Privacy Concerns and Digital ID Implementation

No listen up business owner. Your business is good, but your website is bad . Let's fix it with Ayanos , your super duper easy peasy digital partner. It uses clever AI to build super you sm aart website in no time. And there are many tools to help start growing your business today . You like? It's nice, nice, nice. Yeah, love it. Yes, I thought so, darlings. Try Ayanos. Your digital partner at ayonos dot co dot UK dear my small business owning friend, you never grow good business with bad website. I know, but it's really hard. Do not do the despairing. Try Ayonos . Let clever thinking AI build you a smart looking professional website that is optimized for mobile in no time and use its many tools to get your business growing super quick. Nice. No, my darlings . This is nice, nice nice. Try Ayonos. Your digital partner at ayonos.co. UK . Hi, this is WhatsApp the UK, I'm Nishima, and I'm Coke Pard. Is it Makerfield or Breakerfield? Today's the day the good people of Makerfield are off to decide Britain's future. But how do they feel about being in the spotlight and what could this mean for our man in the north Andy Burnham, a man poised to return to West minster. Also on the show, Emily Pankhurst, Emily Davidson, and the women of Greenham Common. Are they terrorists? We dig into the Court of Appeals recent ruling on Palestine action, as well as the sentencing of the Filton four whose criminal damage convictions have been connected to terrorism in what's believed to be a world first . And kids get ready to stare at the wall. Kirstarmer has put his band where his mouth is and stops under sixteen from accessing social media . Seventy six and a half thousand voters, fourteen candidates, one count bin face, and an opportunity to decide not just the future of a constituency but of a country too. Makerfield's residents are no doubt knackered from journalists hounding them for their opinions. But with Starmer teetering on the brink, this election could either usher in an adrenaline shot for labour or sound the death knell for the two parties system altogether. The latest polls have put labour ahead of reform by five and twelve points respectively and it looks like tactical voting will be key to whatever happens today as you're listening to this. Green and LibDM voters are said to be willing to back Andy Burnham while restore Britain supporters may be set to split reform's share of the votes. We are podcasters, we are not future predictors. We have never made those claims we. don And't know what's going to happen, but while the UK's future hangs in the balance, we'll take a look at what the last few weeks have taught us about the current state of the nation. So we're delighted to be joined by Jack Delanti from Manchester Mill, an online newspaper founded in twenty twenty to reinvigorate local journalism with all the quality reporting, but none of the pop up ads. No shade to Manchester Evening News. Jack, you were in Makerfield on Tuesday morning. What's the vibe there? It's changed over the last few weeks so like I was speaking to labor people for most of the day for preparations for the reporting that we're doing, but my colleagues are speaking to restore people . But the feeling in the labour group now is A little bit like tatchy, will it, won't it? Obviously the polls all point a certain way, but we've all believed polls before. And we know that reform voters can sort of seemingly not exist and then appear on polling day and that's kind of the thing that is worrying them. The other thing and I think you kind of touched on it when you were talking about people at the door is sick again, journalists asking them questions or overrunning the town centre. I think the labour ground sort of game, as it were, the campaign has sort of lost a bit of momentum in the last few days and people are feeling a little bit like we've been doing this for ages . We were already campaigning before. He was even if Burnham was even the official candidate. We're kind of knocking we get to the point now where we're knocking the same doors, delivering leaflets again and again and it's like the vibe has sort of fallen off a tad . But overall , I think it's been a really, really positive campaign for Labour throughout. There's been no big problems for them, but I do think it's just as you sort of touched on earlier been quite long winded. We've had a lot of chat about what Andy Burnham's sort of political philosophy might be, what his leadership style might be. One thing we do know is he is no longer the mayor of Manchester. What's his legacy mayor going to be for the city and its people . Well, interestingly, he still is . So at the moment he still is. He would only have to stand out if he's elected. But so would he is that a real possibility that if he loses the election, he just goes back to being mayor of Manchester? I thought one way or another he's got to step down almost have sheer awkwardness, says he? Yeah, I mean, he wouldn't he, but yeah, it's within the rules. If you wanted to be really hard faced about it, you could just be like, well, I'm going back to that. That was a nice try. Never mind . But you know, there were similar situations when he was running not similar because it wasn't the, you know, he hadn't been made the candidate, but when he wanted to do the golden denton candidate , and then he didn't get it, I remember going to a speech where he literally said, You're now stuck with me . And it was this sort of feeling of like, oh, well, they don't let me do it. Go nightmare . But now if he lost he would come, he could, but I don't think he will. Yeah . And in terms of his mayoral legacy for one of a for one way of putting it , it's difficult. Like you talk about his political philosophy and there's always talk about Burnamism , which in fairness to Andy was a political philosophy that was kind of like foisted on him, like it was in the new states and in this idea of burnamism and even in the story where it was coined, he was kind of like, well it's more manchesterism and you know it's this rejection of neoliberal or neoliberalism that's been picked apart over the past month or so in a way that maybe no one expected it to be because it's become so scrutinized and it's become basically like I think one of our reporters recently described it as like the quickest expanding new field of academic research , which is burningism because everyone wants to understand what it is and no one actually has defined it yet . But his legacy now is good mostly because and I don't want to sound like a really cynical journalists or anything I am, but the sort of political project that we now attach the word burnham to . So the work that was done in Manchester City Centre in Greater Manchester over a number of decad es by people like Richard Lisa, Richard Leezer was leading Manchester Council and Sir Howard Burnsy was the CEO of Manchester City Council . That was already going when Burnham turned up. Burnham then just sort of became the figurehead of it . And he had a situation where he led the GMCA, which if you readers don't know what that is, it's a great manchester combined authority where basically all the councils come together and he sits on top of them. He doesn't really have any power over what they do. He just kind of coord inates them and is more of a soft power figure . But the reason his legacy is great is because what's happened here has been pushed over a number of decades and then delivered once Burnham's come into the frame . So he's had this sort of quite I think flucky role where he's kind of just been the guy to announce new stuff. Whether or not you could say what sits behind that is burnamism or it's necessarily just him is a different argument. But I think in the popular imagination, Her he's a very popular politician, you know . So I know burnamism remains without definition, but my quick Google suggests it's Manchesterism more broadly a business friendly socialism. I think that's how it's being touted, which is, you know, it's interesting to hear the word socialism even being sort of said out loud and being considered. So that's, you know, certainly picked up our ears . You know, I'm you live in Manchester, right? Yeah. So like has it has it felt like that? Has it felt like you're in this kind of business friendly socialist utopia or you know, because some of the listeners have been in touch with us and some of our like wider network of activists have been in touch with us and said, well, actually no there's lots of housing insecurity, there's poverty, there's all sorts of no it's not the case . Yeah, I'd agree. I mean, I don't even know what business friendly socialism is meant to feel like I don't know what feeling that would imp art, but the sense, yes, especially that Hausen is true. Like there was a really, really good piece just done in the New Statesman by a guy called Isaac Rose who's written for the mill before and wrote he this book called The R entia City, which is all about Manchester and how the Manchester's housing system has become so financialised and so sort of investment led and not so much about actually being about people being able to buy houses. It's become a rentier city. It's where you could only rent a live. You know, we've had these discussions for the whole time. I've worked at the mill for just over five years and the whole zone we've been talking about is our housing crisis the same as London's? Have we hit a London housing crisis situation? And probably yeah, but we've maybe taken a slightly different route in that a lot of the invest ament that you've seen come into Manchester from the Far East and Aberdabi and big consortiums of foreign funds . It's been pushed through by the council itself . So Manchester City Coun cil has developed these sort of joint venture projects with big powerful millionaire multibillionaire funds to build lots of basically just rental flats in areas that will once you know completely bygone. I don't know if you've ever heard of Ancoats but it gets talked about like the new wherever. At one time like my great granddad's from Ancoats and would never have thought in a million years that that would be a place that someone would want to live in. And now it's one of the most popular places to live because we've funneled lots of foreign investment into the city . And that's made it be difficult for people to live here. It also, to be honest, sounds quite neoliberal ist. It doesn't actually sound massively like business friendly socialism. It sounds very friendly to a few businesses , but whether or not I could , you know, like I said, so many aspects of life in Manchester have become about investment and financialization that I do sort of raise my eyebrow when Burnham talked about business friendly socialism or the rejection of neoliberalism, especially in Manchester City Center. One thing you can say about Burnham, which he has been actually quite instrumental in I've wrote a piece recently all about development and he's the guy who has really pushed to move money out of the center of Manchester. Yeah. So into place not well, I was about to say into places like Makerfield, has it reached that far? Is the argument that we're all having at the moment? Has that area seen enough investment from the GMC, but itA's definitely gone into maybe places where like Stockport, which has become now the Sunday time best place to live in the Northwest and things like that. Places like that have really benefited from what are called Mayoral Development Corporations. And that is Burnham giving more powers to areas to develop and attract investment and become better places to live . Again, though , when you look at the social housing numbers within those schemes, you know, I could imagine that some people don't find them satisfying, but that is a difficult one. In terms of his comparing of those sort of areas around Manchester that stimulated, you know, positive outcomes for those places . That's presumably one of the reasons why Burnham has retained the kind of popularity. What else do you think it is about him specifically that has allowed him to reach this kind of local popularity and kind of national prominence. Why is Bernam popular? Do you think ? He's an unbelievable communicator. Yeah. So whatever you want to say about here, you know, he can flip flop on things. You can say he's going to do one thing and then change his mind later or try and dilute it, which I think we've seen over this campaign too about things like public control . You can there's interviews with him by or he said, We will bring it under public control and then stop himself from being like stronger public control. And it's always just like he's always sort of heads on his backs, but he's great at communicating with people. And he's a very normal guy , which I and've met him and he genuinely is a normal guy. And it's not this sort of I think at the moment Yoshi, my boss wrote these all about Burnham, it really hit this point really well , which is that nowadays politicians are for various reasons , some of them I think are just terrified of saying the wrong thing, especially Sama. They become quite managerial and they begin to feel quite removed . then And people don't then people can then very easily project what they feel onto them. Like you said, a bit of a blank canvas. Like you speak to some people and it's literally like he has a huge problem. It's kind of like, is he or is he just a bit boring and you can't really tell what he's on about most of the time. Whereas like Burnham is the guy in the street, you can have a laugh with people. He's very easy to get along with and I think that is massively drawn people to him. He also had he played sort of a blinder over the pandemic because he was this, you know, became the King of the North figure fighting against tid lockdowns in certain areas of greater Manchester and saying that it was unfair and it felt very much like he wasn't he felt like a politician removed from normal politics. He was the one fighting against the government. I know obviously it was a Tory government at the time, but he was the one sort of he became a bit of an anti establishment figure and he's managed to kind of keep that going even when there's been a labour government and then obviously now he's probably the most anti establishment figure from the view of the labour government . What's interesting about all that to me and I was having this conversation with someone the other day is of course all of this is Burden's tilt towards number ten and a lot of Manchesterism, if you were going to call that, or even Burnhamism , has been built on the fact that I'm fighting for this place . I represent the people who live here . I go to the government and get them to give me money so that I can fund things here. And then you all think I'm a great politician, which is a great system. But once he's actually in government himself, I don't really see how that same politics applies because he's so play based. Once he's the guy safe that everything goes as planned in the Burnham team and he does get into number ten, how does that translate when you run an entire country and you have to sort of make decisions about what goes where and you aren't just going to government or fighting against govern ment to represent your area. I think that would be quite interesting . And that's why it's no coincidence that mayoral candidates tend to be very popular because they can do that. Yeah. Would he be able to bring people around if he was prime minister and was making unpopular choices ? I don't know, it remains to be seen. I will say he also really doesn't like making unpopular choices . He is a man who likes to be loved and that people please a prime minister. I don't know. It sounds awful, but maybe it's about time we had a prime minister. Maybe he's more scared of us than the bond markets or more scarededuled . Yeah, well, that's the whole thing in and of itself, isn't it? But he is someone who but this is where you get into one of the perceived problems with Donim, or at least something I've noticed in reporting on him and talking to people about him is that you can say commit to one thing and then commit to another thing and they can sort of build up like think about covering the GMCA and they have this almost like I call it like it's like incentivized itis like they're constantly putting together new incentives and new things it.' Ands like we',re going to make this happen. And then we're going to make that happen. And then you go crawl back through the documents and find like the old health promises from twenty eighteen. And then you go and look at what's happened since it's like, oh, you didn't do that. That was the whole but that was the whole point of doing that incentive and it's like they almost lose track. He isn't someone who I think really loves to be disliked or is , you know, like former prime ministers or former leaders, even current leaders like Donald Trump almost revel in not being liked. Yeah. And he's not that guy making difficult decisions would be interesting, especially if you burn him on like a national level, I think. Oh my god. I just can't stop laughing about this idea of the people please or Prime Minister. Is that the end of being like, We're going to do this. No worries if not? Yeah . Yeah, kind of, kind of . Kind of the thing that I sometimes worry about and this does go for a generation of politicians is that British politics is kind of suffering from there's got to be a better way of phrasing this long Johnson the sort of effect of Boris Johnson on British politics because there definitely was a two year period where I think a lot of politicians benefited from being on the news immediately after the country had seen Boris Johnson speak. If they were very quickly featured after Boris Johnson had just been you know that,, sort of human jiz staying. Like he came across, particularly during the pandemic like a man so desperately out of his depth. Is Andy Burnham , you know, an amazing communicator? Is he incredibly pr ime ministerial or was he just on the news immediately after Boris Johnson? Yeah, no, I think that's actually completely fair to say. I wouldn't take that away from Bohem. I don't think he's a very, very effective communicator, especially as you died during the pandemic. He looked miles ahead of everyone else in comparison because it was kind of like he had a very clear message I want you to not do this thing and I'm going to fight against you doing it and that was a very easy message to get across to people . And over the years, again, you see other local leaders, even other local mayors, they're doing good stuff, like metro mayors are doing good stuff in places like Leeds and so on and so forth , but none of them sort of have his knack for making sure everyone knows about it. Yeah. Rob Kenyon has obviously been featured in the press a lot . There's been a lot of conversation around some of the misogyny sexist com ments that he's made, particularly directed at Carol Vordermann. And I wondered if factually is anyone even talking about that or is it really just talking about who you like more as a guy? I mean, Rob King 's launch video didn't even have any policies. He was just like, I grew up in the area, I'm from the area. Did I mention I live in the area? I'm a that's basically all it was. Well, did you see he's got a plumbing company, which is literally called Maker Field Heating . And I think it was incorporated in February . Yes . So I don't know when or how that was sought through, but like, you know, he's made his whole thing like I mister Makerfield and Nandy's not from wasn't like born here on this exact hallowed ground that I was whereas Burnham just sort of like I live here now. It's not been a very policy heavy thing beyond you know Burnham's so pitching this thing that I'm going to change the Labour Party. I'm going to make politics more respectable . I'm going to kind of turn around this really awful divisive atmosphere that's sort of brewed over the years and reform will be, you know, fuel on that fire if you vote for them . And yeah, Robert Kenyan has made as much hay as he can, if I don't think hasn't hasn't actually been that much hay out of the fact that he's from Makerfield, but he 's been hugely sort of hamstrung by previous social media activity for want of a, you know, a nice way of putting it. Activity is a hell of a do a lot of work . Yeah, it's doing a lot of heavy lifting. But the thing that I found interesting, especially about, you know, restore Britain, this is only a political party. This has only been a political party four months. It was a pressure group. It's not like it wasn't you know, it only launched as a pressure group, I think eleven months ago. And now it's polling in such a way that it's probably going to take the knees off reform and get Andy Burnham in power . You're talking about like a four month old political party really having a massive consequential effect on one of the most important by elections probably . Yeah. And it's like it's not even around that long. And I think that's like a huge thing to come out of this by election . And also we have fractures on the left now because we've got labor and the greens , reform with a kind of like one party on the right that was sort of battling labor and greens and now they've got this sort of fractured off bit with restore that's stealing votes from them in the same way that greens steal votes from labour . I And think that that is kind of one, it's interesting just from a sort of perspective of like who how will it affect the race, like the sort of numerical impact, but it's also so interesting to me in a political way. Like it's like people aren't willing to stick around with any real with any political party for that long anymore. I don't think. They can become dissatisfied with a political group like that . And there's another one that they can go to. And it's like, how do we I, know there's this whole sort of fear in some circles and excitement in others about, oh, well the two park system's over. And that was, you know, the two park system had its flaws. But it's like, are we just gonna have lots of new little parties and you know, it's kind of like that isn't sustainable because no one's going to agree with each other if we're all so segmented like restore and now steal and have reform. Who's going to come after restore? I know advance UK sort of closed down to back restore. The impact they've had on this by election, I think, is really, really something that I think will look back on and be kind of like, oh, that was where the that began. Before we let you go, Jack, we obviously this we're going to talk a lot in the next few weeks about what the by election result means means and for the Labour Party and means for the Green Party and means the fragmenting of the political coalition on the left . I'm really interested in your sense about where restorer. I mean it seems to sort of be a Twitter account that's become sentient and is now running for office. And also where reformer because I know why Kirstama has been pretty invisible in this local election campaign. We know why he isn't, you know, he's not making a trip to Macoford. We know why he's absented himself . But my question, I guess, is Farage has been pretty quiet through this campaign . What's your sense of where this leaves restore and reform almost regardless of the result . I think regardless of the result , Restore will continue to make the argument , probably quite convincingly that their ascendant look at how much we p ulled from reform . We're the ones for actually in the right now. We're like the greens on the right if you want. The other from thinking in a greater man's perspective, there'll be a mayoral Greater Manchester by election, presumably shut because we're presuming that Burnham will win and then that will all happen. Are they going to then go health or leather on that and then try and take one of the biggest metro male positions which will again sort of empower them nationally because it can show that they have like voter appeal . With reform and Farrage , I do personally and this is just complete personal opinion, so take it or leave it. I do think it's just because he's clocked that there's this candidate that's going nowhere in the wrong one . Because when he was first launched as a candidate, like Nigel was in the van with him . They were driving around Makerfield, chatting, everything was good. He was going out with him. And then the hope not hate stuff came out. Then Carol Vorderman's letter came in via hope not hate. And then you had like , so I was speaking through a labour campaign the other day, who was telling me actually it was really interesting. But they were knocking on doors and like a woman would answer the door and be like, I'm voting for Andy Burnham. And then they'd be like, Oh, great, you know, here's our campaign literature. And then her husband would come and be like, No, fuck labour, labour is shit, I'm voting reform . And then like, we were basically like, this campaign was selling. We were like, without having any domestic in front of us over this issue . Reform will now have a bit of a woman problem, I think. I'm fairly sure that it came out in hope not hate afterwards that reform had fully vetted those previous accounts. Yeah . And you know, Farage has even said Oh, he's just saying stuff that someone would say in a pub. Like it's just kind of like there isn't it? Yeah, well that's the sort of art just like changing room banner. And that's so I think people are wise to that and they don't really buy this sort of art. It's just lad banner but interestingly, speaking now, moving on to another campaign of this guy who's actually will be an electoral agent I think for the restore mayor by election candidate. He was like, we actually saw a pickup on restore for restore after the Vorderman letter . So Essend are you some if you are a woman who wants to vote for a right off our right party, you're now actually not going back to labour, but you hopping to restore. Yeah, I'm not surprised to hear that there's a gender split . In general though, you,'re seeing that gender split like a lot of the parties are seeing that you know right tends to be male, left tend to exactly so we'll see though just before I do that sorry, we are going to let you go but it's one thing that you know you,'ve been around you',ve seen people doing the door knocking. When people come to the door, is it national or local issues that they talk about? You know , we often think that people come to the door and they want to talk about redistribution of wealth, but actually maybe they want to talk about potholes. What is the chat? Well, I think the argument in this dialection with the reason why I'm going to tell you now, it's more personal and it's more about the country because I think people have recogn ize that this is a bit of a referendum on who's in Darming Street or about Yap els. Obviously like I've not been out with Rob Kanyon. I don't know if anyone I don't know if anybody who has, but I suppose that he's probably more , I guess we form will be going more about Ander Burnham was just doing this for his own personal ambition. I actually live here and I represent you . But especially like labour people, it's about selling the messenger Andy isn't labour. The whole thing has been about how much can Andy Burnham divorce his brand from the labour brand ? And out of ten , how glad do we think the people of Makerfield are going to be when this is over ? I actually know a few people who live there and they are absolutely zero for it and aren't answering the door anymore , have like more campaign literature than I think anyone has ever amassed in any previous by election . It'd be great if ever sort of like if this becomes as historic as it is and you can sort of start like what's the resell value on this Reform UK Maker Field Vintage by election leaflet. So message is if you're listening to this this is released on Thursday. If you're listening to this two things remember, stay in line at your polls, make sure you go out and keep hold of your campaign literature people of Maker Field. You never do know. You can be sat on an eBay gold mine. Exactly Jack, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you. Pleasure. Thank you. Coming up after the break, we speak to Ikiko Hart about Palestine action and the future of protesting in this country. So look, we complain a lot about Starma and Labour here on Podsave the UK, but the stakes of our political divisions are higher than ever when Trump is on the other side of the Atlantic, making an absolute mess of things . Pod Slave the World has expert analysis of American policy provided by former Obama White House officials. They have a big picture understanding of how topics from this week all intersect and how they all relate to history. This week they're talking about our bilections, the war in Iran, Israel, and the World Cup. Check out Pod Save the World on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts right now. Pod save the UK is brought to you by Saley. We all know that one of the least enjoyable parts of travelling is landing in a new country and then immediately trying to figure out how you're going to get online without accidentally racking up a massive phone bill. That's where Sally comes in. Sale isy an eSI thatM g appives you immediate internet access the moment you arrive at your destination, no hunting around for a local SIM card, no swapping tiny bits of plastic in airport queues and no egregious roaming charges when you get home. What I particularly like is that once you 've done the work of getting Saley set up, it's not much work, it's really fast, but then you're ready for future trips too. So Saley offers affordable data plans in more than two hundred destinations worldwide, so whether you're hopping around Europe for a weekend holiday or heading to the States is all sorted in a few taps. And it's not just convenient, it's secure. Saley includes built in cybersecurity features like web protection and an ad blocker, which means you can stay connected without relying on suspicious unsecured public wifi networks. Get an exclusive fifteen percent discount on Saley Data Plans now. Use the code pod save at checkout. Download the Saley app by scanning the QR code on your screen or go to Sale y that's s a ly dot com forward slash pod save. That's Saley SAILY dot com slash pod save. Pod save the UK is brought to you by BT . We talk a lot on this show about the big things shaping Britain, the economy, public services, business, technology, for so much of what keeps the country moving is the infrastructure we barely even notice. Exactly. The systems quietly working in the background, keeping homes connected, businesses running, and services operating, they only really get attention when they stop working, which is why companies like BT matter. For one hundred and eighty years, BT has built a legacy of engineering excellence, helping power the connections that modern Britain depends on. BT's network is in many ways the silent engine of the UK building and maintaining the resilient infrastructure that keeps communities connected and the country moving forward. And security is a big part of that. BT helps protect homes and businesses by shielding the UK from around four million cyber threats every day, providing a vital layer of defense that most of us never even see. It's that combination of reliability, resilience, and specialist expertise sets made BT the most trusted network supporting more homes and businesses than any other. BT behind Brilliant Things Search YBT to find out more Direct action has always been a feature of protest, but recently, the line between direct action and terrorism has become dangerously blurred . And two stories this week put into question the rights of freedom of speech and protest in this country. So on Monday, five judges overturned the High Court's February ruling that the prescription of Palestine action was unlawful. Here is Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr announcing that ruling earlier this week. We recognise that the prescription of an organisation like Palestine Action is highly controversial. It is nonetheless a fundamental m istake to overlook the fact that Palestine action overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism. It is not, as it claims, a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes operating transparently in the open . The High Court ruling previously found the ban to be unlawful on the grounds it disproportionately interfered with free speech and assembly . The recent decision means that supporting Palestine action will remain a criminal offence, punishable by up to fourteen years in prison. That means the three thousand people who have been arrested under the Terrorism Act since Proscription and the seven hundred who have been charged could now face prosecution . This decision came just days after four Palestine action activists known as the Filter and Four were sentenced as terrorists, even though they were not actually convicted of terrorism offences when tried by two juries. Joining us to discuss all of this is Akiko Hart, the director of Liberty Human Rights, the UK's oldest civil liberties and human rights advocacy group. Welcome back, Akiko. Thank you for having me. Can you briefly take us through how the initial banning of Palestine Action came about, why that ruling was challenged and how we've ended up here again? So Palestine Action was prescribed so banned as a terrorist organization last summer . Hudo Mori, one of the co founders of Palestine Action, took a legal challenge. That was then heard, and then the initial judgment from the divisional courts ruled against the Home Secretary. So ruled that the prescription of Palestine action was unlawful. At that point, the government appealed. It went to the courts of appeal, and what we've just heard is the judgment from the Court of Appeal upholding that initial judgment . So as you said, the initial judgment from the divisional courts was that the ban the pres,cription was unlawful because it wasn't proportionate, because it interfered with our freedom of expression, freedom of assembly. There were also some really interesting points about how the activities of Palest in actianion in the main were not terrorist , but that some potentially that some were, but on the margins of this definition of terrorism. And that's where the Liberty argument came in, which is that we believe that the definition of terrorism in this country is so broad that it captures activities and behaviors that most people would simply not consider to be terrorism. And that's very dangerous because if you don't know what is and isn't terrorism, then you lose trust in our counter terror laws and they simply don't work. So we really need a new definition which strikes a better balance between public safety concerns and state over reach. Could you just give us an example? So if anyone listening to this we have an idea of what terrorism looks like, what are some examples which actually we might not think could fall under this umbrella. So I think the Palestine Action case really highlights this dangerously blurred line between direct action terrorism. So I think what a lot of people have seen on TV in terms of the footage is older people holding out placards being arrested under counter terror laws. And I think a lot of people have been scratching their heads going these people are not terrorists. So you've got that. That's one thing. But then separately you've got the activities of direct action groups like Palestine Action, which have, for example, involved criminal damage to property. Now, criminal damage to property is cr aiminal offense under criminal law. And obviously we talked about the Filter can be tried under criminal law . But criminal damage to property has quite a long history within civil disobedience, you know, over the past century as one tactic . And it's really important to note that people might disagree with a tactic. Not everyone approves of direct action . People might not agree with a specific cause , but it does have a long history. And I think what's really interesting in terms of civil disobedience is that prior to the last four or five years where we've seen a real kind of gear change in terms of how the government deals with protest, how it deals with civil disobedience , is that when people were convicted of civil disobedience , they were sentenced much more leniently. So they might be kind of found guilty, but the sentence would be low and that 's really shifted. So we should just summarize the actual action in question. So on the twentieth of june twenty twenty five, activists from Palestine Action broke into the Royal Air Force Base Bries Norton. They spray painted red paint into the turb ines of two voyager aircraft to use by the RAF for air to air refueling and strategic air transport missions, right? This is the crime that's at the center of this ruling. Are you surprised that we'veig re litating this question? Because initially the prescription was deemed unlawful. Now they've reversed that decision. Were you surprised about that or was that something you were expecting? A little bit of both because the initial judgment found against the Home Secretary on this . So reasonably surprised, but at the same time , the problem really lies in the definition of terrorism. It is very, very broad. And the discretionary powers of the home secretary to apply it are very, very broad. And so that's where the issue lies. One of the things that we've heard a couple of times this week is that it's this secrecy around Palestine Action, right? That 's what said, so this is a direct quote from Baroness Karl, that Palestine Action is a cover organization which operates with secret sales to avoid the detection and prosecution of those using violence to destroy property and cause injury. So why does that change things? Why does that bring it into terrorism? So does the fact that a protest movement operates with a kind of veil of secrecy or in small cells change how we should understand it in relation to direct action. So there were a couple of different elements that they looked at. So one of them the nature of the activities, but also how they increased in terms of frequency and impact . What the judges would also have looked at is whether or not these activities were motivated by ideological or political reasons . So the judge ruled for the Home Secretary in this regard , and whether or not those activities were intended to change the government's mind, ch theang goedvernment's actions . And again, that's where the judge ruled against Palestine action on it. So there were a number of different elements that they looked at, including this covert element. It's so weird doing this interview because legally we need to be very mindful of everything we're saying. We need to be very clear that we are not showing support for a prescribed group. And I honestly am sitting here being like, okay, but if I wanted to ask a question about some of the r ationale behind the prescription, would that be okay? Yeah, and it's weird and I understand how these things work, right? Even as a journalist, I sort of find myself being like, well, I guess this is this is maybe the point. But is that okay to say that may be the point the chilling effect is the point? Anyway that is exactly our point is that the chilling effect is very, very real. Now you are absolutely right it is a criminal offense to express support for Palestine action . But counter terror powers are so powerful by definition. They are so broad that there's a question mark over whether or not it would be okay for us to be discussing whether or not Palestine action should have been prescribed . And that feels like a dangerous incursion into our freedom of expression. And that is our kind of our fundamental concern around this is that this was a disproportionate use of the government's counter terror powers. And so it is, I find myself wanting to ask you, would it be okay to point out because they keep mentioning the suffragettes in this verdict and as it happens, I have recently done a podcast for a radio form about the suffragettes. Do check it out . And you know, I'm just saying they did a lot of things that would be considered unlawful. I think that's reasonable to say some of the things we discussed on the podcast I did with a historian almost certainly were covert operations. You're looking at smuggling leaders in and out, putting them in disguises. You're looking at physical confrontations with police . So there was a part of me that when they mentioned the suffragettes, wanted to be like, Excuse me, have you haven't done enough research into them? But again, is that legal to say? I don't know. You tell me Many people looked at those lines and questioned their historical accuracy . That's one of the most diplomatic things we've ever had said at this studio . Sources close to me It's been heavily criticised this move , your organization of Liberty Human Rights said the judgment paves the way for current and future governments to use counter terror powers against non terrorist groups as we've seen in other countries. Tom Sutherden, who's Amnesty International's legal program director said, The images of people from all walks of life being bundled into police fans for peacefully holding placards will long be remembered as a deeply shameful chapter in our history. And yeah, I think those images affected a lot of people regardless of their political persuasion of people of penguin age sort of being dragged by their arms and legs into police vans . We shouldn't diminish the concern we have about what's happening at this moment, but it's also worth it's also worth talking about the precedent that this sets, right? This is a really alarming set of powers the government has now in terms of dealing with direct action groups. I think so. And I think you need to look at it in the context of the wider crackdown on protest and direct action in the last four or five years where you've had two big pieces of legislation from the government, the Public Order Act, the Policing Act , new criminal offences around protest, really confusing ones as well , harsher sentences , the harshest sentencings in modern time in relation to civil disobedience, people locked up for years and years . And that is the context in which this is happening. So yes, we are really, really concerned about what this heralds for the future and how these powers might be used by a very different kind of government. I just wonder is this a sort of final word on this matter now because Hooda Murray has already said that they're going to challenge the ruling . But is this a final word on the matter? The co founder, she's basically said, They're going to fight the prescription all the way to the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights . I mean , are we about is this going to continue? Is this going to rumble on? So what needs to happen next is that Hudo Mori needs to apply for permission to appeal. So she needs to apply for permission first to the courts of appeal. If that doesn't work, then she can apply to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal . And then if that is agreed, then it goes to the Supreme Court and it's heard then. But we're talking about months at that point. The Home Secretary of Separat welcomed the ruling saying that it does not affect lawful protests in support of the Palestinian cause and that the actions of Palestine action were not consistent with democratic values and the rule of law. And then she said, there's a difference between supporting Palestine and supporting a prescribed terrorist group. You prescribed it as a terrorist group . I mean, like , that's quite a weird way of framing that. You're the kid who in the middle of the game just said it 's my body you're not playing with it. Like that's a really strange I found that to be a very strange turn of phrase in a sea of strange turn of phrases for that particular guest. Lots and friends. Before we actually talk about the Filton four, I want to ask you about one specific example of something that people might not expect perhaps for whatever reason three people on this podcast will be taking an interest in. Stephen Yaxley Lennon , who operates under the pseudonym Tommy Robinson was detained at Heathrow under counter terrorism laws a few days ago . And a district judge s concluded that he could not be sure that the police stop was lawful. Now , there is no love for that man on this podcast Those views do not represent a kekos. I'm comfortable speaking only for myself and in this specific instance, But is for example, him being detained on account terrorism laws in a way that even the judge has said I can't even be sure if this was lawful. An example of the terror laws being poorly worded and too open ended and therefore able to be exploited by people in the center of this . Without being able to speak to the details of this, probably yes , yeah. I'm deeply concerned about his effect on this country. But stopping someone at an airport under terrorism laws with seemingly no evidence, it does feel like that is an example of this thing that you keep returning to this lack of definition in what constitutes an act of terrorism that may be open to exploitation it is something that should be concerning people. If you believe in civil liberties, it is something that should be concerning people across the political spectr um. It didn't feel good to even have to talk about that. I know you mean that you know you said the phrase, you know, incite incitement to hatred that is a crime. So let's just be specific about it. Like that's the crime. We don't need to get into we don't need to be pulling on this counter terrorism laws which are so brutal and undermines so much in the yeah exactly as you put it. Let's move on to the sentencing of the Filter and Four last Friday. So the four Palestine action activists were sentenced with terrorist offenses where none of them had even been accused of an act of terrorism or charged with a terrorist crime. So retrospectively this has now been applied , can you just take us back to the initial charge and just explain what this means for them as individuals? So first of all, I should say that we were not involved in this case and we don't normally comment on cases too specifically, but I can kind of pick out a few things . So the four individuals were convicted, were found guilty of criminal damage to property and one of them was found guilty of grievous bodily harm. Then at the sentencing on Friday, what the judge would be looking at is aggravating and mitigating factors . And what the judge did was apply terrorism to the sentencing. So again, we go back to this issue of the definition of terrorism being very broad because the two elements that he picked out in relation to the sentencing were the offenses being motivated ideolog ical or kind of like political , you know, being yeah having political ideological motivations and the second was around the defendants trying to influence the government's course of action. So those two things fit within that broader definition of terrorism and that's why terrorism was applied and that increased the sentences for all four of them. Okay, designed to influence a government. Now that's the thing we've talked about already that you've alluded to . That can't be terrorism surely. Can it? Isn't everything designed to influence a government? Does that mean every think tank in Tuften Street is now essentially an al Qaeda sle epers out It's really trying hard to get us in trouble, isn't it? Working hard . So it's criminal activity that's right. It's criminal activity that's designed. So it's not any action that's designed to change the government to its criminal activity . Okay, my final dumb question for you, shouldn't the jury have known about this ? That isn't again, I'm happy to be told that I'm a moron here and I am that separate to this conversation. But is it weird that the jury didn't know that they were they were sort of inadvertently sentencing people around terrorism ? So this is entirely lawful and kind of procedural . But it's very, very confusing, I think, for people who aren't who are new to it Hello, Captain New percent. Don't have a fucking clue what's going on here. My whole sensation of this story the entire time is, I mean, this is shocking to everybody, but it turns out a stand up comedian and podcaster doesn't know huge amounts about the legal system in this country. So I was I thought you knew what the crime was that you were sentenced to people for. I didn't know you could sort of at the last minute be like guilty. And it turns out it was terrorism hotel. That has really thrown me off in this case. So they were found guilty for criminal damage to property and for grievous bodily harm. This was one of the aggravating or kind of mitigating factors that's looked at within sentencing. We believe it's the first time the terrorism has been applied in this instance. But it's procedural. And listen, I'm going to say something a little bit unpopular here, but there's been a lot of critique of the judge and I feel really, really uncomfortable with criticizing judges who are applying the law. You know, whether that's Robert Generick kind of going after judges on migration cases or in this case people going after the judge enemies of the people the Daily Mail front page. This is not helpful in the Brexit process. Yeah , just to mention what that conversation is . So the judge Justice Johnson and there has been questions about the impartiality. The judge overseeing the trial was the subject of a formal complaint by defend our juries who have been on this show. And I just wanted to let our listeners know what is going on there. They filed a complaint. It was signed by more than three thousand people, including lawyers, retired police officers and magistrates. However, the judge refused to step down and continue to oversee the sentencing. But let's separate then out this conversation from the specific judge. It feels like your issue is more with the law rather than the interpretation of the law. So we have an issue with the definition of terrorism. We have an issue with the precedent that this might set . And what we also looked at was the passage of the Terrorism Act through Parliament, you know, twenty five odd years ago . And it's really clear within that , we believe that, when parliamentarians are talking about serious damage to property, they're talking about national infrastructure, you know, like water or kind of airports and not necessarily private companies property. And what's also clear when you when you look at that is that they are really concerned about the impacts of these count rior laws on freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and how there needs to be kind of like proportionality there. So that was absolutely in consideration by parliamentarians twenty five years ago as it went through Parliament . And believe that that wasn't properly considered in this instance. . So yeah, again, just to get into the specifics of just what they're what they're committed to doing because it is really important. You've raised the really crucial issue here, which is it is an action against a private company. So during a trial in may twenty twenty six, four Palestine action activists were found guilty of criminal damage a site owned by the Israeli weapons firm Elbit Systems in twenty twenty four. One was also convicted of grievous bodily harm without intent . So yes, it is it does this is a separate issue from what we've been talking about previously. We've been talking about damage to British military equipment. Now we're talking about criminal damage to a private company's property that's been classified as effectively as an act of terrorism because of the sentencing that's been handed down. So Charlotte Head and Leona Cameo have been jailed for five years. Fatima Rajwani has been sentenced to four years and eight months. Samuel Corner, who was the person convicted of grievous bodily harm without intent was sentenced to seven years and eight months. And the terrorism connection here is really important specifically to the sentencing because it means that the four of them will have to serve at least two thirds of their sentences for criminal damage in prison. Yeah, terrorism sentencing is really onerous and I think what's interesting is that when you hear interviews of the people who've been arrested at the Defendal Juries protests, it's often older people and they're saying I'm doing this because it won't affect my life in the same way as it would my children because you know, I'm no longer working, you know, I'm not trying to travel. But obviously, you know, there are some jobs that you cannot do if you've got a terrorism conviction. You know, you wouldn't get security clearance, for example. There's some countries you wouldn't be able to go to. So it's hugely onerous. And traditionally , our courts have treated protests related offences with a degree of tolerance . How unprecedented is what's happened in the last couple of months? Is this a shift in how direct action protests are being treated by the legal system . Yes, but I think that shift has happened over the last few years . If you look back to the just stop wall protesters who were who were convicted and sentenced for very, very long terms , you know, this has been happening for a number of years . It's strange, isn't it? Because it feels like, you know, I'm thinking about Kirstarmer, Kirstar Human Rights Lawyer. I heard he was a bit of a top dog in that game for a while. I've got a little fun fact here that in two thousand seven K,ir Starmer helped devise the successful legal defense for the Kings orth Six climate activists who shut down Kings North Power Station in Kent to stop it burning coal. They were charged with criminal damage. Starmer helped them devise a novel defense of necessity that the direct action protest they launched was justified to prevent the much greater harm to the climate caused by the coal plant. But I'm guessing you couldn't do that now, hey. That's quite an interesting example, isn't it? Stay with us after the break we'll be discussing the government's announcement of a social media ban for under sixteen's next week , we've got a very, very special Pod Save crossover for you. We'll be joined by Ben Rhodes, our counterpart from Pod Save the World. Ben is the former Deputy National Security Advisor and speechwriter to President Obama and author of several books. And the exciting news is this one isn't just happening on the podcast. You can also see it live. So I'll be interviewing Ben Rhodes on stage about his new book All We Say A History of the United States in fifteen speeches and if that sounds up your street, you can join us on Wednesday, the twenty fourth of june at Union Chapel in Islington, London. Tickets are available now on the intelligence website and you'll find the link in the episode description. But safety is brought to you by Shopif y. I was buying something online recently and I had one of those moments where everything was going smoothly right up until checkout. Were you buying a vinyl? Yeah your addiction. Fueling your addiction. Yeah and then I can imagine you're there, the little addict just at the point where you're suddenly asked to remember a password you created three years ago using an email address you may or may not still have access to. I could imagine the sweating . Exactly . The sweat. You're hunting for your wallet trying, different passwords, getting verification code sent to three different devices. And then sometimes you spot it, that purple shopping button sitting at the top of the payment options, just a couple of taps, and you're done another vinyl for the collection. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world from household names like Gymshark and Heinz to entrepreneurs launching their first online store. And if you're starting from scratch, Shopify makes that easier too hundred.s With of ready to use templates, you can build a professional looking online store that reflects your brand without needing a degree in web design. Shopify helps businesses find customers with easy to run marketing tools designed to grow your audience. And of course, that iconic purple shop pay button helps customers check out quickly and easily. See less carts go abandoned and more sales go with Shopify and the ShopPay button. Sign up for your one pamper month trial at Shopify. com. uk forward slash pod save the UK. Go to Shopify. co. uk slash pod save the UK that's shopify.co. uk slash pod save the UK Pod save the UK is brought to you by Van Ta. So here's a question for you guys. What's the one thing in business that's spreading as fast as AI? The answer, of course, is AI risk. Every new tool your team signs up for every vendor that turns on AI features , every new integration . Each one is an opportunity for something to go wrong and most security programmes weren't built for AI's pace of growth. Enter Vanta. So Vanta is the number one agent trustic platform used by over sixteen thousand fast moving companies like Synthesia, Nando's, and Granola to ensure they're always audit ready. And now Vanta is helping companies like yours watch for the risks that show up in between the audits across your vendors, your AI tools, and your whole environment. How? The Vanta agent works like a twenty four seven engineer in the background, finding issues, drafting fixes for you, and cutting vendor assessment time by up to fifty percent. If you're a fast growing startup or a global enterprise, Vanta is here to help you automate your security and your compliance and to earn and prove trust. Get started today at Vanta. com slash p st uk that's Vanta VANTA . com slash p s tuk So before you go Akiko, we wanted to ask you about the social media ban in the UK that Kir Starmer announced on Monday. Under sixteen's will be blocked from accessing social media platforms like TikTok, Snapchat, X, Instagram, Twitch, Facebook, from next spring, while sixteen and seventeen year olds also face limitations on live streaming and chatting to strangers on gaming sites. I say every time we talk about this, you have to ban over fifty ' s as well. If that's the only fair way who is really being radicalized online , think about it. Just think it through I'm afraid if you're going after Gen Alpha, we have to go after Gen X and up and it is Gen X . The question is how will they enforce the ban? The answer is you're not tech . The government said that highly effective age assurance measures will be used. Though I mean, I guess when I was a sixteen year old getting people to buy beer from me from a corner shop, those highly effective age assurance methods didn't seem to be particularly effective then. So these are typically going to involve verifying age via a facecan or asking for ID. Ofcom has until October to decide what will count as highly effective measures through conducting a rapid study. Because I think we can all agree if there's one thing we've learned it's doing, things quickly, guarantees that they'll be done well and in the best possible way. So Liberty's done some great work and has raised concerns about the implementation of digital IDs. That's been a kind of campaign of yours for some time . So in practice, what would an aid verification system need to look like ? And if we don't get it right, how bad is that going to be? Okay, so I'm just going to take a step back on this. We are really concerned about what the government is proposing here. There's not a lot of detail, of course, but it doesn't feel like what's being proposed is going to be proportionate or effective in any way. Now just as a caveat, what I would say is that I am parent of teenagers . And like a lot of people, I'm really, really worried about the kind of content they can access online . You know, I don't feel like I've got control over what they can access because I don't, and I feel guilty about that. So I feel like most parents are there thinking we need to do something . What is it going to be? And I would argue that it's probably not going to be this . It doesn't it doesn't follow the recommendations from experts about, you know, what should be done . The Scottish Child and Youth Commissioner and the NSPC have kind of written reports on this. And what the recommendations have been they've been much more targeted. So rather than kind of banning entire apps, it's banning specific features within apps like infinite scrolling, for example. So it seems to fly in the face of that. You've got people like Molly Russell's dad, who's been a really prominent campaigner on this saying, This isn't good, this isn't good enough. It's not holding tech companies feet to the fire. That's what needs to be done. We need to kind of address the root causes of this . So it doesn't seem to be evidence based. And then you look at what's happened in Australia and obviously there's been a ban there for the last year and seven out of ten children still have accounts on one or more of the banned apps. And there's obviously the VPN kind of line as well. So we're not even sure that this is going to be effective . And then as you said, it raises all sorts of questions about digital ID . Is this digital ID by the back door? Are adults going to have to use this kind of facial recognition software? How is this information going to be stored? Is it going to be stored at a third party kind of database that will make it like a target for hackers . So I think there are all sorts of questions around this which haven't really been answered. So I mean, is this too simplistic? But it feels like disciplining feels like the wrong word, but it feels like they're disciplining the people that they can discipline, right? The government can pass a law that bans people from accessing. What it can't do is meaningfully regulate the tech sector. There's a fear around making these individual companies responsible and so it's easier in some ways to just introduce a blanket ban . The broader concerns around this from a kind of civil liberties perspective if you're an organisation like yours, your kind of privacy concern is around the storage of the data and also how much our of information is being we're having to hand over to kind of interact with the internet on a day to day basis. Yeah, but we'd actually agree with the concern you've just raised. It feels like we're at inflection points in history, right? Where the tech is kind of advancing so rapidly. We don't have the proper laws or safeguards or regulations around it, you know, analog laws for digital age . And we need some of that in place , and it needs to be done well and properly, and it needs to be done now and I think there's a growing consensus that we need more safeguards. Probably for too long we've all been guilty of not really considering this as a public health crisis because I think superficially you look at it and you just say well just don't go on your computer or just don't go on phone your. We're not really understanding the scale of the problem. You know, the infinite scroll is designed to mimic the effect of a slot machine. These things are built to be addictive. And I think the one thing that I think is worth restating is this is not like a flaw of your character that you can't stop your children doing this. It's not a flaw of your character if you're a child that can't stop you doing this. This thing was built to keep you hooked just as it wasn't a personal failing that nicotine and tobacco which had been chemically engineered by the tobacco industry to be even more addictive than it already is as a substance was the fault of children and parents who were smoking or whatever. Yeah, Amnesty's chief executive Kerry Amoska Juri said that the ban and this really lovely phrase The ban is the right diagnosis but the wrong prescription. So I think the argument has been won about this stuff being terrible. I think everybody that's now been agreed. So that's good. And I agree with your diagnosis initiation in the sense that I think it's easier for Starmer to say, okay, let's let's do a law, let's do , let's essentially put responsibility on individuals accessing this stuff in some way, rather than tackle the tech industry. And the tech industry is particularly scary given that at Trump's inauguration, they all stood behind him. It's not just about predatory capitalism but also about the geopolitics of the time and our sort of weird deference to America. It feels like at the moment that a lot of our civil liberties have been farmed off to private compan ies and we expect them to protect them and look after them and then we retrospective are annoyed when they don't . But this idea of the private sector being the being in charge of our civil liberties, is this a new ? Is there any way we could roll it back? Has any other countries done it ? And should we be outraged about it or not? I mean, the digital ID system that the government's proposing to build is going to be built on one login. And there's been whistleblowers who built one login say it's not safe . It's hackable . So you've got a bunch of concerns around that, and then separate ly, there've been all these new stories, right? Around Palantir holding data, that's a private company. So I think it's both and yeah, yeah. How does an organisation like yours approach an issue like this where you're trying to balance individual civil liberties with protecting children from a kind of public health problem. Is this a tricky needle for you to thread? Like is this something that I'm always curious is like an organisation like yours? Is this something where we think look at it and think, shit, man, this is a this is a hard one to balance out. Yeah, every day. Be just generally very busy, right? Yeah. It's that all the time that I'll not again another civil living arrangement . But because whatever you say you know, you're probably going to annoy people at kind of either end , which is probably the right place to be . it But's really difficult. And the thing we haven't spoken about in relation to this online as being a public digital square and so many people, especially young people getting their news from it and you know, we're kind of asking sixteen and seventeen year olds to vote and we're going to be banning them from social media. Yeah . You know, what's the logic there? Yeah, I guess is there a way do you think to chart a course between those two kind of separate but equal concerns, you know, of preserving people's individual liberties but also protecting the young people . So we're always really clear that we're not kind of absolutists on anything and we're not libertarian, hardcore libertarian on anything , you know, that we think there needs to be kind of like