Latest / UK Column Radio / UK Column News — 5th October 2026

Transcript

UK Column News — 5th October 2026 · UK Column Radio

0:16
Speaker 1: Good afternoon. It's Monday, the 5th of October, 2026, just
0:19
Speaker 1: after one o'clock. Welcome to the UK Cold News. I'm
0:21
Speaker 1: your host, Mike Robinson. Joining me in the studio today
0:23
Speaker 1: is Brian Gerrish. Welcome to the program, Brian. Pleasure to
0:26
Speaker 1: be here, Mike. And we're also joined today by Charles
0:28
Speaker 1: Mallett by VideoLink. And later in the program, we'll be
0:30
Speaker 1: reporting on the future of funding for the BBC, the
0:33
Speaker 1: state of government communications, and the lawsuit in the Netherlands
0:37
Speaker 1: over what happened over COVID there. But we're going to
0:42
Speaker 1: begin today with the latest in the twists and the turns,
0:45
Speaker 1: because this just gets more silly by the minute, Charles,
0:48
Speaker 1: of RAF Fairford.
0:52
Speaker 2: Good afternoon, Mike, Brian, and everybody listening and watching. Yes,
0:56
Speaker 2: as you say, it is very hard to keep up
0:58
Speaker 2: not just with what is happening or has happened, but crucially, why.
1:03
Speaker 2: And we go to the New York Times for the
1:06
Speaker 2: headline from today's news, which is that US rushes to
1:10
Speaker 2: withdraw bombers from UK airbase after new threats. Now, in
1:15
Speaker 2: terms of qualifying that's It is a difficult job to
1:18
Speaker 2: do because, of course, this has only really been issued
1:20
Speaker 2: to mainstream publications and the likes of UK column, of course,
1:24
Speaker 2: not party to any of the original disclosure from the
1:28
Speaker 2: US military sources. But it does seem that the B-1
1:31
Speaker 2: bombers that have been stationed at RAF Fairford over the
1:34
Speaker 2: last several months have now departed and in quick fashion.
1:39
Speaker 2: why exactly remains to be seen. And of course, there
1:42
Speaker 2: is a question about the JDAM munitions that were held
1:46
Speaker 2: at the base. And of course, the explosive risk that
1:49
Speaker 2: they pose, never discussed really. I think this would be
1:53
Speaker 2: the right time to remind you that at the time
1:58
Speaker 2: that the British government gave permission to US visiting forces
2:00
Speaker 2: to use Fairford at this moment, it was for specific
2:04
Speaker 2: and limited defensive action against missile facilities in Iran. And
2:12
Speaker 2: With regard to the decision made by the US visiting
2:15
Speaker 2: forces to clear out at least some of their infrastructure,
2:19
Speaker 2: I think I would just quote General Sir Richard Sherriff, who,
2:22
Speaker 2: when he spoke to UK column, reminded the audience that
2:25
Speaker 2: the United States only acts in the interest of the
2:29
Speaker 2: United States. Now, what I'd like to do is just
2:31
Speaker 2: put that question briefly back to the studio. Mike and Brian,
2:36
Speaker 2: what are your thoughts? Why do you think they have
2:38
Speaker 2: chosen now to leave in quite such a hurry?
2:42
Speaker 3: You first.
2:43
Speaker 4: Well, that's an absolute killer question, Charles, because I found
2:50
Speaker 4: this one very difficult to think through. I think what
2:53
Speaker 4: comes into my head is that Trump has been very
2:57
Speaker 4: keen to find ways to disengage in the Middle East.
3:01
Speaker 4: And obviously, he was very outspoken on the back of
3:05
Speaker 4: this incident when it first occurred to blame it on Iran.
3:10
Speaker 4: So I wonder whether this is simply using the turbulence
3:14
Speaker 4: and vagueness around what has actually taken place as a
3:19
Speaker 4: way to withdraw the bombers, which he knows will in
3:25
Speaker 4: general go down well in the Western world. Even if
3:29
Speaker 4: it's not recognized by Andy Burnham and the government, many
3:32
Speaker 4: people in UK are going to sigh with relief. And therefore,
3:36
Speaker 4: Trump has apparently or seemingly done something good. But of course,
3:42
Speaker 4: the other thing we need to go is all of
3:44
Speaker 4: the munitions, which will still be in the deep bunkers
3:48
Speaker 4: on that base. And until we see American transport aircraft
3:52
Speaker 4: removing them, the problem still remains that American aircraft could
3:57
Speaker 4: come back in. But lastly, I'd just say that if
4:02
Speaker 4: the Americans are saying they had to get their aircraft
4:05
Speaker 4: out because of an Iranian threat, what they're saying is
4:08
Speaker 4: that the United States is not even capable of defending
4:13
Speaker 4: one of its military bases.
4:15
Speaker 1: The United Kingdom, you mean? Sorry? The United Kingdom isn't
4:18
Speaker 1: capable of defending one of its bases?
4:20
Speaker 4: No, no, the Americans are not capable of defending their
4:23
Speaker 4: air base in the United Kingdom. which is a pretty
4:27
Speaker 4: poor reflection on them? Or do they know that there's
4:31
Speaker 4: a massive attack coming which the UK government is not
4:34
Speaker 4: telling us about? I'd just say that my money is
4:37
Speaker 4: on the fact that Trump is able to use this
4:40
Speaker 4: for political advantage as he sees it. It will basically
4:45
Speaker 4: reflect well on him in the longer term.
4:48
Speaker 1: Well, and in the short term, because we've got to
4:50
Speaker 1: remember that the midterms are only a few weeks away.
4:52
Speaker 3: Yeah.
4:53
Speaker 1: Perhaps everything that he's doing at the moment is geared
4:56
Speaker 1: towards that. Yeah.
4:59
Speaker 4: That's my best effort.
5:01
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely. Well, great points. And I think a much
5:04
Speaker 2: further discussion to be had in extra, but there's no
5:06
Speaker 2: doubt about the attempt to score political capital from it.
5:09
Speaker 2: If we think of the remarks, not just of Trump,
5:11
Speaker 2: but of course of Rubio. If we just go back
5:13
Speaker 2: to the New York Times, what they actually quoted was
5:16
Speaker 2: from the US European command saying, we can acknowledge now
5:19
Speaker 2: that all US bombers that were deployed to RAF Fairford
5:21
Speaker 2: are redeploying to their home stations in the United States,
5:25
Speaker 2: effectively as though nothing had happened. Now, the other thing
5:27
Speaker 2: that I think we have to set alongside this is
5:29
Speaker 2: the report from NBC News from a couple of weeks
5:32
Speaker 2: ago saying that the Pentagon is considering pulling back a
5:35
Speaker 2: third of its forces who are stationed within Europe described
5:40
Speaker 2: as a drastic plan. And they are doing this, apparently,
5:44
Speaker 2: despite warnings from NATO allies about the growing threat of
5:48
Speaker 2: Russian aggression. Now, it's said that the Secretary of State
5:51
Speaker 2: for War, Pete Hegseth, has to make a decision on
5:53
Speaker 2: this in early November. This will be a very interesting
5:55
Speaker 2: one to follow. Now, whether or not this has anything
5:57
Speaker 2: to do with what has just happened at Fairford and whether, therefore,
6:01
Speaker 2: the sort of Iranian proxy bloc activity is a smokescreen
6:06
Speaker 2: or what, again, is a point for further discussion. Now, again, tellingly,
6:12
Speaker 2: the European Command put out a tweet a week or
6:15
Speaker 2: so ago talking about a demonstration by other B-1B bombers.
6:20
Speaker 2: But the critical phrase I think used there is that the, sorry, wrong,
6:24
Speaker 2: I thought, that the United States will continue to position
6:29
Speaker 2: the alliance as to meet modern security challenges. Of course,
6:32
Speaker 2: they don't say exactly how they're going to do that. Now,
6:35
Speaker 2: as far as the British side of this is concerned,
6:38
Speaker 2: it's been a policing matter, one that has caused high
6:41
Speaker 2: confusion for a whole number of reasons. And I just
6:43
Speaker 2: thought it was interesting to see how Gloucestershire Constabulary have
6:45
Speaker 2: put out a series of frequently asked questions, sort of
6:49
Speaker 2: retrofitted questions, in order that some sense can be made
6:53
Speaker 2: of it. And I leave the audience to decide whether
6:55
Speaker 2: it does actually make sense. So we first of all
6:57
Speaker 2: deal with what happened near RAF Fairford. And we talk
7:00
Speaker 2: about responding to reports of suspicious vehicles and men being
7:04
Speaker 2: arrested with counter-terrorism policing leading the investigation. I'd say that's
7:09
Speaker 2: obscuring quite a lot of the truth because, of course,
7:10
Speaker 2: there's no evidence of terrorism whatsoever. Was there an immediate
7:14
Speaker 2: risk to the public? And, again, not really answering the
7:17
Speaker 2: question because they were talking about putting a cordon in
7:20
Speaker 2: and establishing... 85 households being evacuated. But as we've reported
7:25
Speaker 2: several times now, this was done hours and hours after
7:28
Speaker 2: the balloon went up. And then finally, and I think
7:32
Speaker 2: in a way the most memorable of the answers or
7:34
Speaker 2: at least questions, was RAFF the intended target and what
7:37
Speaker 2: was found in the vehicles? A real cliffhanger. But sadly,
7:39
Speaker 2: we don't get to find out the answer because Gloucestershire
7:41
Speaker 2: Conservatory cannot comment on the live investigation. because that's gone
7:45
Speaker 2: to counter-terrorism policing. So a bit of a shame there. However,
7:49
Speaker 2: sources in Fairford do tell me that there is still
7:52
Speaker 2: an active police presence. And certainly from those accounts, I've
7:57
Speaker 2: heard of people speaking to police officers there on the ground.
8:00
Speaker 2: There is the idea that there is an investigation ongoing
8:03
Speaker 2: as though a terrorist incident has actually taken place. And
8:06
Speaker 2: I think it's also worth noting that that the confusion
8:09
Speaker 2: caused by the departure of the bombers led Fairford Town
8:12
Speaker 2: Council to report that a meeting that the constabulary had
8:15
Speaker 2: scheduled in the community centre in Fairford yesterday was cancelled.
8:20
Speaker 2: But exactly what inference is meant to be drawn from
8:22
Speaker 2: that remains uncertain. But again, just to recap, of course,
8:28
Speaker 2: there is no evidence at the moment at all that
8:30
Speaker 2: any terrorist incident took place. There's no evidence that the
8:35
Speaker 2: Airbase itself was at risk. And also, of course, there's
8:38
Speaker 2: no evidence that the civilian population was put in harm's
8:40
Speaker 2: way either. I think just as a closing note, I'd
8:44
Speaker 2: just like to pull a couple of comments off Facebook
8:47
Speaker 2: because this just shows the degree to which people can
8:50
Speaker 2: be completely disconnected from the reality of what's going on.
8:54
Speaker 2: And Fairford is obviously a very, very big magnet for
8:56
Speaker 2: plane spotters. So we have a comment here. Until next time, B1Bs.
9:01
Speaker 2: Just like that, they've departed RAF Fairford and are heading back.
9:04
Speaker 2: Since their arrival, it's been an absolute privilege to watch,
9:06
Speaker 2: experience and photograph these incredible machines throughout their time in
9:10
Speaker 2: the UK. And it goes on to say, this deployment
9:13
Speaker 2: has given me memories I'll never forget. And then another
9:16
Speaker 2: comment in a similar vein. It's certainly been a joy
9:19
Speaker 2: seeing them over the last year or so, not forgetting
9:21
Speaker 2: the B-52s. Now, I'm not taking particular issue with the
9:24
Speaker 2: people that have written those comments, but in terms of
9:27
Speaker 2: the overall war narrative, it does seem remarkable in many
9:32
Speaker 2: respects that people who are there day in, day out
9:34
Speaker 2: can be photographed in these aircraft and not once considering
9:38
Speaker 2: the effect that they're having or indeed where any of
9:41
Speaker 2: this might be leading. I think we're going to have
9:43
Speaker 2: quite a lot of discussion about this in UK Column
9:46
Speaker 2: News Extra. So I don't know if anyone's got any
9:48
Speaker 2: closing comments, but that's all I've got on Fairford at
9:51
Speaker 2: the moment.
9:53
Speaker 4: Well, I would just say, Charles, and of course, those
9:56
Speaker 4: people have been photographing the aircraft well up to the
10:00
Speaker 4: perimeter fence without any problems on the American side suddenly
10:06
Speaker 4: fuel for you white vans arrive and the whole of
10:09
Speaker 4: the bomber fleet disappears I think we're looking at a
10:13
Speaker 4: an operation psychological operation.
10:15
Speaker 1: Here indeed okay let's uh Move on to juries. Now,
10:20
Speaker 1: in November last year, the BBC and others were reporting
10:23
Speaker 1: the existence of an internal government briefing produced by the
10:27
Speaker 1: Ministry of Justice for all other Whitehall departments, which confirmed
10:31
Speaker 1: plans to create a new tier of jury-less courts in
10:34
Speaker 1: England and Wales. They said, if you remember, that the
10:37
Speaker 1: document proposed only guaranteeing juries for defendants facing rape, murder,
10:42
Speaker 1: manslaughter or other cases passing a public interest test. And
10:46
Speaker 1: the BBC said that the then Justice Secretary David Lammy
10:49
Speaker 1: had wanted to ask Parliament to end jury trials for
10:51
Speaker 1: defendants who would be jailed for up to five years.
10:54
Speaker 1: And they said that the proposals were an attempt to
10:56
Speaker 1: end unprecedented delays and backlogs in the courts and would
11:00
Speaker 1: not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland. Well, the Burnham
11:03
Speaker 1: regime has scrapped the idea. At least that's the headline.
11:08
Speaker 1: BBC Radio 4 had the author... of the idea Brian
11:11
Speaker 1: Levison on this morning. And Levison was complaining bitterly that
11:15
Speaker 1: today's announcement will not bring down court waiting lists and
11:18
Speaker 1: that these new proposals will result in huge injustice for everyone.
11:23
Speaker 1: In fact, it's not quite what it seems because here's
11:27
Speaker 1: the press release. And it says, this will mean the
11:31
Speaker 1: justice secretary can be fully focused on fast tracking the
11:34
Speaker 1: broader changes needed to drive down the record number of
11:37
Speaker 1: cases waiting years to be heard fixing a crisis that
11:40
Speaker 1: is leaving too many victims in limbo before they see
11:43
Speaker 1: their perpetrator in the dark. Then it goes on to
11:46
Speaker 1: say this. It says, first of all, that millions will
11:49
Speaker 1: be invested in new technology to modernize the outdated courts
11:53
Speaker 1: and slash inefficiencies. It says that judges will be given
11:56
Speaker 1: the resources they need to hear more cases and vital
11:58
Speaker 1: structural reforms will deliver a court system fit for the
12:01
Speaker 1: 21st century. The second thing it says is that magistrates
12:05
Speaker 1: will be given the power to hand out longer sentences.
12:08
Speaker 1: meaning the courts can deal with cases quicker and get
12:12
Speaker 1: victims justice faster. And thirdly, it says technical and lengthy
12:17
Speaker 1: fraud and finance offences will be allowed to be heard
12:19
Speaker 1: by a judge alone, freeing up jurors from the personal
12:23
Speaker 1: and financial burdens created by complex month-long trials. And finally,
12:29
Speaker 1: they said courts will have the final say over where
12:31
Speaker 1: cases should be heard, preventing criminals accused of relatively minor
12:35
Speaker 1: crimes trying to game the system by electing a jury
12:38
Speaker 1: trial in an attempt to avoid prison. So actually, this
12:42
Speaker 1: is a massive cutback on jury trials, just as they
12:46
Speaker 1: always planned. They're just pretending that it isn't. And coming
12:49
Speaker 1: back to the first of those, though, the question is,
12:52
Speaker 1: what kind of new technology are we talking about here? Well,
12:55
Speaker 1: of course, in the not-too-distant future, we're going to see
12:57
Speaker 1: an increase in the use of AI in the so-called
12:59
Speaker 1: justice system. And Originally, they published a document under the
13:05
Speaker 1: Starmer government entitled the AI Action Plan for Justice, but
13:09
Speaker 1: that has now been updated, as you can see on
13:11
Speaker 1: screen at the moment. It's now called the AI Action
13:13
Speaker 1: Plan for Justice One Year On. And it says, basically,
13:19
Speaker 1: they're talking about a widening role for artificial intelligence across
13:22
Speaker 1: the courts, prisons, and the probation service. They're saying that,
13:27
Speaker 1: or at least Jake Richards, MP, the justice minister, is
13:30
Speaker 1: saying that that they're going to use AI in probation
13:36
Speaker 1: for more than 12,000 probation officers. It said one and
13:39
Speaker 1: a half million meetings between October and 2025 and September
13:44
Speaker 1: 2026 have been assisted with AI. And this is going
13:48
Speaker 1: to be rolled out to all immigration and asylum tribunal judges.
13:53
Speaker 1: They say that expansion into the courts is being explored.
13:58
Speaker 1: They say it's the first in.
14:01
Speaker 1: Sorry, the government has now deployed an enterprise version of
14:04
Speaker 1: ChatGPT through a partnership with OpenAI alongside Microsoft's co-pilot tools
14:10
Speaker 1: for all staff within the Justice Department. And other systems
14:14
Speaker 1: already live include predictive analytics estimating prisoners' risks of violence,
14:20
Speaker 1: matching of probationers' GPS data against police crime records, and
14:24
Speaker 1: facial recognition for online probation check-ins. And they're also talking
14:28
Speaker 1: about tools to curb mistake in prison releases. Of course,
14:31
Speaker 1: we had this scandal about a year ago of people
14:34
Speaker 1: being accidentally released in prison and AI was being touted
14:38
Speaker 1: as the mechanism for fixing that. And then a fourth
14:41
Speaker 1: priority that they have addresses AI-enabled crime and the risk
14:45
Speaker 1: of synthetic or manipulated content entering the justice system. So
14:48
Speaker 1: they are absolutely rolling forward with this, Brian. But the
14:52
Speaker 1: key point here is this headline that jury The idea
14:56
Speaker 1: of juries being scrapped for multiple trials is a complete nonsense,
15:00
Speaker 1: because if they've got more trials being heard by magistrates,
15:03
Speaker 1: because they're allowing magistrates to create longer sentences, that removes juries.
15:08
Speaker 1: If the financial and technical crimes are not being heard
15:11
Speaker 1: in front of juries, that's removing juries. So, in fact,
15:15
Speaker 1: they are removing juries.
15:17
Speaker 4: Well, I'm just going to say, of course, and you're
15:19
Speaker 4: absolutely correct, and the idea is to deceive the public
15:23
Speaker 4: with the communications coming out. Later in the news, we're
15:26
Speaker 4: specifically going to be talking about how the government is
15:29
Speaker 4: manipulating its communication messages to the public. But what we're
15:35
Speaker 4: being told here is the government is frightened of the
15:38
Speaker 4: public's knowledge of the power of jury trial and what
15:41
Speaker 4: it can do, nullification. So what do you do? You
15:45
Speaker 4: put out an article to deceive the public as to
15:48
Speaker 4: what's actually happening. Jury trials are vital.
15:51
Speaker 1: Yes, now, if anybody hasn't yet bought issue one of
15:56
Speaker 1: the column, our quarterly magazine, you might consider doing that
15:59
Speaker 1: because there is an evergreen article in there, a very
16:02
Speaker 1: extensive article by you, Brian, on the issue of jury
16:05
Speaker 1: trials and Leveson's role in the creation of this removal
16:09
Speaker 1: of juries.
16:10
Speaker 4: 8,000 words, if I remember correctly, and I could have
16:14
Speaker 4: written more, but extremely dangerous man with what he's trying
16:18
Speaker 4: to do here to our justice system. And people have
16:21
Speaker 4: to understand we need jury trials because the jury can
16:25
Speaker 4: keep the judges under control.
16:28
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Let's move over to the Netherlands then, Brian, and
16:33
Speaker 1: court case or civil action being taken over COVID.
16:37
Speaker 4: Yes, this really is one of the, if not the
16:40
Speaker 4: most critical case to be coming up. Not only in
16:44
Speaker 4: the Western world, we could say in the world because
16:47
Speaker 4: it's dealing with the issue of COVID-19, the policies, the lockdown,
16:52
Speaker 4: the huge damage done to the world's population. And finally,
16:57
Speaker 4: in the Netherlands, a group of litigants are challenging the
17:01
Speaker 4: policies in the Netherlands, at least, but it will have
17:05
Speaker 4: huge ramifications. Now, this is a civil action. We're not
17:09
Speaker 4: going to be seeing Bill Gates sent to prison or
17:13
Speaker 4: anything like that. There's a need for very calm reflection
17:17
Speaker 4: on what's happening here, because it is very important and
17:21
Speaker 4: it can develop into an even more critical court case.
17:26
Speaker 4: Let's just hear the lawyer concerned talking about the case.
17:29
Speaker 4: This is the first of two clips we have for
17:32
Speaker 4: you today.
17:34
Speaker 5: My name is Peter Staassen. I'm a Dutch lawyer with
17:37
Speaker 5: an office in Eindhoven, the Netherlands, and I have dedicated
17:41
Speaker 5: myself to civil litigation for over 20 years. particularly on
17:46
Speaker 5: the field of corporate law. In the Netherlands, proceedings commenced
17:51
Speaker 5: on July 14, 2023. And these are civil proceedings based
17:58
Speaker 5: on tort. And these proceedings were initiated on behalf of
18:03
Speaker 5: seven plaintiffs who suffered COVID-19 injection injuries and concluded they
18:09
Speaker 5: had been seriously misled regarding the risks associated with these injections.
18:16
Speaker 5: And one of them has since passed away. The central
18:22
Speaker 5: argument in these proceedings, substantive proceedings, is that COVID-19 is
18:28
Speaker 5: not a disease, but a project. And this project is
18:32
Speaker 5: described in the book COVID-19 The Great Reset, co-authored by
18:36
Speaker 5: Klaus Schwab. The defendants in these proceedings as executors of
18:45
Speaker 5: the COVID-19 project misled our clients in order to persuade
18:50
Speaker 5: them to undergo a COVID-19 injection. And this is demonstrated
18:56
Speaker 5: in the summons with more than 100 exhibits. And the
19:00
Speaker 5: point is that the defendants are accused in a civil
19:04
Speaker 5: proceedings of being the executors of the COVID-19 Great Reset
19:10
Speaker 5: project and that they are all liable for the damages
19:15
Speaker 5: of our clients. It's important to note that people who
19:20
Speaker 5: did not undergo a COVID-19 injection also suffer harm. They
19:26
Speaker 5: too are being misled unlawfully and many have suffered material
19:33
Speaker 5: and immaterial harm as a result of this project which
19:38
Speaker 5: still goes on. The defendants in the proceedings are the
19:44
Speaker 5: State of the Netherlands and key executors of this project
19:50
Speaker 5: from the political, pharmaceutical, media and business sectors. There are
19:57
Speaker 5: in total 17 defendants including the State of the Netherlands
20:03
Speaker 5: and among the defendants are Bill Gates, Albert Bourla and
20:07
Speaker 5: Mark Rutte.
20:10
Speaker 4: So I would say an extremely brave man to take
20:13
Speaker 4: this case on. He's extremely experienced in civil litigation in
20:17
Speaker 4: the Netherlands. But nevertheless, this case has already become extremely
20:23
Speaker 4: high profile within the system because there's already indications that
20:28
Speaker 4: the Dutch state is prepared to help manipulate the case.
20:31
Speaker 4: I'll come on to that in a minute. But let's
20:33
Speaker 4: just hear a second clip in which he talks about
20:37
Speaker 4: a little bit more detail about the case and expert witnesses.
20:45
Speaker 5: In these proceedings, Bill Gates contested the jurisdiction of the
20:51
Speaker 5: Dutch court. However, the court declared its jurisdiction over Bill
20:56
Speaker 5: Gates in its judgments of October 16, 2024. The substantive
21:02
Speaker 5: proceedings have now reached the point that an oral hearing
21:06
Speaker 5: must be scheduled to address the merits of the case
21:10
Speaker 5: before the court. There was a second proceeding for three
21:14
Speaker 5: other clients also suffering from COVID-19 injection damage. And this
21:21
Speaker 5: concerns a request to hear experts. And this is a
21:25
Speaker 5: so-called request for preliminary evidence. The defendants are the same
21:32
Speaker 5: as in the main proceedings. And the point is that
21:36
Speaker 5: these three clients want to know what the injections actually are.
21:45
Speaker 5: In that context, five experts have been nominated. In these proceedings,
21:51
Speaker 5: these five experts can explain that these injections are not vaccines,
21:58
Speaker 5: but bioweapons being used in the implementation of the COVID-19
22:04
Speaker 5: Great Reset project. The oral hearing on that request took
22:10
Speaker 5: place on July 9, 2025. And during the oral hearing
22:16
Speaker 5: of the case, of that case, I explained to the
22:19
Speaker 5: judge that truth finding is one of the utmost importance
22:26
Speaker 5: and that therefore these experts nominated by my clients must
22:32
Speaker 5: be heard. Specifically, these are Mike Gieden, Sasha Latipova, Catherine Watt,
22:40
Speaker 5: Catherine Austin-Fiss and Joseph Sansone.
22:46
Speaker 4: So very clearly set out what's happening. Now, I'm going
22:50
Speaker 4: to take you straight away to a very new website
22:54
Speaker 4: that's been put up about this case. So if we
22:56
Speaker 4: just put that one on screen. Here we are, the
22:59
Speaker 4: narrative on trial. And the date for people to remember
23:02
Speaker 4: is the 22nd of October. and that's going to be
23:06
Speaker 4: in Leeuwarden in the Netherlands. I'm really pleased to say
23:10
Speaker 4: that I will be there to help report on that
23:13
Speaker 4: and interact with some of the other journalists who are
23:17
Speaker 4: coming to the Netherlands to report on this case. But
23:20
Speaker 4: the website, absolutely fantastic, very clear, very well laid out.
23:25
Speaker 4: So you can see a quick guide here to the defendants,
23:28
Speaker 4: the lawyer, the experts and the case file. And in fact,
23:32
Speaker 4: there are four expert witnesses coming forward, because Catherine Watts
23:39
Speaker 4: has had to drop out of this hearing, at least.
23:44
Speaker 4: But just to give you a little bit of detail
23:46
Speaker 4: on this. So we've got Sasha Ladipova, highly experienced pharmaceutical
23:51
Speaker 4: research and development executive. She's essentially stating that mRNA and
23:57
Speaker 4: DNA platforms are capable of both therapeutic and weaponized applications.
24:03
Speaker 4: And of course, the emphasis is on weaponized application. Uh,
24:07
Speaker 4: we've also got Dr. Mike Yeadon, highly experienced pharmacologist and
24:11
Speaker 4: former pharmaceutical research executive. He's arguing that COVID-19 injections contain
24:18
Speaker 4: multiple design features, which cause predictable toxicity for intentional harm.
24:24
Speaker 4: And he is also, um, saying that intentional harm was caused.
24:31
Speaker 4: We've got Catherine Austin Fitz. Now, she's an experienced investment
24:36
Speaker 4: banker and a former US federal official. But her line
24:40
Speaker 4: of attack is to argue that central bankers' plans before
24:45
Speaker 4: COVID-19 were actually implemented during the COVID-19 so-called pandemic to
24:51
Speaker 4: gain financial and political control. And lastly, Dr. Joseph Sanson
24:57
Speaker 4: And he's a highly experienced psychotherapist with qualifications in psychology
25:02
Speaker 4: and clinical mental health. He's going to be arguing that
25:05
Speaker 4: the COVID-19 response was implemented by fear, coercion, censorship, conformity,
25:13
Speaker 4: institutional control and diffusion of responsibility. And of course, that
25:18
Speaker 4: one is very of great interest to him. UK column
25:23
Speaker 4: because we reported on the use of applied psychology, but
25:27
Speaker 4: the government's SPI-B team here in the UK to increase
25:32
Speaker 4: fear in people so that they would better adhere to
25:35
Speaker 4: the UK government's lockdown plans. Now, just to make sure
25:40
Speaker 4: everybody knows where to go, it will be in the
25:42
Speaker 4: show notes, but here's the trial, thenetherlandscase.com, really excellent website,
25:48
Speaker 4: well done to the team that have created that over
25:51
Speaker 4: the last couple of weeks. Now, I'm also going to
25:54
Speaker 4: point you at this blog, and it will be in
25:57
Speaker 4: the show notes, but I thought this was such an
26:00
Speaker 4: important article because essentially in it, in very simple words,
26:06
Speaker 4: they're saying why this case is so important. Now, aside
26:10
Speaker 4: from the fact that we've got vaccines being used for
26:13
Speaker 4: harm instead of the good of people's health, the case
26:18
Speaker 4: is effectively talking about coordinated fraud. amongst specific named individuals.
26:25
Speaker 4: It's then going on, it has the ability to drive
26:29
Speaker 4: cases in other countries, such as parallel civil cases in
26:34
Speaker 4: other countries. And ultimately, if this case is prosecuted properly,
26:40
Speaker 4: even if the plaintiffs don't get the result they want,
26:45
Speaker 4: it enables other doors to be unlocked and other cases
26:48
Speaker 4: to occur throughout the world. So I'm just going to
26:51
Speaker 4: reinforce with people, although this is civil litigation at this stage,
26:57
Speaker 4: it has the potential to grow. And clearly, the Dutch
27:01
Speaker 4: authorities are worried about this case because they've tried so
27:05
Speaker 4: far to prevent the expert witnesses to give evidence in person.
27:11
Speaker 4: They're saying we're only going to take the evidence in writing.
27:14
Speaker 4: And of course, that is often used as a technique
27:17
Speaker 4: to help shut down the case, as indeed, was used
27:21
Speaker 4: in the hearings against Rhino Formic. So fantastic opportunity here.
27:27
Speaker 4: And I just hope that people will support this case
27:30
Speaker 4: in a quiet, measured and professional way, because that will
27:35
Speaker 4: give it the best possible power base.
27:37
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Okay. If you like what we do here at
27:40
Speaker 1: the UK column, we do need your ongoing financial support.
27:43
Speaker 1: Have a look at the website details there. You can
27:46
Speaker 1: make a donation that is VAT free for us. And
27:48
Speaker 1: that's wonderful. or you can join as a member monthly, annual,
27:52
Speaker 1: or lifetime. Thank you very much to everybody that does
27:55
Speaker 1: support us in this way. If you can't support us financially,
27:58
Speaker 1: do share this program and anything else that you see
28:02
Speaker 1: of UK column about the internet so that we can
28:05
Speaker 1: get the word out now. The issue three of the
28:07
Speaker 1: column is still on sale. Do pick up a copy
28:10
Speaker 1: if you haven't already. And we'll just mention it's 7 p.m. tonight.
28:16
Speaker 1: German warfare is the usual weekly banter with Charles himself.
28:20
Speaker 1: He has entitled it, Why Woodstock Was a Harmful PSYOP.
28:23
Speaker 1: It was an interesting conversation today, Charles.
28:28
Speaker 2: Yeah, it absolutely was. I mean, I think like quite
28:30
Speaker 2: a lot of them, it took a turn that we
28:32
Speaker 2: weren't perhaps expecting, but I think good came of it.
28:35
Speaker 2: And I absolutely would encourage people to tune in because
28:37
Speaker 2: I think what you in particular had to say about
28:39
Speaker 2: Woodstock was completely fascinating and right on the button.
28:42
Speaker 1: Okay, thank you for that. And nine o'clock, Silicon Steel,
28:46
Speaker 1: China is rising while America falls behind. Well, we'll no
28:49
Speaker 1: doubt have lots to talk about there as well. Now,
28:53
Speaker 1: let's move on. Charles, veterans have been a talking point
28:58
Speaker 1: on the UK column for quite some time, including the
29:01
Speaker 1: fact that they've been used as the poster children, if
29:04
Speaker 1: you like, for digital ID, for example, with the veterans
29:06
Speaker 1: ID card. What's the latest?
29:11
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it's fascinating watching this one develop. And
29:14
Speaker 2: exactly like you say, for a number of reasons, we
29:15
Speaker 2: have concentrated on issues pertaining to veterans, not least because
29:19
Speaker 2: there are quite so many of them, obviously more and
29:22
Speaker 2: more all the time as people do forego a career
29:25
Speaker 2: in the armed forces. But what I'm going to do
29:27
Speaker 2: now is show a video that Danny Kruger put out
29:30
Speaker 2: on his Twitter channel, an evening that he spent in
29:34
Speaker 2: a pub near his constituency, or rather within his constituency,
29:38
Speaker 2: just by Salisbury Plain. So just have a look at
29:42
Speaker 2: this and decide what you think he's doing and where
29:46
Speaker 2: this particular agenda is going.
29:50
Speaker 3: Just had an amazing evening with about 200 veterans here
29:54
Speaker 3: in the Ram Inn in Tidworth, in the heart of
29:56
Speaker 3: the military community of Salisbury Plain. Some great men and women,
30:00
Speaker 3: Falklands veterans, people who served in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and
30:04
Speaker 3: of course in Northern Ireland. Reform stands with these people.
30:08
Speaker 3: We're going to end the prosecution of our soldiers. We're
30:11
Speaker 3: going to put our veterans first when it comes to
30:14
Speaker 3: social housing. We're going to ensure that veterans get the
30:18
Speaker 3: treatment they deserve as they leave the army, because there
30:20
Speaker 3: is nothing that matters more to reform and to Britain
30:24
Speaker 3: than its armed forces and its armed forces people.
30:32
Speaker 2: So there we go. He's not just talking about veterans.
30:34
Speaker 2: You would have heard there, of course, that he's talking
30:36
Speaker 2: about those serving in the armed forces. And what he's
30:38
Speaker 2: trying to do there is to suggest that the natural
30:42
Speaker 2: home for anybody who has served their country or is
30:45
Speaker 2: serving their country, that the natural home for them politically
30:49
Speaker 2: is reform. And the idea... What it looks like is
30:53
Speaker 2: that migration being the central issue, it is but a
30:57
Speaker 2: small step to consider that people who have such a
31:01
Speaker 2: boundless love for their country will, of course, want to
31:03
Speaker 2: become involved with such a project. So you can see
31:06
Speaker 2: on screen now the Veterans for Reform website. Now, they are,
31:10
Speaker 2: in effect, the first country. political party to make such
31:14
Speaker 2: a play. And I'd just like to go to Brian. Brian,
31:18
Speaker 2: we have our Military Matters series. We've talked about a
31:20
Speaker 2: lot of these issues. How does this strike you in
31:24
Speaker 2: so far as what it is that Kruger and Reform
31:26
Speaker 2: are trying to do with this initiative?
31:30
Speaker 4: Well, I think it's an unbelievably cynical ploy to try
31:35
Speaker 4: and play on the emotional and loyal heartstrings of veterans
31:42
Speaker 4: in order to get them across to the reform party,
31:47
Speaker 4: where that party will ultimately betray them because it has
31:51
Speaker 4: never got to grips with any of the factors destroying
31:55
Speaker 4: the country from the inside. So I think this is
31:58
Speaker 4: an attempt to capture the power base of veterans in
32:03
Speaker 4: the UK, because if the total number of veterans, which
32:07
Speaker 4: I think is over 2 million, I'm going to choose
32:10
Speaker 4: my words deliberately here, got off their backsides and started
32:14
Speaker 4: to actually campaign effectively to defend this country, we'd get somewhere.
32:20
Speaker 4: So what is this about? It's about capturing that passion
32:24
Speaker 4: and making sure it doesn't go anywhere effective. And my
32:29
Speaker 4: grounds for saying that are that is exactly what UKIP
32:33
Speaker 4: did by waving the flag, bringing people to the rousing speeches.
32:39
Speaker 4: and then leading them into a cul-de-sac. I see the
32:42
Speaker 4: same thing going on here, but it's aimed at the veterans.
32:49
Speaker 2: Yes, well, exactly so. Now, I think it's worth pointing
32:51
Speaker 2: out that reform have not been the first people to
32:54
Speaker 2: do this. And I just point back to a tweet
32:56
Speaker 2: that I did report on at the time back from
32:58
Speaker 2: Restore Britain in August. And this specific language talking about
33:02
Speaker 2: bringing in thousands and thousands of British military veterans into
33:06
Speaker 2: immigration enforcement roles, of course, no qualifications to do anything
33:11
Speaker 2: like that. And then the language was sort of stepped
33:12
Speaker 2: up a gear with field enforcement roles where their skills
33:17
Speaker 2: can be best utilised. Skills, of course, that a number
33:21
Speaker 2: among them killing people. So it is interesting to see
33:25
Speaker 2: this sort of language used. And just with the idea
33:28
Speaker 2: that reform is putting out a play for not just veterans,
33:31
Speaker 2: but also those serving, and this idea that somehow they
33:35
Speaker 2: will consider that they have the shared values of reform
33:38
Speaker 2: where migration is concerned. I'm just going to take you
33:40
Speaker 2: back to March of this year, where Nigel Farage was
33:44
Speaker 2: asked at a press conference what his view was on
33:46
Speaker 2: the intervention in Iran.
33:50
Speaker 6: I cannot believe the stupidity of Obama, the European Union,
33:55
Speaker 6: the British Foreign Office and some of your former colleagues
33:58
Speaker 6: who went along in 2015 with this JCPOA deal. It's
34:02
Speaker 6: been a disaster. It's freed up tens of billions of
34:05
Speaker 6: dollars for the Iranians. What have they used it for?
34:07
Speaker 6: They've used it to fund the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas. These
34:11
Speaker 6: are massive self-inflicted wounds. And so I've always felt vehemently
34:16
Speaker 6: opposed to this. We went for regime change against Saddam.
34:21
Speaker 6: We went for regime change against Gaddafi. The regime change
34:26
Speaker 6: we've always needed is in Iran, where the wonderful Persian people,
34:31
Speaker 6: with all their amazing talents, have been kept in this theocratic,
34:35
Speaker 6: brutal regime. I very much hope President Trump acts in
34:39
Speaker 6: the next few days. We don't know how many have
34:41
Speaker 6: been killed. It could be perhaps as many as 2,000,
34:45
Speaker 6: I'm told, before coming to this press conference. So would
34:48
Speaker 6: I support military action against the IRGC, the Revolutionary Guard,
34:52
Speaker 6: on the ground in Iran, so that the good guys
34:55
Speaker 6: can win this revolution? Absolutely, 100%.
35:03
Speaker 2: So that is where Veterans for Reform and the idea
35:07
Speaker 2: that reform support and champion the armed forces would actually go,
35:10
Speaker 2: leading straight into military action at the behest of the
35:13
Speaker 2: state of Israel. So just to remind you where this
35:16
Speaker 2: goes also, or at least runs alongside, is exactly like
35:20
Speaker 2: Mike said at the beginning, Veterans Digital Identity. apparently because
35:24
Speaker 2: it engenders a sense of belonging and community. But really,
35:28
Speaker 2: the reality is, as Brian says, there are 2.2 million
35:31
Speaker 2: veterans and they're all targets. This is a data harvesting
35:34
Speaker 2: exercise on the digital ID front. And people need to
35:37
Speaker 2: be aware that these things absolutely run side by side.
35:39
Speaker 2: How on earth would a veteran enforcement agency operate if
35:43
Speaker 2: it were not for some sort of digital identity programme?
35:47
Speaker 2: More to discuss in Extra, I think.
35:50
Speaker 4: Charles, thank you very much for that. Very quickly, just
35:52
Speaker 4: remind our audience that, of course, it was Danny Kruger
35:55
Speaker 4: alongside Nick Bowles, MP, that several years ago warned the
36:01
Speaker 4: public that the Conservatives would be introducing destructive breakdown in
36:07
Speaker 4: UK in order to get their new political ideas across.
36:10
Speaker 4: They talked about the parties destroying the country from the inside.
36:15
Speaker 4: Now he's trying to recruit veterans.
36:18
Speaker 1: Sticking with defense in a certain sense, defense ministers from
36:21
Speaker 1: the Joint Expeditionary Force, which is UK-led, met in Keflavik, sorry,
36:28
Speaker 1: Air Base in Iceland on Saturday. This is at the
36:35
Speaker 1: same time that they've been running a series of exercises
36:37
Speaker 1: across the North Atlantic, high north of Baltic Sea, and
36:41
Speaker 1: they are presenting this as some kind of response to
36:44
Speaker 1: Russian hybrid threats. The Joint Expeditionary Force, for those who
36:47
Speaker 1: don't know, groups together 10 European nations, the UK, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania,
36:53
Speaker 1: the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, and describes itself as a
36:56
Speaker 1: high readiness force acting in support of NATO. Canada is
37:01
Speaker 1: wanting to get involved with this. Ireland is now wanting
37:03
Speaker 1: to get involved with this. But anyway, the Canadian defense
37:07
Speaker 1: minister was at this meeting and Ukraine's defense minister joined virtually.
37:13
Speaker 1: Hundreds of British personnel took part. in Exercise Lion Protector 2026,
37:19
Speaker 1: which is the Joint Expeditionary Forces flagship exercise. I think
37:22
Speaker 1: Charles has mentioned this in recent weeks. And according to
37:25
Speaker 1: the Ministry of Defence, it opened in August with a
37:28
Speaker 1: rehearsed escort of a Danish vessel carrying military equipment to
37:32
Speaker 1: the length of the Baltic to Latvia with warships and
37:36
Speaker 1: aircraft from Denmark, Latvia, Sweden and the UK. The UK
37:40
Speaker 1: Standing Joint Force Headquarters deployed north of the Atlantic Circle
37:44
Speaker 1: in Norway, to test its ability to command Allied forces
37:48
Speaker 1: at range. The Royal Marines from Special Operations Maritime Task
37:52
Speaker 1: Group exercised alongside Danish forces on the Faroe Islands. And
37:57
Speaker 1: they say that this was the first such exercise there
37:59
Speaker 1: since the Second World War. And the Marines practice maritime interdiction,
38:04
Speaker 1: amphibious landings and vertical ascents. That's what they're saying about it.
38:09
Speaker 1: They also practiced with Ukrainian mine countermeasure vessels for the
38:15
Speaker 1: first time. And West Sweden called the region the front
38:18
Speaker 1: line of the UK security. So we're talking about the
38:20
Speaker 1: Arctic again, of course. And then they issued a joint statement,
38:24
Speaker 1: which published also Saturday. And ministers said that they had
38:28
Speaker 1: advanced work towards a recommendation that Jeff leaders on Canada's
38:32
Speaker 1: application to join. They also agreed the group's overall policy
38:35
Speaker 1: direction and reviewed a five-year program of activities. intended to
38:39
Speaker 1: align the Joint Expeditionary Force response options with NATO regional plans.
38:44
Speaker 1: And of course, they were accusing Moscow of sabotage against
38:49
Speaker 1: JEF nations and other allies. They were absolutely determined to
38:53
Speaker 1: continue supporting Ukraine through the JEF-Ukraine Enhanced Partnership set up
38:59
Speaker 1: in 2025 and so on. So it's the same kind
39:03
Speaker 1: of thing, Brian and Charles, but... I mean, realistically, it
39:09
Speaker 1: isn't going to achieve anything other than to say it
39:12
Speaker 1: is kind of the embryonic European Defence Union.
39:16
Speaker 4: Well, you could say that. These are all such small
39:18
Speaker 4: scale operations. They mean nothing. They're just being used as
39:22
Speaker 4: a media talking point. There's no substance to it. You're
39:28
Speaker 4: not talking about a substance. number of troops or military capability.
39:35
Speaker 1: I don't know. Charles, you got any thoughts briefly?
39:40
Speaker 2: Well, the value of footage, unopposed footage climbing up the
39:44
Speaker 2: side of vessels, I'm not quite sure what the point
39:47
Speaker 2: of that is. I mean, it does look remarkably like
39:49
Speaker 2: the UK commando force raid onto that Russian Shadow Fleet
39:52
Speaker 2: vessel earlier in the year. I think the point about
39:54
Speaker 2: the JAF, of course, is that it does not involve
39:56
Speaker 2: the United States. And I think we can talk more
39:58
Speaker 2: about the... apparent withdrawal from Europe and how that relates
40:04
Speaker 2: to this idea that Europe is somehow going to step
40:07
Speaker 2: up against Russian aggression, or at least we're made to
40:10
Speaker 2: believe that that's the case.
40:11
Speaker 1: Yes, indeed. Okay, Brian, let's move on then. And government communications.
40:17
Speaker 4: Yes, well, this is really a taster for our audience,
40:21
Speaker 4: but there's a lot of stuff happening under the surface,
40:24
Speaker 4: some of it hidden in plain sight, you could say.
40:27
Speaker 4: the government desperate to be controlling the narrative wherever it occurs.
40:32
Speaker 4: So I just wanted to give a little sort of
40:34
Speaker 4: summary about what we've started to see building in this
40:38
Speaker 4: government's manipulation capability, the propaganda machine. So we'll start off
40:44
Speaker 4: with this one. It's the government's communications site. It's saying
40:49
Speaker 4: that we are the professional body for the government communicators
40:54
Speaker 4: discover who we are. It's a very interesting site to
40:57
Speaker 4: go and have a look at, because if you get
40:58
Speaker 4: onto what we do, it says communication is one of
41:02
Speaker 4: the four main levers of government alongside legislation, regulation, and taxation.
41:08
Speaker 4: If you change communication to propaganda, it becomes a lever.
41:12
Speaker 4: And surely communication should just be about telling the truth.
41:17
Speaker 4: And if the government was telling the truth, then you
41:19
Speaker 4: wouldn't need all of this massive communication substance. So It
41:23
Speaker 4: is propaganda. If we put that back on screen and
41:26
Speaker 4: we can follow down, it says that our members are
41:30
Speaker 4: explaining government policy, describing the objectives and policies of the
41:34
Speaker 4: government of the day, providing crisis support. So this whole
41:38
Speaker 4: body would have gone into overdrive around Fairford in order
41:43
Speaker 4: to create an absolute smokescreen of chaos and utter nonsense.
41:48
Speaker 4: But let's go down to this one. This is where
41:50
Speaker 4: people should pay attention, encourage behavior change. So we've got
41:55
Speaker 4: these idiots that are in government working with deep specialists
42:00
Speaker 4: in order to change the behavior of the public. This
42:03
Speaker 4: is where it gets very dangerous. And of course, these
42:06
Speaker 4: techniques have also been unleashed on the MPs themselves, although
42:10
Speaker 4: they're too stupid to understand what's been done to them.
42:14
Speaker 4: So you have politicians manipulated in order to help the
42:18
Speaker 4: wider central government propaganda agenda. Now, this man was core
42:24
Speaker 4: to a lot of what was going on inside informing
42:27
Speaker 4: the government's communications policy, David Dinsmore. Now, he's recently stepped down,
42:34
Speaker 4: but his specialist expertise is The Sun, one of the
42:39
Speaker 4: more upstanding newspapers in the United Kingdom. These are some
42:44
Speaker 4: of the things that he's had to say in post.
42:47
Speaker 4: It's been an enormous privilege to serve at the heart
42:49
Speaker 4: of government at this crucial time for our country. Over
42:53
Speaker 4: the past months, we've fundamentally reshaped the way government approaches communications,
42:58
Speaker 4: establishing a clear strategy and creating the government media unit,
43:02
Speaker 4: more people, Mike, to make the impact of government highly
43:06
Speaker 4: visible to citizens and stakeholders. You don't want the truth
43:10
Speaker 4: about government to come out. We're just going to make
43:12
Speaker 4: government highly visible. He went on to say government communications
43:17
Speaker 4: is now moving from strategic design, which he's helped design,
43:22
Speaker 4: into implementation. And I leave it with great confidence in
43:25
Speaker 4: the outstanding work of the civil servants who are going
43:30
Speaker 4: to take this policy forward. So if you decide to
43:36
Speaker 4: have a little look at AI, and I'm putting this
43:38
Speaker 4: up on screen because, of course, we heard already in
43:41
Speaker 4: the news that the government, as far as courts are concerned,
43:45
Speaker 4: are going to be working deeper with AI. But if
43:47
Speaker 4: you engage with chat GPT, the first thing you need
43:51
Speaker 4: to tell it is to drop the political bias, which
43:55
Speaker 4: it will do to a certain extent. But basically, we've
43:58
Speaker 4: now got coming in the National Centre for Information Defence, NCID.
44:04
Speaker 4: And if we look at the small print, it tells
44:07
Speaker 4: us that The cooperation field of this new organization, the
44:13
Speaker 4: National Center for Information Defense, intelligence agencies, government departments, law enforcement,
44:20
Speaker 4: and social media companies are all going to be working together.
44:24
Speaker 4: So we're not really going to know what's government and
44:27
Speaker 4: what is actually manipulated social media. And I'll just add
44:32
Speaker 4: this into the mix to reinforce it, a BBC report
44:36
Speaker 4: from a few days ago, saying more than 2 million
44:39
Speaker 4: spent by government on influencers since July 2024. So the
44:45
Speaker 4: Department of Education paid for 57 social media influencers. We've
44:51
Speaker 4: got the HMRC worked with 44 different influencers. And don't worry,
44:58
Speaker 4: because they were all authentic and trusted voices. And down
45:03
Speaker 4: at the bottom, the Department for Work and Pensions had
45:06
Speaker 4: spent more than 200,000 on influencers. But there were so
45:10
Speaker 4: many more that the total was over 2 million. Now,
45:14
Speaker 4: if we just get into the subject of the government
45:17
Speaker 4: use of influencers, don't worry, because the government's come up
45:20
Speaker 4: with a due diligence policy. And what's that going to do? Well,
45:25
Speaker 4: it's going to determine the size, reach and demographics of
45:29
Speaker 4: the government's preferred influencer. And it's going to check if
45:33
Speaker 4: they've produced unsuitable content that government messaging should not appear
45:38
Speaker 4: next to. Does that rule us out? I'm afraid we're
45:41
Speaker 4: ruled out. And they also say they're going to be
45:46
Speaker 4: checking on whether the influencer has publicly communicated on political
45:51
Speaker 4: issues recently. So we get hits on number three as well.
45:55
Speaker 4: But if you look, it says that they've got a
45:59
Speaker 4: safer framework. for these influencers. So I thought, oh, if
46:04
Speaker 4: you put that on screen, William, because this is a
46:07
Speaker 4: key bit, I thought, oh, if I click on the
46:09
Speaker 4: government safer framework, I can see how the government thinks
46:14
Speaker 4: and what sort of influences it wants to work with.
46:17
Speaker 4: So I pressed the button and up came the message,
46:21
Speaker 4: members only content. So it was either adult content, and
46:26
Speaker 4: that was particularly unsuitable, possible, or else the government simply
46:30
Speaker 4: doesn't want you to know how it's going to manipulate
46:33
Speaker 4: influencers in order to keep its wider propaganda going. And
46:38
Speaker 4: I'll finish by saying that there was also this recent
46:41
Speaker 4: headline where the Youth Parliament, which has been operating for
46:46
Speaker 4: many years, is going to be axed. They've cut funding already,
46:50
Speaker 4: but this fits Andy Burnham's policy because what they are
46:55
Speaker 4: going to do is increase the number of regional parties
46:58
Speaker 4: and local youth councillors to train up young people to
47:01
Speaker 4: be part of the propaganda machine. Sorry, Mike, stolen a
47:05
Speaker 4: bit of your time there.
47:06
Speaker 1: That's okay, because let's move on to the big propaganda
47:09
Speaker 1: machine itself, which is the BBC, of course. And here
47:12
Speaker 1: we have a cross-party committee of MPs calling for the
47:16
Speaker 1: BBC's Royal Charter to be made permanent and for the
47:19
Speaker 1: BBC television licence fee to be extended beyond television sets.
47:25
Speaker 1: And so they published this a couple of days ago.
47:28
Speaker 1: And this is ahead of the government's white paper on
47:30
Speaker 1: the BBC's future that's been published by the Culture, Media
47:34
Speaker 1: and Sport Committee, chaired by Conservative MP Dame Caroline Dynage.
47:38
Speaker 1: And it recommends that ministers set out steps to broaden
47:41
Speaker 1: the licence fee in time for the new charter in
47:43
Speaker 1: January 2028 so that it's, quote, no longer linked to
47:47
Speaker 1: a particular device or activity. So we just bring that
47:50
Speaker 1: back on screen again. Let's just have a look at
47:53
Speaker 1: some of the key points and key recommendations. So they
47:57
Speaker 1: said that there were strong arguments for a household levy,
48:01
Speaker 1: but it would be difficult to introduce in the short term.
48:04
Speaker 1: They said that the government should not have ruled out
48:06
Speaker 1: this option entirely. General taxation, advertising, a levy on streamers
48:10
Speaker 1: and subscriptions were all dismissed. But that's basically what the
48:16
Speaker 1: recommendation is, a household levy. They said that they recommend
48:20
Speaker 1: the government take back full funding for the BBC World
48:23
Speaker 1: Service with a view to maximizing its potential. Look at
48:27
Speaker 1: the keywords there. It should be considered a national security
48:30
Speaker 1: and soft power asset that departments across government value take
48:34
Speaker 1: advantage of and resource. But the other key one that
48:39
Speaker 1: I wanted to mention here was, subject to the BBC
48:43
Speaker 1: being resourced sufficiently, the Charter gives the BBC an additional
48:47
Speaker 1: responsibility to counter misinformation and disinformation. This is clearly not
48:51
Speaker 1: solely the responsibility of the BBC, they say. It's not
48:54
Speaker 1: a problem that the BBC can solve by itself. However,
48:57
Speaker 1: through partnerships with other organizations and with sufficient resources, the
49:01
Speaker 1: BBC could have significant impact. Does that mean that we're
49:05
Speaker 1: going to see much more funding for BBC Verify, for example?
49:08
Speaker 4: Of course, Mike.
49:09
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Of course. But that's where we're heading for. So
49:13
Speaker 1: we're talking about, Charles, a levy on households. So that
49:18
Speaker 1: means no matter what device you're using and whether or
49:21
Speaker 1: not critically you're watching live content, then it effectively turns
49:29
Speaker 1: the license fee into a tax that we all have
49:31
Speaker 1: to pay. And the reason for that is 40% fall
49:34
Speaker 1: in the number of people paying it. And that's what
49:37
Speaker 1: they're particularly concerned about. Well, absolutely.
49:42
Speaker 2: And also, of course, enabling a greater surveillance picture because
49:47
Speaker 2: the fact that everybody therefore has to be registered and
49:51
Speaker 2: therefore their viewing is seen in a much more clear context.
49:55
Speaker 2: I think it's worth reminding the audience that Caroline Dynage is,
49:58
Speaker 2: of course, married to Mark Lancaster, who formerly served as
50:02
Speaker 2: Deputy Commander 77 Brigade. So there we go. That's a
50:05
Speaker 2: nice squaring of the circle. And we'll just go now
50:08
Speaker 2: to East Africa, where the Kenya president, William Ruto, has
50:12
Speaker 2: put out a very jolly tweet about the Dangote East
50:17
Speaker 2: Africa refinery. Now, what he's talking about is a proposed, well,
50:21
Speaker 2: actually more than proposed, the ground has been broken on
50:23
Speaker 2: an oil refinery refinery. that is going to be valued
50:28
Speaker 2: at about $ 15 billion. Aliko Dangote, the Nigerian tycoon, who
50:34
Speaker 2: of course has a similar project, on the West African
50:37
Speaker 2: coast in Nigeria. And in terms of what this is
50:41
Speaker 2: going to apparently deliver, we go to the star in
50:44
Speaker 2: Kenya asking the question, how will it compare with the
50:48
Speaker 2: world's biggest? Now, in terms of why this is relevant
50:51
Speaker 2: to the audience, we heard Patrick on the news on
50:52
Speaker 2: Friday talking about Russia massively stepping up their oil production. shipping,
50:58
Speaker 2: refining and all the rest of it. It looks like
51:02
Speaker 2: the Dangote Lamu project will have a capacity of about 700,000
51:06
Speaker 2: barrels of oil a day, which just to set the
51:08
Speaker 2: context is over half of what the whole of the
51:10
Speaker 2: United Kingdom refines. And so it clearly is significant. And
51:15
Speaker 2: it must be assumed that Aliko Dangote, as reporters, the
51:19
Speaker 2: richest man in Africa, does actually know what he's doing.
51:23
Speaker 2: And indeed, he has hard evidence upon which to base
51:26
Speaker 2: his decision-making processes because, of course, his own existing operations
51:30
Speaker 2: in Nigeria have increased in production more than sevenfold since
51:36
Speaker 2: 2023 and going up significantly from February 2026, which, as
51:42
Speaker 2: we see from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, coincided with
51:45
Speaker 2: supply constraints out of the Strait of Hormuz. Now, this has,
51:50
Speaker 2: of course, been controversial. It's not the first project of
51:53
Speaker 2: this sort that the island of Lahmu has had to
51:56
Speaker 2: contend with, Lahmu itself being a very rich area in
52:01
Speaker 2: Swahili cultural heritage, but also a tourism hotspot. But there's
52:05
Speaker 2: been a deep water port put in there by the Chinese,
52:07
Speaker 2: which became operational in 2021. They're reported by the State
52:12
Speaker 2: Council Information Office. There was also a coal-fired power station
52:16
Speaker 2: project that was scrapped. But the reason this is, or
52:19
Speaker 2: at least should be, considered relevant to the UK column audience,
52:23
Speaker 2: regardless of where you live in the world, is because
52:25
Speaker 2: of the document that is put out by the African
52:29
Speaker 2: Union AFREC and the way in which Africans might be
52:34
Speaker 2: regarded as playing the game. So they put out a document,
52:36
Speaker 2: the African Energy Transition Strategy and Action Plan, in which
52:40
Speaker 2: they're happy to say under the decarbonisation paragraph, the strategic
52:44
Speaker 2: reduction of carbon dioxide emissions through the transition from fossil
52:47
Speaker 2: fuel based energy production to renewable and zero carbon energy
52:52
Speaker 2: sources is And so forth, in effect, demonstrating that they're
52:56
Speaker 2: absolutely prepared to go along with the narrative, to put
52:58
Speaker 2: out the relevant documentation, to make it look like they
53:01
Speaker 2: are showing willing. But, of course, in opposite effectively practice
53:07
Speaker 2: to the West, which, of course, does actually fall into
53:10
Speaker 2: the trap of believing the rhetoric and going along with
53:13
Speaker 2: it and scrapping technology that does work. the Africans seem
53:16
Speaker 2: to be avoiding this particular pitfall. And then just to
53:20
Speaker 2: make it relevant, certainly to the British audience, we look
53:22
Speaker 2: at the ICAI report from November last year, which confirms
53:27
Speaker 2: that a significant amount of UK funds have gone from
53:31
Speaker 2: successive governments to be allocated a significant share of the
53:35
Speaker 2: UK's aid budget to supporting developing countries to make the transition.
53:40
Speaker 2: So not only do we see Dangote putting in a
53:43
Speaker 2: significant refinery, which, of course, will challenge, presumably, the United
53:46
Speaker 2: States' control over the market since what went on in Iran,
53:51
Speaker 2: or at least the Strait of Hormuz earlier in the year.
53:53
Speaker 2: But also, Africa gets the double benefit of putting in
53:57
Speaker 2: a new refinery, but also continuing to receive the wisdom, advice,
54:01
Speaker 2: but critically, the money from Western countries like the UK,
54:04
Speaker 2: which think that it's a sensible idea to prop up
54:08
Speaker 2: the net zero agenda. Again, more to talk about in Extra,
54:11
Speaker 2: I think.
54:12
Speaker 1: Thank you, Charles. Thank you for that. Now, let's move
54:15
Speaker 1: on to Prevent. Prevent, of course, is the counter-extremism strategy
54:19
Speaker 1: of the British regime. And, well, it turns out that,
54:24
Speaker 1: as we can see from this article here, it looks
54:27
Speaker 1: like they have been keeping internal records of posts on
54:31
Speaker 1: X and Reddit that criticized the scheme. Now, this is
54:35
Speaker 1: the Standards and Compliance Unit, which is a Home Office-related
54:41
Speaker 1: organization Now, strangely enough, they recorded 77 of these observations,
54:47
Speaker 1: must be just a coincidence, but anyway, we'll come back
54:51
Speaker 1: to that later, between March 2024 and February 2025. And
54:55
Speaker 1: most of these were on X, but they were also
54:59
Speaker 1: picking up responses, but also people talking about organizations such
55:03
Speaker 1: as Hope Not Hate and so on. It also included
55:07
Speaker 1: articles from The Guardian and The Telegraph. Um, so the
55:10
Speaker 1: home office refused to release the list initially. Um, and
55:14
Speaker 1: they said, uh, they tried to use a freedom of
55:17
Speaker 1: information exemption, covering the risks to health, covering risks to
55:20
Speaker 1: health and safety. So, I mean, they didn't really have
55:23
Speaker 1: any excuse for it. They were falling back on health
55:25
Speaker 1: and safety as the excuse. And then in August this year,
55:28
Speaker 1: the information commissioner's office ruled that the department had failed
55:33
Speaker 1: to show that the exemption applied, found that it had
55:36
Speaker 1: missed the statutory deadline and ordered disclosure. So the comment
55:42
Speaker 1: from this organization, we just put that back on screen
55:44
Speaker 1: for a second, was that people should be able to
55:47
Speaker 1: criticize government policy without getting put on a list. And
55:50
Speaker 1: of course, that's true. But we also know that it's
55:53
Speaker 1: true that people are put on lists on a regular basis.
55:57
Speaker 1: The Home Office said that Prevent does not track people
56:00
Speaker 1: who criticize the program. And of course, if you take
56:03
Speaker 1: it At face value, that statement is correct because it
56:07
Speaker 1: isn't Prevent that's doing it. It's the organization that the
56:10
Speaker 1: home office tasks with checking complaints about Prevent that's doing this. So,
56:15
Speaker 1: you know, it's just totally disingenuous at the very least. Now,
56:20
Speaker 1: the truth is that this was not entirely secret because
56:24
Speaker 1: in the organization's first annual report, which was published in
56:27
Speaker 1: May 2025, they said that they scanned social media for
56:31
Speaker 1: open source complaints but they didn't define what they meant
56:35
Speaker 1: by open source complaints. Most of the logged posts complained
56:40
Speaker 1: that Prevent Training focused too heavily on far-right extremism and
56:44
Speaker 1: neglected Islamist extremism, and that was what they were gathering
56:48
Speaker 1: information about. And then we'll just mention the letter by
56:54
Speaker 1: Sir William, and that has completely fallen out of my
56:59
Speaker 1: head here, who wrote this letter, but basically the issue here,
57:03
Speaker 1: the key issue here is... Short cross. No, no, it
57:06
Speaker 1: wasn't short cross. The issue here is that the organization
57:10
Speaker 1: never given proper statutory footing. So the question is whether
57:14
Speaker 1: what they were doing was even legal in the first
57:16
Speaker 1: place or lawful in the first place, because it never
57:18
Speaker 1: had any statutory footing to operate in this way.
57:22
Speaker 4: But even if it were, they brought in a law
57:24
Speaker 4: allowing them to break the law as necessary.
57:26
Speaker 1: Well, they might do later. Yes, yes, indeed. That's normally
57:28
Speaker 1: what happens. Okay, well, we've got one final thing we
57:32
Speaker 1: need to discuss here, Brian.
57:35
Speaker 4: Yes, I got a very interesting email this morning, which
57:39
Speaker 4: made me smile. I thought it was a really excellent email.
57:42
Speaker 4: It was from a man called John. It's an open
57:45
Speaker 4: letter to editors that he sent out to a variety
57:48
Speaker 4: of media organizations. So let's just label it as such.
57:53
Speaker 4: But basically, what the letter is saying is that the
57:56
Speaker 4: biggest threat to the United Kingdom comes from The governments
58:01
Speaker 4: we've had, whatever party, over the past, sorry, through the
58:05
Speaker 4: past and into the present. So it's our own government
58:09
Speaker 4: that is the biggest threat to the population. And that's
58:11
Speaker 4: one of the core messages of the UK column. Let
58:14
Speaker 4: me just read this letter. It's quite short. The biggest
58:18
Speaker 4: threat to the UK comes not from Russia, China, Iran,
58:22
Speaker 4: or the little green men from Mars, but rather from
58:24
Speaker 4: the UK government. this and past ones, along with the
58:28
Speaker 4: rest of the political establishment. Over the last few decades,
58:32
Speaker 4: they have refused to defend our borders, handed away our sovereignty,
58:36
Speaker 4: rewritten our history and trashed our culture. They now want
58:39
Speaker 4: to turn us into a minority and treat us as
58:42
Speaker 4: second-class citizens in our own country. The police, judiciary, civil
58:47
Speaker 4: service and other organs of state have been mobilised to persecute,
58:51
Speaker 4: not protect us. To all extents and purposes, we're now
58:54
Speaker 4: a defeated occupied nation, brackets, as this is how we
58:59
Speaker 4: would be treated if we'd lost a war. But none
59:02
Speaker 4: of this is the outcome of accident or incompetence. It
59:05
Speaker 4: was the plan all along, and the politicians have gone
59:08
Speaker 4: along with it every step of the way. And now
59:11
Speaker 4: Tories and Labour vie with each other to see who
59:14
Speaker 4: can beat the war drums that allowed us to start
59:17
Speaker 4: another global war. They won't be doing the fighting, dying themselves,
59:21
Speaker 4: or suffering anyway. Oh no, you can be sure of that.
59:25
Speaker 4: But they are quite prepared to use British service personnel
59:28
Speaker 4: as cannon fodder in their useless and costly foreign wars,
59:32
Speaker 4: and expose the rest of the civilian population who will
59:36
Speaker 4: not have bomb-proof bunkers down which to bolt to almost
59:41
Speaker 4: certain nuclear annihilation. They, our own government, must be stopped
59:46
Speaker 4: before they get us all killed. When nations are being
59:52
Speaker 4: led to wreck and ruin, it is a patriotic duty
59:56
Speaker 4: to rebel. while obeying orders becomes tantamount to treason. So
1:00:01
Speaker 4: I read that early this morning with my cup of tea,
1:00:04
Speaker 4: and I thought the author, John, was bang on the money.
1:00:07
Speaker 4: And of course, when Danny Kruger has told the nation
1:00:12
Speaker 4: publicly that the Conservatives intended to bring in chaos in
1:00:17
Speaker 4: the public sector in order to break down the country,
1:00:21
Speaker 4: to bring in the new supposedly Conservative order, We are
1:00:26
Speaker 4: being attacked. There's no question of it. I don't know
1:00:30
Speaker 4: whether you'd like to respond to that, Michael.
1:00:32
Speaker 1: We can do an extra. We can. We absolutely can.
1:00:34
Speaker 4: We'll take our time to respond in extra.
1:00:37
Speaker 1: Yeah. But we do have to leave it there for today.
1:00:40
Speaker 1: Thank you, Charles and Brian. And thanks to everybody that's
1:00:42
Speaker 1: been watching. Don't forget interviews tonight. Not sure what's going
1:00:47
Speaker 1: on at one o'clock tomorrow afternoon, but we will. There
1:00:51
Speaker 1: will be something at one o'clock tomorrow in the usual
1:00:53
Speaker 1: news slot, and we'll be back for the news on
1:00:55
Speaker 1: Wednesday at 1pm. We'll see you then. Thanks for joining us.
1:00:58
Speaker 3: Bye-bye.