Latest / UK Column Radio / UK Column News - 22nd September 2025

Transcript

UK Column News - 22nd September 2025 · UK Column Radio

0:08
Good afternoon. Today is Monday, the 22nd of
0:11
September 2025, just after 1:00. Welcome to UK column News.
0:16
I'm your host, Brian Garish, Delighted to have Ben Rubin with
0:19
me in the studio. And we'll also be joined by
0:23
Sandy Adams today on Live Link. Now, we've got a pretty heavy
0:28
news because a lot of the information coming into the
0:31
public domain is by its very nature, it's subject heavy.
0:36
And we do need to cut to cover that.
0:38
But we will try and lighten the mood as we progress through
0:41
today's news. We're going to start off by
0:44
having a look at really is, oh, what a wonderful war.
0:48
It's very clear that the British government is now very, very
0:51
excited at the possibility it can help engineer a war between
0:55
NATO and Russia and there's unlimited money for new military
1:00
projects. And don't worry, because the
1:02
country is going to be saved by using war as the opportunity to
1:09
improve our business and trading situation.
1:12
But on top of that, we've got in the background the risk of
1:16
casualties, of course, from any conflict.
1:19
But if that isn't enough to deal with the population, the
1:22
Assisted Dying Bill is coming along quite nicely and Sandy's
1:26
going to be having a look at that.
1:28
She'll also be having a look at the Corporate Transparency Act,
1:31
where every detail of you has to be known by the government
1:35
before you're going to be allowed to run a business of any
1:37
sort. And Ben, you've already got the
1:40
lion's share today, which is having a look at the propaganda
1:44
and mind control through the government.
1:46
Interestingly enough, some of that takes us back to UK column
1:50
printed edition in 2011. And finally, we're going to end
1:55
with a little bit of black humour on BBC Shorts.
1:59
So let's kick off with with Ukraine and the ramping up for
2:04
war. And it's pretty obvious if we go
2:07
to Defence HQ, we've got tweet after tweet or X post if you
2:12
prefer. Talking about jobs, 1000 jobs in
2:17
helping to ramp up the drone industry.
2:19
We've got building military aircraft for the US Air Force.
2:24
That'll be with Boeing, an American company, but apparently
2:27
that's good for the UK. We've got 200 million
2:30
transformation fund for the military construction facilities
2:35
in Barrow in Finesse. We've got another 1 1/2 billion
2:39
pounds for Palantir Tech. And we are going to be, quote,
2:44
accelerating UK defence towards war fighting readiness.
2:49
So they're not messing around, Ben.
2:51
They're using the terms we're going to war and what better way
2:55
to help the process than for people to be spreading this kind
2:59
of material. So a little video clip that
3:01
Philip Ingram, who's very big with the Times posted showing
3:06
flight paths of those nasty Russians because Russia dead
3:10
sent a few jets down to Kaliningrad and also there were
3:16
some overflights. Of course, NATO has never been
3:20
guilty of this at all. Well, apart from Reaper drones
3:24
entering Russian airspace over the Black Sea during the
3:28
conflict that's been ongoing. But little clips like this all
3:32
designed to ramp up fear in people and of course move us
3:37
even closer towards a proper full blown war with the
3:42
Russians. Now on one hand you might be
3:45
relieved to know that UK sent jets into Poland to fire a
3:51
warning shot to Putin to stay out of NATO territory.
3:55
So the text was pretty clear. John Healey said that he was
4:00
giving a clear signal to Russia that NATO airspace will be
4:04
defended. And how many British jets went
4:07
into the area? Well, it was the sum of 2.
4:11
So with no doubt Ben, the Russians were quaking in their
4:14
boots. But if we want to see how the UK
4:17
manipulates the agenda with regard to the Russians, no
4:21
better place to go than the Times Radio.
4:24
So let's have a look at this podcast.
4:27
John Killett, your first question comes in and says since
4:31
NATO is a defensive organization, why and how does
4:35
Putin think it's an offensive organization?
4:38
That is a very simple question asking a very complex, a very
4:45
complex question, and it is one that you have to put yourself
4:50
into Vladimir Putin's perspective.
4:53
Putin wants an enemy. And if we go from, you know, the
4:57
end of the Second World War through the Cold War, who was
5:01
the Soviet Union's enemy and who does Putin see as the enemy in
5:05
the future? Well, the Soviet Union's enemy
5:06
was what became NATO, and then Putin has taken that up and
5:12
continued saying NATO was an enemy, and there's no point in
5:16
trying to persuade your people that your enemy is only there to
5:19
defend. If you attack, you want to make
5:21
it the big bad wolf. And that's what Putin has been
5:24
doing the whole way through. In fact, that's what the Soviet
5:26
Union did the whole way through. NATO was the big bad wolf.
5:30
And of course, whenever you look at it in the cold light of day,
5:33
on paper, NATO has expanded, it's grown, and it's grown E
5:39
into a lot of the countries that were former members of the
5:43
Warsaw Pact. And Putin has seen that
5:46
expansionism as something that is designed, in his words, to be
5:52
an aggressive look against Russia and therefore suggesting
5:56
that it is a threat against Russia.
5:58
He doesn't care about the reality of what NATO is or the
6:01
NATO's constitution or, or anything else.
6:04
And of course, we've had Russians up until just before
6:09
their invasion, full scale invasion of Ukraine, Russians
6:11
were embedded in the NATO headquarters.
6:13
They've been working with NATO for many years.
6:15
Russians have deployed under the command of NATO LED operations
6:19
in the Balkans. And they haven't complained
6:21
before. So Putin knows exactly what NATO
6:23
is, but NATO's expanded. For those that don't know, NATO
6:28
doesn't expand by going out to different countries and saying,
6:30
hey, you know, we see that you're butting up against a
6:33
potential enemy. Would you like to come and join
6:36
us? Here's our help to get you over
6:38
the line to come and join. Now NATO sits and waits.
6:41
It waits for countries to turn around and say, can we join?
6:45
You have to apply to join. And then whenever they apply to
6:48
join, they have to meet quite a large number of political and
6:53
military standards before they are accepted into the the
6:57
overall NATO framework. So truly incredible little clip
7:02
because in in in attempting to spin the propaganda against
7:07
Putin, what he does is actually describes the very mechanism by
7:11
which NATO has conducted an aggressive movement, E contrary
7:17
to all the promises to the Russians.
7:19
And it's coming out as this man gives the little clips of how
7:23
things go. But of course, his initial
7:25
history, he doesn't tell the audience that immediately after
7:29
the defeat of Germany, the Russians moved two million men
7:33
from Western Europe all the way across Russia in order to fight
7:37
the Japanese and kick them out of China.
7:40
He doesn't mention that. He doesn't mention Operation
7:42
Unthinkable, which is Churchill's plans for the
7:46
Western allies to actually attack the Russians in order to
7:51
claim more of all of more of European territory.
7:55
So he seems pretty weak on that. But nevertheless, he's put up as
7:59
Times newspapers an expert. But if we have a look at his,
8:04
sorry, let's say we go, if we have a look at his Twitter
8:08
account X, he's describes himself as an ex military spook
8:13
and planner. And then he says specialized,
8:16
let's bring that up on screen. Specialized in taking over
8:19
countries, tongue in cheek. Then why would you make a
8:23
comment like that unless you'd actually been engaged in that
8:26
very thing, getting inside countries, breaking down the
8:30
bona fide political system in order to insert the EU agenda or
8:35
the NATO agenda. This man is effectively boasting
8:39
that, boasting that he's been in the game in order to inflamed
8:44
the situation in the Eastern Europe while saying well no NATO
8:48
of course is there to just protect the West as a defensive
8:52
organization. Propaganda.
8:54
Quite unbelievable. But the other place we need to
8:57
go with propaganda is Defence HQ.
8:59
This is from their Twitter page itself and what we've got is a
9:04
commentary supposedly on what's happening in Ukraine itself.
9:08
It says here the logistics hub of Krosk remains the focal point
9:13
for the Russian offensive operations.
9:15
And this is absolutely true. But of course Defence
9:20
Intelligence doesn't give the UK Cup public the truth that the
9:23
city is operationally encircled and the Russian forces have
9:27
already taken key parts of the southern city's defences.
9:32
If we go on through, it's talking about major elements of
9:34
Russia's naval infantry being transferred from the Kursk
9:39
region to Perkovsk. But of course it's then saying
9:44
to start offensive activity in small groups.
9:48
Well, the truth is that the Russian troops have successfully
9:52
used small groups of men to break fortified positions and
9:55
take territory for months at a time.
9:59
And if we deal with the second point that they make is that
10:04
Russians have also taken the Sebriansk Forest, which is a
10:08
massive area, and they've successfully taken that by
10:12
massive use of bombs, rockets and artillery, which the
10:16
Ukrainians don't have, supported by small groups of men.
10:20
So it's basically propaganda by a mission from Defence HQ, but
10:26
we need to identify it. And if we go on to the last
10:29
point here, where it's saying that the Russian forces have
10:33
consolidated control over sectors of the areas ordering
10:37
Janitra, Petrovsk and the Donetsk Oblast.
10:42
However, many of these are still contested in.
10:46
In reality, the Russians are continuing to breakthrough
10:49
Ukrainian front lines largely across the whole length of the
10:54
front line, and they are advancing into rare areas,
10:58
taking more ground. And This is why NATO is getting
11:01
so spooked at the moment, because having denied the
11:05
Russians were moving forward, that's exactly what they're
11:07
doing. And so if we analyse what
11:11
Defence HQ has been doing, this is deliberately misleading
11:15
propaganda which is designed to ramp up fear of Russia and to
11:20
hide the truth about the war in Ukraine.
11:23
Now, instead of going to this despicable UK government
11:27
organization for information, there are many extremely good
11:32
online analysts of the war. We've supported a whole range of
11:36
them over the time that the war has been in place.
11:41
And if we have a look at Petrovsk here, which they've
11:45
been talking about, the first thing to understand is that the
11:49
area itself is encircled by the Russians.
11:53
And although they haven't, if you like, joined the full
11:57
circle, they have fire control over the Western Rd. into this
12:02
area. So there's no doubt that
12:04
Minograd and Petrovsk are both now in circles.
12:09
And if we just show the two areas, we've got 2 city, well,
12:17
small town, large towns, small city areas together.
12:21
And both of these are now held in the Russian encirclement.
12:25
And you can see by the extensive area in pink around it the size
12:29
of the Russian progress. I'm just going to say this has
12:32
come from the military summary channel.
12:34
So credit for this excellent analysis.
12:38
And if we have looked in a bit more detail, we can see the
12:42
yellow arrows there, which is showing the likely Ukrainian
12:46
escape routes for their forces that are being encircled.
12:50
And you can see the formation of the Russian pincer which is
12:53
going, which is ultimately going to take the city.
12:56
And there's no question that this is going to happen.
13:00
If we have a look at Kupiansk, we can see this, a similar
13:04
encirclement happening, Russians in this case approaching from
13:08
the north, northwest. And the flags with the sorry,
13:12
the areas with the Ukrainian flags on showing largely the the
13:15
strongholds of the Ukrainians which are left in Kupiansk, but
13:20
the Russians are steadily encircling these.
13:23
And if we translate this into reality, this is a description
13:28
here or photos showing high rise buildings in Copiand.
13:32
And this is really giving you the key visual for how difficult
13:38
this terrain is for the Russians to fight because you've got very
13:42
flat landscape. And if you have strong multi
13:46
Storey buildings, these inevitably form very difficult
13:50
strong points. So credit to both sides.
13:53
This is brutal urban warfare. But the facts are that the
13:57
Russians are steady steadily defeating the Ukrainians in
14:01
these areas and these are ultimately strategic defeats.
14:05
Now, if we just come back to UK briefly, something which caught
14:10
my attention and Charles Malit at the end of last week was this
14:14
report talking about the role of women in the UK armed forces.
14:19
And if we've got somewhere about 11%, maybe more, up to 15% women
14:25
in the reserve forces, well, the future is very different because
14:29
the intention is that as we ramp up for war with the Russians,
14:33
we're going to ramp up to get 30% women in our armed forces.
14:38
And that has all sorts of ramifications because if we look
14:42
worldwide, women are not being put onto the battlefield to
14:47
fight. Although there's much talk about
14:49
this, when the chips are down, it's invariably the men that
14:52
come forward. We'll talk about this a bit a
14:55
bit more in extra time, but let's move on from there.
14:59
And welcome to you, Sandy. And if we're going to kill
15:03
people on the battlefield in very large numbers, we're also
15:07
targeting our elderly via the assisted dying bill.
15:13
Indeed. And and not just the elderly.
15:15
It's yeah, it, it had its, its second reading this week on last
15:21
Friday, on the 19th of September in in the Lords.
15:25
And they set up a special Select Committee to take detailed
15:29
evidence and to scrutinize the bill.
15:33
The bill was formerly the terminally ill adults end of
15:36
life Bill. And it it cleared its second
15:39
reading, so it remains on the statute book track and proceeds
15:43
through the Lord's stages. Obviously, due to much
15:47
opposition from some peers, rather than moving immediately
15:50
to normal committee report stages, the House agreed to
15:54
appoint a Select Committee to gather evidence from
15:56
professional bodies, coroners, ministers and other bodies
16:00
involved. The committee will publish the
16:02
evidence it hears, but unusually, it's not being asked
16:05
to make amendment recommendations, which makes me
16:08
feel that it, you know, they are going to try and push this
16:10
through without a doubt. The committee was given a
16:14
reporting headline deadline, so they've been asked to report
16:19
back by the 7th of November, which is quite soon.
16:22
Ministers such as the Health and Justice secretaries are expected
16:25
to give evidence. So you know, it's, it's going
16:29
to, it's, it's pushing its way through.
16:33
So if the Lord's bill is amended, it will return to the
16:37
House of Commons for consideration of those
16:39
amendments. If no blocking amendments pass,
16:42
the bill can proceed through both houses towards Royal
16:45
Assent. So there we have it now there's,
16:49
there's, there was a lot of opposition.
16:51
I don't know, you know, many people may have watched the
16:53
Hansard on, on all this, but Baroness Finley and Lord Daniel
17:00
Moylan had something to say about this.
17:02
And we've got some, we've got some footage of both of those
17:06
now. So if we could roll that
17:07
footage. The bill doesn't require any
17:11
attempt to relieve pain or suffering, even if they're
17:14
present. It puts the power in the hands
17:17
of the two assessing doctors who may know.
17:19
Nothing about the conditions of the person who cannot detect
17:23
undue influence or coercion and whose motivation may be opaque.
17:29
Prognosis is a guess, and diagnostic errors are common.
17:34
They do. These doctors do not need to be
17:36
certain. Only on the balance of
17:38
probabilities do they need to believe the criteria are met
17:42
with no oversight of their assessment.
17:44
How can a panel approve the death with any certainty when
17:48
there is no ability to appeal against a panel approval and no
17:52
coroner oversight? How many wrongful deaths a year
17:56
is acceptable? No system can be 100% safe
18:01
providing massive. Drug overdoses in an unlicensed
18:04
way to end life is not a therapeutic act.
18:09
It's notable that the words death and dying hardly appear,
18:14
that the poison to be used is described as an approved
18:18
substance. The still mysterious contraption
18:22
by which it is to be administered is called an
18:25
approved device and the business itself.
18:30
When you get to Clause 25, you'll find it's headed
18:34
administration of assistance, provision of assistance.
18:39
Assistance, in fact, is the term used throughout the whole of the
18:44
Bill. Is this something that's going
18:46
to become part of our daily language?
18:49
Have you considered assistance, Mrs. Smith?
18:53
My Lords, we know what this is. It is euphemism an an old
18:59
ancient Greek device for hiding from the gods through the use of
19:05
flowery language, something of which you are ashamed.
19:09
And that's what the language of this bill is constantly
19:13
expressing at every turn. My Lords, I think we are right
19:17
to be ashamed of what is in this Bill.
19:23
I think he spoke very eloquently.
19:26
So yeah, there's definitely, definitely something very shady
19:29
about all of this. And obviously Lord Falconer is
19:33
the, is the person pushing this alongside Esther Ranson.
19:37
And he's a major player in pushing this bill through.
19:41
Now it's interesting. He's he did have to make an
19:45
admission in, in the House of Lords.
19:47
And I think we have some footage of that admission about the
19:52
funding of, you know, towards the assisted dying bill.
19:56
And it there's some shady things going on.
19:59
So I'll let you make your own minds up.
20:03
My Lords, I draw. Attention to my entry in the
20:05
Register of Members interest, which refers to the fact that I
20:08
have an assistant funded by Bernard Lewis to assist me in
20:10
the conduct of this Bill, and Dignity in Dying funded the
20:13
printing of literature which I sent to your Lordships in
20:15
connection. With the Bill, I apologize for
20:17
not mentioning this in my opening speech.
20:21
My Lords, this has been a debate.
20:26
So he admitted that actually the, that some of the literature
20:31
was funded by Dignity and Dying. And these two, there's 2, two
20:37
companies that are intrinsically linked, it's Dignity and Dying.
20:40
And the other one is the, I think it's called the
20:44
Compassionate dying organization.
20:47
Now both of these are linked to the Bernard Lewis Trust who were
20:54
funding a lot of the assisted by dying bill.
20:58
So so who owns that trust? It's the the the Lewis family
21:04
trust, the Bernard Lewis family trust.
21:07
And they're part of the river, the River Island fame.
21:10
That's where they made their money.
21:12
Like most corporate capitalists, the family has its fingers in
21:15
multi, multi nefarious pies. The founder, Bernard Lewis, is
21:20
responsible for the family's fortunes.
21:22
The company's house lists him alone as an active director of
21:25
no fewer than I think it's 20 corporations.
21:29
And another company called Cavendish Square Secretariat
21:33
acts as secretary for 52 other companies.
21:36
It's owned by the Lewis Trust Group.
21:39
The group's portfolio spans various investment companies in
21:42
England, property development in Poland and a chain of hotels in
21:46
Israel and the US. And if the company it keeps, or
21:50
rather the other organization it donates to is anything to go by,
21:54
it seems it's, it's very comfortably a missed a missed
21:58
amongst neoliberal circles. So let's look at some of these
22:03
organisations that receive funding from Bernard Lewis Trust
22:07
Dignity in Dying and it's it's got a sister company called
22:12
Compassion in Dying. Now Dignity in Dying had an
22:15
income of 2.6 million in 2023, up from 1.7 million in 2022 / 2
22:23
million was spent on lobbying, PR, media, research and funding
22:27
to push the assisted dying bill. Crucially, the accounts do not
22:30
disclose who the high value donors are.
22:33
Compassion in dying charity, they show a clearer donor
22:39
information. In 2023, it owed 139,000 to
22:43
Dignity in dying for staffing and overheads, meaning its
22:46
donors are indirectly funding lobbying and they are very
22:49
linked to these two, these two companies now, Oh, oh the, the
22:55
trust, the Bernard Lewis Trust donated well over 1.8 million in
23:00
documented donations to dignity and dying and compassionate
23:03
dying are the recipients of the Lewis Trust's money where the
23:07
Conservative Party and from Bernard Lewis personally, he
23:12
donated, I think it was 46,000 to, to, you know, personally to
23:17
the Conservative Party as well as 52,000,000 between 2008 and
23:22
2010. And then a network of nefarious
23:27
think tank, you know, sort of dark think tanks, the Henry
23:32
Jackson Society, the Centre for Social Justice Policy Exchange
23:38
Demos, as well as Zionist organisations such as the
23:42
Community Security Trust, so and the Jewish Leadership Council.
23:47
So all of this is, is being funded by many, many
23:53
organisations that we have nothing, we we don't, we know
23:56
nothing about. They're they're just pushing
23:58
money into this. So it's heavily funded by
24:02
million billionaire capitalists and opaque trusts, not
24:05
grassroots donations. And the same back as also Bank,
24:08
pro neoliberal and Zionist organization raising concerns
24:12
that the push for assisted dying aligns with ideological and
24:15
economic agendas, but that devalue vulnerable lives both
24:19
here in the UK and abroad. So let's look at the hypocrisy.
24:23
Of the funding, 8.12 million has been spent by lobbyists and
24:28
wealthy donors to promote assisted dying over roughly A
24:30
decade. Meanwhile, the annual funding
24:33
gap for palliative care is is in the hundreds of millions.
24:36
The government has reduced its funding of Hospice and
24:38
palliative care by 47 million in the last 18 months, with
24:43
hospices forced to run cakes, stalls, sales, charity shops and
24:47
marathons to stay stay afloat. In other words, just a fraction
24:51
of the private money poured into lobbying for assisted dying
24:54
could have transformed palliative provision for
24:57
thousands of dying people, providing pain relief, hospital
25:01
beds and support for families. It's clear that wealthy donors
25:05
have chosen to bankroll campaigns that make death more
25:08
accessible, yet those same resources are not being directed
25:12
towards making life until natural death more comfortable.
25:15
Society is left in a position where it's easier and cheaper to
25:19
promote a lethal injection than to guarantee proper palliative
25:22
care, not because of public will, but because lobbying is
25:26
better funded than compassion. This is deeply concerning.
25:30
And I think we have a a video now from I think his name's he's
25:37
Doctor Miller and he's he kind of puts it into perspective.
25:40
And I think we should listen to this.
25:42
It kind of puts it all in one place.
25:44
Make your own minds up. Thank you.
25:47
That's a minor change compared with the this century's growth
25:52
in the world population from 6.1 billion to 8.2 billion, a 25%
25:59
increase in 25 years. But just think what the 202 five
26:04
numbers would be if abortion had not been legalized or there had
26:12
not been white skilled usage and advocacy of contraception.
26:18
And indeed the growth of homosexuality throughout society
26:22
has reduced the number of children we would have had at
26:27
the churches. Had their way, we would have had
26:31
a very much bigger population than we presently have.
26:35
Basically, the difficulties we have with climate change.
26:41
Well, Sandy, thank you very much for that.
26:44
It's it's a very, very serious and as you say, dark agenda.
26:48
And it's also deeply disturbing that there's huge amounts of
26:52
money coming in in order effectively to lobby and
26:55
manipulate the government into going down this path when the
26:59
same money spent could have a a very much more human and
27:04
compassionate outcome if it was put towards caring for people
27:08
who were heading in or heading towards terminal illness.
27:13
So lots of questions to be asked.
27:15
We we a little bit uncertain about the name of the gentleman
27:19
speaking there in the House of Lords.
27:20
We'll check that out and we'll make sure we've got that correct
27:23
in you in extra today. But a lot to be discussed.
27:27
And Ben, this is more manipulation of politics, isn't
27:32
it? And you, you've come in on the
27:34
topic of mind control, which is is the government's main agenda,
27:39
it appears at the moment it. Certainly is, yes.
27:41
Well, I think that's what government is, isn't it?
27:43
If we just flag this up, government, what does that mean?
27:46
Mind control, that's what it's all about.
27:50
Before I progress, let me just say that was an amazing report,
27:54
Sandy, and that speech at the end there just took my breath
27:57
away. I can't believe that we have to
27:58
talk about that more in Extra and also particularly the Henry
28:01
Jackson Society because I've been looking at them over the
28:03
past week or two. So anyway, we'll come back to
28:06
it. Mind control, government, what
28:09
are they up to, what they're planning next.
28:10
There is no better place to go to find that out than Policy
28:14
Live, which happened 10 days ago, week before last, and it's
28:20
powered by Nestor and the Behavioural Insights Team.
28:23
Nestor, the UK's social innovation agency who are
28:26
manipulating the social fabric and the Behavioural Insights
28:30
Team, AKA the Nudge Unit who are manipulating our minds.
28:35
Before I get into this, I'm just going to draw your attention to
28:39
this organisation as well as a sidebar, but I'm going to come
28:42
back to these these lot over the coming weeks.
28:44
This is Flint Global which is a strategic consulting business
28:49
which advises international businesses and investors on
28:51
policy, politics, regulation and competition.
28:53
So very expensive polished advice from people with very
28:57
privileged positions in the establishment, not least the Co
29:02
founders. So first of all, this guy says
29:05
Sir Simon Fraser, who as well as being a Co founder of Flint,
29:09
spent a long time in the in the Foreign Office.
29:11
It was the head of the UK Foreign Office and diplomatic
29:14
Service. We ran the whole embassy network
29:17
for the British government. And he's also now currently the
29:20
chair of Chatham House. So he has a dual role here,
29:24
making a lot of money with Flint while also enormously
29:27
influencing policy at Chatham House.
29:29
And then more pertinent to today's presentation, Ed
29:33
Richards, who is also a Co founder of Flint whilst being
29:36
chair at Nestor and the Behavioural Insights team.
29:39
So between these two, that is an extraordinary amount of
29:43
influence coalesced into one place, one organization.
29:46
You've got the kind of blue blooded establishment of Chatham
29:48
House and the neo liberal progressives of the Behavioural
29:51
Insights team together in one place.
29:55
And as I say, we'll come back to Flint Globe.
29:57
I just wanted to register that with you because that'll give
29:59
you a little bit more context. What we're going to talk about
30:01
is it as it relates to Nestor Live.
30:03
Let's hear now from Ed Richards, Chair of Nestor and the
30:07
Behavioural Insights Team, talking about the challenges
30:10
facing the political classes in the UK in 2025.
30:15
Firstly, there is a frustration in the country so that we can't
30:20
somehow quite agree how to tackle the important problems of
30:25
the age. That is partly a problem of the
30:29
polarized politics of the age, but it is certainly a problem
30:34
the second. Would be that there seems to me
30:36
to be a widespread concern that somehow some challenges are now
30:41
almost insoluble, that they're just almost too difficult for us
30:45
to solve. The third.
30:49
Would be a concern, a worry that somehow government itself can't
30:54
effect change in the way that it once could.
30:58
It seems to find it harder and harder to address some of the
31:03
complex challenges. That we face.
31:06
And fourthly, that the state itself, the state writ large,
31:11
struggles to implement quickly and efficiently policy, even
31:17
when policy objectives are in fact agreed and clear.
31:23
I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday in France and she
31:26
said to me that France is in fact now almost ungovernable,
31:30
and it reminded. Me for a moment.
31:32
Of the debates in the 70s about the UK being ungovernable, some
31:36
of you will remember them. I don't think you could say that
31:39
about the UK, not with the government, with such a clear
31:41
and strong majority, but there is a.
31:45
Concern, I think, about the degree to which government can
31:49
govern in a way that meets the challenges of our age.
31:55
Government can't govern. Some challenges are insoluble,
32:00
we cannot solve them. Government can't affect change.
32:03
The state can't even implement policy when it's got a clear
32:06
mandate to do so. Apparently he thinks that the UK
32:09
should be governable because Labour has a mandate,
32:12
apparently, even though they got about 20% of the vote or
32:15
something like that. And I'm rather jealous of the
32:19
French actually, because apparently France is
32:20
ungovernable and I think that's probably something that we
32:22
should aspire to. I don't know.
32:25
I think it's got a lot to be said for it and it shows that
32:28
the French spirit is causing problems.
32:32
Yeah, we tend to be more dose of.
32:34
I think we do, yeah. Problem.
32:35
Absolutely. So anyway, they're gonna,
32:37
they're gonna try though, right? So they're gonna try and govern
32:40
us and we'll have a little look at some of the ways in which
32:42
they're going to do that. Up on stage next.
32:45
We had this crowd, Heather Stewart on the left there,
32:51
economics editor of The Guardian, David Halpin, very
32:54
familiar to regular viewers. The UK column, the guy that
32:56
started the nudge unit for David Cameron back in 2010, Polly
33:00
Curtis from Demos, Interesting to see Demos in Sandy's segment
33:03
there. Again, we have to come back to
33:04
that in Extra. And then this chap on the right
33:07
hand side there, that's Antonio Silva from Nestor, and he's
33:10
there to talk about something called social capital.
33:13
And essentially see what they're doing here is saying, well, if
33:15
the government can't fix things, which is what Ed Richards just
33:18
said, then maybe society can fix things.
33:20
But we've still got to justify our existence in our fancy
33:24
office in central London with our well paid jobs.
33:27
So let's run this big survey to go and see if we can understand
33:30
the UK society from an anthropological perspective.
33:34
And this is all done in the context of essentially cultural
33:36
Marxism. So he talks about these three
33:39
forms of capital, economic capital, what you have, human
33:43
capital, what you know, and social capital, this new thing
33:47
you're introducing, which is all about who you know and looking
33:50
at social networks and his kick off point now on the left hand
33:53
side you can see his desk Capital by Marks, right?
33:55
So these are Marxists in London developing government policy,
34:00
running. With huge amounts of money.
34:02
Huge. Huge, huge, huge.
34:03
Amounts of money. I mean, we talked.
34:05
I think Nestor's got in the region of half a billion pounds
34:08
in its endowment, hugely wealthy, traveling an office
34:12
right next to JP Morgan's office on the Embankment in central
34:15
London. And this is what they spend
34:18
their time doing, right? And what do they run?
34:20
They run a national study to look at 6 billion friendships in
34:26
the UK and look at this social capital.
34:29
Reading from the top lines, they looked at social networks of 58%
34:32
of the UK population. So it's 20 and a half million
34:35
anonymised Facebook users. Well, will they?
34:39
Well, I mean, Facebook has been quite public about the fact that
34:43
it doesn't know what it does with your data.
34:45
They didn't build that platform for privacy and they're
34:48
allowing, this is a formal partnership with Facebook, by
34:50
the way, I'll come on to that in a minute.
34:52
They're allowing this organization access to 20
34:55
million user profiles to look at relationships between all these
35:00
different people, focusing on what they call economic
35:03
connectedness, so looking at high income friends that low
35:06
income people have and trying to understand the connection
35:09
between different strata and society.
35:12
They're also looking at things like social mobility, which
35:14
comes from a different data set. And then they ran a survey
35:17
looking at well-being, which is about satisfaction, life
35:20
satisfaction, how much people trust each other.
35:22
That comes from a separate survey.
35:24
And actually it's quite entertaining because he was
35:26
rather disappointed that actually in the UK, friendships
35:29
do bridge economic divides significantly more so than in
35:32
other countries, which I don't think is what he was expecting
35:35
to find out. There's enormous diversity in
35:37
the population. The class divide is actually
35:39
much less entrenched than people think.
35:41
People from the lower levels of society have lots of friends in
35:43
the upper levels of society. We're certainly the higher
35:46
earning levels of society, I think we should probably say.
35:49
And, and the, the, the entertaining thing for, for me
35:51
about this is what you get with these studies is that it's all
35:54
done on data and they never actually say we went out and
35:58
spoke to some people. It's all just, it's all
36:00
spreadsheet based basically. And we didn't find an issue, but
36:04
we're still going to make a load of interventions.
36:06
So we then end up with, oh, we're going to redraw the school
36:09
catchment areas and we've got to create a new community ownership
36:12
fund and we've got to get government investment for
36:14
socially mixed sports facilities.
36:16
Even though there's not really anything particularly wrong in
36:18
the country, we've got to intervene in it anyway because
36:21
obviously we need to, as I said before, justify our resistance.
36:24
And obviously this guy is he's not he's not English.
36:27
So his name is Antonio Silva. So I'm guessing he's Spanish or
36:31
Portuguese potentially, I'm not sure.
36:33
Martin vessel was the guy he worked with.
36:35
Sounds like a German name to me. And actually Halpern in the
36:38
response to this makes some comment about not liking the way
36:41
that Anglo Saxon's positioned park benches and actually
36:45
thinking that he would need to intervene to change that, which
36:48
is, you know, just kind of astonishing really.
36:51
And given the fact that they haven't found an issue with the
36:54
class divide, I think they kind of got down to business and
36:59
really opened up what this was all about when they started to
37:01
talk about immigration. Let's have a little listen to
37:03
this. There's this also.
37:05
Part of the recipe for dealing with absorbing quite large scale
37:11
immigration in the way that we've had and, you know, forming
37:17
more cohesive groups or not dividing or, you know, dealing
37:22
with some of the issues that Polly was sort of gesturing up
37:24
there that you know is this is this part of the recipe for for,
37:27
you know, forming closer connections, whatever your
37:29
background, whatever your. It can be.
37:31
It has been historically. There's another Commission,
37:34
several running at the moment, but one on community cohesion
37:38
which is looking at some of those issues more broadly.
37:39
And it took its first evidence session and obviously it was a
37:43
fantastic presentation. Somebody reasonably well known
37:46
figure who grew up in the East Standard web, but was
37:49
contrasting about how, you know, you look about it, his father's
37:52
generation or whatever. If you're in East End.
37:54
It was a kind of, it was a melting pot for lots of reasons.
37:58
You know, he rather elegantly put it, you know, we all learn a
38:00
bit of Yiddish and we smoke a bit of pot and you know, it's
38:03
like shit happening. But then in contrast, what also
38:06
happened in a lot of those periods, if you go back, you
38:08
know, to three generations, you get a lot of areas which are
38:12
actually white only in other parts of the country.
38:15
And actually, they're the ones that are really most worried
38:19
normally about immigration where you don't see those populations.
38:23
So it's not just sort of a contact hypothesis writ large.
38:27
But it looks a lot like it, right?
38:29
Yeah. It's it's not a real world
38:31
example, but we're running a big program on deliberative policy
38:36
making around immigration at the moment.
38:39
And all the evidence shows that if you bring people with very
38:43
broad opinions together in a safe space and a really powerful
38:49
deliberative process, there is a natural moderation that happens
38:53
in those processes and people find kind of compromises and
38:57
ways through. And the it's what we talk about
39:00
kind of like a Mimby majority kind of effect that actually at
39:04
the moment our kind of public debate has been so driven by the
39:07
extremes when you. Bring people together without
39:11
those kind of like extreme drivers in the room.
39:14
People find kind of ways through those very kind of seemingly
39:18
toxic debates. Arrogance is what I pick up,
39:25
Ben. Unbelievable arrogance.
39:28
They are the intellect and those other people are not capable of
39:32
making sensible decisions. That have been managed and
39:35
cajoled and moved around. And it's really the white only
39:38
areas that are the problem. But if you get your hands around
39:41
them and kind of force them into it, then ultimately then the
39:43
whole thing kind of moves along, right?
39:45
Really, really. It's not just arrogant, it's
39:47
actually destructive, right? And I use this term.
39:49
Where has it gone? Oh, hang on a minute, There we
39:52
are. This cultural genocide.
39:54
It's actually what we're talking about here, right?
39:56
It's ethnicide. It refers to the deliberate and
39:58
systematic destruction of a group's cultural religion and
40:00
identity. That's what they're doing.
40:02
Right. And it gets delivered in this
40:03
kind of glib, air conditioned, well upholstered, metropolitan
40:07
elitist fashion. But that's actually what's
40:09
happening behind the scenes, right?
40:11
What these people are up to. And let's have a quick look at
40:15
the civil service. I'm completely blown the clock,
40:18
I'm afraid. So I don't know if we're still
40:20
if we're still doing the castle prod, I'm probably going to get
40:22
it. But it's definitely worth having
40:24
a look at really kind of an All Star cast actually for this this
40:29
session, which ran in the afternoon.
40:30
So this is about the civil service of the future.
40:33
You have the various perm sex secretaries.
40:37
So I just flick on. We can see Ed Richards comes
40:41
back. He's hosting the thing on the
40:42
left hand side there. We then have Gus O'Donnell,
40:45
formerly known as God, who was the Cabinet secretary under
40:49
Cameron, I believe it was for many years.
40:52
And then Dame Tamara Finkelstein on the end there, who's just
40:55
left Defra, where she was permanent permanent secretary.
40:57
And then Susan Ackland Hood in the middle, who's the permanent
41:00
secretary of the Department for Education.
41:02
This is really interesting, actually.
41:03
I've got to say, like kind of glimpse into what's going on in
41:05
the civil service. Gus O'Donnell was quite
41:07
forthright. We're going to run a clip of him
41:09
in a moment, but basically he said that we were at a stage
41:12
where more, more than ever before, people want the
41:15
government to do things but they don't trust the government.
41:18
And I actually think that this is an issue.
41:20
They they want stuff done, they're looking around and the
41:22
government is the thing that's there.
41:24
What they don't realise is actually we need to sort of
41:26
stuff out for ourselves. Government should have nothing
41:28
to do with most of the issues that it's getting involved in.
41:32
Ackland Hoods delivered a classic civil service line,
41:35
which she said. The civil service is getting
41:37
better, but the world is getting worse faster.
41:42
It's not our fault. And then Finkelstein, she's
41:44
concerned about change, actually, and this idea that
41:47
maybe we they might be bringing political appointees in to run
41:50
civil service departments like they do in the US.
41:54
And she was kind of terrified, actually, that someone like
41:56
Farage might come in and start messing around with the top
41:59
levels of the civil service. But Gus O'Donnell delivered some
42:03
rather brutally honest thoughts about what change actually means
42:07
when proposed by politicians. Let's have a listen.
42:11
What does structural change mean in the context of that kind of
42:16
challenge from the political leadership?
42:18
I, I would say I'd start by saying the prime ministers, when
42:21
they'd say those sorts of things, have absolutely no idea
42:23
the answer to that question. When they talk about rewiring
42:27
the state, they, they honestly don't know what they mean.
42:29
You know, they, it's OK. So you know, how, how do you
42:33
want to do this? You know what, what are you
42:34
thinking about? Nothing so you you do need to
42:38
realize that as a civil servant that and and this sometimes
42:42
people forget it's an incredibly political job, right.
42:45
You do have to understand the way in which politicians work
42:49
for what matters to them and how to think about, you know, for
42:54
example, on delivery, how to get them interested in delivery.
42:57
You know, like, it's every Prime Minister I've ever worked with.
43:00
He's like, oh, another foreign trip.
43:02
Oh, this is good. They treat me really well.
43:04
The foreign press asked me proper questions about policy.
43:07
That's great. And I've left behind all those
43:09
fights about, Oh my God, the internal party fights, you know,
43:13
so you can understand why they get really attracted to doing
43:16
foreign policy and you have to drag them back to the domestic
43:20
stuff. I just say I enjoyed that
43:26
because he's clearly been out of office for quite some time
43:28
because he was very honest about his interactions with prime
43:31
ministers. You basically don't know
43:32
anything. Sounds about right.
43:34
This is true. While that video was playing I
43:37
was having a look at Auk column printed newspaper from 2011
43:43
where we were warning that the Cabinet Office was working with
43:47
the French to implement political applied psychology to
43:52
change the way people thought and behaved.
43:54
And of course Gus O'Donnell was one of the key attendees in that
43:58
17th of December meeting. The meeting was actually
44:02
December 2010, but UK column reported on it 2011.
44:06
Dangerous stuff. Absolutely.
44:08
And so many of the same characters have just been there
44:10
consistently through the piece. I'll just wrap up very quickly
44:13
with what came up at the end of the day, this is very important.
44:17
We're hearing a lot of talk over the past few days about digital
44:19
ID schemes and the, the kind of the, the blockbuster one that's
44:23
always held up is the, the Indian one.
44:25
And they, they had this guy, Doctor Praman Varma, who
44:29
presented, he was the chief architect for the digital ID
44:32
scheme in India. It's a huge programme.
44:35
They've built the social credit system in their enormous
44:38
country, 1.4 billion people, 22 languages, 12 religions and and
44:44
they've transformed it through what they call formalisation,
44:47
especially bringing people formally into the economy.
44:50
They've got a billion people into the economy that weren't
44:53
recognised, like they didn't know who these people were at
44:56
all. And then having brought in,
44:58
obviously this is presented as a good thing.
44:59
So they can now participate in the marketplace and be given
45:03
lots of money through digital payments and government benefits
45:07
and that kind of thing. But ultimately a lot of it is
45:09
about what you can see on the right hand side there, taxation.
45:12
And now we know you, we can tax you and we can exert influence
45:15
and power. Overview.
45:16
It's a big part of it. They developed the whole
45:18
technical architecture. It's been successful, it's been
45:21
implemented. It's public private partnership.
45:23
They're rolling out to the entire society essentially.
45:26
And this is right at the top of the agenda for UK government.
45:30
And they're certain they're looking at India to help them
45:32
implement this. So that was an important part of
45:34
the day that I thought I'd just end on.
45:37
Thank you very much for that Ben, and lots to talk about in
45:40
UK Column extra. After today's news, let's just
45:44
move on with a big thank you to everybody who's supporting UK
45:47
Column and taking up a monthly membership or an annual
45:53
membership with us or purchasing through the shop or making
45:57
donations. If you're not already doing
45:59
that, just go to the UK Column website and click here to
46:03
support our work. We're immensely grateful for all
46:07
of the tremendous support we get.
46:09
Now, we just like to say that things continue to move towards
46:12
the 18th of October for UK Column on location.
46:17
We are really excited about this event.
46:20
Now, as we've been saying for some time now, we are sold out
46:24
of tickets now, but you do have the opportunity to view it live
46:31
stream, so think about that. If you're not able to attend in
46:35
person but you still want to join in with proceedings, we'd
46:38
love to have you there and you can get onto the UK Corn website
46:42
for a live ticket. Now I need also to mention that
46:47
although we're sold out of tickets, we have got a reserve
46:51
list and we know that sometimes due to circumstance people can't
46:57
actually attend on the day. If possible we'll try and help
47:01
them do something about that. We can't guarantee to do that,
47:05
but if you're not on the reserve list, you might choose to put
47:09
yourself on that list and should a ticket become available then
47:13
we can deal with that on a first come, first served basis.
47:17
Also like to say that there's one bed in a twin room, which is
47:22
also now available. That would be for a lady.
47:27
If you are interested in attending and you're happy to
47:31
share, getting contact via office at ukcolumn.org.
47:37
And coming up, we've got germ warfare tonight at 7:00, and
47:42
that's Sasha Latapova on COVID, Trump, CIA and the military.
47:47
And Tuesday at 1:00 PM, we've got an interview that might
47:52
conduct it. And the subject is Croatia not
47:58
willingly going to war. Now this is with a gentleman
48:02
who's a political commentator in Croatia.
48:06
And this is really good because we're getting the the truth of
48:10
the matter out from inside the country itself.
48:14
I'm delighted to say that we've been engaging with a little bit
48:18
of an artistic initiative and let's have a look at this little
48:22
clip to understand more. 1000 Words is coming to UK column.
48:28
Watch Katie Jo Murphy, Co founder of Hope Sussex, sit for
48:32
her portrait whilst deep diving into life, the universe and
48:35
everything. First episode airs this weekend
48:38
on UK Column. Well, there you have it.
48:48
That should be extremely interesting and we'll see how
48:51
that we'll see how that one pans out.
48:54
Now you want a little bit of comment on full fact.
48:56
Here, Oh yes, no, this is this is a bit of fun we're going to
48:58
have next week. Get it in your Diaries. 5:00 PM
49:02
till 7 PM 29th of September, Full fact CEO Chris Morris is
49:08
doing very bravely, I should say, doing an AMA and ask me
49:12
anything session on, read it and we're going to go along and ask
49:18
him lots of very polite and pointed and intelligent and
49:21
probing questions to account for himself.
49:24
Good. See you there.
49:25
We encourage people to join that.
49:27
OK, Sandy, let's bring you back in and tell us a bit about this
49:32
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act.
49:36
Yeah, I mean, I, this was flagged up to me.
49:38
I, I didn't know anything about it really, because all this
49:40
legislation goes through our, through our parliament and
49:43
there's so much of it. How can you keep up?
49:45
So, uh, a couple got in touch with me, their, their UK column.
49:49
Um, they, they follow UK column and they, they, they've got 2
49:54
businesses and they received a letter from their, from their,
49:59
from, from Companies House. And it's, it's explaining the
50:03
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act.
50:07
And they were quite shocked because the letter from
50:10
Companies House said Companies House are imposing a new legal
50:14
requirement that all directors and PSCS, persons with
50:19
significant control verify they aren't their identity.
50:22
This is being transitioned in grad in in in sort of a gradual
50:26
way, starting with directors and companies directors are required
50:31
to obtain a unique identifier known as Companies House
50:34
personal code. The Companies House personal
50:37
code code will be used when setting up directors on
50:40
companies company in corporations and adding
50:43
directors to Companies House. Companies House also needs to
50:46
gather the company's House personal code for all existing
50:49
directorships, this being done via the company's confirmation
50:53
statement. Confirmation statement confirms
50:56
in part that the list of directors stored at Companies
50:59
House is correct. The company's House personal
51:01
code for each director will be submitted with the confirmation
51:04
statement and the requirement starts for all confirmation
51:08
statements submitted on or after the 18th of November 2025.
51:12
So this is really rolling out from November the 18th.
51:17
We're willing to write to you as our main contact for the company
51:20
so, so that you can provide us with the company's house
51:22
personal code for all directors of the company.
51:24
Without the personal code, all directors will not be able to
51:27
submit any confirmation statement on or after the 18th
51:31
of November 2025. Now this, you know, they're
51:34
saying that it's all for your benefit to stop fraud and, and,
51:38
and, and, and all sorts of corruption, but actually it
51:41
feeds right into the whole digital ID that we, we
51:45
understand, you know the, the reasons behind that.
51:49
And then he got a, a, a reply from his accountant because he
51:53
gave it to his accountant. And it says The Economic Crime
51:56
and Corporate Transparency Act became law by passing through
52:00
both the UK Parliament and the House of Lords, receiving Royal
52:03
Assent from King on 26/20/23. This legislative process
52:08
involved the government introducing the Bill, followed
52:10
by extensive debate, review and amendments by Parliament for its
52:14
final approvement and enactment into law.
52:16
More importantly, the position procedurally, as a result of the
52:21
provisions of the Act is that over the next two years, any
52:24
company that has any director who does not have a personal
52:28
Companies House identity code will be automatically closed by
52:31
Companies House. Currently, company directors
52:35
therefore appear to have four choices.
52:37
One, do nothing and let all the companies they are director of
52:40
be closed. 2 resign their directorships. 3, close the
52:44
companies they they're a director of and trade as
52:47
individuals, or 4, get their personal ID code and continue as
52:51
normal. We will obviously support you as
52:53
best we can, whatever you choose to do.
52:55
So you know, he's between a rock and a hard place, This bloke,
52:58
because he's saying I, I don't, I really don't agree to, to, to
53:02
doing this, this ID verification.
53:06
He, he's quite rightly knows it's feeding into the whole, you
53:10
know, digital ID, but he he's, he wants to carry on running his
53:13
company. So it's be interesting to see if
53:17
anybody else gets in touch in the same position.
53:19
And what we really need is a mass non compliance of all this,
53:23
obviously with everything to do with digital ID.
53:27
Yeah, correct, Sandy. And yes, it's very, it's onerous
53:31
the speed that this is coming in and it's going to affect any,
53:35
any and everybody in business. So it's time to stand up and
53:39
challenge it. Ben, let's bring you back in.
53:42
And you've been looking at the creation of rage in society.
53:48
Yeah, this is all we look at, isn't it?
53:50
Yes. Rage bait.
53:51
Take a deep breath everyone. We're under attack online.
53:55
Tread carefully, Give it 24 hours, 48 hours.
53:58
Find out what the full story is before you get too triggered by
54:01
things like I did yesterday. There was this video going
54:04
around and I should say we're going to run it, but it's been
54:09
edited and that's important, which I'll come back to.
54:11
But let's have a little look at this video over supposedly a
54:16
police visit in the West Midlands sometime in the past
54:19
few days. OK, what were you?
54:22
What was it? Sorry, I I don't like the
54:24
camera. You have a body Cam.
54:25
I could exhibit that to you. I just don't like the camera.
54:27
Really. OK, well, I'm doing this because
54:29
this is my own house and I am telling you why I'm.
54:32
So I just need to know why. Why?
54:35
Why would she? She's basically viewed a post
54:37
which is not a an arrestable offence.
54:40
Yeah, OK. Happened in May and you'll be
54:42
fine. The only thing is, yeah, we need
54:45
to seize the phone at this current moment.
54:47
Yeah, the phone needs to get seized from us, otherwise we
54:50
will escalate this fibre. So.
54:52
But with a voluntary. So have you seized anyone else?
54:54
Is she the only child you're picking on?
54:58
Have you spoken to anyone else? No, We'll, we'll come to the
55:01
station now. Do you mind letting her finish
55:03
her sentence before? Yeah, have to get further
55:05
escalation, unfortunately. That's fine.
55:06
We'll come to the snow show now. The phone isn't seized right now
55:10
and we're not able to basically get the phone.
55:12
We'd have to escalate this further, which means your
55:15
daughter will get arrested for what are you in the social media
55:18
post? Is that I need to go with that
55:20
in order to No, absolutely not. Shall we do to prevent
55:24
description of evidence? I'm sorry.
55:30
That's fine. I would like you to leave now.
55:31
I'd like you to leave. OK.
55:34
I have nothing more to say to you.
55:37
A social media post. I've got nothing more to say.
55:39
I'd like you to leave. You've harassed this child
55:42
enough. I'd like you to leave.
55:43
That's no worries. How do you feel, Brian?
55:52
Well, I can imagine that most the triggering thinking people
55:56
would would be, would be incensed by that.
55:59
And what's actually happening. The look of the two police
56:02
women, they're not dressed properly.
56:04
They are apparently chasing a child.
56:06
They're trying to demand a phone, They're invading
56:09
somebody's house. There's a lot.
56:11
There's a lot of components. So viewing a social media post
56:15
and I particularly like the bit right at the start where she
56:17
says I don't like having the camera on me, even though they
56:19
both stood there with cameras on right.
56:21
So that's that's got that's done the rounds on Twitter.
56:24
A lot of people getting very annoyed about that actually.
56:26
But it's not all is not as it seems because it was heavily
56:30
edited. And actually all credit, I must
56:32
say, to Alex from Thinking Coalition regular guest on the
56:36
UK column, who pointed out that this is all a bit odd.
56:38
Really, isn't it kind of odd watching everyone filming at the
56:41
mouth about this clip, which is the 100% predictable reaction,
56:45
that nobody seems to wonder why it's heavily edited, which it
56:47
was, and what it's all about, giving that viewing things
56:51
online isn't an offence. This seems to be a narrative
56:55
play. Free speech has become the
56:57
battleground issue. That's what Tommy Robinson's
56:59
March was about last week, for example.
57:02
And then lo and behold, within an hour or two, apparently it's
57:07
so. Predictably the heavily edited
57:09
viral clip for two police officers asking for access to a
57:11
mobile phone is completely misleading.
57:13
W Midlands Police come out and say we've seen reports that
57:16
we're investigating a child for viewing a social media post.
57:18
This is completely false. We're investigating the creation
57:21
of a fake social media account which has been used to send
57:23
indecent images and apparently what we were looking at there is
57:27
an edit down from 10 minutes. Now I don't think for a second
57:31
that all of it was was was was perfect and the tone of the
57:35
interaction was not good. But actually, all I'm saying is,
57:37
and this is a note to self as much as anyone else is, just
57:40
take a deep breath and wait and see how things develop before
57:43
getting too wound up, because it's entirely possible that was
57:46
put there. I pick nefarious actors, shall
57:49
we say, in order to get a reaction.
57:51
So yeah. Yeah, we all need to be aware of
57:54
this. Yes, Sandy, let's just bring you
57:57
back because very quickly you had a little bit of an update on
58:01
digitalization in the NHS. Yes, I mean it's, it's just an
58:06
update really, because last week I, I, I spoke about how NHS
58:12
improvement NHS digital NHS, what's the other One X They've
58:16
they've all amalgamated to bring in this predictive,
58:20
preventative, personalized and participatory medicine.
58:25
So, you know, at its core, it's all working around genetics and
58:29
disease and reaching into the DNA of every, every person, but
58:33
also gathering the data of your fitness and everything else that
58:36
goes with it. Now what they've, they've done
58:39
recently is they've, they've employed the, the help from
58:43
companies like Anima and Anima. It's a digital triage and
58:48
workflow management platform that's been rolled about across
58:51
the GP practices in the UK. And its function is to
58:54
streamline how patient requests are received, prioritised and,
58:58
and managed. So they will be collecting all
59:01
your data for your GP surgery. Now Anima, I own a huge company,
59:06
a huge corporation. It was founded in 2021 by
59:10
Shanika Sharma, ex McKinsey and Sean Pang, ex Palantir Engineer.
59:16
So that you know, we know what they're, what they're up to.
59:20
But why I'm coming back to this is that one of our our viewers
59:24
went into her local GP service to register.
59:29
She's going through some health problems and she went to just
59:32
register with her GP as normal and they wouldn't let her.
59:36
They said you have to do it through Anima.
59:38
And she, she said, well, I don't know who anima are.
59:40
And she did a quick search I think and had a look and she
59:43
said, no, why would I, Why would I share my personal data with a
59:48
third party? I, I share my, my data with my
59:51
GP And she refused. And it caused a big stir in the,
59:55
in the, in the, in the surgery. And they, they, they eventually
1:00:00
they were arguing with her for quite a long time and eventually
1:00:03
they gave up and they allowed her to.
1:00:04
To do her own registration through the GP surgery.
1:00:08
So this is a lesson to all of us to if we don't want to go along
1:00:12
with all this nonsense, we can refuse.
1:00:15
Just say no. Sandy Brilliant.
1:00:19
That's absolutely right. And if more people did that,
1:00:22
that would be excellent. People can also make a
1:00:25
difference by supporting people who are doing the right thing.
1:00:29
And both the lady and the gentleman that spoke out in the
1:00:33
House of Lords against the Assisted Dying Bill, they need
1:00:37
your support. They need our support because if
1:00:40
they're heading down the right path, knowing that large numbers
1:00:45
of people are supporting, what are they doing is going to
1:00:48
increase their confidence and they're going to do more and
1:00:51
bring more people on board. So if you're thinking what can I
1:00:54
do, two options there. One is say no when you get the
1:00:57
opportunity and the other one is to support people who are doing
1:01:01
the right thing. Now we did promise with a little
1:01:04
bit of uplifting black humour we would end on having a little
1:01:09
look at BBC Shorts. This is just one that caught my
1:01:14
eye. Let's have a look at the BBC
1:01:17
giving the public serious information.
1:01:22
I went to San Francisco, Silicon Valley and I, I shadowed this
1:01:25
incredible founder and just spent all day sort of walking
1:01:29
around in his meetings, his hands on.
1:01:30
And it was fascinating how quick decisions are made and actioned.
1:01:34
And you know, what impact that's going to have in tech.
1:01:37
You know, it's, it's quite profound.
1:01:38
And so it was really interesting.
1:01:41
Whitney is a legendary entrepreneur.
1:01:43
She truly helped completely change the world of dating apps.
1:01:47
Knowing what you know now about them behind the scenes, do you
1:01:49
see them as a force for good or the opposite or in in the
1:01:52
middle? Well, I see them as a my brother
1:01:54
met his wife on a dating app. So so I'll be forever grateful
1:01:59
for my sister-in-law, Stacy. And also what Winnie did was so
1:02:02
key because she re engineered these dating apps to put women
1:02:05
in the driver's seat, you know, empower and protect women.
1:02:08
So you know that is a definitely a force for good.
1:02:13
Well, there we are. I don't know what our audience
1:02:15
thinks of this, but of course this is dross to be pumped into
1:02:18
the heads of youngsters, young teenagers.
1:02:21
I think it relates to an article which the BBC posted back in
1:02:27
2023. Whitney Wolf heard how the
1:02:30
Bumble boss changed the dating scene, and apparently this has
1:02:34
changed the dating scene to make it much better for women.
1:02:38
Interestingly enough, if you look at information on the
1:02:40
dating scene online, particularly in the States,
1:02:43
women are having more and more more difficulty finding a male
1:02:47
partner because the men are showing away from the dating
1:02:50
apps and the dating scenes because of the way the women are
1:02:55
behaving and looking for a male partner.
1:02:58
And I think it'll be very interesting to get into what's
1:03:01
actually happening between men and women in more detail in
1:03:05
forthcoming not only UK column news, but some of our interviews
1:03:11
because it's a very hot topic. But there we are, a giggly end
1:03:14
to the news provided by the BBC. Ben, thank you very much for
1:03:18
joining me. Sandy, huge thank you.
1:03:20
And thank you for that very concise update on the dangers of
1:03:24
the assisted dying. Bill.
1:03:26
Thank you to everybody who's joined us today.
1:03:27
We must end there. If you're a member of UK column,
1:03:30
join us for UK column extra shortly.
1:03:34
See you then. Bye bye.