# Ask Me Anything August 2026

An episode of [Simple English News Daily](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1505603790), 29 Aug 2026, 39 min.

Audio: https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/op3.dev/e/adbarker.com/stream/K1GF85x83ZWP88Cz18NfA8bx/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/74749647/ama_august_26.mp3

Stephen answers listeners' questions. Become a supporter at send7.supercast.com

## Transcript

[0:01] Speaker 1: Hi, this is Stephen, and this is the Ask Me
[0:04] Speaker 1: Anything episode for August 2026. All of these questions have
[0:09] Speaker 1: been sent over the last few weeks. We have a
[0:12] Speaker 1: nice mix of some news-based questions, some controversial questions, and
[0:17] Speaker 1: some personal questions as well. By the end of this episode,
[0:21] Speaker 1: you will know how much money this podcast makes, and
[0:24] Speaker 1: how much we give to charity, my thoughts about the
[0:27] Speaker 1: new Prime Minister Andy Burnham, whether I think that the
[0:30] Speaker 1: wars in Iran and Ukraine will connect with each other,
[0:34] Speaker 1: what football team I support, and other things. If you
[0:39] Speaker 1: are thinking about becoming a supporter, then you should do
[0:42] Speaker 1: it now, as our prices will go up in September.
[0:45] Speaker 1: Supporters listen without adverts and have bonus episodes, get transcripts,
[0:49] Speaker 1: vocabulary lists, worksheets, and world news quizzes, and we give
[0:54] Speaker 1: 10% of our profit to charity. You'll soon see how
[0:57] Speaker 1: much that is. You can become a supporter by clicking
[1:00] Speaker 1: the link in the description of this episode or by
[1:03] Speaker 1: going to send7. org support. If you sign up before September,
[1:07] Speaker 1: you will keep our old lower price. Okay, we're actually
[1:12] Speaker 1: going to start with the same person who gave the
[1:15] Speaker 1: first question in the last Ask Me Anything episode because
[1:18] Speaker 1: he's got so much energy that he will really make
[1:21] Speaker 1: you pay attention. Here's Mark from Australia.
[1:25] Speaker 2: Well, hello, hello, hello, Stephen Devacenzi and the gang at
[1:30] Speaker 2: Send7 News Daily. You guys do such a great job.
[1:34] Speaker 2: It is Mark here from Perth, Western Australia. Keep up
[1:40] Speaker 2: the good work. You guys are doing such an amazing job.
[1:43] Speaker 2: I do have some questions for you. They might be
[1:46] Speaker 2: a little bit personal. Maybe you don't want to answer them.
[1:48] Speaker 2: First of all, you talk about you give, I think,
[1:50] Speaker 2: 10% to charity. What's the reason for that? Because surely
[1:54] Speaker 2: the podcast wouldn't make that much money and you need
[1:57] Speaker 2: to survive. So what's the reason for that? Or do
[1:59] Speaker 2: you earn a lot of money? Stephen? I'm curious, what
[2:04] Speaker 2: is the age of you? I'm going to take a
[2:05] Speaker 2: guess and say you're 24. That's just a guess. And
[2:09] Speaker 2: would you ever consider video live streaming the news broadcast
[2:14] Speaker 2: every morning?
[2:15] Speaker 1: Yeah, where do you record from?
[2:17] Speaker 2: So many questions. You guys are doing such an awesome job. 5,000
[2:21] Speaker 2: stars out of five.
[2:22] Speaker 3: Well done.
[2:23] Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Mark, for that wonderful message and compliments.
[2:28] Speaker 1: I think I've counted about four questions there. So here
[2:31] Speaker 1: we go. Why do we give money to charity? Yeah,
[2:35] Speaker 1: that's right. We give 10% of our profit to charity.
[2:39] Speaker 1: I'll tell exactly how much that is in a minute
[2:42] Speaker 1: when I answer your second question about how much money
[2:44] Speaker 1: we make. But the reason for giving this money to
[2:48] Speaker 1: charity is really just because I believe in it. The
[2:51] Speaker 1: world is full of terrible things. We talk about them
[2:54] Speaker 1: a lot on this podcast, but I think we all
[2:57] Speaker 1: have the ability to make the world better. The money
[3:01] Speaker 1: that this podcast gives goes to an organisation called GiveWell.
[3:05] Speaker 1: GiveWell does its own research about which charities are the
[3:09] Speaker 1: most effective charities in the world in terms of saving
[3:13] Speaker 1: people's lives or improving people's lives for the lowest cost.
[3:17] Speaker 1: Very often these are charities related to malaria and most
[3:21] Speaker 1: of the money that this podcast has given to charity
[3:24] Speaker 1: has gone to malaria charities. Later this year, I'm planning
[3:28] Speaker 1: to have the head of one of those malaria charities
[3:31] Speaker 1: as a guest on the podcast. If you want to
[3:34] Speaker 1: hear me talk about this a bit more, you should
[3:36] Speaker 1: listen to an episode that was released last December in
[3:40] Speaker 1: which I was talking to James Rayton, who works for
[3:43] Speaker 1: Giving What We Can, which is a community of people
[3:46] Speaker 1: who have all pledged to give 10% of their income
[3:49] Speaker 1: to charity. One of the greatest feelings I've ever had
[3:53] Speaker 1: from running this podcast is was after that episode was
[3:56] Speaker 1: released when James told me that a listener to that
[4:00] Speaker 1: episode decided to make the 10% pledge as well. That
[4:04] Speaker 1: was incredible. I decided to make the 10% pledge for
[4:08] Speaker 1: the podcast, but effectively it's basically the same as having
[4:12] Speaker 1: made it for myself because what I and my family
[4:15] Speaker 1: live on is the profit of this podcast. Which brings
[4:19] Speaker 1: us to your next question, Mark. You said, surely we
[4:23] Speaker 1: don't make much money. Last year, the profit of the
[4:26] Speaker 1: podcast was just under £ 22, 000. So that is the money
[4:31] Speaker 1: that was left over after paying all the podcast's bills,
[4:34] Speaker 1: people other than me and tax. So £ 22, 000 is what
[4:38] Speaker 1: I have to live on after that. This year, I
[4:41] Speaker 1: think it will be about the same, maybe a tiny
[4:43] Speaker 1: bit more. Before going full time on the podcast, I
[4:47] Speaker 1: was working as a teacher and I actually made a
[4:50] Speaker 1: bit more than what I do now, but I don't care.
[4:53] Speaker 1: I'm happy and it's enough. Yes, Mark, so how much
[4:57] Speaker 1: did we give to charity last year? 10% of just
[4:59] Speaker 1: under £ 22, 000. It was £ 2, 199.
[5:00] Speaker 2: 25.
[5:00] Speaker 1: That's almost € 2, 600. Okay, how old am I? You said 24.
[5:02] Speaker 1: Maybe you've never seen me on video before. Listeners, how
[5:05] Speaker 1: old do you think I am?
[5:07] Speaker 4: Say a number.
[5:08] Speaker 1: I am 35. 35. And your last question, would we
[5:28] Speaker 1: do video live streaming of the news broadcast? There's been
[5:32] Speaker 1: a big push towards video in podcasting over the last
[5:35] Speaker 1: couple of years, but I think it's very unlikely that
[5:38] Speaker 1: we would do it. I might do a random one
[5:41] Speaker 1: just for fun, but doing it on a daily basis
[5:44] Speaker 1: is much more difficult than it seems. Firstly, we record
[5:47] Speaker 1: in different places. I have my own studio where I
[5:50] Speaker 1: record at home and Juliet and Ben record in their
[5:53] Speaker 1: homes as well. With my family, we spend six or
[5:56] Speaker 1: eight weeks in Spain each year, so I would have
[5:59] Speaker 1: to think about setting that up properly as well. The
[6:02] Speaker 1: amount of time it takes to make a single audio
[6:04] Speaker 1: episode is four or five hours for a seven-minute show.
[6:08] Speaker 1: The truth is, most of that is selecting the news
[6:11] Speaker 1: and writing it, but if the recording and editing process
[6:14] Speaker 1: takes longer, because it's in video as well, then this
[6:17] Speaker 1: could be a big problem for a daily show. Also,
[6:21] Speaker 1: I'm just not convinced that that many people would prefer
[6:24] Speaker 1: to watch us instead of just listening. I do a
[6:27] Speaker 1: survey every year, giving people the chance to say what
[6:31] Speaker 1: they would like to see in the future. And in
[6:33] Speaker 1: the last survey of over 400 people, I think only
[6:36] Speaker 1: one person said that they would like video. It would
[6:39] Speaker 1: be really demotivating if we put in lots of extra time,
[6:43] Speaker 1: money and effort into making this a video podcast and
[6:47] Speaker 1: then hardly anyone actually watched it. Maybe people might watch
[6:51] Speaker 1: it once for the novelty and then go back to
[6:54] Speaker 1: just listening. Also, when I've done surveys, most people say
[6:57] Speaker 1: that they are doing something else while they are listening,
[7:00] Speaker 1: like walking, driving a car, cleaning the house, preparing food
[7:04] Speaker 1: or something. So these people are not going to be
[7:06] Speaker 1: watching the video. Then, because unlike you, Mark, most of
[7:11] Speaker 1: the people listening are improving their English, lots of people
[7:14] Speaker 1: are looking at the words at the same time. So
[7:16] Speaker 1: they are probably not going to watch the video either.
[7:20] Speaker 1: Let's check, shall we? You, listener, what are you doing
[7:24] Speaker 1: right now? You're listening to me, yes, but are you
[7:29] Speaker 1: only listening to me or are you doing something else too?
[7:33] Speaker 1: Leave a comment if you can do that in your app.
[7:36] Speaker 1: I'll make a poll in Spotify as well. Anyway, that
[7:40] Speaker 1: was a very long answer to say, probably not. There's
[7:43] Speaker 1: so much video content out there. Isn't it good to
[7:46] Speaker 1: have something for your ears when your eyes are busy?
[7:48] Speaker 1: I think so.
[7:50] Speaker 5: Hi, my name is Rafał Zelewski, I'm from Poland. I
[7:53] Speaker 5: have one request for you. Could you give one sentence,
[8:00] Speaker 5: for example, in the vocabulary list? I think it could
[8:03] Speaker 5: be better to understand and to remember the new word
[8:11] Speaker 5: in the sentence.
[8:14] Speaker 1: Thank you, Rafael. That is a great idea. In fact,
[8:18] Speaker 1: it's such a good idea that we've started doing it
[8:20] Speaker 1: this week. If you look at the vocabulary lists from
[8:23] Speaker 1: the last few days, they now have an example sentence
[8:26] Speaker 1: or phrase for each word, which is slightly different to
[8:29] Speaker 1: how it is found in the podcast. I hope you
[8:31] Speaker 1: like it, Rafael. At the moment, I'm also working on
[8:34] Speaker 1: making a better experience of reading the transcripts at the
[8:37] Speaker 1: same time as listening to the podcast. This is my
[8:40] Speaker 1: top priority at the over the next month or two.
[8:45] Speaker 6: Hi, Steven. I'm Davide from Milano, Italy. I have a question,
[8:50] Speaker 6: but actually it's more an idea than a question. I
[8:54] Speaker 6: was wondering if, from time to time, you could make
[8:58] Speaker 6: a bonus episode about what we call constructive news. It
[9:05] Speaker 6: would be great to hear a story about a real
[9:07] Speaker 6: problem in the world, but also about the people and
[9:10] Speaker 6: the organization trying to solve them. It could be about healthcare, education, technology,
[9:16] Speaker 6: the environment, science, or social projects. Maybe an episode once
[9:23] Speaker 6: a month looking at the positive solution and progress from
[9:28] Speaker 6: the previous month. I also think it will be a
[9:32] Speaker 6: great opportunity for English learners to hear new vocabulary outside
[9:37] Speaker 6: the usual language of war, conflict, and disasters. And of course,
[9:43] Speaker 6: It would be fantastic to hear this story from your voice,
[9:49] Speaker 6: which so many of us have become very fond of
[9:55] Speaker 6: after listening to Sense7 for so long. So that's my idea.
[9:59] Speaker 6: Thank you, Stephen.
[10:00] Speaker 1: Hi, Davide. That is an absolutely fantastic idea. Actually, I've
[10:04] Speaker 1: been thinking about creating some kind of good news episodes occasionally,
[10:09] Speaker 1: but I think I like this idea of constructive news
[10:12] Speaker 1: even more. Rather than just looking for stories because they
[10:16] Speaker 1: are positive, it would be looking for stories which show progress.
[10:20] Speaker 1: and how people are tackling real problems. Recently, the podcast
[10:23] Speaker 1: has changed its supporters system, and now supporters like you, Davide,
[10:28] Speaker 1: have access to the Purple podcast feed, which gives bonus episodes.
[10:32] Speaker 1: Until now, the bonus episodes have just been an audio
[10:35] Speaker 1: recording of the Friday World News Quiz, but I'm planning
[10:39] Speaker 1: to release some supporter-only episodes in the future. I think
[10:43] Speaker 1: that they might be a mix of some conversations and
[10:46] Speaker 1: also some constructive news, like you suggest. Thank you. Here
[10:51] Speaker 1: is a question from Fatima in Iran. Fatima always gives
[10:56] Speaker 1: me something difficult to answer. You can listen to the
[10:59] Speaker 1: last few Ask Me Anything episodes to hear more difficult
[11:02] Speaker 1: questions like this from Fatima. The question is long, so
[11:06] Speaker 1: I will tell you when it finishes. Here it is.
[11:09] Speaker 1: How can someone trust news agencies that not only fail
[11:13] Speaker 1: to report the full truth, but also present it in
[11:16] Speaker 1: a way that encourages specific impressions? I see clear examples
[11:21] Speaker 1: in my own region, West Asia. The Palestinian conflict is
[11:25] Speaker 1: often portrayed as if it began on October 7th, even
[11:28] Speaker 1: though it has lasted for decades. When a group resists occupation,
[11:33] Speaker 1: it is labelled terrorist, while the occupying force is described
[11:37] Speaker 1: with terms like defensive. To put it more clearly, Israelis
[11:41] Speaker 1: commit atrocities in Palestine every day. They have occupied Palestinian
[11:45] Speaker 1: land 80 years ago, and since then they have been
[11:48] Speaker 1: displacing its people depriving them of the basic necessities of
[11:52] Speaker 1: life and taking them captive, where they are brutally tortured.
[11:56] Speaker 1: But in the news, it's portrayed as if everything began
[11:59] Speaker 1: on October 7th, whereas the conflict started nearly 80 years ago.
[12:04] Speaker 1: And when a group like Hamas stands up and resists,
[12:06] Speaker 1: they are labelled as terrorists. Israel also invades Lebanon, Syria
[12:11] Speaker 1: and Iran and threatens other countries. Then they call their
[12:14] Speaker 1: most aggressive army defensive and any nation and group like Hamas, Hezbollah,
[12:20] Speaker 1: the IRGC, that resist and stand against their expansionism, are terrorists.
[12:25] Speaker 1: This asymmetry appears elsewhere too. The US and Israel attacked Iran,
[12:31] Speaker 1: they damaged homes, hospitals, bridges and industries, and killed innocent people,
[12:35] Speaker 1: including 168 children from Minab, in deliberately bombing a school.
[12:41] Speaker 1: And when Iran responded to attacks on its territory, targeted
[12:45] Speaker 1: the US bases and interests in regional countries in self-defence,
[12:49] Speaker 1: some of the media framed Iran as the aggressor. As
[12:53] Speaker 1: another instance, last winter, international outlets extensively covered the protests
[12:57] Speaker 1: in Iran, yet paid little attention to large public rallies
[13:00] Speaker 1: in support of the government. These supportive gatherings still happen
[13:04] Speaker 1: every night. To me, this suggests these outlets are not
[13:07] Speaker 1: simply reporting the news, they are framing them to create
[13:11] Speaker 1: a certain picture. I could add more examples, but I'll
[13:14] Speaker 1: keep this email brief. That's it. Okay, thank you Fatima
[13:20] Speaker 1: for that great question, or set of questions. There is
[13:25] Speaker 1: some truth to what you say, but I disagree with
[13:28] Speaker 1: many things that you've said, and I'm going to try
[13:30] Speaker 1: to mention all of the things that I think you
[13:33] Speaker 1: have gotten wrong. You say that the media often portrays
[13:36] Speaker 1: the Israel-Palestine conflict as if it started on October 7th.
[13:41] Speaker 1: I don't see that in the media that I read,
[13:43] Speaker 1: so maybe we are reading different things. About the word
[13:46] Speaker 1: terrorist … It depends on the organisation, but many of
[13:50] Speaker 1: the sources that this podcast uses, like Reuters, the Associated Press,
[13:54] Speaker 1: the BBC, The Guardian, they don't use the word terrorist
[13:58] Speaker 1: unless it's in a quote. That's what we do on
[14:00] Speaker 1: Sense7 as well. Like this, we don't have to make
[14:03] Speaker 1: any judgement ourselves about whether or not a group is
[14:06] Speaker 1: a terrorist group. Not even for a group that practically
[14:10] Speaker 1: everyone would agree is a terrorist group, like Daesh, ISIS.
[14:15] Speaker 1: Something else that you said that I think is wrong
[14:18] Speaker 1: is that you said that the US bombing of a
[14:20] Speaker 1: school which killed 168 children was deliberate. Honestly, I can't
[14:25] Speaker 1: believe that you think that. Why would the US want
[14:28] Speaker 1: to kill loads of children?
[14:30] Speaker 6: No.
[14:31] Speaker 1: In the week following that awful airstrike, I read lots
[14:34] Speaker 1: of in-depth reporting from the New York Times, The Guardian,
[14:38] Speaker 1: and some other publications, and I think that it is
[14:40] Speaker 1: pretty clear what happened there. The US used lots of
[14:44] Speaker 1: missiles to hit an IRGC base in and one of
[14:47] Speaker 1: the buildings that used to be part of the IRGC
[14:50] Speaker 1: base was turned into a school a few years ago.
[14:54] Speaker 1: Let me be clear, there is absolutely no excuse for
[14:58] Speaker 1: the bombing of this school. The United States should have
[15:01] Speaker 1: the best intelligence in the world, and something as terrible
[15:04] Speaker 1: as this should have never happened. It is inexcusable, and
[15:09] Speaker 1: the responsibility is completely with the United States. but I
[15:13] Speaker 1: am certain that this was an accident, and I think
[15:15] Speaker 1: that perhaps the only reason that you think that it
[15:17] Speaker 1: was deliberate is because you hate the US so much.
[15:22] Speaker 1: You also said, international outlets extensively covered the protests in Iran,
[15:26] Speaker 1: yet paid little attention to large public rallies in support
[15:30] Speaker 1: of the government. Again, I totally disagree with this. I
[15:35] Speaker 1: often saw large public rallies supporting the government in the media,
[15:38] Speaker 1: including during the protests and since the start of this war. However,
[15:43] Speaker 1: during the protests in January, I think that it was
[15:46] Speaker 1: legitimate that there was extensive coverage of the protests. According
[15:50] Speaker 1: to many human rights organisations and news organisations covering these protests,
[15:55] Speaker 1: the Islamic Republic of Iran security forces killed over 30,000 protesters.
[16:01] Speaker 1: That is massive news. In fact, it's a lot more
[16:04] Speaker 1: people than have been killed in the war with the
[16:07] Speaker 1: US and Israel. Even the Islamic Republic government admitted that
[16:11] Speaker 1: over 3,000 people had died. At the same time, the
[16:15] Speaker 1: regime started what is probably the biggest internet blackout in
[16:19] Speaker 1: world history, in my opinion, because they are scared of
[16:22] Speaker 1: their own people and stopping communication is the best form
[16:26] Speaker 1: of controlling them. Lastly, your main question overall was right
[16:30] Speaker 1: at the start. You said, how can someone trust news
[16:33] Speaker 1: agencies that not only fail to report the full truth,
[16:37] Speaker 1: but also present it in a way that encourages specific impressions.
[16:42] Speaker 1: I think that it is up to us as individuals
[16:44] Speaker 1: to try to see through the biases of the media
[16:47] Speaker 1: and for us to recognise that some media is better
[16:51] Speaker 1: than others. Unfortunately, I think that media from your country, Iran,
[16:55] Speaker 1: is much less likely to tell the truth than media
[16:59] Speaker 1: from Norway, Poland or Costa Rica. The reason for that
[17:04] Speaker 1: is that it is much more controlled and much less
[17:07] Speaker 1: free than in other countries. The Media Freedom Index ranks
[17:12] Speaker 1: Iran as the fourth worst country in the world for
[17:15] Speaker 1: media freedom, only beating China, North Korea, and Eritrea. Reporters
[17:20] Speaker 1: Without Borders says about Iran, Journalists and independent media outlets
[17:26] Speaker 1: in Iran are constantly subjected to arbitrary arrests and very
[17:30] Speaker 1: heavy sentences following grossly unfair trials before revolutionary courts. unquote.
[17:38] Speaker 1: Just think, would it be possible in Iran for someone
[17:42] Speaker 1: to start an anti-regime radio station? Would it be possible
[17:46] Speaker 1: for someone to write opinion pieces for a newspaper in
[17:50] Speaker 1: which it says that all the current leaders should be removed,
[17:54] Speaker 1: including the supreme leader? That is totally possible in my country,
[17:59] Speaker 1: and it happens every day. I can say on this
[18:02] Speaker 1: podcast that the prime minister should resign and that the
[18:05] Speaker 1: monarchy should be abolished, and I have absolutely no worry
[18:09] Speaker 1: that anything will happen to me. Could you do the same?
[18:14] Speaker 1: If not, then there is no freedom of media in
[18:16] Speaker 1: your country. Okay, thank you Fatima. Just to get a
[18:21] Speaker 1: completely different perspective from Iran, this was sent to me
[18:24] Speaker 1: by someone who wanted to remain anonymous a few weeks
[18:28] Speaker 1: after the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This
[18:32] Speaker 1: is probably not very scientific of me to say especially
[18:36] Speaker 1: as a scientist myself, but I'd say 100% of the
[18:39] Speaker 1: people I know were very happy when they were sure
[18:43] Speaker 1: he had been eliminated. As for me, the best case
[18:46] Speaker 1: scenario would have been for him to be put on
[18:49] Speaker 1: trial so that everything could come to light publicly. His
[18:53] Speaker 1: decisions during Covid, the orders and actions that led to
[18:56] Speaker 1: the killings of protesters over the years, and the policies
[19:00] Speaker 1: and rhetoric used to restrict and punish women who refused
[19:04] Speaker 1: compulsory hijab. But ultimately, I believe someone whose leadership was
[19:09] Speaker 1: causing so much suffering and damaging Iranian lives every day
[19:13] Speaker 1: needed to be removed from power. In my view, you
[19:16] Speaker 1: cannot begin to heal a country while the source of
[19:19] Speaker 1: the damage is still actively spreading. That was an anonymous
[19:25] Speaker 1: listener from Iran who sent that a few weeks after
[19:29] Speaker 1: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed. All right, and
[19:33] Speaker 1: I've actually got one more question from someone in Iran
[19:36] Speaker 1: who also wanted to remain anonymous. But it's about something
[19:40] Speaker 1: completely different. Here it is.
[19:42] Speaker 4: Hi, Stefan. First of all, thank you for the podcast.
[19:47] Speaker 4: I've been a regular listener for almost six years and
[19:53] Speaker 4: I really appreciate your podcast. I have a question that
[20:00] Speaker 4: I've been thinking about lately. Do you think the Iran-USA
[20:08] Speaker 4: conflict and Russia-Ukraine war could eventually become more connected and
[20:17] Speaker 4: at some point merge into one large conflict, considering the
[20:24] Speaker 4: relationship between Iran and Russia and the involvement of USA
[20:32] Speaker 4: and Western countries. I'm curious to hear how you see
[20:37] Speaker 4: this developing.
[20:41] Speaker 1: That is a great question. And the answer is basically no.
[20:45] Speaker 1: I don't see these wars becoming more connected. These wars
[20:49] Speaker 1: are completely different from each other. In fact, the only
[20:52] Speaker 1: thing that they really have in common is that the
[20:55] Speaker 1: person who started them thought that they would finish quickly.
[20:59] Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin thought that Ukraine would be easy to conquer.
[21:02] Speaker 1: which is why he invaded from all sides and tried
[21:05] Speaker 1: to capture Kyiv in 2022. He probably had unreliable information
[21:10] Speaker 1: that made him think that his army was much better,
[21:13] Speaker 1: Ukraine's army was much worse, and that a larger proportion
[21:16] Speaker 1: of people in Ukraine actually wanted a Russian intervention. He
[21:21] Speaker 1: was wrong. Likewise, when Donald Trump started this war on Iran,
[21:25] Speaker 1: he probably thought that by killing the Supreme Leader and
[21:28] Speaker 1: many other leaders, and by bombing lots of military sites,
[21:31] Speaker 1: that somehow the regime would collapse. He was wrong too,
[21:35] Speaker 1: and now he is struggling to find a way out.
[21:38] Speaker 1: But apart from that, these wars have almost nothing in common.
[21:42] Speaker 1: Putin is genuinely trying to conquer Ukraine. At first, he
[21:45] Speaker 1: was trying to conquer all of Ukraine, probably to set
[21:48] Speaker 1: up a pro-Russian government like in Belarus or something like that.
[21:52] Speaker 1: Now he's just trying to conquer the East so that
[21:54] Speaker 1: he can finally declare a victory. But the US is
[21:57] Speaker 1: not trying to conquer Iran, It probably did want some
[22:00] Speaker 1: kind of regime change. However, I think that this is
[22:04] Speaker 1: really secondary to the US desire to stop Iran from
[22:07] Speaker 1: funding militias all over the Middle East, like the Houthis
[22:11] Speaker 1: in Yemen, Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and various
[22:14] Speaker 1: groups in Iraq. And also, there is probably some truth
[22:20] Speaker 1: in what Donald Trump always says about wanting to stop
[22:22] Speaker 1: Iran from having a nuclear weapon, although I doubt that
[22:25] Speaker 1: there was any real reason for doing that this summer.
[22:28] Speaker 1: But fundamentally, the reason that I can't see these two
[22:31] Speaker 1: wars joining up is because the supposedly allied sides are
[22:36] Speaker 1: not allied enough, and because I just can't see other
[22:39] Speaker 1: countries actually joining the fighting in either way. Ukraine is
[22:43] Speaker 1: being supported by loads of countries, but it really is
[22:47] Speaker 1: essentially a war between Ukraine and Russia. The only other
[22:51] Speaker 1: army that has done any fighting is from North Korea.
[22:55] Speaker 1: Russia likes to suggest that this is a proxy war,
[22:57] Speaker 1: but I think that that framing denies the free agency
[23:01] Speaker 1: of Ukraine. I think that even if all other countries
[23:04] Speaker 1: removed support from Ukraine, like the US has basically done,
[23:08] Speaker 1: Ukraine would still fight. Today, the vast majority of the
[23:12] Speaker 1: weapons that Ukraine uses are made in Ukraine. It seems
[23:17] Speaker 1: unlikely to me that any Ukraine-supporting country will directly fight
[23:20] Speaker 1: Russia in Ukraine. Iran and Russia are supposedly allies, but
[23:25] Speaker 1: I think that this is mostly just because of convenience.
[23:28] Speaker 1: rather than anything else. They don't have a similar vision
[23:31] Speaker 1: for the world. They support each other with certain weapons
[23:34] Speaker 1: and trade, but it seems very unlikely that they would
[23:37] Speaker 1: get more involved in each other's wars. Okay, here's a
[23:41] Speaker 1: question from Konstantin in Belarus. How do you choose the
[23:46] Speaker 1: colours for your podcast? Are there any principles behind the choices,
[23:49] Speaker 1: or is it completely random? Thank you, and I wish
[23:52] Speaker 1: you all the best. Thank you, Konstantin. It's not completely random.
[23:56] Speaker 1: I chose the original black and green colours in 2020
[23:59] Speaker 1: when I first started the podcast. I don't know exactly
[24:02] Speaker 1: why I chose them, but I think I wanted something
[24:04] Speaker 1: that would stand out in people's podcast apps. I think
[24:08] Speaker 1: I made the current Send7 logo in 2021. However, the
[24:12] Speaker 1: use of orange and purple is not random. That is
[24:15] Speaker 1: because I checked which colours match the black and green
[24:19] Speaker 1: colour scheme and I was recommended the orange and purple
[24:22] Speaker 1: that you sometimes see on the website. Recently, when I
[24:25] Speaker 1: was choosing the new logo for the new supporters podcast feed,
[24:29] Speaker 1: I tried orange and purple, but I thought that the
[24:32] Speaker 1: purple one looked better. And here's a question from Masako
[24:36] Speaker 1: in Japan. Hi, Stephen. I recently started listening to your
[24:39] Speaker 1: podcast and it helps me not only with my English study,
[24:42] Speaker 1: but also with keeping my life steady since I've been
[24:45] Speaker 1: going through a lot lately. My question is, what is
[24:48] Speaker 1: your favourite stress reliever? Thank you always for your hard work.
[24:53] Speaker 1: Thank you, Masako. I hope that you are well. I
[24:56] Speaker 1: think probably my favourite stress reliever is just walking. I
[25:00] Speaker 1: walk a lot. Before my son was born last year,
[25:03] Speaker 1: I used to walk by myself all the time around
[25:06] Speaker 1: the city I live in, Canterbury. And now I walk
[25:09] Speaker 1: with him in the pushchair. I also play badminton and
[25:12] Speaker 1: football once a week. I also absolutely love travelling, especially
[25:15] Speaker 1: to places I've never been before. Although really, my favourite
[25:18] Speaker 1: thing to do when I'm in another country is also
[25:21] Speaker 1: just walking around. I've just said the word football, so
[25:24] Speaker 1: I think it's time to answer this question from Jano
[25:27] Speaker 1: in Germany. Are you interested in football? And if so,
[25:31] Speaker 1: which club do you support? Thank you, Jano. I do
[25:35] Speaker 1: like football, but I haven't really followed it much since
[25:38] Speaker 1: I was a teenager. My team is Arsenal, but I
[25:41] Speaker 1: can't even name many of their players these days. However,
[25:45] Speaker 1: every two years when there is either the World Cup
[25:48] Speaker 1: or the Euros, I watch as many games as I can.
[25:51] Speaker 1: For some reason, I find that very fun. I think
[25:53] Speaker 1: in the last World Cup, I watched more than half
[25:56] Speaker 1: of all the games. And apart from watching, I also
[25:59] Speaker 1: play five-a-side football on Fridays with a group of amateur
[26:03] Speaker 1: middle-aged people like me. Maurizio in Italy says, What is
[26:08] Speaker 1: your opinion, as an Englishman, about the change of Prime Minister?
[26:12] Speaker 1: It is the seventh since Brexit. It is concerning, in
[26:15] Speaker 1: my opinion, because it means a lack of ideas. Do
[26:18] Speaker 1: you agree? What do you expect from the new government?
[26:22] Speaker 1: I partially agree with the rapid change of prime ministers
[26:25] Speaker 1: being caused by a lack of ideas, but I think
[26:27] Speaker 1: there have been other major factors as well. I'll go
[26:30] Speaker 1: through the seven prime ministers in order and say why
[26:34] Speaker 1: I think each of them didn't last long. Firstly, David
[26:38] Speaker 1: Cameron resigned because of Brexit, because he campaigned against it. Secondly,
[26:43] Speaker 1: Theresa May had an impossible task to try to navigate
[26:47] Speaker 1: how to implement the Brexit decision while having a parliament
[26:51] Speaker 1: in which most MPs were against Brexit. She tried to
[26:55] Speaker 1: make compromises, but she couldn't even get her own Conservative
[26:58] Speaker 1: MPs to agree. So, after three years, she was replaced
[27:02] Speaker 1: by someone who supported Brexit. Number three, Boris Johnson. Johnson
[27:07] Speaker 1: was divisive, but relatively popular with the public. However, he
[27:11] Speaker 1: was eventually brought down by a series of scandals within
[27:14] Speaker 1: his government. Then, Conservative Party members chose number four, Liz Truss.
[27:20] Speaker 1: To me, this shows how ineffective internal elections are, as
[27:24] Speaker 1: Liz Truss was already unpopular among the public when she
[27:27] Speaker 1: became Prime Minister, but among members of the Conservative Party,
[27:31] Speaker 1: she was popular enough to beat Rishi Sunak in the
[27:34] Speaker 1: Conservative leadership election. I think that the downfall of Liz
[27:38] Speaker 1: Truss is quite unique in that it shows how she
[27:41] Speaker 1: never should have been able to become Prime Minister. Her
[27:44] Speaker 1: economic decisions scared the financial markets and damaged the economy
[27:49] Speaker 1: so quickly that that she had to resign after just
[27:51] Speaker 1: 44 days in office. Number five, Sunak then took Truss's
[27:56] Speaker 1: place as the leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister. However,
[28:00] Speaker 1: by this time, the public was already tired of the Conservatives.
[28:04] Speaker 1: I think if he had been leader at a different time,
[28:07] Speaker 1: then Sunak may have been popular, as he was while
[28:10] Speaker 1: he was Boris Johnson's Chancellor, Finance Minister. However, after 14
[28:15] Speaker 1: years of the Conservatives, much of which was dominated by
[28:18] Speaker 1: Brexit chaos, it was almost inevitable that he lost the
[28:22] Speaker 1: next election. Six, Keir Starmer won a large majority in
[28:27] Speaker 1: parliament in 2024 and was the first Labour Prime Minister
[28:31] Speaker 1: since 2010. With Starmer, the problem did seem to be
[28:35] Speaker 1: a lack of ideas, but also even the ideas that
[28:38] Speaker 1: he did have, he wasn't good at communicating. Still, how
[28:43] Speaker 1: unpopular he was did surprise me. Now we've got number seven,
[28:47] Speaker 1: Andy Burnham, who so far seems to be popular. He
[28:51] Speaker 1: even has a net positive approval rating, which means that
[28:54] Speaker 1: more people say they do approve of him than say
[28:58] Speaker 1: that they disapprove of him. That's very rare in British politics.
[29:02] Speaker 1: Burnham definitely seems to be better at communicating and has
[29:05] Speaker 1: come in with some popular ideas, like putting a maximum
[29:08] Speaker 1: price of a bus fare at two pounds. So even
[29:12] Speaker 1: though we've had seven prime ministers since 2016, I think
[29:15] Speaker 1: the reason that they haven't lasted long has generally been
[29:19] Speaker 1: for different reasons. Brexit for Cameron and May, scandals for Johnson,
[29:24] Speaker 1: incompetence for Truss, bad luck for Sunak, and bad communication
[29:29] Speaker 1: for Starmer. Here's some optimism. I'm pretty confident that Burnham
[29:34] Speaker 1: will be Prime Minister at the next general election in 2029,
[29:37] Speaker 1: and I even think it's quite likely that he will
[29:40] Speaker 1: win it. Okay, here is a long question from BB
[29:44] Speaker 1: in France. What is your opinion, Stephen, on the law
[29:47] Speaker 1: regarding assisted dying? A law was adopted in France, my country,
[29:52] Speaker 1: in July 2026, which authorises active assistance in dying but
[29:57] Speaker 1: under strict conditions. adult patients suffering from an uncurable and
[30:01] Speaker 1: serious illness, to have all of one's faculties to express
[30:05] Speaker 1: one's choice. I work in a palliative care unit in
[30:09] Speaker 1: France and we have been helping patients long before the
[30:12] Speaker 1: law was passed. However, this law is necessary. This law
[30:16] Speaker 1: helps prevent abuses, even though assisted dying has been practiced
[30:19] Speaker 1: for years. I think each person must have the right
[30:22] Speaker 1: to choose. I must admit that in France there are
[30:25] Speaker 1: a lack of palliative care units with healthcare staff specialising
[30:29] Speaker 1: in these treatments. Perhaps if physical and psychological pain were
[30:33] Speaker 1: better managed, patients would not request assisted dying. For religious reasons,
[30:38] Speaker 1: for ethical arguments, some people are opposed to assisted dying.
[30:42] Speaker 1: I understand and I respect these reasons. Thank you for
[30:45] Speaker 1: understanding and to answer this difficult question. Sincerely, Bibi. Thank you, Bibi. Yes,
[30:53] Speaker 1: this is a very difficult question, and I am sympathetic
[30:56] Speaker 1: to both sides of the argument. My general belief is
[31:00] Speaker 1: that euthanasia, assisted dying, should be legal in some way.
[31:06] Speaker 1: It seems wrong that in the 21st century there are
[31:09] Speaker 1: still people who know that they are going to die
[31:13] Speaker 1: suffering for a long time when they just want for
[31:15] Speaker 1: the end to come sooner. That seems wrong. But at
[31:19] Speaker 1: the same time, I can understand people's concerns about about
[31:22] Speaker 1: euthanasia being legal. It is also wrong that someone might
[31:26] Speaker 1: feel that they should end their life sooner to not
[31:30] Speaker 1: be a burden to other people. And there is even
[31:33] Speaker 1: the exceptionally rare cases in which people might not be
[31:37] Speaker 1: as close to death as they have been told, or
[31:40] Speaker 1: their suffering could be reduced. There's even the potential for
[31:44] Speaker 1: abuse in which someone is encouraged to end their life.
[31:48] Speaker 1: I think that that should be illegal. However, I think
[31:52] Speaker 1: that all of these things should be managed while allowing
[31:56] Speaker 1: people to end their suffering when they want to. At
[31:59] Speaker 1: the moment, we have a strange situation in Europe where
[32:02] Speaker 1: people travel to other countries, like Switzerland, in order to
[32:05] Speaker 1: end their lives because euthanasia laws are more relaxed. This
[32:09] Speaker 1: should not continue. Here is Luca in Italy.
[32:13] Speaker 3: Hi, Stefan. I would like to answer to your View
[32:16] Speaker 3: 7 August newsletter about Celta. As you know, I totally
[32:22] Speaker 3: agree with you. And as Italian, I'm ashamed to be
[32:26] Speaker 3: represented by this government, one of the worst in our
[32:30] Speaker 3: recent history, that rides over the ignorant people without any restraint,
[32:37] Speaker 3: and which is always in electoral campaign, despite there are
[32:41] Speaker 3: still in government for three years and nine months. These
[32:46] Speaker 3: are the results of our poor level of secondary education.
[32:53] Speaker 3: And if we don't fight together, it will always be worse,
[32:58] Speaker 3: especially for our sons and the next generation. Thank you
[33:03] Speaker 3: for the work you do and for the passion you
[33:05] Speaker 3: put it. It's only thanks to you if I've improved
[33:09] Speaker 3: in this year. Ciao, Luca.
[33:13] Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Luca. Luca was responding to something
[33:16] Speaker 1: that I wrote yesterday about the massive wave of migration
[33:20] Speaker 1: to the Spanish exclave of Celta a few weeks ago. Particularly,
[33:24] Speaker 1: I said that the response from the Italian Prime Minister,
[33:27] Speaker 1: Giorgio Maloney, didn't make any sense. Italy started to check
[33:31] Speaker 1: the passports of people coming from Spain to Italy. However,
[33:35] Speaker 1: people who are in Celta cannot freely travel to the
[33:39] Speaker 1: rest of Spain. The people who entered Celta have either
[33:42] Speaker 1: gone back to Morocco, or they're still in Celta. And
[33:46] Speaker 1: also there is no land border between Italy and Spain.
[33:49] Speaker 1: So they are only checking people arriving at airports. The
[33:53] Speaker 1: idea of somebody crossing into Celta and then somehow getting
[33:57] Speaker 1: to mainland Spain and then deciding to take a plane
[34:01] Speaker 1: to Italy is just completely ridiculous. Anyway, I wrote about
[34:05] Speaker 1: that in the newsletter. You should get the newsletter. It's
[34:08] Speaker 1: free and it comes out every Friday. Go to send7. org
[34:12] Speaker 1: slash newsletter. Seeing as we are talking about migration, Here
[34:16] Speaker 1: is another migration question. This is from Angelo in Italy.
[34:21] Speaker 1: What is your take on how the EU is handling
[34:24] Speaker 1: the migration situation, specifically regarding Mediterranean border countries like Spain
[34:30] Speaker 1: and Italy? Thank you, Angelo. It is a very mixed picture,
[34:35] Speaker 1: but overall I would say it's not good, especially in
[34:38] Speaker 1: terms of people taking small boats from Africa to Europe.
[34:42] Speaker 1: We're in a terrible situation in which almost nobody is happy,
[34:46] Speaker 1: Most people in Europe think that there is too much immigration,
[34:49] Speaker 1: and especially too much illegal immigration. Most people are not
[34:53] Speaker 1: happy with what their governments are doing in respect to
[34:56] Speaker 1: illegal immigration. Over 150,000 people crossed the sea from Africa
[35:02] Speaker 1: to enter Europe last year, with thousands of people dying.
[35:06] Speaker 1: And yet, although there is no data on this, I
[35:09] Speaker 1: would expect that there are still millions more people who
[35:12] Speaker 1: would like to enter Europe if they could. The number
[35:15] Speaker 1: of 150,000 is actually less than in 2024, but it
[35:19] Speaker 1: is still extremely high. And I'm not surprised. There is
[35:23] Speaker 1: a major war in Sudan, which has displaced millions of people,
[35:26] Speaker 1: and it doesn't look like it's going to end anytime soon.
[35:29] Speaker 1: There is ongoing conflict in Yemen, the Sahel region of Africa, Somalia,
[35:34] Speaker 1: the DRC, and other places. But really, even if there
[35:38] Speaker 1: wasn't any ongoing war, I would still expect there to
[35:42] Speaker 1: be a lot of people who would be willing to
[35:44] Speaker 1: take a small boat across the Mediterranean. We live in
[35:47] Speaker 1: a world in which smartphones are quite cheap and everyone
[35:52] Speaker 1: is on social media, including millions of people in poor countries.
[35:57] Speaker 1: The motivation for a young man to get on a
[36:00] Speaker 1: boat to Europe can simply be thinking that there are
[36:04] Speaker 1: no job opportunities in his hometown and seeing that other
[36:07] Speaker 1: people have successfully arrived in Europe and have been able
[36:11] Speaker 1: to stay. Because of this, my general position on immigration
[36:16] Speaker 1: is an unpopular one, and it is one that I
[36:19] Speaker 1: never hear other people say because it goes against both
[36:22] Speaker 1: the general principles of the political right and left. I
[36:27] Speaker 1: would actually like to increase migration overall, which is something
[36:31] Speaker 1: that the right is very against. This is because of
[36:35] Speaker 1: empathy for people who live in terrible situations. However, I
[36:39] Speaker 1: would like to reduce illegal immigration to zero and deport
[36:43] Speaker 1: people who arrive illegally, which is something that the left
[36:47] Speaker 1: is very against. In any system in which the people
[36:51] Speaker 1: who simply arrive are allowed to stay, then they are
[36:55] Speaker 1: taking the places of people who might deserve it more,
[36:58] Speaker 1: but don't have the ability to make this dangerous journey. Also,
[37:03] Speaker 1: the fact that people who arrive illegally are able to
[37:06] Speaker 1: stay just makes more people think that they will come illegally.
[37:11] Speaker 1: I think that what Australia did by saying that anyone
[37:14] Speaker 1: who arrives illegally will never be able to stay in
[37:17] Speaker 1: Australia was a great idea. They reduced illegal immigration by
[37:21] Speaker 1: sea to zero. Imagine the number of lives that would
[37:25] Speaker 1: be saved if Europe could do the same thing. It
[37:28] Speaker 1: would be thousands of people's lives saved every year In
[37:33] Speaker 1: order to meet our ethical commitments, then this policy should
[37:36] Speaker 1: also be combined with more legal routes of migrating and
[37:40] Speaker 1: increased development aid. Okay, that answer made me sound like
[37:45] Speaker 1: I was running for Prime Minister or something, so it's
[37:48] Speaker 1: probably time to end. Thank you to everyone who submitted
[37:51] Speaker 1: a question. If I didn't answer your question, please send
[37:55] Speaker 1: it again and I will try to answer it in
[37:57] Speaker 1: the next one. I hope you've had a great summer
[38:00] Speaker 1: or winter if you're in the Southern Hemisphere. Send7 will
[38:02] Speaker 1: be back five days a week from now on. Every Friday,
[38:06] Speaker 1: I put a little opinion piece in the newsletter. So
[38:09] Speaker 1: if you aren't getting that, you should. It's free. Sign
[38:12] Speaker 1: up at send7. org slash newsletter and help to support this
[38:16] Speaker 1: podcast by becoming a Send7 supporter at send7. org slash support.
[38:22] Speaker 1: If you have any questions, then write to me at
[38:25] Speaker 1: podcast at send7. org. Thank you. See you on Monday.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.