The Black Lives Matter movement has brought to attention racism in our policing, in the way we remember history. And in our society at large, it's also shining a light on the racism that's been ignored in our mainstream press for far too long. So a shocking example of this was highlighted by journalist Afoah Hersch, who on Tuesday shared a clip of an exchange she had with LBC's Nick Ferrari on an episode of Skies, The Pledge. Let's take a look. All over the world statues are coming down. In just the last couple of weeks, New York has removed from Central Park the statue of a doctor who tortured enslaved black women. India has brought down Lenin and Canadians have defaced statues of Queen Victoria. In Britain, Bristol has agreed to rename its famous musical, removing the name of Edward Coulston, one of the nation's most prolific slave traders. Now it's time to take a long, hard look at other hugely problematic figures we continue to glorify, such as Horatio Nelson, Dessel Rhodes, and yes, Winston Churchill. I'm not saying we should necessarily bring them down, take a deep breath everyone, but all options should be on the table. As the global movement to request in our so-called heroes shows, the thing that's clear is this, doing nothing, burying our heads in the sand and hoping this debate will go away is simply no longer an option. Hi Nick. And for, I really like you, but I wonder if I can remind you of some words you wrote concerning Britain. Please do. Britain. We have moved on from this era no more than the US from its slavery and segregationist past, the differences that America is now in the midst of a frenzied debate on what to do about it, whereas Britain in our inertia arrogance and intellectual laziness is not. I'm not bad do I? Well you could have been a bit snappy, but I won't worry about subbing it. I'm delighted to do, why do you stay in this country? If you take such a fence when you see Nelson's column, if you take such a fence when you hear Winston Churchill's name, who I would argue, if in the unlikely vendred anybody want to have a poll, I would say probably 80 to 90 percent of people would say that Winston Churchill did a good thing. I'm delighted that I see you at these Thursday. I'm delighted you up to stand. But if it offends you so much, how do you manage to stay here? I find that a really strange thing to say. So there's nothing in Britain that borders you. Sure, but I don't want to go down. So why would I leave an option? I don't want to be in the country. And the reason that I raised this critique, not to let you hate Britain, it's because I care about this country. I mean that is so shocking and outrageous to say why do you stay here? Would he have said that to a white person? No. Important to recognise that. I mean that video, like one of the ones we showed, for example, of the police racism earlier, that's a clip from a couple of years ago. But it's only just now got the attention of the public. It's only now just got public attention. So AfroHurshade, that on Tuesday yesterday, has now been shared what's been viewed three million times. So only now is the pressure coming up. I didn't know, obviously I didn't notice that two years ago. I didn't see that going viral on social media. As far as I can tell Ferrari has still never apologised in the independence right up at that video today, they say both Sky and LBC are yet to comment on what we just saw there. Aaron, your thoughts? Yes, disgusting. You shouldn't be working in the media if that's where he thinks. If a person of colour says I have an issue with a particular feature of this country, which as AfroHurshade says, I'm sure Nick Ferrari finds many things sort of displeasured about Britain. Nobody will say, well, you should piss off then. And the reason why people don't say that to him is because he's white. I think it's astonishing. If Nick Ferrari is not going to apologise for it, if Sky isn't going to apologise for it, then they've got no credibility on the issue. I don't think his style should be doing things when I'll be seeing when Nick Ferrari if he want to apologise for it. He's a racist. If he's not going to apologise for that, Nick Ferrari is a racist. If Sky aren't going to apologise for that, they are giving a platform happily to racists. Not good enough. Really not good enough. You can give all the funding you want and the public relations, which Sky have done. But if you're not doing on the thing that matters as a media company, your content, you're failing. Someone else who should apologise. And who's again, what's ridiculous here is how overdue this is, right? This was two years ago, obviously, AfroHurshade found it very upsetting, but the issue didn't get any traction. And we've seen over and over again that racism is completely acceptable in our mainstream press. And one place where it is acceptable over and over again is in the Times Britain's paper of record. So in Monday's Times, this isn't something that's just been unearthed. This was this week. Melanie Phillips wrote a column under the headline, we're giving in to the race revolutionaries. It's already a headline that begs a lot of questions, but let's go to what was actually in the article because it's worse. Can we get up this quote? So yet, having been inculcated with the unchallenged belief that they are victims of white society, black people believe that any disadvantage they may suffer is not the result of bad luck. Circumstances beyond anyone's control or perish the fault, their own behaviour, but must be the product of white racism. So that's Melanie Phillips, regular columnist at the Times in Britain's paper of record, right after a black-wise matter movement, which is putting racial justice at the top of the political agenda. And she thinks it's acceptable in the Times, thinks it's acceptable. I think we should focus on the institutions, not the individuals, because I don't think Melanie Phillips would mind if you called her racist. But the paper of record should be held to higher standards. And this idea, she's saying, black people believe that any disadvantage they may suffer is not the result of bad luck. Circumstances beyond anyone's control or perish the fault their own behaviour. So she's basically saying, or black people think their victims of racism, when actually the reason they have disadvantages in societies because they didn't bother to work hard enough. There were some changes to it. So the Times did realise that they probably had crossed a line here, but they were really minor. So where it originally said black people believe that any disadvantage they may suffer is not the result of bad luck or their own behaviour, etc. It's changed to too many black people believe that. So the concession they've made is that instead of saying all black people, they're saying too many black people have this sort of victim complex where they think that any misfortune is because of racism, which obviously is dismissing the fact that racism is significant in this country and they remove parish before, presumably because they thought it was just too dismissive and awful. The Times also had a lead today that was basically a commentary on the statues. And I was sort of expecting them to say, let's be careful about figures like Winston Churchill who have complex histories, etc. But no, they decided to do an outright defence of basically slavery and colonialism saying, at the time everyone thought it was fine. So we shouldn't judge people by today's standards. So they were basically saying that people like Rhodes, they should stay up because everyone thought that time colonialism was spreading civilization. So who are we to judge? Aaron, what do you make of that Philips comment piece? And I suppose what the Times deems to be acceptable? Obviously a murder-cone paper, he's someone who's used to publishing out and out awful racism, but that's supposed to be an establishment middle class intellectual outlet. Well, she's not alone. If you think of the Sunday Times, Rod Little, there's a range of sort of figures like this, Charles Corrin. But I think the fact she's been quoted at length by Anders Brevick probably tells you, we need to know about the content of her politics. But what I find interesting again is that like Darren Grimes, Leightonick Ferrari, these aren't kind of crazed political figures on the periphery of our conversation as a country. She's on the BBC every week. She goes on the BBC question time, she'll be on the daily politics and so on. Again, she's a really racist lady. She was the lady that coined the term Londoner Stan. I think in the mid-2000s, she will quite actively say that Muslims aren't welcome in Europe. She says it's probably a bit more explicitly than Douglas Murray. So she's got views which I wouldn't really say fit in in a sort of a free democratic society. But she seems to be fine. She seems to be immune from criticism. And what's interesting is she wrote for the Times, she wrote for, I think she still writes the Jewish Chronicle. These are publications which have called out racism in the Labour Party. Some people agree on whether or not. I would say that their level of criticism is inadequate to the scale of the problem. People can disagree about that. But surely we can all agree that somebody who says this shouldn't be writing for those very same publications. Really, just stinks.