Latest / UK Column Radio / UK Column News — 2nd November 2026

Transcript

UK Column News — 2nd November 2026 · UK Column Radio

0:15
Speaker 1: Good afternoon.
0:16
Speaker 2: It's Monday, the 2nd of November, 2026, just after one o'clock.
0:19
Speaker 2: Welcome to UK Column News. I'm your host, Mike Robinson.
0:21
Speaker 2: Joining me in the studio today is Brian Gerrish. Welcome
0:23
Speaker 2: to the program, Brian.
0:24
Speaker 3: Great to be back.
0:26
Speaker 2: And in studio two is Charles Mallett, my leader in
0:28
Speaker 2: the program. We'll be asking what are respect orders? Brian
0:32
Speaker 2: will have a short update on his recent trip to
0:34
Speaker 2: the Netherlands and we'll be covering the alleged coup attempt
0:37
Speaker 2: in Poland. But we'll begin today, Brian, with more on
0:41
Speaker 2: Burnham's budget devolution plans.
0:43
Speaker 3: Yes, indeed. And I'm just going to start off by
0:45
Speaker 3: saying I was prompted to cover this by reading the
0:49
Speaker 3: local newspaper, the Western Morning News, which is here in
0:53
Speaker 3: the West country. And it was talking about the fallout
0:56
Speaker 3: and anger as a result of the government's failure over
1:01
Speaker 3: local government reform. And so let's move on from there
1:07
Speaker 3: and bring our illustrious leader up on screen, Andy Burnham.
1:11
Speaker 3: And the key thing, the key message being put to
1:14
Speaker 3: the country at the moment seems to be that he's
1:17
Speaker 3: admitting his little budget was not ideal, but really it's
1:21
Speaker 3: nothing to worry about. Now, the Western Morning News was
1:25
Speaker 3: showing that local authorities at least very wary about what's
1:29
Speaker 3: happening with local government reorganization. And the government is clearly
1:33
Speaker 3: going to come back at them, albeit with some slightly
1:37
Speaker 3: amended plans, but there's a lot of confusion. But let's
1:40
Speaker 3: bring in the budget, put that one back on screen
1:43
Speaker 3: and just put a little bit more detail on it
1:46
Speaker 3: because he covered economy, taxation, cost of living. a major
1:51
Speaker 3: expansion of English devolution, defence and British defence industry, national security,
1:56
Speaker 3: artificial intelligence, housing and homelessness, welfare and employment, energy policy reform,
2:04
Speaker 3: and also international relations, and of course, Ukraine. Now, the
2:08
Speaker 3: reason I'm stressing the budget again is because the Institute
2:12
Speaker 3: of Government has proved to be pretty effective at pointing
2:16
Speaker 3: out what is actually happening in government policy. Indeed, they
2:20
Speaker 3: seem to be helping facilitate that policy in the first place.
2:24
Speaker 3: So perhaps they would know exactly what it is. But
2:27
Speaker 3: here's their headline. The fiscal devolution roadmap is the radical
2:32
Speaker 3: reform in an otherwise quiet budget. So it's a little
2:35
Speaker 3: insignificant budget sold to the public. But in truth, it's
2:40
Speaker 3: radical and it's deeply radical because he's now set out
2:43
Speaker 3: the pathway by which the city mayor systems are going
2:48
Speaker 3: to be funded, and those mayors are going to have
2:51
Speaker 3: greater say over how taxes are spent, although they're not
2:54
Speaker 3: going to be able to get their hands on the
2:56
Speaker 3: taxes raw, as it were. They're going to have to
2:59
Speaker 3: wait and see what the allocations of that money are,
3:03
Speaker 3: but then they can choose priorities. Now, I was particularly
3:07
Speaker 3: interested that whilst he has just over 400 million to
3:12
Speaker 3: spend on homelessness, there's a lot of money disappearing to Ukraine.
3:18
Speaker 3: And I went on the trail of who is responsible
3:21
Speaker 3: for due diligence over the money going to Ukraine. And
3:26
Speaker 3: it's quite an interesting little trail of not a lot
3:29
Speaker 3: of commitment by the government. Now, we need to start
3:32
Speaker 3: off by having a look at the Independent Commission for
3:35
Speaker 3: Aid Impact. This body actually reports to Parliament through the
3:40
Speaker 3: House of Commons that, And it goes by the International
3:45
Speaker 3: Development Committee. Now, let's just bring in the image here,
3:49
Speaker 3: because if anybody's got concerns about corruption in Ukraine and
3:53
Speaker 3: corruption involving UK funding, we can be sure that Zelensky
3:58
Speaker 3: is saying, well, Andy, don't you worry your little head
4:01
Speaker 3: about that. So let's come on to this organization. It's
4:05
Speaker 3: very small. It has few staff. But in actual fact,
4:09
Speaker 3: it employs another organization. A number of other consultancies to
4:14
Speaker 3: do the work, Google has, of course, it's at IOD Park.
4:20
Speaker 3: So there are a number of these bodies and they're
4:22
Speaker 3: all used to get the information in to apparently keep
4:26
Speaker 3: the billions that are going to Ukraine safe. But let's
4:29
Speaker 3: have a look at the reality of their report. Now,
4:32
Speaker 3: this is back in 2024, so it's a little bit stale.
4:38
Speaker 3: But nevertheless, it shows what the government is and is
4:41
Speaker 3: not doing. Now, of course, I've put small print on screen.
4:46
Speaker 3: So let's bring in the big figures so we make
4:49
Speaker 3: it clearly visible for everybody. So in this report alone,
4:53
Speaker 3: the UK has provided or pledged 7 billion in military
4:58
Speaker 3: assistance for Ukraine. And the UK has also agreed to
5:02
Speaker 3: provide an unprecedented 4 billion in guarantees to allow Ukraine
5:06
Speaker 3: to access World Bank funding. Now, if we follow on
5:12
Speaker 3: through the report, they went on to say this. If
5:15
Speaker 3: Ukraine is unable to service its debt to the World Bank,
5:20
Speaker 3: the UK would take on its repayment obligations potentially over
5:24
Speaker 3: the next 35 years, with payments peaking at around $ 375
5:29
Speaker 3: million per year, equivalent to 3% of the UK's current
5:34
Speaker 3: aid budget. So Mike, this is a significant risk that
5:38
Speaker 3: the UK government has taken on by pumping this money
5:42
Speaker 3: into Ukraine. The Ukrainian economy is devastated at the moment,
5:48
Speaker 3: and yet we are relying on the Ukrainians to pay
5:50
Speaker 3: this money back, or the British taxpayer faces the wrath
5:55
Speaker 3: of the World Bank, who's going to claim that money
5:58
Speaker 3: back from the British taxpayer. So if we go on through,
6:03
Speaker 3: The report also said that it noted that the corruption
6:07
Speaker 3: in Ukraine remains a significant risk, both to UK aid
6:12
Speaker 3: funds and to Ukraine's reconstruction and recovery. Now, this report
6:16
Speaker 3: is written in very gentle language. At the end of
6:19
Speaker 3: the day, we're seeing consultants reporting back to the client.
6:24
Speaker 3: So they're not going to do anything very critical of
6:27
Speaker 3: the hand that pays them. But nevertheless, we can see
6:30
Speaker 3: in the very carefully selected language, This report is identifying
6:36
Speaker 3: not only the scale of the risk around corruption, but
6:39
Speaker 3: the scale of money and the risk to the UK taxpayer.
6:46
Speaker 3: So this document is very worth reading because it points
6:51
Speaker 3: out really that the UK government has done little to
6:55
Speaker 3: address the risks of its money and investments in Ukraine. Now,
6:59
Speaker 3: in this section on findings, and I'll just read it
7:02
Speaker 3: because some of the print is very small, it says
7:05
Speaker 3: that UK aid has been effective and adapted in responding
7:08
Speaker 3: to the crisis in Ukraine, providing 228 million in bilateral
7:13
Speaker 3: assistance and 4 billion in loan guarantees over five years.
7:18
Speaker 3: And I've just talked to you about some of the
7:20
Speaker 3: risks of that. It says large loan guarantees are crucial
7:24
Speaker 3: to help Ukraine carry on functioning as a state. but
7:27
Speaker 3: mean the UK has taken on significant liabilities that could
7:31
Speaker 3: impact the aid budget in future. And there are high
7:35
Speaker 3: corruption risks in post-war reconstruction, which must be managed appropriately.
7:40
Speaker 3: And the UK government has said it's confident it can
7:44
Speaker 3: bring in private sector money in order to get that
7:49
Speaker 3: development done. Now, if we move on to recommendations here,
7:54
Speaker 3: We'll just quickly come in at this. It says that
7:56
Speaker 3: the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office should strengthen its third
7:59
Speaker 3: body monitoring and audit arrangements in Ukraine by adding specialist
8:05
Speaker 3: capacity to identify and investigate fraud, corruption and diversion risks
8:11
Speaker 3: to UK aid. There is no evidence in any of
8:14
Speaker 3: the documents that I've seen that that has been done.
8:17
Speaker 3: And if I put the last one on screen here,
8:20
Speaker 3: Based on the lessons from other post-conflict settings, FCDO's new
8:24
Speaker 3: anti-corruption programme should include a focus on helping Ukraine's independent
8:30
Speaker 3: anti-corruption bodies to identify and manage corruption risks associated with
8:35
Speaker 3: large-scale reconstruction. But I'll reinforce this point. When you go
8:40
Speaker 3: through this system, you have these very small consultancies being
8:45
Speaker 3: paid for the government effectively. checking out the due diligence
8:49
Speaker 3: about these huge sums of taxpayers' money. And the icing
8:53
Speaker 3: on the cake is that the HM Treasury has just
8:57
Speaker 3: announced further support for Ukraine. The chancellor has announced a
9:01
Speaker 3: new package of over 10 billion in economic and military
9:06
Speaker 3: support for Ukraine. So corruption, it doesn't appear to be
9:10
Speaker 3: a problem. And we have no idea how much of
9:13
Speaker 3: this valuable taxpayers' money is going missing, Mike.
9:17
Speaker 2: Well, indeed, we mentioned on Friday that only 500 million
9:21
Speaker 2: of that 10 billion is in cash. The rest is
9:25
Speaker 2: in loan guarantees, loans and loan guarantees. But as you
9:28
Speaker 2: rightly point out, that absolutely leaves us all on the hook. When,
9:33
Speaker 2: not if, because a lot of that money's gone into
9:37
Speaker 2: Bentleys or whatever it happens to be. So those aren't
9:40
Speaker 2: going to be sold in order to pay back those loans. Indeed.
9:43
Speaker 3: So we can just about manage the 400 billion to...
9:47
Speaker 3: start to deal with homelessness in UK money, it's in
9:51
Speaker 3: a bucket for Ukraine.
9:52
Speaker 2: Absolutely. Charles, let's welcome you to the program. And in
9:56
Speaker 2: the introduction, we suggested we might get an answer to
10:00
Speaker 2: the question of what are respect orders?
10:04
Speaker 4: Well, it's a very good question and good afternoon to
10:07
Speaker 4: you both. Good afternoon all. Yes, the respect order has
10:11
Speaker 4: been launched by the Home Office. They've put out a
10:14
Speaker 4: press release, so it must be official and it confirms
10:20
Speaker 4: that Orwell was right again. They say that they're going
10:24
Speaker 4: to be targeting antisocial behaviour. And of course, there is,
10:28
Speaker 4: as usual, quite a lot to dig into. The way
10:30
Speaker 4: they describe it is by saying that the government's flagship
10:34
Speaker 4: respect order enables police and councils to take stronger enforcement
10:39
Speaker 4: action against relentless adult offenders. of anti-social behaviour. So you
10:45
Speaker 4: can see where this is in effect going. They are
10:49
Speaker 4: putting out the notion that this is to deal with
10:52
Speaker 4: a problem that is writ large across society and that
10:55
Speaker 4: that is in effect where it is going to begin
10:58
Speaker 4: and end. But I think in terms of beginning and end,
11:00
Speaker 4: I think we need to look at where exactly the
11:03
Speaker 4: state's authority does begin and end, because they then go
11:05
Speaker 4: on to say in the same release that Offenders can
11:08
Speaker 4: also be ordered by the courts to tackle the root
11:11
Speaker 4: causes of their behaviour from drug or alcohol treatment to
11:16
Speaker 4: anger management courses instead of simply returning them to the
11:20
Speaker 4: streets to start the cycle again. Now, another critical detail
11:24
Speaker 4: is that by this point, there's no necessity for criminal activity.
11:31
Speaker 4: And this indeed is not regarded as a criminal sanction itself.
11:34
Speaker 4: And yet, if a respect order is imposed, then it
11:39
Speaker 4: goes on to the police national computer. And I think
11:41
Speaker 4: it would be fair to say that it's hard to
11:43
Speaker 4: see how an adverse inference would not be drawn if
11:46
Speaker 4: it emerged that somebody who was well outside of an
11:49
Speaker 4: area where a respect order was in place was stopped
11:52
Speaker 4: by police and found to be in effect, awarded a
11:56
Speaker 4: respect order. There was controversy when this was introduced as
12:01
Speaker 4: a discussion point back in 2024 when the legislation was
12:05
Speaker 4: being brought in. And I think it serves a purpose
12:08
Speaker 4: to go back to listen to what Lord Phillips said
12:11
Speaker 4: in the House of Lords as a question to Lord
12:14
Speaker 4: Hanson about the element of criminality.
12:19
Speaker 5: Might I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, in order
12:22
Speaker 5: to qualify... for a respect order, will behavior have to
12:27
Speaker 5: be criminal? And if not, what criteria will it have
12:31
Speaker 5: to satisfy?
12:32
Speaker 6: I'm grateful to the Lord for his question. The individual regards,
12:45
Speaker 6: I want to get the exact wording correct. The issue
12:47
Speaker 6: to do with the respect order particularly is it doesn't
12:51
Speaker 6: have to be criminal behavior. It can be behaviour that
12:54
Speaker 6: potentially causes alarm or distress or harassment. Now, again, I
13:01
Speaker 6: say to the House that those matters will be tested
13:05
Speaker 6: as we go through committee. There will be an opportunity
13:08
Speaker 6: to clarify what that means and put down some legal
13:11
Speaker 6: guidelines on that during committee and during the reading of
13:14
Speaker 6: this House. But the idea with the respect order is
13:17
Speaker 6: to tackle what I would term low-level antisocial behaviour because
13:21
Speaker 6: if criminal actions have been taken, then there are criminal
13:25
Speaker 6: sanctions that are available to police to make arrests accordingly.
13:29
Speaker 6: And I hope that we can reflect on that during committee.
13:35
Speaker 4: So there's Lord Hanson responding there, suggesting that the completely
13:39
Speaker 4: pertinent question that's raised by Lord Phillips will be dealt
13:41
Speaker 4: with and a sensible outcome will be achieved. The legislation
13:44
Speaker 4: that resulted, which was the Crime and Policing Act 2026,
13:47
Speaker 4: suggests differently. And we'll just have a look at that now,
13:50
Speaker 4: because what it actually says is, under the chapter concerning
13:54
Speaker 4: respect orders, the court is satisfied on the balance of
13:58
Speaker 4: probabilities that the respondent has engaged in or threatens to
14:09
Speaker 4: engage in antisocial behaviour. So, so much for this idea
14:12
Speaker 4: of it being concerning only persistent offenders. This is absolutely
14:17
Speaker 4: thought crime and pre-crime rolled into this part of the act.
14:23
Speaker 4: they go on to say that antisocial behaviour means conduct
14:26
Speaker 4: that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm
14:30
Speaker 4: or distress to any person. So in other words, what
14:34
Speaker 4: Lord Hanson of Flint was suggesting has absolutely not come
14:38
Speaker 4: to pass. And somebody who has such an order imposed,
14:42
Speaker 4: is then subject to further criminal sanctions. Of course, they
14:45
Speaker 4: breach the order. So the legislation states that the order
14:48
Speaker 4: may prohibit the respondent from doing anything described or require
14:53
Speaker 4: the respondent to do anything required. Now, I'd just like
14:56
Speaker 4: to get a quick comment from mike and brian about
15:00
Speaker 4: what this looks like in effect so to take an
15:03
Speaker 4: order which doesn't require any criminal activity to to be
15:07
Speaker 4: bestowed upon somebody but of course breach of it then
15:10
Speaker 4: does turn into a criminal.
15:12
Speaker 2: Action well my first question would be uh does somebody
15:17
Speaker 2: get one of these uh respect orders for being disrespectful
15:22
Speaker 2: of a member of parliament on social media for example
15:25
Speaker 2: um and uh it If they are handed one of
15:28
Speaker 2: these respect orders and then they continue to criticize, that
15:35
Speaker 2: results in criminal sanction. I mean, this looks very much
15:38
Speaker 2: like something which could be massively misused to shut down
15:44
Speaker 2: any kind of criticism of government policy, for example.
15:50
Speaker 1: Yeah.
15:50
Speaker 3: Well, I just add to this, we've got the famous statement,
15:53
Speaker 3: ignorance of the law is no excuse. But to understand
15:57
Speaker 3: what the law is, it's got to be very, very
16:00
Speaker 3: clear in what it's talking about. It's got to be
16:02
Speaker 3: black and white. And here we see that there's a
16:05
Speaker 3: drift away from concise wording as to what you have
16:10
Speaker 3: done to break the law to an interpretation. And this
16:15
Speaker 3: is where the danger lies. This is drifting further and
16:18
Speaker 3: further away from law defined clearly on paper to what
16:23
Speaker 3: somebody believes. I think it's immensely dangerous.
16:28
Speaker 4: Well, I think this is it. And it's really a
16:32
Speaker 4: question of precedent. I think the question you quite rightly
16:35
Speaker 4: asked is what is it.
16:37
Speaker 5: respecting?
16:39
Speaker 4: Is it supposed to be respecting one's fellow citizens? Or
16:42
Speaker 4: is it respect for the state? And the suggestion, first
16:46
Speaker 4: of all, of the collusion between local authorities and police
16:49
Speaker 4: looks like it's, in effect, an unhealthy match. But the
16:53
Speaker 4: other of the very many questions, one of them is, well,
16:55
Speaker 4: how on earth would it be policed? And Brian's already
16:58
Speaker 4: referenced the Institute for Government, who, as he quite rightly says, do,
17:01
Speaker 4: in effect, have their finger on the button. Now, they've
17:03
Speaker 4: just published a performance tracker for police And of course,
17:07
Speaker 4: what we have, sorry, that's not come through quite correctly,
17:11
Speaker 4: but the Institute for Government here, if I ever get
17:18
Speaker 4: back to it, has said in their tracker with regard
17:22
Speaker 4: to police numbers that the increase of police officers who
17:25
Speaker 4: are supposed to be dealing with this has principally been
17:27
Speaker 4: achieved by redeploying officers into neighbourhood roles rather than additional recruitment.
17:33
Speaker 4: So already the books have been cut. Now, if that's
17:36
Speaker 4: the case, where does this look likely to go? And
17:39
Speaker 4: I think from all that UK Column has been analysing
17:43
Speaker 4: and reporting on over the years, live facial recognition would
17:46
Speaker 4: be the obvious one. And just to substantiate that, on
17:48
Speaker 4: the College of Policing website, it's stated under the authorised
17:51
Speaker 4: professional practice that live facial recognition is already being used
17:54
Speaker 4: for a number of policing purposes, and including specifically preventing
17:59
Speaker 4: people who may cause harm from entering an area, and
18:03
Speaker 4: they specifically cite football banning orders. Now, this looks an
18:06
Speaker 4: awful lot like it could just be overlaid onto what
18:10
Speaker 4: is there already with regard to live facial recognition. And
18:14
Speaker 4: of course, it completely inverts the situation as it should be,
18:18
Speaker 4: which is that nobody's business should be known to police
18:21
Speaker 4: unless police have good reason for asking somebody who they
18:24
Speaker 4: are and what they're doing. And of course, live facial
18:26
Speaker 4: recognition flips that absolutely on its head. I'm just going
18:29
Speaker 4: to finish off with a video because it does articulate
18:33
Speaker 4: very strongly how much of a pickle policing has got
18:36
Speaker 4: into due to all sorts of political and other interference.
18:39
Speaker 4: This is a City of London policeman standing by somebody
18:43
Speaker 4: who's holding up a placard which might be too small
18:46
Speaker 4: for you to read, but it says, I support genocide.
18:49
Speaker 4: I oppose Palestine action. And After much deliberation, the City
18:55
Speaker 4: of London police officer is just forced to walk away because,
18:58
Speaker 4: of course, his brain can't compute, in effect, what he
19:02
Speaker 4: should actually do about it. So slightly different from the
19:06
Speaker 4: subject of the respect order, but it does look like
19:08
Speaker 4: it's setting a very, very dangerous and unhealthy precedent in
19:11
Speaker 4: which somebody may have an order imposed upon them, the
19:16
Speaker 4: breach of which could result in criminal sanction when there
19:20
Speaker 4: has been no criminal activity at all. prior to it,
19:24
Speaker 4: but simply the threat of it is sufficient.
19:28
Speaker 2: Yes, indeed. OK, lots to talk about already, an extra,
19:31
Speaker 2: but let's move on. Now, Rachel Reeves added fuel to
19:36
Speaker 2: the fire over Britain rejoining the EU over the weekend.
19:40
Speaker 2: Writing in The Telegraph, she said, I'm proud of the
19:42
Speaker 2: progress we've already made in strengthening our relationship with the
19:46
Speaker 2: European Union. Brexit has made us poorer, weaker and less secure.
19:50
Speaker 2: And she said, there is a debate to be had
19:52
Speaker 2: about our future relationship with Europe, and I welcome Andy
19:55
Speaker 2: Burnham's leadership in facing up to this. Well, anyone contemplating
19:59
Speaker 2: rejoining the EU should be watching closely at what's going
20:03
Speaker 2: on in Poland at the moment, because there's been a
20:05
Speaker 2: fight going on over there about whether Polish or EU
20:10
Speaker 2: law has sovereignty, and the current Polish prime minister and
20:14
Speaker 2: former president of the European Council is at the heart
20:17
Speaker 2: of it. So I'm talking about Poland's long-running dispute over
20:20
Speaker 2: its constitutional tribunal, which has spilled out onto the streets
20:25
Speaker 2: over the weekend with riot police guarding the court as
20:28
Speaker 2: supporters of the opposition party, the Law and Justice Party,
20:32
Speaker 2: protest outside. Now, the constitutional tribunal is Poland's constitutional court,
20:37
Speaker 2: It decides whether laws comply with the constitution and its
20:41
Speaker 2: 15 judges are elected by parliament for nine year terms
20:44
Speaker 2: and sworn in by the president, not the prime minister.
20:47
Speaker 2: So you just saw Donald Tusk on screen there. He's
20:49
Speaker 2: the prime minister. They are sworn in by the president.
20:52
Speaker 2: Now the court's been contested since 2015 because at that time,
20:57
Speaker 2: the law and justice party was the incoming party with
21:01
Speaker 2: a new government and they removed the judges installed by
21:05
Speaker 2: the previous government. and they installed their own. And this
21:09
Speaker 2: is absolutely normal in Poland. But December last year, the
21:14
Speaker 2: European Court of Justice ruled that the tribunal is not
21:17
Speaker 2: a valid court because it contains unlawfully appointed judges. Now,
21:23
Speaker 2: that's absolutely not the case. And this is the EU
21:26
Speaker 2: trying to shore up its tame puppet, Donald Tusk, and
21:29
Speaker 2: override national constitutional law. And then this year, the Tusk
21:34
Speaker 2: regime tried to change the court's makeup the Parliament elected
21:38
Speaker 2: six judges in March. But the President, Karol Nowrocki, who
21:44
Speaker 2: is an ally of the opposition party, swore in only
21:48
Speaker 2: two of those. The other four took their oaths before
21:52
Speaker 2: Parliament instead, and that is unconstitutional. So supporters say that
21:56
Speaker 2: the President forced this situation by refusing to act, and critics,
22:02
Speaker 2: including the Human Rights Commission, commissioner said that the law
22:06
Speaker 2: requires judges to be sworn in by the president. So
22:09
Speaker 2: the tribunal's president refused to let the four parliamentary sworn
22:15
Speaker 2: in judges sit. And then on Friday evening, one of
22:20
Speaker 2: the elected judges decided that she was going to suspend
22:25
Speaker 2: the tribunal's president and his deputy for one month. And
22:28
Speaker 2: she attempted to take control of the court. So crowds
22:31
Speaker 2: gathered at the court's gates within hours. The police detained
22:36
Speaker 2: three people after objects were thrown at police and protesters
22:40
Speaker 2: cut through the perimeter fence, as we'll see in a second,
22:43
Speaker 2: with a power tool. Police then barred the tribunal president
22:48
Speaker 2: from entering the building. Now, the president of the country,
22:52
Speaker 2: not the president of the tribunal, Navrotsky, he was on
22:56
Speaker 2: a flight to Senegal for a state visit. He turned
22:59
Speaker 2: the plane around. He called the suspension a forcible takeover
23:03
Speaker 2: of a constitutional body, effectively calling it a coup. Tusk
23:07
Speaker 2: attempted to prevent Navrotsky's plane from landing. This is how
23:11
Speaker 2: ridiculous it got. But then what happened was that social
23:15
Speaker 2: media posts claimed that German police were brought in to
23:19
Speaker 2: suppress the protests. A border defense movement activist shared a
23:24
Speaker 2: video of three German police cars on the on a
23:28
Speaker 2: major road, suggesting that they were heading to clear the
23:32
Speaker 2: protest camp at the tribunal. Now, this doesn't actually appear
23:35
Speaker 2: to be the case because the footage was filmed quite
23:37
Speaker 2: a way away from Warsaw, and it looks like the
23:41
Speaker 2: vehicles were traveling away from Warsaw, not towards it. But
23:45
Speaker 2: that doesn't end the speculation about German involvement with this.
23:49
Speaker 2: So there's been no explanation for the reason that the
23:52
Speaker 2: German cars were there. nor for any of the footage,
23:55
Speaker 2: the other video footage, which is doing the rounds on
23:57
Speaker 2: social media, which actually shows a much larger number of
24:00
Speaker 2: German vehicles on Poland's roads. So an MP from Confederazia,
24:06
Speaker 2: which is, I suppose, Polish equivalent to AFD, alleged that
24:11
Speaker 2: German officers in Polish uniforms were among the riot police.
24:14
Speaker 2: Now that's still unconfirmed. And then some of the comments
24:19
Speaker 2: were also pointing out that the white helmets that the
24:22
Speaker 2: police officers wear They're all obliged since 2024. Well, in fact,
24:26
Speaker 2: since the start of this year, but the legislation is
24:29
Speaker 2: put through in 2024, they're all obliged to carry identification
24:32
Speaker 2: numbers on the front of their helmets. And as you
24:35
Speaker 2: saw on that screen there, quite a number of them
24:37
Speaker 2: didn't have identification numbers on their helmets. And so the
24:40
Speaker 2: question is, were those Polish officers or not? Polish law
24:45
Speaker 2: does permit joint operations with foreign police, but only at
24:49
Speaker 2: Poland's request and under Polish command. And no such request
24:54
Speaker 2: has been reported or admitted to at this stage. And
24:57
Speaker 2: then the next thing was that a leaked police order
25:00
Speaker 2: has been adding to the speculation because one of the
25:06
Speaker 2: key Confederacia personnel, Gregor Braun, read this letter out on
25:14
Speaker 2: Friday's protest. Now, it's dated the 29th of October, and
25:18
Speaker 2: it's marked very urgent, and it's signed by the deputy
25:21
Speaker 2: police commander in chief. And it instructs all regional commanders
25:24
Speaker 2: to keep riot police platoons from the National Reserve at
25:28
Speaker 2: full readiness for immediate deployment from the 2nd to the
25:31
Speaker 2: 8th of November. Deployment orders are to come from police headquarters.
25:36
Speaker 2: And the order cites only the operational situation in the country.
25:40
Speaker 2: It doesn't mention the constitutional tribunal itself. And of course,
25:44
Speaker 2: that protest began on the 31st. But it's talking about
25:47
Speaker 2: Kevlar helmets, body armor, thermal imaging and night vision gear.
25:52
Speaker 2: It's talking about backpacks, pepper spray launchers, shotguns, less lethal ammunition,
26:00
Speaker 2: barrier kits, the maximum available number of vans, and so on. Now,
26:06
Speaker 2: the police have not denied that the letter is genuine,
26:09
Speaker 2: but they reject any link to the tribunal. But nonetheless,
26:15
Speaker 2: the question then is, what are they preparing for if
26:18
Speaker 2: they're talking about 2nd of November to the 8th of November?
26:21
Speaker 2: Are they expecting additional trouble to kick off? And my
26:26
Speaker 2: point here, Brian, would be that we've seen agent provocateurs
26:29
Speaker 2: operating in some of the other protests around Europe and
26:32
Speaker 2: France in particular. Why is the Polish police getting set
26:37
Speaker 2: for some major, apparently for some major unrest when it
26:41
Speaker 2: has to be said that the demonstrators at this thing
26:44
Speaker 2: have been absolutely peaceful? And in fact, the video footage
26:48
Speaker 2: of them demonstrating They're barely shouting. They're basically just speaking.
26:54
Speaker 2: The chants, it's quite incredible how peaceful they are. Well,
26:59
Speaker 2: somebody in power is obviously very frightened, Mike. And the
27:03
Speaker 2: other question is, who is actually controlling the Polish police?
27:07
Speaker 2: Are they under the control of the national government or
27:10
Speaker 2: are they under the control of the European Union? And this,
27:13
Speaker 2: of course, is the danger of the whole European project,
27:16
Speaker 2: that once you're enmeshed in it, you have no clear answer.
27:20
Speaker 2: idea who is in control of defense or the police
27:24
Speaker 2: for that matter. Right. So Tusk is clearly attempting to
27:28
Speaker 2: give European legislation priority here. People are objecting to that.
27:34
Speaker 2: And so instead of accepting the democratic will of the people,
27:38
Speaker 2: he is just subverting the constitution and setting aside the
27:41
Speaker 2: rule of law. It's quite incredible. But anyway, let's move
27:45
Speaker 2: on then. If you like what the column does, we
27:47
Speaker 2: do need your ongoing support. Have a look at the website,
27:50
Speaker 2: details on there. You can make a donation. That helps
27:53
Speaker 2: us because it's VAT free. You can join as a member, monthly,
27:58
Speaker 2: annual or lifetime. Of course, that gives you access, amongst
28:01
Speaker 2: other things, to the members-only content they produce, like UK
28:06
Speaker 2: Call of News Extra. If you would like to pick
28:09
Speaker 2: up a copy of the column, our quarterly magazine, issue
28:12
Speaker 2: three is available on the shop at the moment, as
28:14
Speaker 2: are annual subscriptions for that. And these things all do
28:18
Speaker 2: help us Absolutely. Now, tonight, we are speaking to Germ.
28:24
Speaker 2: Charles and I are speaking to Germ on Elon's flying
28:28
Speaker 2: car theater. But we have a quick clip from that.
28:32
Speaker 2: Let's have a quick listen.
28:35
Speaker 7: A quote, flying car. He had a Tesla that went
28:38
Speaker 7: up a ramp that defied gravity, went upside down and
28:41
Speaker 7: then fell and then land on the ground using thrusters.
28:45
Speaker 7: And then it drove and crashed. kind of flew, jumped,
28:49
Speaker 7: flew over a series of vehicles and landed on the
28:52
Speaker 7: other side of them using the same thrusters. And everybody's
28:56
Speaker 7: going crazy for this. Now, I'm from Africa and I
29:01
Speaker 7: don't like to drive girly cars.
29:05
Speaker 2: And then tonight at nine, Carl is another one of
29:09
Speaker 2: his Chinese history series. Shang Yu was unbeatable until the
29:13
Speaker 2: supply lines began to collapse. Let's just have a quick
29:16
Speaker 2: listen from that.
29:19
Speaker 1: Like, look, if you don't surrender, I'm going to kill
29:22
Speaker 1: your dad right here. And so Liu Bang, this is
29:27
Speaker 1: a famous Liu Bang moment. He said, well, you and I,
29:32
Speaker 1: we used to be comrades in arms. Remember the time
29:35
Speaker 1: that we used to be sworn brothers? You know, we
29:38
Speaker 1: were sworn to brothers. So my dad is your dad.
29:42
Speaker 1: If you're going to kill your own dad, you know,
29:45
Speaker 1: don't forget to, if you're going to kill and boil
29:48
Speaker 1: my own dad, don't forget to send me a bowl
29:54
Speaker 1: of the minced meat soup. I'll tell you.
29:58
Speaker 2: And then tomorrow at 1 p.m., we have Stateside Episode
30:02
Speaker 2: 3 with Mark Anderson.
30:05
Speaker 8: Think about it. Trump pressures European nations to pay more
30:09
Speaker 8: to NATO and Ruta soapboxes Middle Americans to keep their
30:13
Speaker 8: cash on the table. It really is stacking up like that,
30:17
Speaker 8: isn't it? As Ruta told Iowans, speaking as if NATO
30:20
Speaker 8: can do no wrong, quote, it's not just a commitment
30:24
Speaker 8: in principle. It's a commitment backed by blood and treasure.
30:29
Speaker 8: And there, Mr. Rutta is certainly correct.
30:34
Speaker 2: So don't miss the programs that are coming out tonight
30:37
Speaker 2: and tomorrow. But Brian, as everybody knows, you were in
30:42
Speaker 2: the Netherlands last week.
30:45
Speaker 3: A week before last, how time flies. Just wanted to
30:48
Speaker 3: give a really quick report of my time in the
30:51
Speaker 3: Netherlands to attend that very vital court case, a civil
30:55
Speaker 3: litigation case where six people were taking Bill Gates, Rutter,
31:03
Speaker 3: Borla and the Dutch government to court over vaccine and
31:07
Speaker 3: lockdown damages. I'll just talk you through this little clip
31:11
Speaker 3: because I went over to Leeuwarden, which is in the
31:16
Speaker 3: north of the country, a very pretty town. We were
31:19
Speaker 3: in a wonderful hotel and indeed the lawyer, Peter Stassen,
31:23
Speaker 3: stayed in the same hotel with a lot of the
31:25
Speaker 3: people that had gone to show an interest and support
31:28
Speaker 3: the case. Lovely environment, but really strange to think that
31:32
Speaker 3: such a vital court case was happening. And of course,
31:36
Speaker 3: nobody in the city had any idea this was taking place.
31:39
Speaker 3: This is the main square and the reddish building in
31:43
Speaker 3: centre screen is the lower courthouse where the court hearing
31:48
Speaker 3: took place in the afternoon. This was early in the
31:51
Speaker 3: morning when some of the people were gathering outside the court.
31:54
Speaker 3: Here we are looking into the main foyer area. We
31:58
Speaker 3: were able to get into this area in the morning,
32:01
Speaker 3: but by the time we came for the court case
32:03
Speaker 3: at 12 o'clock, it was heavily barred by security. This
32:08
Speaker 3: is the lawyer, Peter Stassen, coming out of the court
32:11
Speaker 3: with a big smile on his face. We were not
32:13
Speaker 3: able to go into court to see what happened, but
32:16
Speaker 3: I was able to see the hearing on a remote
32:19
Speaker 3: link with other alternative media journalists. And I have to
32:23
Speaker 3: say he did an absolutely sterling job of not only
32:27
Speaker 3: effectively challenging the Netherlands government over the harms and failures
32:32
Speaker 3: that took place over COVID-19, but challenging the court itself
32:37
Speaker 3: and the judges in particular, effectively saying to them, do
32:41
Speaker 3: your job and let's get the truth onto the table
32:44
Speaker 3: as to what happened here. So many people think this
32:47
Speaker 3: was just some insignificant little civil litigation court case. But
32:53
Speaker 3: in fact, it was very, very important. And you could see,
32:57
Speaker 3: I'm going to call it discomfort, although I could use
33:00
Speaker 3: the word fear on the faces of the barristers representing
33:05
Speaker 3: the big names, including the Dutch government. So I will
33:09
Speaker 3: have a longer report on this, but I believe this
33:12
Speaker 3: was a highly significant hearing. It was just setting out
33:15
Speaker 3: the progress for future hearings in the case. So no
33:20
Speaker 3: decision was made. But I believe that properly supported, this
33:25
Speaker 3: could actually take the lid off the harms done during
33:28
Speaker 3: COVID-19 vaccination programs and, of course, the follow-up harms to
33:34
Speaker 3: those that had vaccinations.
33:36
Speaker 2: Indeed. So more to come on that.
33:38
Speaker 3: More to come. Absolutely.
33:40
Speaker 2: Charles, back to you then. And you just wanted to
33:42
Speaker 2: highlight a couple of things on the UK Column website.
33:46
Speaker 4: Yeah, I did indeed, Mike. And not just the website,
33:49
Speaker 4: but actually the overall spectrum of what it is that
33:51
Speaker 4: UK Column is dealing with and the many disciplines that
33:54
Speaker 4: we cover. And of course, Brian, just speaking about his
33:56
Speaker 4: visit is absolutely case in point. We are able to
33:58
Speaker 4: get out there and cover these very significant events. We've
34:01
Speaker 4: launched the magazine. And I think I just wanted to
34:04
Speaker 4: point out that we are aware, of course, that many people,
34:07
Speaker 4: whilst they do watch our material through the website a
34:11
Speaker 4: lot for various reasons, will use other platforms. And therefore,
34:14
Speaker 4: there is a tendency perhaps to miss what is on
34:16
Speaker 4: the website. So I'm just going to put the front
34:19
Speaker 4: page on the screen now and just give an idea
34:22
Speaker 4: of the incredible array of information. particularly written content that
34:27
Speaker 4: of course is not seen in video format and then
34:30
Speaker 4: I'm going to just describe a couple of articles that
34:33
Speaker 4: are on the website at the minute really fantastically detailed
34:37
Speaker 4: and um and very much current affairs, the first of
34:41
Speaker 4: which is an article that's just been published by Neil Harrison,
34:44
Speaker 4: France in Chaos. And just a quote from it, by
34:47
Speaker 4: all measures, France's economic situation is dire. It has 3.595
34:51
Speaker 4: trillion euros of national debt. It also has a budget
34:56
Speaker 4: deficit of over 5.4%. This is fully 2.4% above its
34:58
Speaker 4: allowed deficit ceiling. And it's expected to hit 5.7 next year. Now,
35:09
Speaker 4: with regard to the protests, of course, which have become
35:12
Speaker 4: described as riots and all the rest of it, and
35:15
Speaker 4: particularly the agitation that Mike's already referred to, I think
35:19
Speaker 4: Neil brings out a really important point, which is the
35:22
Speaker 4: use of the black bloc. Although they were obviously organised
35:25
Speaker 4: and sometimes appeared at the start of the protests in
35:27
Speaker 4: groups of up to 100, they never had explicit demands.
35:30
Speaker 4: And he's going back to the origins of the Gilets
35:33
Speaker 4: Jaunes movement. They made no public statements, had no disclosed
35:36
Speaker 4: affiliation or funding, and there was no published organisational chart.
35:41
Speaker 4: They appeared totally covered in black clothing with black cagoules.
35:45
Speaker 4: They dispersed themselves within the protesters, and almost immediately began
35:49
Speaker 4: damaging property and attacking the police. We've seen a small
35:54
Speaker 4: amount of video footage, very much corroborating what it is
35:57
Speaker 4: Neil's writing about, but also that element of conflation and
36:03
Speaker 4: corroboration with the police. And then to go on to
36:06
Speaker 4: Christopher Hell, who's just, again, got a brilliant piece on
36:09
Speaker 4: the website at the minute about the mainstream media's tendency
36:13
Speaker 4: to make something from nothing. And his article is entitled,
36:16
Speaker 4: From Boiling Oceans to Heat Storms, Reuters Escalating Climate Alarmism.
36:21
Speaker 4: And in effect, this is a story about Reuters having
36:25
Speaker 4: cooked up something by making data points that didn't previously
36:29
Speaker 4: exist and then describing it as a scam. heat storm
36:33
Speaker 4: or at least in christopher's words it christened this conceptual
36:36
Speaker 4: abstraction a heat storm i just want to make the
36:40
Speaker 4: point that there is a load of content there on
36:42
Speaker 4: the website about things that in many respects are timeless
36:46
Speaker 4: but also some really really up to the minute reports
36:49
Speaker 4: from all around the world so if you are watching
36:52
Speaker 4: from another platform do take the time to go to
36:54
Speaker 4: uk column.org because there is a trove of material from
36:58
Speaker 4: decades and it would be absolutely well worth your while.
37:02
Speaker 2: Thanks for that, Charles. Now, I just want to briefly
37:05
Speaker 2: mention this article in The Independent. They published an article
37:09
Speaker 2: yesterday headlined, Reform and Farage Don't Do Defence in Parliament,
37:13
Speaker 2: New Analysis Shows. The analysis was commissioned by Tory Shadow
37:17
Speaker 2: Armed Forces Minister Mark Francois, who The Independent reports as saying,
37:21
Speaker 2: defence of the realm is the first duty of government.
37:25
Speaker 2: But it's clear from this analysis, reforms simply don't do defence.
37:28
Speaker 2: They still have no defence spokesman. And time and again,
37:31
Speaker 2: when we debate the subject in Parliament, they don't even
37:33
Speaker 2: turn up. Their only defence policy anyone has ever heard
37:37
Speaker 2: of is to shoot unarmed people in dinghies, which would
37:42
Speaker 2: constitute an illegal order, which is why nobody in the
37:45
Speaker 2: wider defence community takes them seriously on the subject or
37:49
Speaker 2: likely ever will. Now, Reform's response to that is that
37:53
Speaker 2: parliamentary debates are a waste of time. and that there is, quote,
37:56
Speaker 2: no point in dealing with their phony Commons debates on
37:59
Speaker 2: the matter, because not only have they never jointly achieved
38:03
Speaker 2: anything on the subject, but the very premise of their
38:06
Speaker 2: debates are a million miles away from where the public
38:09
Speaker 2: are on this topic. I'm going to suggest here that
38:12
Speaker 2: that position from Reform on this is nonsense, because the
38:16
Speaker 2: fact is that Nigel Farage has systematically refused to engage
38:20
Speaker 2: on defence, particularly on European defence, for as long as
38:23
Speaker 2: the UK column has been covering these issues. He doesn't engage,
38:26
Speaker 2: or he didn't engage, on the Lancaster House Treaties back
38:29
Speaker 2: in 2010, nor on any stage of the drive for
38:32
Speaker 2: European Defence Union, either as part of UKIP, the Brexit Party,
38:37
Speaker 2: or reform. Now, whatever the reason for that, it's nothing
38:40
Speaker 2: to do with perceived pointlessness of parliamentary debate. In fact,
38:44
Speaker 2: the only senior reform representative who would engage on these
38:48
Speaker 2: topics was Anne Whittakin. So I think Marc-Francois Brian, very briefly,
38:54
Speaker 2: is absolutely correct to be asking why this is. And
38:59
Speaker 2: in fact, probably every reform supporter out there should be
39:01
Speaker 2: asking the same question. Yeah, they've got to be fighting
39:06
Speaker 2: wherever they've got the opportunity to do it. And if
39:09
Speaker 2: you're in the heart of government, you should be absolutely
39:12
Speaker 2: fighting inside that system. So I find it extraordinary, but
39:18
Speaker 2: in a way, I'm not surprised. We'll talk more in Extra.
39:21
Speaker 2: But let's talk about NATO, Brian, because maybe this is
39:24
Speaker 2: a question that he could be asked. Well, it could
39:28
Speaker 2: be of great interest. I'm going to say I stumbled
39:31
Speaker 2: across this segment for the news today, but I think
39:34
Speaker 2: it's immensely important. I wanted to share it with the audience.
39:38
Speaker 2: But I came across an organisation, ATA. Thank you, pardon.
39:43
Speaker 3: Let's come back. We're doing well today. This is the
39:49
Speaker 3: Atlantic Treaty Association. I had not heard of this organization before.
39:54
Speaker 3: Perhaps members of our audience have. But I was very
39:58
Speaker 3: interested in that. Here it was as a cheerleader organization,
40:03
Speaker 3: maybe a propaganda arm for NATO. But when I dug
40:06
Speaker 3: in deeper, I found some very interesting dialogue, which I
40:09
Speaker 3: want to share with our audience today. And we've got
40:12
Speaker 3: a lady speaking. She's Marie Doerr. Bessano, Assistant General Secretary
40:19
Speaker 3: of the Public Diplomacy Division for NATO. And this is
40:25
Speaker 3: the first clip in which he's talking about what the
40:28
Speaker 3: problem is with regard to information. Let's follow it through.
40:34
Speaker 9: Thank you so much, Solomon Passy, for being so committed
40:38
Speaker 9: to this topic of propaganda, whether you call it disinformation,
40:42
Speaker 9: and now we call it increasingly FEMI, which is what
40:45
Speaker 9: it is, which is Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference. I've
40:51
Speaker 9: been there eight months now and I've made it my
40:54
Speaker 9: priority from day one because I completely agree with you
40:57
Speaker 9: that information, words, are being weaponized in a way that
41:03
Speaker 9: means that we cannot communicate in a very top-down, institutional
41:07
Speaker 9: way as if this propaganda weren't happening, weren't already reaching
41:11
Speaker 9: our audiences before we reach out to them. So indeed,
41:16
Speaker 9: I did just like you, I read the latest statements
41:20
Speaker 9: in Vilnius by the Allies, which is paragraph 64, on
41:24
Speaker 9: hybrid threats and more specifically disinformation and misinformation.
41:30
Speaker 1: You're right.
41:30
Speaker 9: There is a mention of Article 5. It is an
41:33
Speaker 9: indirect mention because it says we as allies recognize that
41:38
Speaker 9: these threats can reach the level of gravity of an
41:41
Speaker 9: armed conflict, which in turn would justify that we trigger
41:44
Speaker 9: Article 5. And then there is a certain number of
41:49
Speaker 9: solutions provided, which is basically anticipation, coordination. There's a recognition
41:53
Speaker 9: that this fight cannot be fought alone by one ally
41:56
Speaker 9: and that it is a legitimate topic for NATO to
42:00
Speaker 9: be involved in. And then the last and the conclusion
42:02
Speaker 9: to the paragraph is the ultimate decision to attribute an
42:09
Speaker 9: attack in the information space relies with the nations. So
42:12
Speaker 9: nations do that work, identifying an attack on their own territory,
42:16
Speaker 9: their own linguistic area, targeting their own audiences, and then
42:20
Speaker 9: NATO can amplify the message once it's been called out
42:27
Speaker 9: by one or several nations.
42:30
Speaker 3: So she says this is to do with nations. The
42:33
Speaker 3: effort of other nations is so significant that NATO can't
42:36
Speaker 3: get its top-down message to the public audience in time.
42:41
Speaker 3: It's been beaten to it. I don't think she's talking
42:43
Speaker 3: purely about foreign countries. She's talking, in my opinion, about
42:49
Speaker 3: the problem of social media as well throughout the Western Hemisphere.
42:54
Speaker 3: But she goes deeper into the problem. Let's have a
42:57
Speaker 3: listen to the second clip.
43:00
Speaker 9: But my current proposal is around three things. One, agreeing
43:03
Speaker 9: a common methodology to help all allies share the disinformation practices, campaigns,
43:11
Speaker 9: attacks that they're witnessing in their own territory. We are
43:15
Speaker 9: getting such information on a volunteer basis from nations who
43:19
Speaker 9: have invested in the tools and have the political will
43:21
Speaker 9: to call them out. That's my second point, a coordination mechanism,
43:28
Speaker 9: call it what you will. There are two different mechanisms.
43:31
Speaker 9: One is an information-sharing mechanism and the second one is
43:34
Speaker 9: an alert mechanism. This is already happening. It's happening with
43:38
Speaker 9: nations who have volunteered. Now we're extending this and operationalising
43:42
Speaker 9: this to all allied nations, which means that we have
43:46
Speaker 9: contact points in the capitals of experts who can be
43:50
Speaker 9: sitting in the MFAs, in the MODs, or in standalone
43:54
Speaker 9: agencies like we have in Sweden or in France. Anyone
43:58
Speaker 9: who is actually dedicated to this and who can work
44:00
Speaker 9: with us both ways, alerting NATO and the other allies
44:05
Speaker 9: on campaigns which are hitting them, but can also be
44:07
Speaker 9: hitting the others. And also, the other way around, partners
44:13
Speaker 9: in the nations who can be activated if we say
44:15
Speaker 9: we see this risk of having this narrative grow before
44:20
Speaker 9: the summit and misrepresenting what the summit is about so
44:23
Speaker 9: that they can also tell the story in a truthful
44:27
Speaker 9: way to their own audiences, their national audiences, in a
44:30
Speaker 9: very operational way. This is a collective defense issue. It's
44:34
Speaker 9: a national security issue. It's a resilience issue. And it's
44:38
Speaker 9: also a values issue because this is about democratic values.
44:44
Speaker 3: So this is about democracy, democratic values in which NATO
44:48
Speaker 3: controls the information flow to the citizens under its operational rules.
44:54
Speaker 3: This is state-controlled propaganda on reheat. Let's have a listen
44:58
Speaker 3: to who they're going to target.
45:03
Speaker 9: On youth and communication, thank you for being so committed.
45:08
Speaker 9: I think part of the answer is related to that.
45:12
Speaker 9: You probably know best how to tell the story in
45:15
Speaker 9: a simple way. And because disinformation is so strong, we're
45:18
Speaker 9: also learning different ways of communicating, which is probably less institutional,
45:22
Speaker 9: less nuanced and more basic. And sometimes it seems to us,
45:28
Speaker 9: you know, we're telling the story in a way that's
45:30
Speaker 9: really basic, almost primitive, but it seems to us if
45:35
Speaker 9: we need to explain the legitimacy of what we're doing,
45:38
Speaker 9: and if we need to add more transparency, explain what
45:40
Speaker 9: we're doing, what we're not doing, what NATO is, what
45:42
Speaker 9: NATO is not, we need to be doing these things.
45:45
Speaker 9: And also working with.
45:48
Speaker 9: Friends with, let's say, relays, spokespeople who are new to us.
45:54
Speaker 9: So we're doing a lot of work with influencers. Influencers
45:58
Speaker 9: can come from all walks of life. If you do
46:01
Speaker 9: have your own influencers that you're working with, or on
46:03
Speaker 9: the contrary, if you would like to be working with
46:05
Speaker 9: some influencers who are already working with us at NATO,
46:08
Speaker 9: Very happy to share those with you. We are building
46:11
Speaker 9: this community right now. In the long run, we want
46:14
Speaker 9: to call them NATO champions. We do have a whole
46:17
Speaker 9: variety of content, which is really, really aimed at younger audiences.
46:24
Speaker 3: Now, I know that's a substantial amount of video and
46:27
Speaker 3: there is one more to follow, but it's utterly brilliant,
46:30
Speaker 3: isn't it? NATO operationally to control the truth and it's
46:34
Speaker 3: going to use its own influences seeded out there. on
46:38
Speaker 3: the social networks to make sure that it's only NATO
46:42
Speaker 3: truth that gets through. Let's have a listen to the
46:44
Speaker 3: last clip where you can really understand why there is
46:48
Speaker 3: this narrative for total commitment to Ukraine.
46:55
Speaker 9: All the NATO divisions are actually working on deliverables. What
46:59
Speaker 9: is it we want to prioritize with each of those countries?
47:04
Speaker 9: With some of them, we're already working very closely on
47:07
Speaker 9: what I know best, which is STRATCOM. So I think
47:10
Speaker 9: this you can expect. And then I know there are
47:13
Speaker 9: discussions going on around solidarity around Ukraine, because indeed we
47:18
Speaker 9: have reached a moment where We do need all democracies,
47:22
Speaker 9: wherever they are, in the Euro-Atlantic area or beyond, to
47:25
Speaker 9: be part of this worldwide support that we want to
47:29
Speaker 9: provide to Ukraine.
47:32
Speaker 3: So they've got to get worldwide support. They're going to
47:34
Speaker 3: control the narrative through NATO operationally with influencers. So are
47:41
Speaker 3: we now in a wartime state.
47:43
Speaker 2: Across Western Europe, Mike?
47:44
Speaker 5: Yes.
47:45
Speaker 3: Okay, well, if you want to... Sorry, if I can
47:49
Speaker 3: just come back a slide. We just want to pop
47:53
Speaker 3: this one up on the screen. Thank you. If you
47:55
Speaker 3: want to have a look at this lady, you can
47:57
Speaker 3: follow her on LinkedIn here. Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, Strachan.
48:03
Speaker 3: She's originally from France, but intertwined with NATO. So that's
48:09
Speaker 3: what we're dealing with in 2026 is NATO controlled information flow.
48:15
Speaker 2: Yes, Charles, back to you then and bring us up
48:18
Speaker 2: to date with what's going on with Ebola.
48:23
Speaker 4: Well, very much on the same theme in terms of
48:25
Speaker 4: controlled information flow. I was just wondering whether the NATO
48:29
Speaker 4: lady would share her influencer story. database with UK column,
48:33
Speaker 4: but perhaps that's a hypothetical. Now, the BBC, of course,
48:37
Speaker 4: will never let us forget that the next pandemic is
48:40
Speaker 4: just around the corner. And we're now told that more
48:43
Speaker 4: than 5000 have died from Ebola in the Democratic Republic
48:46
Speaker 4: of Congo's deadliest outbreak. There's obviously been a lot of
48:50
Speaker 4: this in 2026. The most critical part, there was a
48:53
Speaker 4: caption below the photograph, which said there is no vaccine
48:55
Speaker 4: for this strain of the virus, but clinical trials are underway.
48:59
Speaker 4: Now that dovetails well with the UK Health Security Agency
49:04
Speaker 4: putting out their note last week about the speeding up
49:07
Speaker 4: of the process by which clinical trials may be launched
49:10
Speaker 4: in the United Kingdom. Of course, we're talking about something
49:12
Speaker 4: slightly different here. But the model, in effect, the business
49:16
Speaker 4: model is the same, which is that the advice comes
49:18
Speaker 4: from the vested interest who will benefit. And of course,
49:21
Speaker 4: we go to the World Health Organization, which has, in effect,
49:24
Speaker 4: the monopoly on the narrative, at least with regard to this. Now,
49:28
Speaker 4: they have a stockpile Following recommendations, a global stockpile of
49:33
Speaker 4: half a million doses of Ebola vaccine has been constituted
49:37
Speaker 4: and will be available at times for outbreak response. It
49:40
Speaker 4: was started in January 2021 and has, in effect, nearly
49:45
Speaker 4: achieved that target by 2022. But critically, the organisations concerned,
49:50
Speaker 4: the WHO, UNICEF and Gavi, as well as the vaccine manufacturers,
49:55
Speaker 4: are continuously assessing options to increase vaccine supply in case
50:00
Speaker 4: the global demand increases. Well, I wonder which way that
50:06
Speaker 4: decision-making process would go, considering the number of people or
50:10
Speaker 4: at least the specific organisations that are involved. Now, Gavi
50:14
Speaker 4: itself was set up in well launched in fact interestingly
50:18
Speaker 4: at davos in back in 2000 and one of the
50:23
Speaker 4: guiding hands was that of bill gates of course still
50:26
Speaker 4: very much involved but an organization the united kingdom pays
50:31
Speaker 4: a lot of money too to sort of perpetuate this cycle.
50:35
Speaker 4: One of Gavi's six founding donors and a long-standing champion
50:38
Speaker 4: of immunization, what's called global health security and again even
50:43
Speaker 4: more euphemistically innovative development financing. So not much reference to
50:49
Speaker 4: health there which apparently is the outcome to be derived
50:53
Speaker 4: of continuous immunization and vaccination. But of course what we
50:59
Speaker 4: really need to look at is the financial aspect. And
51:02
Speaker 4: as I mentioned, the Gates Foundation has been critical to
51:06
Speaker 4: the existence of Gavi. And there it is on their website,
51:10
Speaker 4: the best investment we've ever made, Bill Gates, chair of
51:13
Speaker 4: the Gates Foundation. I mean, this is not hidden at all.
51:16
Speaker 4: And just for a greater insight, I have made this
51:19
Speaker 4: clip before, but I think it is worth listening to
51:20
Speaker 4: Bill Gates talking about his approach to investment in vaccines.
51:27
Speaker 3: You invested $ 10 billion in vaccinations over the last two decades,
51:31
Speaker 3: and you figured out the return on investment for that.
51:32
Speaker 4: And it kind of stunned me.
51:33
Speaker 2: Can you walk us through the math?
51:35
Speaker 11: Well, it's pretty impressive that when you take these vaccines,
51:40
Speaker 11: get them to be very inexpensive by making big volume commitments,
51:44
Speaker 11: have that right relationship with the private sector, get the
51:48
Speaker 11: delivery system so they're really getting the coverage out there,
51:52
Speaker 11: you literally save millions of lives. And 20 years ago
51:55
Speaker 11: when we created these new multilateral organizations, Gavi for the vaccines,
52:00
Speaker 11: Global Fund for HIV, TB and Malaria, we didn't know
52:04
Speaker 11: they'd be successful. They've gone through lots of challenges about
52:08
Speaker 11: making sure the money gets there, making sure the efficiency
52:11
Speaker 11: is right. But as we look at upcoming replenishments for those,
52:17
Speaker 11: and we've got so much distraction politically that the international
52:22
Speaker 11: needs like this could get eclipsed if we're not careful,
52:27
Speaker 11: we see a phenomenal track record. It's been $ 100 billion
52:31
Speaker 11: overall that the world's put in. Our foundation is a
52:34
Speaker 11: bit more than $ 10 billion, but we feel there's been
52:38
Speaker 11: over a 20 to 1 return. So if you just
52:40
Speaker 11: look at the economic benefits, that's a pretty strong number
52:45
Speaker 11: compared to anything else.
52:50
Speaker 4: There we go. 20 to 1 return, suggesting that health
52:54
Speaker 4: concerns are absolutely probably not even secondary. And with regard
52:58
Speaker 4: to the United Kingdom's position on this, there was an
53:01
Speaker 4: announcement back in the summer about yet more money to
53:04
Speaker 4: be committed, 33 million to protect the public from future
53:08
Speaker 4: epidemics and pandemics. Isn't it strange how the more money
53:11
Speaker 4: there is pushed in this direction, the more pandemics seem
53:14
Speaker 4: to come down the pipe. Lives could be saved and
53:17
Speaker 4: the public better protected against future epidemic and pandemic threats.
53:22
Speaker 4: against the world's deadliest infectious diseases. So of course, what
53:25
Speaker 4: we're supposed to take away from this is that Ebola
53:28
Speaker 4: is absolutely a present threat, which is why the United
53:31
Speaker 4: Kingdom needs to sponsor organisations like Gavi, like the World
53:34
Speaker 4: Health Organisation, when in fact it's unable to demonstrate the necessity.
53:40
Speaker 4: And we look at the guidance provided by the UK HSA.
53:44
Speaker 4: Infectious diseases do not respect borders and outbreaks overseas can
53:49
Speaker 4: escalate quickly and pose risks to people in the UK abroad.
53:52
Speaker 4: That's their initial position. But of course, the guidance, I'm sorry, Mike,
53:57
Speaker 4: you just advanced the slide. I've lost my connection. But
54:02
Speaker 4: we've got the guidance here. Cases in the UK since 1976,
54:07
Speaker 4: four confirmed cases in the UK, no deaths. And I've
54:10
Speaker 4: just closed by saying on the vaccines and the stockpile,
54:14
Speaker 4: the critical piece of information that, of is that these
54:18
Speaker 4: vaccines only have a shelf life of about three years. So,
54:21
Speaker 4: of course, there's a continued requirement to dispose of them.
54:26
Speaker 4: And by dispose of, I mean use. And in fact,
54:29
Speaker 4: the other word that is used in the terminology is repurpose.
54:32
Speaker 4: Exactly how do you repurpose an Ebola vaccine is a
54:37
Speaker 4: thought perhaps to leave you with.
54:38
Speaker 5: Yes.
54:39
Speaker 2: Yes. Good question, Charles. OK, now, very, very briefly, I
54:44
Speaker 2: want to mention the G20 foreign ministers meeting. because, sorry,
54:48
Speaker 2: that's not the one.
54:50
Speaker 3: We're having a good day today.
54:51
Speaker 2: We are, aren't we? Well, anyway, it concluded on Saturday
54:55
Speaker 2: following two days of time wasting. Now, there's no consensus,
54:58
Speaker 2: no communique, no family photo, and no agreement on the
55:03
Speaker 2: use of the term superintelligence either. So the main argument
55:07
Speaker 2: was over the presence of Sergei Lavrov and Russia, for
55:12
Speaker 2: its part, objected to Poland being invited as a guest.
55:15
Speaker 2: South Africa, despite being a G20 country, wasn't invited at
55:18
Speaker 2: all because Israel. And instead of a joint communique, Mark
55:23
Speaker 2: Rubio issued a chairman's statement summarizing the talks. The next
55:28
Speaker 2: G20 meeting is the leaders' meeting in December. Putin has
55:33
Speaker 2: been invited. Trump has said that he will likely, maybe possibly,
55:36
Speaker 2: invite Zelensky. And expectations for that meeting have been lowered
55:42
Speaker 2: as if they couldn't be That's lower than they are already.
55:44
Speaker 2: But anyway, there we go. That's that. But look, let's
55:48
Speaker 2: come on to the Commonwealth, Brian. Yes, Commonwealth heads of government.
55:52
Speaker 2: And of course, the King has been speaking. This event
55:56
Speaker 2: is taking place at the moment for a few days.
55:59
Speaker 2: And the big headline here from the BBC, King to
56:01
Speaker 2: address slavery, as Prime Minister says he's open to possible
56:07
Speaker 2: UK apology. And it seems that both the King and
56:11
Speaker 2: the Prime Minister are lined up to make this apology,
56:14
Speaker 2: but let's have a listen to the King in action.
56:19
Speaker 12: We know that some of what is best in Bahamian
56:21
Speaker 12: culture today, the most joyful, the most hopeful, the most bright,
56:28
Speaker 12: was born out of darkness. It is only right that
56:32
Speaker 12: we should acknowledge the great suffering and injustices of the
56:36
Speaker 12: past in these islands and beyond, even as we rejoice
56:41
Speaker 12: in the successes of the present and build new opportunities
56:46
Speaker 12: for the future. I know that leaders of the governments
56:50
Speaker 12: of affected Commonwealth countries will be discussing these matters in
56:55
Speaker 12: Antigua and Barbuda next week.
57:01
Speaker 3: So I'll just say that, of course, he isn't on
57:03
Speaker 3: the streets of England or Scotland or Wales or indeed
57:08
Speaker 3: Ireland in order to deal with the enormous homeless person risk.
57:12
Speaker 3: But he can be overseas whining and dining to build
57:17
Speaker 3: up something in the Commonwealth. Now, is this just the
57:19
Speaker 3: Commonwealth doing what it does or is there more to it?
57:23
Speaker 3: I brought up on screen an article from back in
57:25
Speaker 3: 2022 by Sir Julian Rose, and he's asking a key question,
57:31
Speaker 3: Charles III, real king or servant of the globalists? And
57:35
Speaker 3: this is a very good little article by Sir Julian.
57:38
Speaker 3: And of course, he's quite right to be pointing out
57:41
Speaker 3: the dangers of what the king is actually up to.
57:44
Speaker 3: Before we add a little bit more comment from UK
57:48
Speaker 3: Column's own reporting on Charles the King, let's have a
57:53
Speaker 3: little look at what's actually happening around this present Commonwealth
57:58
Speaker 3: event and listen very closely to who the initiatives are targeting.
58:06
Speaker 10: Hello, and thank you so much for joining us for
58:11
Speaker 10: another edition of The Road to Chorgom. we are getting
58:21
Speaker 10: closer to Antigua and Barbuda's historic hosting of the Commonwealth
58:25
Speaker 10: Heads of Government meeting, which will be held in November
58:28
Speaker 10: of this year. There are four forums, or fora, that
58:32
Speaker 10: will be held alongside of Show Government 2026. There is,
58:36
Speaker 10: one of them is the Youth Forum. The other three
58:38
Speaker 10: are the Women's Forum, the People's Forum, which is focusing
58:42
Speaker 10: on civil society issues, and the Business Forum. For this
58:46
Speaker 10: Road to Cherkham, though, we are focusing exclusively on the
58:49
Speaker 10: Youth Forum. The youth constitute such a powerful perspective and
58:53
Speaker 10: voice in the Commonwealth, in fact, Of the 2.7 billion
58:58
Speaker 10: people who call the commonwealth home, 56 countries across various
59:03
Speaker 10: sections of the world, a significant proportion of them are
59:07
Speaker 10: young people. In fact, in Africa, the continent where so
59:10
Speaker 10: many of the Commonwealth countries are part of the group,
59:14
Speaker 10: a significant number of the population there are young people.
59:18
Speaker 10: In fact, it is the youngest continent. The youth voice, therefore,
59:21
Speaker 10: must be central, must be quintessential to shaping the narrative
59:27
Speaker 10: about the commonwealth. How does the commonwealth navigate this very
59:30
Speaker 10: difficult global environment? What are the issues that the youth
59:34
Speaker 10: will be able to wane on? Climate change, the geopolitical order,
59:38
Speaker 10: the upending of multilateralism, all of those issues. The youth
59:42
Speaker 10: have a powerful voice to play. But let's start with
59:47
Speaker 10: Janet Simon. Let's talk about this youth forum. How excited
59:51
Speaker 10: should the nation be, should the Commonwealth be about this
59:54
Speaker 10: one that should be held in Antigua?
59:55
Speaker 13: Honestly, this is a momentous occasion for us all, not
59:58
Speaker 13: just across the Commonwealth, but specifically here within the Caribbean
1:00:02
Speaker 13: region and within Antigua and Barbuda. So far, we've had
1:00:06
Speaker 13: so many opportunities to host international conferences and events.
1:00:10
Speaker 14: Chogham is one of them, and showing that we have
1:00:14
Speaker 14: the capacity to lead at the forefront as a small
1:00:17
Speaker 14: island developing state, I believe it's extremely significant, especially knowing
1:00:22
Speaker 14: that we will have the opportunity to place the spotlight
1:00:26
Speaker 14: on our young people here within Antigua and Barbuda, and
1:00:29
Speaker 14: by extension, the Caribbean region. I believe this is a
1:00:31
Speaker 14: very significant opportunity for us all.
1:00:35
Speaker 3: So there we have it, carefully placed and selected and
1:00:39
Speaker 3: placed young leaders. And they're going to be pushing for
1:00:43
Speaker 3: the young people within the Commonwealth to help build what
1:00:47
Speaker 3: is essentially open society and Agenda 2030 goals. So the
1:00:53
Speaker 3: King is not there in order to help free people
1:00:58
Speaker 3: in the Commonwealth. He's there to work with his chums
1:01:01
Speaker 3: at the World Economic Forum. This is becoming increasingly important.
1:01:06
Speaker 3: Easy to see. But if you need more help seeing it,
1:01:09
Speaker 3: I encourage you to go to the UK column website
1:01:12
Speaker 3: and you're going to do a search for two main things.
1:01:16
Speaker 3: One is the No Smoke Without Fire series talking about
1:01:20
Speaker 3: Charles as the Green King. A lot of information in
1:01:24
Speaker 3: those discussions. But also I'm going to encourage you to
1:01:27
Speaker 3: buy a copy of Crown and Corporation by Ben Rubin,
1:01:30
Speaker 3: where he's putting the King's action in perspective. in relation
1:01:37
Speaker 3: to world economic and other globalist policies. So a key
1:01:42
Speaker 3: bit there, though, is the children targeted, youth targeted, NATO
1:01:46
Speaker 3: targeting the youth. It's pretty clear whose minds they want, Mike.
1:01:51
Speaker 3: And I'll end there. I'll leave that slide. But yeah,
1:01:57
Speaker 3: it's what is the king doing? Is he helping this nation?
1:02:02
Speaker 3: Apparently not.
1:02:03
Speaker 2: He's working for the globalists. And we'll need to leave
1:02:07
Speaker 2: it there for today. Brian, thank you very much. Charles,
1:02:10
Speaker 2: thank you. And stick around if you're a UK Column
1:02:13
Speaker 2: member for UK Column News Extra, because we'll be talking
1:02:15
Speaker 2: about more on these topics. If you're not a member,
1:02:19
Speaker 2: consider joining and join us for Extra as well. But
1:02:22
Speaker 2: we're going to leave it there for now. Thanks for
1:02:23
Speaker 2: joining us. Don't forget, interviews tonight and tomorrow, 1pm, and
1:02:27
Speaker 2: we'll be back on Wednesday at 1 for another UK
1:02:30
Speaker 2: Column News.
1:02:31
Speaker 1: See you then.
1:02:31
Speaker 2: Bye-bye.
1:02:37
Speaker 11: Thank you.