The Orwell Lecture 2016: Ian Hislop

Thank you Hello, welcome to this afternoon's

lecture

, my name is John Mullen, I am Dean of Arts and Humanities at University College London and I haven't heard anything said about the professor who will be introduced by David Taylor in a second. I actually put together a pretty funny literary introduction but they told me I can't use it so I'll just say a couple of quick things which are how happy I am that UCL is now the home of Orwell's Professor and in fact you're well, prize and that seems appropriate to me because UCL should be the natural home, as you will probably know when you see that I was created in the 1820s, it was like a place for dissenters and disbelievers or as the original Manifesto put it.

There should be no barrier to the education of any sect among Her Majesty's subjects, so I hope Orwell would have thought it was a good place for this event to end, but also of course it's very appropriate because it was in this building . who died on 21 January 1950 when it was University College Hospital and here he also married his second wife, Sonia, on 13 October in his hospital bed, presided over by the hospital chaplain, so I'm not too sure which of the rooms was um, no doubt it's a wet lab or something now, but it's a good place to have come to for the conference and a good place too because UCL, as you may not know, is a legacy permanent loan. by uh or Wells Widow. eh, resting place of the Orwell archive, it's an incredible collection, very underexplored.

I think of books, articles, notebooks, letters and photographs, and if anyone here is contemplating doing a PhD on a worthwhile topic and once all their material is located somewhere nearby. central London as possible the Orwell archive awaits you thank you very much foreigner thank you very much Professor Mullen I'm David Taylor representing the Orwell Prize Council one or two very brief logistical things to say, which is that there will be a drinks reception afterwards uh in the front quads, everyone welcome, just go through the zebra crossing and you will see that what I call myself is the cabin in the front quad.

Ian is going to speak for about 35 to 40 minutes, then he'll answer questions and then we'll have a vote of thanks from Professor Gene Seton. It is a great pleasure to welcome you all here again. At the

2016

conference, those of you who attend regularly will probably lament the fact that I'm not wearing this tie of all worlds. At night, it usually sells out every year, but it's too worn out and I thought if I put a little mayonnaise on it and then have dinner, that'll be the end of ties with Orwell, so he'll be safe at home, one of the things what we do in this The

lecture

is to remember Professor Sir Bernard Crick, who died eight years ago this year, was the only one to generate the Orwell Prize in the lectures and whose Memorial it is.

This splendid attendance tonight is. I'm absolutely delighted to have Ian Hislop. Speaking here last night, I think nothing could be more timely than what you're going to tell us about the right to dissent and also about the left, um, I've always wanted you to do this for many years. and I sold it to him this year without having been able to sell it to him in previous years saying Ian since I organized this conference, we have raised the bar year after year, the invitation to the speaker has been even more distinguished and even more celebrated, I said Last year we had Rowan Williams and he filled them in and it was absolutely wonderful, to which he said, well, no pressure, so I see

2016

.

Um, he doesn't need, he really is one of those people who needs no introduction, so I'm not going to give him one, I'm just going to say that I hope you know that I'll give you some Choice compliments if you really say it, but if you do, all I can say is that I've known Ian for over 30 years and the exercise of his intellect, when I watch it, it always seems extraordinary, so I look forward to this evening, as I am sure it is foreign ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much, in fact, can everyone? Listen, yes, excellent.

I am very flattered to have been asked to give the Orwell lecture this year. I wanted to start by making it clear that I am not an expert on Orwell and, in fact, I am not an expert on anything else. The current political climate makes me the perfect speaker. I am sure that Mr Gove would approve of the committee's choice. I feel underqualified Last year, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, gave this lecture and highlighted the links between George Orwell and the Catholic writer. Thomas Merton I was tempted to give a speech this year on George Orwell's influence on the Catholic comedian Palmer, but decided it probably wasn't a sufficiently academic topic, though mystical in its own way, so I'm really flattered to be given this speech. job, but I have to say it's a fantastic time to be asked to talk this week about the author who created 1984 and Admiral Farm.

Anyone who thinks post-truth politics is something new should remember that Orwell was writing about this phenomenon. 70 years before Donald Trump and now it's time for the first slightly useless slide, it's a copy of a private detective and just a reminder that then also some people thought he was a buffoon with his motto of making Italy again great, it's been an incredible week listening to President-elect Trump, his extraordinary disregard for anything resembling the so-called objective truth that he tried to cling to, and his astonishing ability to proclaim yesterday today the absolute opposite of what he said yesterday and vice versa, in reality one cannot. watch it without being forcibly reminded of the mottos Orwell gave his political dictators black is white war is peace freedom is slavery ignorance is strength although last week it turned out that that was true, but any journalist, any observer, trying to figure out which it's Trump's speech the speeches actually mean in the middle of all the Mad syntax and the repetition is going to happen don't doubt it don't doubt it I mean, you can't help but fall back on Orwell's claim that political chaos is connected to the decline of language and the site of Trump praising Secretary Clinton for her years of public service in his inauguration speech while the crowd was still chanting his campaign slogan, lock her up, was certainly a perfect example of doublethink, no wonder Trump, who is an admirer of Putin, regrets it, no wonder Trump is an admirer of Putin, who in turn is an admirer of the Soviet strongmen whom Orwell satirized so well.

These echoes of the past are very strong in the United States and Russia today, but there are obviously many of them resonating in Britain and Europe. Politics and our Foreign Secretary, again, is almost as funny as saying that the president-elect, Boris Johnson, managed to accuse other European leaders of extreme armor when they issued qualified statements of congratulations to the new president, despite that Boris himself had previously accused Trump of being subpoenaed. crazy and say that the best thing about London is that you are unlikely to meet Donald Trump there it is very difficult to keep up black is white to remain is to leave a wall is an offense um two plus two equals five and brexit means brexit, time to another gratuitous swipe Oh, it shows that blonde populism is not purely American.

Now you may feel that these echoes of the past are reassuring because we have been here before Orwell discovered it and we more or less survived or you may think that it is distressing to think that "We are going back to an Orwellian era of Grimmer. What I wanted to talk about tonight is What seems to accompany these publications, the truth of political figures and that is what they bring with them or perhaps what they satisfy or what they reflect is the growing intolerance in the public debate of Recently a lot has been written about the influence of Twitter and social media to help people get caught up in what they call Echo Chambers, only speaking to those who reinforce their views and dismissing not only other opinions but any other facts offered by those who disagree. agree with them and when faced with a dissenting voice people now seem extremely offended and then extremely angry no one wants to argue um they want the debate to be shut down now Trump Supporters right now are absolutely furious at anyone who continues to express reservations about their candidate .

It was last week, for God's sake, hold on to last week, it's a week when you can have reservations. Brexiteers are furious with anyone who expresses doubts about how the process of leaving Europe is going. I now edit Private Time magazine, which I sometimes think Orwell would have dismissed as a fortnightly tapani boys um, but after the recent legal challenge to the government on article 50 presented to Parliament, we present ourselves. this as a pretty simple joke cover about brexit, the last thing, so, um, it's a variant of the wheels coming off the joke, but let's be honest, it's been used several times in british comics history, um, but this generated a huge bag of complaints this week. incredible, including one man, and he raped me by saying this cover is repulsive, he said he wants to come and trash the office and then shove our smug opinion so far up our asses that we strangle each other, which was kind of charming in its way. and actually many of the emails were along the same lines, I didn't want to argue the point, but simply wanted us to keep quiet, there was one from a vicar too, and he told me that it was time to accept the victory of the majority of the people and stop complaining, acceptance is a virtue, he replied and I told him that this argument was too much coming from a church that had started with a minority of 12. or you could say a minority of one or Good Friday, when all others ran away so um and this anger comes from the winners and I feel like this level of um toxic um uh intolerance of relegation has become a notable trend recently, particularly in those I experience complaining to the magazine the magazine should shut up or Better yet, it should be closed.

I hate to say that this is not what everyone thinks and circulation is very healthy. Thank you very much, um, but in the light and tone of so many things that now pass for argument. I thought it was really interesting to go back to Orwell and read again what he said in his diary and he wrote this this is long before trolls were invented looking around 1942 he said we're all drowning in the filth this was 1942 and he I was talking about the level of public debate, I mean the discussions I was having were about War and Peace, life and death, there were real fascists, real Stalinists who I was arguing with not just people who disagree with you about the possibility of reconciling freedom of movement with access to the European single market um, wrote back in April when I spoke to anyone or read the writings of anyone who had an interest in working I feel that intellectual honesty and balanced judgment have simply disappeared from the face of the Earth everyone's thoughts It is forensic that everyone simply presents a case with a deliberate suppression of his opponent's point of view and, what is more, with a total insensitivity to any suffering except that of himself and his friends, which seemed incredibly modern as a description of that level of debate and I was excited to discover that, in fact, everything was very clear in an essay called Whatever in Tribune two years later, in 1944, that what we consider a trend Online calling anyone who disagrees with you a fascist is nothing new, he wrote then. it will be seen that as the word fascism is used it makes almost no sense in conversation, of course, it is used even more savagely than in print.

I have heard that it applies to farmers, merchants, social credit, corporal punishment, fox hunting, bullfighting, the 1922 committee. The conservatives took over the 1941. committee which is a left-liberal group Rajat Kipling Gandhi Shanghai- shek homosexuality JB Priestly youth hostels astrology women dogs and I don't know what else when Orwell writes like this about the level of public debate one is not sure whether to be relieved by the feeling of deja vu or I am worried by the feeling that history may repeat itself no as quickly but as a tragedy, and I am obviously aware that if we are to take this warning about criticism, balance and honesty from the past, then it has to apply to the editors of satirical magazines. magazines, as well as his critics, so for the record, he's not funny or smart, is this it?

This was posted by an online critic suggesting that I was no better than Trump, um, and that my own views were unbalanced and dishonest, um, you know, um, I thought. about what Orwell had said and I told our lawyers to take it down no I didn't I didn't I tweeted that he was worse than Hitler. I didn't do that either. Sorry, I have to leave that for a while. It's very disturbing, but I'm going through it, so I wanted to focus in this talk on what I call the mood and tone of public opinion because it's a very important force. in the wayin which society patrols and monitors the media. and vital when considering the role of the press and media and as much as I appreciate the historical tradition of satirical writing in British history, I am aware that this all depends on popular support or am I right about this in an essay called freedom in the Park in Tribune in 1945 people had been arrested outside Hyde Park for selling pacifist and anarchist publications and Orwell was worried that although he was allowed to publish and sell these periodicals throughout the Second World War, he was suddenly had produced a change in public opinion and he took it to mean that the police were confident in arresting these people for obstruction and no one seemed to care about this restriction of the right to free speech except him and wrote the relative freedom we enjoy depends on opinion public law is not protection governments make laws to determine if and how peace is carried out how the police behave depends on the general temperament in this country if a large number of people are interested in freedom of expression there will be freedom of expression even if the law prohibits it if public opinion is slow uncomfortable minorities will be persecuted even if there are laws to protect them and I thought that is certainly true for today's press whose reputation in the last few years has swung wildly between the lows of phone hacking and, say, the highs of exposing MPS expenses, it's very difficult to follow that change in 2011.

I remember at one point a football crowd was shouting the name of Ryan Giggs, who had an alleged super injunction in place and this prohibits anyone from mentioning that he was cheating on his wife and various other things and also prohibited anyone from mentioning the fact that he had taken a super injunction now that the crowd decided they would chant his name on primetime television um and Giggs was named on Twitter 75,000 times it seemed clear that public opinion had decided that his private life was of interest and should be made public. Later that year it was revealed that murdered schoolgirl Millie Dowler's phone had been hacked by the world news along with a number of other people, including many high-profile celebrities, and there was a violent change in mood, the The public decided that journalists were actually all bastards and that the government needed Lord Levison to classify them.

Now, those of us who argued during the Levison investigation and the hearings that the problem was the fact that the enlistment laws were not applied before, the contempt of invasion laws, etc., and were not applied because of a unhealthy relationship between police. the press and politicians um these views were not much taken into account in terms of public opinion um it's time for another front page oh that was a repeat of the sun headline when it was revealed that Mr Murdoch Rebecca Brooks and Andy Coulson were involved in mahaki and uh, originally it was about a sinking ship and we put a strap on it saying that Murdoch sinks with all the hacks, um, it turned out to be optimistic, only Andy rightfully sank, obviously, in case that there is a lawyer, so I am interested.

On this question of whether public opinion really supports freedom of expression and allows critical opinions and supports that freedom to do so, I wanted to quote, as everyone does, a proposed preface to the novel Animal Farm and Orwell Reckless's preface in 1945. and includes the great phrase if freedom means anything it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear now this is the quote that will accompany the new Statue of Orwell that has been commissioned by the BBC and that will be presented as a kind of rebuke to the corporation. Wherever they do not comply, he will be left out.

The BBC program I appear on has been described simultaneously this week in the online comments section as over-privileged. The conservative wing boys make fun of the working class, thank you and the lefty metropolitan liberal elite having a labor love complain fest, yes, particularly distressing, apparently it was a joke I made about Hillary Clinton not breaking the glass ceiling, but Trump broke the rubber padded roof, um, not funny, apparently, um. Satire and even simple humor are not meant to be political, affirm our new potential sensors, they should be impartial and neutral. Now, this role of the joke would have surprised Orwell.

He liked jokes and wrote very interesting essays about people who made them while talking about Charles Dickens, he said that a joke worth laughing at always has an idea behind it and, usually, a subversive idea. Dickens can be funny because he is in rebellion against Authority, an authority is always there to be laughed at, there is always room for one more custard pie um and I would say there is also room for a custard pie to be thrown or two against those who claim to be Outsiders who claim to be against the Authority against the system and who use this as a way to seize power in the United States. the billionaire American real estate developer who is the champion of the dispossessed by global capitalism, that seems like a reasonable joke, as does his British friend, the former public schoolboy city merchant turned critic of the home county elite, eh, and it's just the right time for a mild, not very subtle joke.

Um, but I'm quite enjoying it right now. Um, the quote about telling people what they don't want to hear is a good one and I was delighted to see that it's also the title of one of this year's Orwell Youth Prize winners. essay contest an essay by Alexander Butcher I don't know if he's here. His essay covers much of the ground covered in this speech, but he does it much better and with fewer references to himself. But he has a lot to learn. Interestingly, this iconic quote from a preface to Animal Farm did not appear in 1945.

That premise was never published until 1972 in the Times Literary Supplement, so it was a preface about free speech that was censored. I mean, it's almost too much. clearly Orwellian to be true and, in fact, no one seems to know exactly what happened to him, but I think it's fascinating to read Orwell complaining in this preface about the fact that his novel, um, which we now all assume is obviously a masterpiece, indisputably accurate about the nature of the Revolution and the dictatorship and perfect for teaching children in schools was then considered unacceptably offensively satirical and the point of satire was that the Russians are allies in times of war.

It is now difficult to imagine a pre-Cold War era when the Russians were not seen as enemies, but as our friends again. Trump's presidency may well change all that. Oceana. Tomorrow I may not be at war with Eurasia. It may have always been at war. It's hard to guess, but in those days Orwell said that the prevailing opinion. was that it wasn't done to be rude to the Russians, you could be rude to Churchill, well, not the Russians and, interestingly, I think, looking back, there is now a significant faction on the British left who share this point of view. view, for example, we had this recent cover on The Private Detective Disaster Putin said: "I will find those responsible and give them a rocket," says the Regency classified.

Not only was it not funny, it was not true and there was no evidence that Russia was not involved in the downing of the plane when evidence was later presented they said it was falsified by US intelligence agencies. I suppose Orwell would have enjoyed that particular debate. A man who had spent his life fighting totalitarianism and trying to protect democratic socialism would recognize what was happening. The right to tell people what they don't want to hear is still the basis of free speech and if that sounds like I'm stating the obvious, then that's true, I am, but in my slight defense or did I say it once in a book review. by Butch and Russell in Adelphi magazine and this was in 1939, we have now sunk to a depth where the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men and women, I should have said and at this point I should say that I should have said a lot of other things about women too, but all of Wells's feminist failures and his attitude towards women are another matter and I'm going to very quickly go ahead and simply argue that, once again, the fact that he failed at that sense doesn't mean it means that everything he ever said about anything should be dismissed out of hand, particularly not about free speech.

Now Orwell himself managed to come to a position of accepting that the North could write well and sincerely on a subject even if one disapproved of the authors. Orwell allowed both Kipling and Swift to be right even though they weren't left-wing enough and he admitted it, so I hope we can admit that all their mistakes are right about free speech principles in that unpublished preface to Animal Farm said that the issue involved here is quite simple: every opinion, however unpopular, however foolish, is entitled to a hearing, put it that way and almost any English intellectual will accept the deal of saying yes, but give it a form concrete. and ask how about an attack on Stalin is entitled to a hearing and the answer will most of the time be no, in that case the current orthodoxy was questioned and therefore the principle of freedom of expression expires and you can get to try now substituting other names for Starling and see how you feel put it Assange Mandela Obama Snowden Hillary Clinton Angela Merkel Camilla Batman Jenny Prince Harry Mother Teresa David Bowie Martin Luther King the queen it's time to slide that's a Majesty now the role of the queen has changed over the decades Very smooth cover.

It drives some of our readers to complete apoplexy. You think of the names I have mentioned and simply say. I think now the intellectual response would largely be to say that they are acceptable, but there might be some who would suggest that any attack. about any of these people should be referred to some kind of oversight body a version of the former minister of information some kind of independent Royal Charter of something like communist um whatever the populist response that the common man or woman in whom Orwell always He hoped he was in favor of everyone being allowed to have their own opinion.

I think that might be different now, there are places where you know that if you substitute the name Trump or Farage and ask the question, you won't get a liberal answer, you'll get a version of get over it, suck it up, you lost a part, don't you understand what part of democracy you do not understand? um and well, I don't think I was naïve about freedom of speech, especially since I was defending it right in the shadow of a huge global conflict, I mean, you're very quick to say that when you demand freedom of speech and freedom of the press , you are not demanding absolute freedom, there must always be or, to some extent, always will be, some degree of censorship, as long as organized societies endure now that sounds very vague for a mountaineer, what are you thinking in the shadow of a huge conflict global that they have just experienced? about defense about security about intelligence about treason things you write about elsewhere I'm sure he was.

If I am not thinking about inciting racial or religious hatred, or encouraging terrorism, or propagating homophobia or transphobia, or any of the issues that now make the issue of Freedom Press complex, I think you are suggesting official censorship here. instead of self-censorship, for which he condemns writers. in a series of other essays but it's not explored um and ends up going back to a very simple principle and quotes Voltaire here um if it really was Voltaire um I think I read on the internet recently this quote is only attributed to Voltaire, it was written by Francis Bacon apparently anyway you know what I mean I hate what you say I will defend him to the death you are right in saying it bribery die posted a new version recently this is a worrying trend but it seems like a good place to show the cartoon uh and what happens in universities tends to reach the rest of the media and then the rest of society who want a space in which you do not have to listen to opinions that may bother you by demanding warnings about works of Art that may show attitudes that you consider offensive are part of an attempt of redefining as complex and negotiable what everyone thought was simple and non-negotiable and this creates problems.

We published a guide on privatization on what would be a formal debate in a future University. it would appear that the proponent presents the motion to the house the opponent agrees with the proponent's motion the proponent strongly agrees that the opponent was right in supporting the motion the opponent agrees the proponent could not be more right in accepting the motion that he was right to support the motion that opens debate to the floor, the audience tells the proponent and opponent that there really isn't much debate if everyone agreesbetween themselves, the motion and the opponent immediately agree to call security, the audience is ejected into the debate room, this continues until the motion is passed unanimously anyway.

On several student comment sites, this article was dismissed as mocking and worse fascist, but it is just a restatement of something Orwell wrote in that unpublished preface that he said everyone should have. The right to say and print what he believes to be the truth as long as it does not harm the rest of the community in a fairly unequivocal way seems to me to be a very good definition that both capitalist democracy and Western versions of democracy have had until recently. socialists. given that principle, even our government, as I pointed out, this is in 1945, still makes sure to respect it and that is not always the case now, as, for example, the former editor of the Guardian and author of this lecture discovered in his relations with our government. on security and intelligence, so the principle benefits from repetition and is always worth comparing, which I know it did with the attitudes of other countries that we do not want to emulate.

I am currently referring to the failure of the EU to confront the Turkish Prime Minister's closure of the EU. newspapers and arrests of journalists because they wanted help solving the refugee crisis is something that I think will make us very ashamed of an old German law to prosecute those who mock foreign leaders was invoked by Erdogan and supported by Mrs. Merkel and this took a private detective to organize a turkish joke contest my favorites were not knock knock who's there the secret police is the joke the other what do you call a satirist in turkey an ambulance these were particularly enjoyed by our turkish readers actually um, but again the home front I say a privateOften, to my disappointment, I must confess that I have had very little direct interference from the government, only on the issue of defense.

I once got a call from the admiral who was in charge of the notification committee that deals with security and I think this is An interesting example of how Britain works was during the first Gulf War and the plans for Desert Storm had been stolen from the back of a Volvo. Along with the car, all the plans disappeared and, uh, it was quite embarrassing for the Ministry of Defense for the whole time. the plans were stolen anyway the admiral in charge of DNA just called me and said he is Ian Islop. I told him yes. He said you know those plans for Desert Storm.

I told him yes. I said you don't have it, man. um Orwell Road in These are far more dangerous times than ours, um, and he wrote that the main danger to freedom of thought and expression right now is not direct interference from the Ministry of Information or any official body. Editors and publishers strive to keep topics out of print. not because they are afraid of being prosecuted, but because they are afraid of public opinion, so I go back to public opinion and stating the obvious. I'm afraid because in my experience it seems to be less and less obvious these days.

The opinions are true and I would say that I have noticed that it is true in those who have become politically engaged for the first time, those who are energized by ukip and the referendum debate or by the emergence of Jeremy Corbyn as leader or by the resurgence of The scots. nationalism, all for Trump's populist triumph, they have the zeal of the newly converted, which is very admirable and a real wake-up call for all their opponents. The tartan Tories, the Ramonas, the Neo Blairites, the liberal Washington elites, all those with privilege who complain. people like me um and that is undeniable but it is not an admirable quality um this zeal when accompanied by an overwhelming desire to silence any criticism of their political ideas or prominent personalities perhaps the supporters of traditional parties have simply become accustomed to the idea over the decades, but I have certainly discovered privately that there is a great deal of fury on the part of the Labor Conservatives or the Liberal Earls when their leaders or policies are criticized or mocked - often in much harsher ways than the new populist movements, so there was absolute rage when the private detective included the new Scottish nationalist MPS in the long-running boys and girls column and when the magazine suggested that some of the claims the SMP was making for the future of a Scotland independent could be exaggerated.

Scotland, as it will be, if it remains part of the United Kingdom. I would say there were one or two readers who cited Orwell's distinction about the difference between patriotism as the love of one's country and nationalism as the hatred of other peoples, but in general, the tone was mostly when, if ever you were ignorant Pricks in the eye, be sharp enough to burst your smug London bubble. Those people who disagreed with the SMP were beneath the contemptuous English and traitorous Scots, and this was matched by the sheer fury of the Corbin loyalists. in the coverage of Jeremy's problems with the opposition party's internal discipline, the whole suggestion that there might be something a little fishy in that video about the lack of seats on the train.

Corbin denies misleading the public and says I'll be charged with reading a private eye next. um, most of the tone of the messages that came in is unrepeatable, but mostly it was about well, I hope the private eye was out of the mainstream media. Matrix, I mean, did you hand over control directly to Rupert Murdoor? No, um, his anger matched. for the YouTubers privately I briefly posted a strip about uh it was called at home with the YouTubers um A lovely couple and we made some jokes about their leader Mr. Farage. I have no legs, the suggestion that he was Britain's bait. and a fruitcake had won, um again, I wasn't amused, leave it out, how much subsidy, payment from Top-Up Dole, do you get from the EU anyway, are you even a British publication?

I don't want to go on, but I mean, that's that kind of politics, but it's not just party politics. There are a lot of people who really don't want jokes to be made about anything, and certainly not about anything serious. In the last year, I have been told that doctors are not a suitable subject for humans Nazis are not a suitable subject for human veterans are not a suitable subject for humor Alzheimer's is not a suitable subject for humor suicide not a suitable topic for humor Syria is not funny terrorists are not funny Islamists are not funny president The square is not funny Prince Charles is not funny the list goes on but I like this one in terms of relative global suffering that would offend you private editors A fake advertisement for inflating a bathtub is a model of a town that had flooded in the West Country and someone who writes, Is it really fun to lose all your possessions, your home or your business in an apartment in the middle of winter without it being your fault?

The list goes on, um, and it's really time for it to end. Having reached the end of this talk, I realize that, as I warned the organizers, it does not seem to have advanced any great new thesis or shed any new light on the whole work; My observations on this changing public mood in these times may seem trivial. I apologize for this, but I was initially inspired by someone who quoted Orwell's comments in 1948 in an essay in The Socialist Leader: he said that threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, while often trivial in isolation, have cumulative effects and, unless controlled, lead.

In other words, the defense of freedom of expression is not just a special plea of ​​journalists, writers, commentators and satrists, although it clearly also comes from a more general conviction that what Orwell said was intellectual freedom without which has certainly been one of the hallmarks of Western civilization so in dark times I would like to leave you with another letter written to a private detective that I found offered some joy, some confirmation. from a belief in the common sense of Orwell's common man or woman, we printed this car too well, it's the bipolar Grand Duke of York when he wasn't there, he was up when he was down now a lot of people didn't like this cartoon um and I got a letter from someone saying that I suffer from a bipolar condition and I saw your cartoon and I thought it was absolutely disgusting I watched it again a few days later I thought it was very funny ready now um not bad I have 15 minutes to ask some questions I hope it's well, okay, David, yes, until half past and then we have to go, then, could it be David Dimbleby, yes, ma'am, gentleman, what was it that your PC had exceeded its limits?

Yeah, I always think that PC and people who say well, you know, I don't want to be politically correct, it tends to be exclusive to people who say something that witnesses, a lot of political correctness is essentially politeness, in certain circumstances, so I think yes. You just have to be careful not to become a suppressor of any opinion you don't like hearing and then describe it as non-PC or PC, then it becomes useless. We had a wonderful cartoon, someone drew a picture. from a non-PC world, which is a new store and sold Golly Walks and Bernard Banning videos, but I love the idea of ​​that because I thought basically all that stuff had been stored in a little store and you don't have it anymore . and that's the Orwellian approach, I think is if you win the argument, um, you don't just say, can you shut up now?

That's what I would take from that, there's another gentleman behind, uh, in um, I get angrier the older I get. I read the profile um and my question really yes, can you? Can you take a sample of where the political satellite of private islands has changed government policy? um no no, I started with the wise words of Peter Cook ringing in my ears, he said um satire at the Berlin Cabaret in the 1930s really stopped Hitler oh no, he didn't um I think you have to be careful um wait for um or being too pompous about the idea that your satire will immediately change government policy I think what you do is help to crystallize opinions, you question what people think and then in turn they will affect a change and I think the effort of doing that It's worth it, even if you find you can't, I mean, we have older readers who often cancel out their opinions. subscriptions and I think, oh no, what's going on, they said it's too depressing, you know, I can't read your magazine anymore, everyone in it is awful, and I said, well, you know, I can see that, but we tried. and leaven the pill a little bit um and occasionally um there are, you know, there are victories um and some of them are small and some of them are bigger um but um you know uh occasionally it works and that's very, very satisfying um uh well, I mean this week we have a letter from Colin um uh where we write a letter from a foreign country every week and we actually had a lovely letter from a man who had been released on bail and he said I was only released because of a piece you wrote pleading my case and you know it probably won't overthrow his government in the end, but it does mean he's no longer in jail, so it was terribly enjoyable, but there are repeated examples of stories that We know we've talked about taxes, for example, what started as a obsession in the head of our writer Richard Brooks when he worked for Revenue and Customs.

He came to work for us within 10 years. Tax evasion is at the top of the G20 agenda. Not bad in a decade, you know, nobody was interested in Apple, Amazon, HSBC, none of those issues were even on the agenda and I think we've put a lot of those things there. PFI, any of those health reforms, I think so. God, I sound pompous now, um, but I mean, I don't think you should be depressed. I think there are many examples of ways in which the journalism side of Private Eyes helped and that is always supported by making a joke about it because people who can often take criticism just can't take the joke and the best thing about Britain is that people have to pretend that they can oh yes oh that's very funny yes, very funny well, it's a cheerful nature oh there's Jennifer when you said that Donald Trump doesn't He doesn't have any difficulty saying one thing one day the next day.

Do you think maybe it's just Machiavelli's wonderful guys, practical politicians and friends to do whatever is necessary and therefore there is no contradiction? The same. I doubt he read it, but he would. I guess he instinctively knows it's good. I'm not. I'm worried about what his followers will think. I mean, we're only a couple of days in and the wall is now literally full of offenses in pieces, maybe possibly and yesterday was fabulous. he says no, some of the pillars of Obamacare are very impressive and you thought you hadn't noticed that for two years, I mean, it's going to be very, very strange, and the only thing he's attached to that he really know is abortion, which again, given his kind of history, um, um, in terms of, you know, the goodness of familyright-wing American may be a problem for him, so I mean, God knows where we are, but it's certainly very strange, so Machiavelli probably yes, there is a young man. person in the back um no, I was just wondering why you thought that maybe people of our generation are more inclined to do this kind of thing since there are no platforms, particularly apps and educational establishments, and why do you see a lawyer for that um well, I mean, I should really ask you.

Don't know. I think he's um. There is more of a turn toward the personal in your generation. The topics you're interested in seem to be more about yourself and individuality and that emphasis on gender. all of that is in this sphere rather than in the public sphere um and I think that might have something to do with it, but you know, I'm really getting too far away um I'm just interested in the idea that um you know in In universities Of all places you shouldn't want to challenge people, and that's what it seemed to me. I mean, you know for sure that when I was in college, the most interesting thing was finding out what other people thought and why, and if any of it was valid. sense and when you don't find out it becomes dangerous I think because you just think right I think this you think this all my friends think this he doesn't think this she doesn't think this right I think it's time for them I went to jail, you know, and it's not a big leap for many people.

You don't share my opinions. I would really like to see you jailed. Do you know someone who has been tried to imprison several times? I feel that pretty strongly, so again, I mean, I think it's really interesting and I really don't think it's healthy. I don't think it's just kind of oh, we explained this, it should be harder than that and thanks, where's Daily? Mail writes to express her disagreement with the enemy of the people headlines last Friday when she was yes, I think they are and I think it's up to us to say that's disgusting.

I don't think I said this with the Daily Mail. frequently don't ban it, just don't buy it, um, you know, and the rest of you don't go online and read about the Kardashians, um, because they just make their economic model work, um, so no, I mean , I do not do it. It doesn't sound much like the idea of ​​this campaign saying we're going to target advertisers. You know, this is what the American far right does in large numbers and if you have a majority of people saying we're going to stop the gatekeeper from leaving because we're going to take down all the ads because we believe in him leaving or we believe in you know, um , anti-abortion.

I mean, you don't want to mobilize the mob against advertisers, they'll come back and get you. Um and I wouldn't be in favor of that. I think it needs to be discussed. I mean, it was disgusting. I mean, but one of the best things about email is that they're so useless. I mean two of the judges they had found. some connection and the other judge was an openly gay Olympic fencer and then in a later audition they openly ruled out and then they ruled out the gay and I thought soon he wasn't even going to give me Olympic fencer oh yeah, type of hurdles, I mean, when I read it I thought which had been sort of closed areas John McDonald um, so you know, I mean, it's unfortunately, I mean, it's the right to tell you things that you don't want to hear and it might be nonsense, um and I mean, it was pretty disgusting, but again.

I think you need to worry about trying to shut that down rather than arguing against it or pointing out that none of us need lessons in patriotism from Lord Rothermere, who went to Paris to avoid paying taxes and is not yet a lawyer. Still in Sorry, is there jumping there? He's probably an internet trash auctioneer. There are other people and I'm not wondering whether or not you've seen the kind of breakup with the media, especially on Internet type platforms. of people more interested in this Echo echoed whether that's stupid or not, it's not really a different phenomenon.

I think you're absolutely right. I think it's related to that and I think Orwell talks about conversations and pamphlets and nice things, but. I had no idea that you could have an algorithm that selects the opinion of other people who agree with you or other sites that you would agree with, meaning that you are less and less vulnerable to any other opinion, so no, I think it is absolutely correct. It's certainly true in my experience, um, and also context goes, and you know, the good thing about print, which I will always blatantly fight for is that you're going to get an article here that says something different than an article here, you're going to get a piece out from the bed.

You're going to get a leader, you're not just going to get information about things that you think you're going to agree with, so when you open the newspaper you're going to see these things, and that has to be, I think, healthier than what you're doing. speaking of that, I think it's dangerous and it's on both sides, you know, and if you're Fox News and Breitbart, I mean, you know you're not going to be presented with anything that doesn't have something just um uh tailor-made for you and me. . I think that is bad for everyone, the environment in which each medium chose as a business model, that is the word for them.

Not the BBC, as the world is changing, are you worried that these changes that we have made will at some point threaten the voice, yes, and I think? baby's got baby's CBeebies uh the BBC has to be smart about technology and not tie it to watching on a screen, it has to win the argument about what it's doing in terms of why it's worth it, what there is in a I feel a tax on the license fee, but I would defend it completely and I don't think you have to look very far to see why it is a useful model and all right, from all the people who work for the BBC and knew of its flaws .

So you also knew the extraordinary things you could achieve through this, so yes, I am worried about all those models, and this is a problem again, because for the next generation it is finding a way to not have free things. I mean, other people are willing to pay because I mean, in general, you know there's a quote here, um, political writing is an artist, a lot of journalism is difficult, it takes time, it's quite expensive, and if it's good, it requires that you know a lot. people to do it and the private detective costs a pound 80, you know it's a lot cheaper than a cup of coffee, but you probably have the opinion of 60 people, 60 people who are very interested and bother to find out things that you know compared to cover the coffee the idea that the next generation won't pay they won't pay for information or for uh um any kind of knowledge I don't believe in that I can't stand it um and um I'm not entirely sure that's true Anyway, we'll have to find a model, since Donald Trump always says yes, enough is enough.

My name is Gene Seton and I am the head of oil prices and I know this conversation needs to be brought to stocks. but you can continue in the tent, which you just walk out the main door here over the road, uh, to the main UC building and there's a very, very ugly sort of tent in the garden and you go into it and have a drink. I, when Ian was talking, was actually thinking that one of the things that Winston Smith does in 1984 that is the most transgressive is buy a diary to keep a private thought that he then hides, which is again. one of those extraordinarily pertinent things for now because authoritarianism starts when you're not allowed to be a person, but I really wanted to say a big thank you to Ian and I wanted to recommend that everyone come to 1984 Live, let's read 1984 Live.

With a lot of excitement on June 6 at the Ministry of Truth, also known as the Senate House, and perhaps there will not be a platform. I hope we are because I intend for it to be very transgressive, but I would really like to thank Ian for us. a splendid stranger