Criminal solicitor Luke Gittos offers an insider's view on the Telegraph columnist's case and the worrying rise of censorship.

The case of Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson has drawn attention to the scale of policing (quite literally) of speech in the UK today. Pearson’s lawyer in the case is Luke Gittos - a partner at Murray Hughman solicitors in London and director of Freedom Law Clinic, as well as a regular Battle of Ideas festival speaker.

In this exclusive video, Luke reflects on the Pearson case before discussing the role of hate crime, how non-crime hate incidents became so ubiquitous, his views on the policing of speech, and how public pressure is vital in pushing back against these iniquitous and censorious measures.

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, London.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION In 2018, the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) was introduced at the World Cup in Russia – and the arguments about it haven’t stopped since, with complaints that decisions are still often wrong while lengthy reviews cause confusion and frustration.

Using technology to help referees get important decisions right seemed like such a good idea. For example, in 2010, England midfielder Frank Lampard famously had a goal against Germany in the World Cup disallowed, despite the ball clearly crossing the goal line. One result was the introduction of technology that can tell the referee instantly if the ball has crossed the goal-line. However, goal-line technology can only assist with one source of refereeing error. VAR enables a wider range of decisions to be reviewed.

One criticism is that VAR is still subject to human subjectivity and fallibility, as it depends on how referees view and apply the rules, with incorrect decisions still being made and with inconsistency between matches. The most high-profile VAR error occurred last autumn, when confused communication between the on-pitch referee and the VAR meant a goal by Liverpool against Tottenham Hotspur was erroneously disallowed – despite the VAR making the correct decision. Representatives of one Premier League club, Wolves, were so incensed by a string of bad decisions that they put forward a motion to scrap VAR altogether.

Secondly, VAR slows down the game as goals or penalty decisions are subject to laborious reviews, playing havoc with the emotions of players and spectators. One former England player, Paul Scholes, has complained that the ‘VAR experience is poor, the in-stadium experience for the supporter. It’s nowhere near good enough.’

However, the football authorities believe that VAR has made the game fairer by improving both decision accuracy and transparency as fans can see the video replays. Responding to the Wolves motion, the Premier League pointed out that VAR has substantially improved decision making overall, while acknowledging that decisions currently take too long.

Has VAR ruined football? Why has video technology been so controversial in football when it has been much more successful in other sports, like cricket and tennis? How can we remove human error, or is human error an inevitable part of the game? Can VAR be fixed, or should it be given the red card?

SPEAKERS Duleep Allirajah football writer; longterm spiked contributor; co-founder, Libero! network; season-ticket holder, Crystal Palace

Jonny Gould TV and radio presenter; journalist; host, Jonny Gould's Jewish State

Omar Mohamed student, Royal Holloway University

Sally Taplin business consultant, Businessfourzero; visiting MBA lecturer, Bayes Business School; former board member, Lewes FC

CHAIR Geoff Kidder director, membership and events, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Book Club

On the eve of the US presidential election, listen to our discussion from the Battle of Ideas festival 2024:

Within days of being announced as the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris went from the most unpopular vice president in 50 years – a figure whose unpopularity reportedly led to the former president, Barack Obama, scrambling to find an alternative – to a viable presidential candidate. After slumping under Biden, polling now indicates that the Democrats have a real chance of retaining the White House.

Kamala has been rebranded – the ‘brat’ candidate memifying what had previously been seen as gaffs as the imperfections of millennial women. Kamala is posed as a cross between Obama and Bridget Jones. Kamala, it seems, has been embraced as a figure of fun.

Harris has made no unscripted appearances since taking up the candidacy. The Harris strategy seems to be is entirely based on Kamala the person – with the least amount of policy focus in her campaign material of any presidential candidate in history by far. It seems the Democrats hope Kamala can be entertaining enough to distract the American public for a hundred days, avoiding any real scrutiny.

Has the election then turned purely into a competition of ‘vibes’? Or are there still substantive differences between the main candidates? What does the memification of politics mean for democracy? Is Kamalamania a sincere phenomenon, an exercise in how people can change their mind out of convenience, or a complete fiction produced by the Democratic Party machine? Has Trump lost his populist touch? What does the election hold for America?

SPEAKERS:

• Nick Dixon, comedian; presenter, GB News; host, The Current Thing

• Dr Cheryl Hudson, lecturer in US political history, University of Liverpool; author, Citizenship in Chicago: race, culture and the remaking of American identity

• Dr Richard Johnson, writer; senior lecturer in politics, Queen Mary, University of London; co-author, Keeping the Red Flag Flying: The Labour Party in Opposition since 1922

• Stan Swim, chief program officer, Bill of Rights Institute

• Chair: Jacob Reynolds, head of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas