The Environmental Campaign Group, Inc. Britain, have caused weeks of controversy by blocking roads to gain attention for their demands. It's fair to say, while their demand that the government should pay to insulate homes is popular, their methods aren't. Much of the critique, the complaints about Inc. Britain are reasonable, just motorists who want to get to their destination, slightly annoyed about traffic jams. It's not fine, however, to use a traffic jam or non-violent direct action as an argument for fascism. This was a moment from Channel 5's Jeremy Vine Show this morning. The problem in this country in all areas is that minorities always get the upper hand because we're so tolerant. And minorities have to be swashed, like that. That was Mike Perry speaking. He's an ex-son supporter. That clip has been viewed over a million times on Twitter. It was shared many times, I think, because people thought he was talking about ethnic minorities. And one user tagged Jeremy Vine asking how it was acceptable to let that go out on air. This is what Jeremy Vine tweeted in response. This would have been totally unacceptable, had Mike been referring to members of ethnic minorities. In fact, this snippet does not make clear Mike Perry was actually talking about the eco-protesters who brought the M25 to a halt. He said they represented very few people in the UK. Jeremy Vine has now deleted that tweet. We would like to show you the full clip with the fuller context of that intervention. Unfortunately, the Jeremy Vine Show haven't made the episode available online just yet. We can't explain why. I'm going to get Aaron's thoughts on this in one moment. First of all, let's just show you the clip one more time. Now you know the context provided by Jeremy Vine. The problem in this country in all areas is that minorities always get the upper hand because we're so tolerant. And minorities have to be swashed, like that. Minorities have to be squashed. Aaron, obviously that would have been more shocking if he'd been talking about ethnic minorities or sexual minorities. Is it fine though to say you're squashed minorities when minorities are people who have particular political beliefs instead of immutable characteristics? Well, in a democratic free society, Michael, minorities right should be protected. And that doesn't just mean ethnic minorities or religious minorities or linguistic minorities or women or LGBT people. It also means people who hold minority political views, which are of course still congruent with democratic values. So for instance, most people aren't Republicans in this country. They want to keep them on a key. But that doesn't mean just because Republicans such as myself or minority doesn't mean people have permission to go around beating us up. Because minority rights when it comes to freedom of political conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of association is really important. Once upon a time, the idea that women should have the vote was a minority view, who knows what will be a majority view in 50 or 100 years time. And we know that the train tracks upon which the locomotive of historical progress, if it does exist at all, they are the idea that perhaps the minority is right or perhaps the minority have something to teach the rest of us. That's a very basic point. And what I found very strange about Jeremy Vines' initial response is to say, oh, he just means political minorities. It's a political minorities have never been subject to violence and murder and intimidation. Very strange thing to say. If you want to defend a free society, you don't think or say that. Secondly, he was clearly referring to all minorities because he said, I think the exact words Michael, maybe you can again, we want to get it right down. He said in all instances or something to that effect. He's talking about minorities, minorities of the problem, political minorities, racial minorities, minority views. People who are up to you might want to change things. We think the status quo isn't perfect. Very, very, very dangerous thing to say. There's a reason why the other guest on the show, I think it was Yasmin Ali, by around like you say, Michael, nobody can find this show online. I wonder why. He said instantly, almost like a reflex. Oh my God. I think most people watching that or listening to this show probably felt the same way. It is fascism. And the fact that Jeremy Vines made an apology for it or rather excused it is unacceptable. And I think for something like Jeremy Vines, who look, he has Ash Sarkron, he has Owen Jones on, and he has people from the right, like Carol Malone on as well, right. They want good television. And they would say, well, people from the right, you might not agree with them, but they reflect a segment of public opinion. That's a fair argument. What this man is saying is something quite distinct, however. What he's saying is that odds with the very foundation of how much of free society rests. That can't be allowed on television broadcast without significant scrutiny and accountability for the programmers and for the host. I do find it remarkable that after the fact on social media, somebody as intelligent as Jeremy Vines, who is politically experienced when it comes to the fallout of these kinds of things. On broadcast TV or radio, it happens. It's live media, after all, would say that. And I do think it says something quite dangerous about how toxic our media environment is. I don't think he agrees with the point, but he would say, well, he has a right to say that. No, I don't think he has a right to say that, actually. I don't think anybody has a right to say that minorities should be crushed. No, that's not how it works. Because if you start permitting people to say that on live television, very quickly we're going to lose some of the most sacred things we hold there in our society. The other thing that sort of shocked me about it, and I suppose why it is just so congruent with classic far right tropes, is this idea that minorities have the upper hand. Now, obviously, the classic sort of version of this is anti-Semitism. You'll also get it with sort of white replacement theory where you have ethnic minorities who are now determining policy and determining who can say what and who can't say what and ultimately they're intent on becoming a majority. Classic far right conspiracy theories, but they're also paranoid. I think this clip just shows how ridiculous that is. This is a guy who was a reporter at the Sun, he's often on television, standard right wing talking head, who thinks that the insulate Britain activists have got the upper hand. The insulate Britain activists are the new people with power in this country who need to be crushed. Now, you might find a few traffic jams annoying. As I say, I think it's perfectly reasonable to find a few traffic jams annoying. Some people will say it's legitimate because it's such a serious issue, such a serious issue, climate change that all peaceful action is justified. This is certainly a peaceful action. Others will say actually it's self-defeating, it's also annoying, it's a bit undemocratic. To put your demands forward in those ways. Now, I don't want to weigh in on either of those arguments. What I do think it's safe to say is this group of people going out in the middle of motorways to say home should be insulated. They do not have the upper hand, they are not controlling politics in this country and anyone who thinks they are is just completely diluted or completely disingenuous. I don't know which one you think is of those. Do you think this guy is really terrified that insulate Britain, have got the upper hand or is this just cynical politicking? I think he really believes it. I mean, I keep part of one fascism, fascism generally, is the idea that we're in the majority but we're also the victims. Somehow, the minorities have got us under the thumb, whether it's people with disabilities, whether it's Jewish people, whether it's socialists, whether it's students, whether it's people on benefits. All these minorities are somehow exploiting the majority, which actually isn't really a majority because we're talking about a lot of people here. This idealized notion of the person who keeps the country ticking over the middle age white man, I'm the taxpayer, I'm the one that adds to the pot, I'm the one that gives the surplus, they're the ones who are in deficit, I give they take on the striver there, the skiver, that kind of discourse. So I think he does believe it, I think if you worked at the sun for that long, I think clearly you're going to internalize those ideas. And it's become the norm now in British politics, Michael over the last 20, 25 years. I mean, look, it's called the Jeremy Vines show, but you know it reminded me of another Jeremy Kyle. A lot of current affairs and political coverage and political conversations in this country now looks like Jeremy Kyle 10, 15 years ago. And people will say, well, you don't want the guy on there, you're calling him far right, well, the far left shouldn't go on either. Well, I think somebody arguing for free broadband or rent caps isn't quite the same as somebody saying that we should crush all minorities and suppress freedom of political expression. Maybe I'm strange, but I don't think those two things are equivalent. And I think people like Jeremy Vaughan, I think people in the mainstream media and broadcasts and radio TV all the way down to the people booking guests. It needs to have a really strong think about the kinds of people they want on. Now, it doesn't mean you constrain politically the political complexion of people that you have as guests. I'm not suggesting that. You know, I think we should have people who think Brexit's good or wrong or liberals can serve as if so, so it's fine. But you can't have people calling for the smashing of individual people's rights. That to me is a form of political incitement that goes beyond the acceptable parameters of broadcast TV. And I think you shouldn't be allowed back on the Reagan. I think they should apologize for it.