, to her credit, has spoken very publicly about that. what we need to do is make sure that you can get dignity for people so they don't have to go abroad, they don't have to go abroad, they don't have to go abroad, they don't have to be away from their loved ones, and they can have dignity and death as well as in life. >> andrew bridgen it has always been the case or it has been the case for as long as i can remember. we all know that, you know, people at the end of life, sometimes at home, who have no prospect of recovery or possibly unconscious and, you know, and are very much hovering in the departure lounge. are helped on their way with morphine or, or similar interventions. so it it's there, isn't it? assisted dying , whether we confront it dying, whether we confront it face to face or not is already with us. >> yeah. so people, you know , >> yeah. so people, you know, quite rightly ask for pain relief, during a terminal illness. and if that pain relief is of a higher and higher doses to conquer the pain, eventually

that will induce , death. and that will induce, death. and that will induce, death. and thatis that will induce, death. and that is a side effect . but peter that is a side effect. but peter talks about the protections in this bill. well, it is indeed it will be a bill and bills , can will be a bill and bills, can can be amended . but will be a bill and bills, can can be amended. but i'd ask your viewers to remember that income tax was only brought in as a temporary measure to pay for the napoleonic wars, we've still got it now, and it's been extended many , many times. that's what many, many times. that's what we're opening. pandora's box on. >> that's a that is a contentious point, i suppose. and it's also a valid point that, you know, once once you start , once you open the door, start, once you open the door, all things are all things are possible in the future. but what i think occurs to me is that, you know, andrew, in parliament, in other in another context , you know, andrew, in parliament, in other in another context, has sought desperately to have a conversation about excess deaths to no avail. it falls on deaf ears and i do wonder, you know, here's now assisted dying. you

know, the i do wonder whether enough attention is paid to life . if the absolute bright, shining light of life, now we're having, you know , when it comes having, you know, when it comes to dying, it would appear the more the merrier. >> i don't think anybody wants anybody to die . and certainly anybody to die. and certainly supporters of this bill do not want anybody to die for suffering ages and ages and ages. we don't want to see that suffering. it's about the relief of suffering. i think that's an understandable and very legitimate concern , you know, i legitimate concern, you know, i as i said, you know, i witnessed two friends going through months and months of agony, the palliative care was as good as it could get, but it wasn't good enough. they were really, really suffering to see the grimaces on their faces , the tears. it was their faces, the tears. it was just heartbreaking. and i wouldn't want anybody to go through that. i think we just have to give people a choice with these safeguards. so that

they can end their life with dignity . dignity. >> peter tatchell, andrew bridgen it's such a painful, literally a painful subject, barely even been able to touch, i suppose, on the ethics as it, as it applies to and as it affects, you know, doctors trying to do what's right. but thank you both. thank you both for your contributions . well, for your contributions. well, that's all from me for this week on tv. but to continue this chat, please do go online to the neil oliver show on gbnews.com . neil oliver show on gbnews.com. >> a brighter outlook with boxt solar sponsors of weather on . gb solar sponsors of weather on. gb news. hello! welcome to your gb news. hello! welcome to your gb news weather update brought to you by the met office. it's

going to be staying rather cloudy this evening, but for bank holiday monday, it's a case of sunny spells and showers, but hopefully a little bit more settled as we go into next week. but we have got low pressure firmly in charge, especially across southern parts of england. this is brought quite a lot of cloud and rain. that cloud and rain is going to continue to push its way south, push its way northwards, affecting southern parts of wales but generally fizzling out across northern ireland and scotland, holding on to a lot of cloud here. still some outbreaks of showers , heaviest in the of showers, heaviest in the north and east, but a lot of cloud around . so temperatures cloud around. so temperatures aren't really dipping tonight, but we could see some mist and fog patches develop where we see the clearest skies as we go through bank holiday monday. then we've got a few watch points, especially across the south east england as we start the day, we've got outbreaks of rain that could turn quite heavy at times elsewhere sunny spells, but also some showers breaking out again . some of these could out again. some of these could be on the heavy side, turning dry across northern ireland, but rather cloudy. temperatures around average. but in the sunshine . feeling warm with

sunshine. feeling warm with highs of 17 or 18 as we go through tuesday. a drier theme many places starting off with some sunny spells, but also quite a lot of low cloud, especially across the north—east coast of england. and then through the day, some showers are going to be bubbling up, but high pressure is going to be dominating into next week . that dominating into next week. that will keep things a bit more settled. with temperatures also on the rise , that warm feeling on the rise, that warm feeling inside from boxt boilers sponsors of weather on gb news news. >> if you want your to news be straight talking, this is a nightmare for the conservatives. again, down to earth. it's not just nottingham where this is happening, is it? and most importantly, honest, hard working middle class taxpayers . working middle class taxpayers. they'll get the buck thrown at them. they catch me martin daubney monday to friday, 3 to 6 pm. on gb news. britain's

>> very good evening to you. you're watching and listening to gb news. i'm sam francis. the time is 7:00. the top story tonight. the liberal democrats claim that the conservatives are living on cloud cuckoo land. after a disappointing set of local election results for the party, the conservative mayor for the west midlands, andy street, was defeated by labour's richard parker, while sadiq khan is beginning his third term as london mayor after securing a majority of 275,000 votes. former home secretary suella braverman told us this morning that rishi sunak needs to urgently change course. >> there's no time to change leaders, so the prime minister is going to be leading us into the next general election, whether we like it or not. what he needs to do to salvage this dire situation is to accept the enormity of the problem, these terrible results, and quickly

and urgently change course. so