Something I’ve been considering for a while is starting a podcast where I’ll have guests on to talk about a wide range of topics such as: British politics Relationships and dating Mental health Masculinity Money and work Crime and justice Culture and society Addiction Personal experiences And generally the issues people actually care about but often struggle to have honest conversations about. I don’t want it to just be people sitting around agreeing with each other either. I want guests with completely different backgrounds, experiences and opinions, and I want conversations where people can disagree without everything immediately turning hostile. The whole point would be curiosity over ideology. Asking questions, challenging assumptions and actually trying to understand why people think the way they do. I’m genuinely interested to know what people think of the idea, what topics you’d want covered and, more importantly, who you’d actually want to see as guests.

In my opinion there’s far too much sheep mentality in England. Too many people accept the way our political system works simply because it’s always been that way. Questioning Parliament, the role of the Prime Minister or even the Royal Family shouldn’t be treated as taboo. Whether you want to keep them or replace them is beside the point. The point is that every institution should be open to challenge. If we stop questioning the systems that govern us, how do we know they’re still the best ones?

Do you think the British public should have the right to bear arms?

I’m beginning to wonder whether meaningful political change in Britain is genuinely possible anymore. Not because I think nothing should change, but because I don’t know where an individual even begins. How much time would it take? How much influence could one person realistically have? And at what point does persistence become wasted effort? I’m aware of the hypocrisy in saying that without having fully committed myself. But if you’re someone who gives 100% to everything you do, it’s difficult to invest years into something that may never produce meaningful results. So I’m curious—do you think Britain’s political system is capable of real reform, or has it reached a point where it’s too resistant to change?

If you could make one significant change to the uk right now what would it be and why?

As if to prove my point completely. This wasn’t even a reply to me. It was a completely separate post on his own account. One minute you’re making outlandish claims, the next you’re acting like you’re being unfairly scrutinised. If you’re willing to put controversial opinions out there, don’t complain when people hold you to them. Please tell me… who does this man actually represent? Who’s happy to come forward and say, “Yeah, I follow him”?

Can I borrow two minutes from anyone who sees this? Posts like this are exactly why our country feels more divided than ever. If your aim is to challenge prejudice against Muslims, this achieves the opposite. It doesn’t encourage understanding—it reinforces stereotypes and pushes people further into opposing camps. You don’t represent Muslims, just as Tommy Robinson doesn’t represent England. The loudest voices on either side rarely speak for the millions of decent people caught in the middle. This is exactly the cycle that keeps us divided. One side provokes, the other retaliates, and both walk away convinced they’re the reasonable ones while trust continues to collapse. If we genuinely want a better Britain, we have to stop rewarding outrage and start rewarding people willing to have difficult conversations in good faith. That’s how societies move forward. Everything else is just another round of the same argument.

I’m looking for a genuine debate here because I know this is a controversial topic. I believe people in the UK should have the right to bear arms. Not because I want violence or bloodshed, but because I believe the right to defend yourself, your family and your home is a fundamental human right. No government should have a complete monopoly on force while ordinary people are expected to simply hope they’ll be protected when something goes wrong. I also believe an armed population creates a healthier balance of power between the public and the government. One of the reasons I think so much injustice goes unchallenged is because that balance has shifted too far in one direction. When people have no meaningful way to resist abuses of power, personal freedoms become much easier to chip away over time. The argument I hear most is that legal gun ownership would lead to more murders and more innocent people dying. I completely understand why people say that, but innocent people are already being murdered by criminals using illegal firearms, knives and countless other weapons. Criminals don’t obey the law. Law-abiding people do. It genuinely makes me wonder how many people who lost their lives might still be here today if they’d had the opportunity to defend themselves instead of being left at the mercy of someone who had no intention of following the law in the first place. Another argument is that we should simply avoid violence wherever possible. I agree. Violence should always be the last resort. But one of the few constants throughout human history is that there will always be violent people. No law, prison sentence or punishment has ever completely eliminated that reality. My position isn’t that everyone should carry a firearm or that violence is the answer. It’s that when every other option has failed, law-abiding people shouldn’t be left completely dependent on the state for their own protection. I know many people will disagree with me, and that’s completely fine. I’m genuinely interested in hearing the strongest argument against this because I think it’s a conversation worth having.

I don’t believe fear is the reason at all. The question itself assumes that if a man doesn’t want to date a trans woman, there must be something psychologically wrong with him. Why can’t it simply be personal preference? Respect works both ways. People are free to identify however they choose, and others are equally free to decide who they do or don’t want to date. Assigning motives to people instead of listening to their reasons doesn’t create understanding. It creates division.

If we genuinely believe Britain is defined by better values, then our conduct should reflect those values. We don’t strengthen our argument by abandoning the very standards we claim make this country worth defending. We can’t ask others to respect Britain while lowering our own standards whenever we’re angry. If we expect people to integrate into our values, then we should be setting the example ourselves.

The more I scroll through X, the more disappointed I become. We keep falling into the same trap that’s been used throughout history: turning ordinary people against each other while those in power quietly avoid accountability. Why do we have so much fire in our bellies for the people who come here, but nowhere near the same level of anger for the politicians who created the policies, raised our taxes, and allowed these problems to grow in the first place? They’re the ones making the decisions that shape this country. If you’re angry about illegal immigration, the cost of living, rising taxes, or the direction Britain is heading, ask yourself who’s actually responsible. We should be holding our MPs to account, writing to them, questioning them at public meetings, supporting campaigns for policy change, and voting based on results instead of empty promises. If enough people do that, politicians have no choice but to listen. Stop letting yourselves be divided. A divided public is easier to govern. Hold the people with the power accountable—not just the people living with the consequences.

Should those who shape the laws and future of a Christian country also be Christian? I believe they should. I don’t care if someone comes from a Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or any other background, provided they’ve converted to Christ. To me, governing a Christian nation without sharing its faith creates a conflict of interest. I also think people lose trust when they feel those in power no longer reflect the country’s values. Why aren’t we having an honest conversation about immigration, religious demographics, or how many mosques, synagogues, and temples can be built before England ceases to be recognisably Christian? Whether you agree or not, I think these are legitimate questions that deserve to be debated.

Being nice doesn’t make you entitled to a relationship. If the only reason you’re being kind is because you expect something in return, you aren’t a good man—you’re just someone with expectations who didn’t get what he wanted. Then they turn around and blame women for their choice in men instead of looking in the mirror.

Me when I do the dishes without being asked

I’m sick of hearing that diversity is a strength. I don’t think diversity alone makes a country stronger—I think shared values do. A society is strongest when the people living in it believe in the same core principles, respect the law, and actually want to be part of the country they’re living in. Questioning whether we’ve got that balance right shouldn’t automatically get you labelled a racist. Agree or disagree, but explain why.