Latest / UK Column Radio / UK Column News — 6th November 2026

Transcript

UK Column News — 6th November 2026 · UK Column Radio

0:15
Speaker 1: Good afternoon.
0:16
Speaker 2: It's Friday, the 6th 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 Patrick Henningsen. Welcome
0:23
Speaker 2: to the program, Patrick.
0:24
Speaker 1: Good to be with you, Mike.
0:25
Speaker 2: And by video link, we're joined by Basil Valentine. Later
0:28
Speaker 2: in the program, we'll have analysis of the AI stock
0:31
Speaker 2: market crash. We'll be looking into the safety of journalists.
0:34
Speaker 2: I will be joined by Dr. Clive Dolphin to discuss
0:36
Speaker 2: the ongoing Palestine Action Supreme Court case. But we'll begin
0:39
Speaker 2: today with the conviction and rape, Patrick, on rape charges of.
0:45
Speaker 1: Russell Brand? Well, the court's decided, and this has been
0:49
Speaker 1: a kind of long, drawn-out process in the media, of course.
0:51
Speaker 1: And we'll just walk through some of the major headlines.
0:53
Speaker 1: This is the thing that's dominating the British headlines, press, newsstands,
0:58
Speaker 1: et cetera, this week. Justice says the mirror, the Daily
1:02
Speaker 1: Mirror there, and then followed on by predatory brand faces
1:06
Speaker 1: jail for sex crimes. That's the Daily Express. But this
1:10
Speaker 1: is the direction we're going to go here. that the
1:13
Speaker 1: Telegraph is taking the BBC-enabled rapist brand. So there's been
1:18
Speaker 1: a torrent of op-eds and articles, especially in the Telegraph,
1:24
Speaker 1: really having a go at the BBC and what people there,
1:28
Speaker 1: whistleblowers and other writers, are calling a sort of culture
1:31
Speaker 1: of enabling this type of behavior. Now, the court has decided,
1:37
Speaker 1: based on the evidence, we're going to just tell you
1:40
Speaker 1: what Some of the top pundits in this area of
1:44
Speaker 1: news are saying here, this is Liz Kershaw at The Telegraph.
1:48
Speaker 1: I worked with brands enablers. They should hang their heads
1:52
Speaker 1: in shame. Fetted as a, quote, shagger of the year,
1:55
Speaker 1: the comedian was a serial abuser hiding in plain sight. And,
2:00
Speaker 1: you know, it goes on to talk about this, especially
2:02
Speaker 1: the BBC, Mike. Rolf Harris, Hugh Edwards, of course, most
2:07
Speaker 1: infamously Jimmy Savile. And Russell Brand is on this list.
2:11
Speaker 1: In other words, it was a known quantity in the industry,
2:15
Speaker 1: in these organizations. And many, many complaints were lodged. Nothing
2:19
Speaker 1: was actioned because it just seemed to be Russell Brand
2:22
Speaker 1: was too big to fail in the showbiz sense. But
2:25
Speaker 1: that was the culture. They actually shaped his career. His brand,
2:30
Speaker 1: no pun intended, was to be a sort of saucy,
2:34
Speaker 1: sleazy kind of company. I don't know how best to
2:38
Speaker 1: describe it, a dandy of sorts.
2:41
Speaker 2: I mean, some people are suggesting that following his mainstream
2:46
Speaker 2: media career and delving into topics which were less likely
2:51
Speaker 2: to be seen on the BBC, that maybe this is
2:53
Speaker 2: some kind of revenge. But at the end of the day,
2:56
Speaker 2: a court has made a decision. Where I think there
3:01
Speaker 2: are two issues with it is, first of all, Of course,
3:05
Speaker 2: this is all historic stuff and there is no direct
3:09
Speaker 2: forensic evidence to say, so this is he said, she said.
3:13
Speaker 2: And I think that there are real problems when even
3:16
Speaker 2: when a jury comes to the decision on the basis
3:18
Speaker 2: of that, because I suspect that a large degree of
3:22
Speaker 2: that decision was based on the reputation, the public reputation
3:25
Speaker 2: that he had rather than the facts of the case.
3:28
Speaker 2: But also there is the question that's outstanding and that
3:32
Speaker 2: is whether the women concerned were encouraged to take this
3:36
Speaker 2: action and coached by journalists. And so there are those
3:42
Speaker 2: two points there, but the point that you're making about
3:45
Speaker 2: the BBC, this to my mind is absolutely key. And
3:50
Speaker 2: there is another individual at the moment who we can't
3:53
Speaker 2: name because although the injunction against naming him has been lifted,
3:59
Speaker 2: and his name is all over social media, there's still
4:02
Speaker 2: a ban on him being named publicly in England and Wales,
4:06
Speaker 2: only in England and Wales at this point, because that's
4:08
Speaker 2: pending an appeal. And if it is the name that's
4:11
Speaker 2: going around on social media, then there's another BBC connection there.
4:15
Speaker 2: So the BBC really has a lot of questions to answer.
4:18
Speaker 1: In addition to a Radio 1 DJ, I think.
4:20
Speaker 2: There's supposed to be a Radio 1 DJ as well.
4:22
Speaker 2: In addition. Yes, and a couple of others potentially.
4:25
Speaker 1: So the BBC.
4:28
Speaker 2: definitely has questions to answer yet again, and nobody ever
4:31
Speaker 2: seems to hold the BBC to account.
4:34
Speaker 1: Sure, sure. And, you know, we look at this also
4:36
Speaker 1: in the context, Mike, of Russell Brand's Damascene conversion of
4:41
Speaker 1: recent years, baptized as a Christian or Catholic. I'm not
4:45
Speaker 1: sure what denomination of Christianity he was sort of subscribed
4:50
Speaker 1: to there, but he's very public about this. And, you know,
4:53
Speaker 1: people are all, you know, it is, A lot of
4:56
Speaker 1: people are skeptical constantly because he's such a showman, and
5:00
Speaker 1: he lives in the public domain. He lives in the media.
5:03
Speaker 1: In fact, he was creating a kind of, in a way,
5:06
Speaker 1: hedging what he knew was coming down the line. We're
5:08
Speaker 1: talking about this case. Now, we can analyze this back
5:13
Speaker 1: and forth for a very long time. I would like
5:16
Speaker 1: to hear Basil Valentine's views on this. Basil, it's all
5:20
Speaker 1: over the news. The courts have decided, but yet the
5:23
Speaker 1: debate seems to have only just begun.
5:27
Speaker 3: Yes, good day, gentlemen. Well, how the mighty have fallen.
5:30
Speaker 3: Only 18 months ago, Russell Brand was partying with the
5:34
Speaker 3: Trump crowd.
5:35
Speaker 4: Trump, of course.
5:36
Speaker 3: A lot of people say he could be on his
5:38
Speaker 3: way out sooner rather than later. We'll come to that
5:40
Speaker 3: later in the program. And now Russell Brand facing eight
5:43
Speaker 3: to 10 years. I wasn't there. I have no idea
5:46
Speaker 3: whether he's guilty of the offenses or not.
5:48
Speaker 4: Some people have said he'd become.
5:49
Speaker 3: An anti-establishment figure with these podcasts and his YouTube channel.
5:53
Speaker 4: And that this is an attempt to bring down.
5:56
Speaker 3: Such an anti-establishment person who claims to have been bought again.
6:00
Speaker 3: as a Christian, and so on and so forth. So
6:04
Speaker 3: we don't know. But if a jury has found him guilty,
6:08
Speaker 3: who am I to disagree?
6:11
Speaker 1: Indeed.
6:12
Speaker 2: Well, let's just move on then, Patrick, to the US elections.
6:17
Speaker 2: And as Basil said, of course, Trump does like to
6:21
Speaker 2: move in these types of circles as well.
6:23
Speaker 1: It certainly seems so. It was a A credible week here.
6:28
Speaker 1: We'll bring this up on screen right now. This was
6:32
Speaker 1: the U.S. election, the midterm blowout. And boy, was it
6:37
Speaker 1: heck and more beautiful than ever. Not quite. There's a
6:39
Speaker 1: reflecting full. Trump is dejected here. And we'll look at
6:44
Speaker 1: the fallout from this. But how did this happen? Well,
6:47
Speaker 1: this is record setting stuff. Not since 1976 have we
6:51
Speaker 1: seen numbers like this. Look at the margin here. There's
6:53
Speaker 1: a few unconfirmed. seats as well. But all in all,
6:58
Speaker 1: look at the massive from 218 Republican all the way
7:02
Speaker 1: to 253 Democrats. Huge swing. This is a historic swing.
7:06
Speaker 1: Not since Watergate, the 1976 election, that was post-Nixon. Everybody
7:12
Speaker 1: was an exodus out of the Republican Party as a result.
7:16
Speaker 1: And so this is historic in that sense. And the Senate,
7:20
Speaker 1: this is the one that really surprised people. They have
7:23
Speaker 1: a very comfortable margin here, not enough to convict in
7:27
Speaker 1: an impeachment unless, however, we have 11 defectors on the
7:31
Speaker 1: Republican side during an impeachment trial. But will Trump even
7:35
Speaker 1: go to impeachment? We'll talk about that in a moment
7:38
Speaker 1: because that's also up for debate right there. But really,
7:41
Speaker 1: what are we looking at here? This was a referendum
7:44
Speaker 1: on the following. The Trump administration, quite obviously. This was
7:48
Speaker 1: a pretty thorough repudiation of the Trump administration by the U.S.
7:52
Speaker 1: electorate in big numbers here. The economy and COL. COL
7:57
Speaker 1: is the term, one of the new acronyms, cost of living.
8:00
Speaker 1: Cost of living. So the economy and cost of living. Undeniable. Tariffs.
8:03
Speaker 1: All of that stuff. It's all gone to the wall.
8:06
Speaker 1: The Iran war. So J.D. Vance is Adam Miyakopa. Mike,
8:09
Speaker 1: he's tweeted out. He admits that it was the Iran
8:12
Speaker 1: war that sunk the... Republican Party in the midterms. But
8:17
Speaker 1: wasn't it a couple of weeks ago, Vance was telling us,
8:19
Speaker 1: this wasn't really a war that's going on. So he's
8:23
Speaker 1: back to the war now. And then further on from
8:25
Speaker 1: the Iran war, this was also a referendum on Israel
8:29
Speaker 1: and AIPAC candidates. Record spend by Israeli lobby on a
8:34
Speaker 1: string of losing campaigns. So we're talking tens of millions
8:40
Speaker 1: of dollars in total AIPAC losses. in this election exceed
8:44
Speaker 1: probably over 100 million. So this is in terms of
8:48
Speaker 1: all Israeli lobby sources. They threw everything to try to
8:51
Speaker 1: defeat Abdu'l-Said in Michigan or to defeat James Talrico in Texas.
8:58
Speaker 1: And a few other outspoken senators who support the Palestinian
9:02
Speaker 1: cause are totally anti-APAC, say, AIPAC money needs to get
9:06
Speaker 1: out of U.S. politics. So this is incredible, the fact
9:09
Speaker 1: that this has hit the U.S. Senate. The Senate has
9:11
Speaker 1: normally been impervious to sort of lobby busting, especially with
9:15
Speaker 1: the Israeli lobby. So we're in a kind of new
9:17
Speaker 1: era right now for U.S. politics. This is going to
9:20
Speaker 1: be very interesting in the run-up. And I'll also say, Mike,
9:23
Speaker 1: that Trump has made statements, as have the new potential
9:29
Speaker 1: Democrat speaker, Hakeem Jeffries. He's saying that we're going to
9:32
Speaker 1: try to work with the president. So he's foreshadowing that
9:36
Speaker 1: there's going to be no impeachment, but the pressure to
9:39
Speaker 1: impeach is great. Trump, on the other hand, has also said,
9:42
Speaker 1: I'm going to work with the Democrats. So is Trump
9:44
Speaker 1: going to make a deal to trade impeachment in exchange
9:48
Speaker 1: for legislation, omnibus legislation from Democrats, or to end the
9:53
Speaker 1: Iran war? He's a very canny operator, Trump, as a
9:57
Speaker 1: transactional president, so he could make a deal even though
10:00
Speaker 1: the Iran war is lost, he could make it a
10:02
Speaker 1: sort of bargaining chip saying, don't impeach me and I'll
10:05
Speaker 1: stop the Iran war. I mean, I know it's just
10:07
Speaker 1: unbelievable that anyone would be so bodacious as to try that,
10:10
Speaker 1: but Trump would be the guy. And also maybe somehow
10:14
Speaker 1: curtailing the power of Israel. There's a lot of pressure
10:17
Speaker 1: that's going to come that way from the Democrats. However,
10:19
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer, if he remains the Senate majority leader, he
10:24
Speaker 1: is absolutely in the pocket of Israel. Chuck Schumer, a
10:27
Speaker 1: Jewish American senator from New York, okay, ranking member. And
10:33
Speaker 1: the same with Hakeem Jeffries. pro-IPAC, speaks at their rallies.
10:36
Speaker 1: So Israel is not in an uncomfortable, totally uncomfortable position here.
10:41
Speaker 1: They still have their people in charge in both the
10:43
Speaker 1: House and the Senate, but those leadership positions could change.
10:46
Speaker 1: If so, Trump would be hugely exposed. What would Trump do?
10:51
Speaker 1: And there's a lot of speculation now. Marco Rubio is
10:53
Speaker 1: set to resign. He's planning to resign before the new year.
10:57
Speaker 1: Pete Hegseth, forced to resign to avoid the embarrassment of
11:01
Speaker 1: a public crucifixion of an impeachment trial, they really have
11:05
Speaker 1: it in for excess. Okay. And so Trump impeachment, that
11:10
Speaker 1: will be Trump's legacy, basically. So will he retire on
11:15
Speaker 1: health reasons? And J.D. Vance would come in and pardon
11:18
Speaker 1: President Trump in perpetuity. Will that happen? Remains to be seen.
11:24
Speaker 2: But there's one more here, which of course we can't ignore, Patrick,
11:27
Speaker 2: and that is the AI and data centers situation. And
11:31
Speaker 2: of course, we're just going to come on to the
11:35
Speaker 2: situation with the AI stock bubble. So if we just
11:40
Speaker 2: bring this on screen, AI bloodbath is how it's being
11:44
Speaker 2: described here as forecast by Patrick in last week's news program,
11:48
Speaker 2: a pretty violent sell-off in artificial intelligence stocks. It moved
11:53
Speaker 2: from Wall Street through the Asian stock market into Europe
11:57
Speaker 2: over the past 48 hours. It raised around $ 3 trillion
12:01
Speaker 2: in market value and abruptly reversed any of the optimism
12:05
Speaker 2: that may have followed in terms of the Democratic result,
12:10
Speaker 2: the US midterm elections. On Thursday, then, the NASDAQ itself
12:15
Speaker 2: fell by 5.5% in.
12:18
Speaker 1: Just one day.
12:19
Speaker 2: That's the steepest one-day drop in 19 months. And it
12:22
Speaker 2: closed down, what's that, 11.9% from its peak on the
12:26
Speaker 2: 6th of October. And the S & P 500 did
12:30
Speaker 2: the same. It was down 4.4%. That was the worst
12:33
Speaker 2: session since Liberation Day in April 2025. Dow Jones shed 1,833 points.
12:41
Speaker 2: That's 3.4%. And the losses more than wiped out the
12:47
Speaker 2: post-election rally that happened on Wednesday that we saw on
12:50
Speaker 2: the earlier graphic there. So just to sort of come
12:55
Speaker 2: in on the, zoom in a little bit on this,
12:58
Speaker 2: the chip makers themselves, they had the biggest falls. So
13:03
Speaker 2: we can see here that NVIDIA, Broadcom, TSMC, AMD, the
13:09
Speaker 2: main fallers, and the overall semiconductor index plunged by 12%.
13:14
Speaker 1: So quite unprecedented.
13:18
Speaker 2: Unprecedented drops in something that up to this point, as
13:22
Speaker 2: Patrick was talking about last Friday, this bubble has been
13:26
Speaker 2: inflating as hard as possible. Now, the immediate trigger of
13:30
Speaker 2: this was Democrats winning control of Congress on Tuesday, as
13:33
Speaker 2: we've mentioned, including states where local opposition to new data
13:37
Speaker 2: centers has been growing and investors are fearing tighter regulation
13:42
Speaker 2: could slow the data center construction boom that has driven
13:45
Speaker 2: chip stocks to record highs in over the last couple
13:49
Speaker 2: of years. Now, all of this is sitting on top
13:52
Speaker 2: of longer running worries about the high borrowing costs and
13:56
Speaker 2: the absolute ridiculous valuations of these companies. But look, this
14:06
Speaker 2: is a financial situation. And so as investors, although Patrick,
14:10
Speaker 2: as he was saying last Friday, that this is affecting
14:15
Speaker 2: anybody with a pension fund, for example. But one of
14:18
Speaker 2: the bigger issues is the potential competition for these so-called
14:24
Speaker 2: frontier AI companies from open source AI models that you
14:30
Speaker 2: can run on your own computers. And what the AI
14:33
Speaker 2: companies have been doing systematically over the past year or two,
14:36
Speaker 2: and this is part of this bubble, is to artificially
14:40
Speaker 2: increase the cost of memory chips for computer systems and
14:43
Speaker 2: also storage chips for computers. SSDs for the equivalent hard
14:49
Speaker 2: disks in computer systems. And they've been doing this by
14:54
Speaker 2: basically buying up as much as they can of these
14:57
Speaker 2: products to fill the data centers that haven't been built
15:00
Speaker 2: yet and thereby inflating the prices of these things. And
15:03
Speaker 2: we're seeing this in the cost of mobile phones and
15:07
Speaker 2: the cost of tablets and the cost of PCs. Sam Altman,
15:10
Speaker 2: head of OpenAI, was speaking on a podcast recently, and
15:15
Speaker 2: this is what he had to say.
15:20
Speaker 5: An example of this is people.
15:25
Speaker 4: A lot of people want local inference.
15:27
Speaker 5: And somehow they assume that the problem is solved now
15:29
Speaker 5: because we're going to have open source models. We're going
15:31
Speaker 5: to be able to run them on our computers. And
15:33
Speaker 5: so we're not going to need all the stuff in
15:34
Speaker 5: the data center. But from a global allocation perspective, actually
15:39
Speaker 5: it's quite terrible to have everybody have a bunch of
15:43
Speaker 5: the world's limited supply of DRAM sitting in their own
15:45
Speaker 5: computer and being used 5% of the time. You want
15:50
Speaker 5: maximum utilization in the cloud if you're trying to deal
15:52
Speaker 5: with this very supply-constrained environment. And somehow many people's intuition
15:56
Speaker 5: is the opposite of that.
16:00
Speaker 2: So basically what he's saying there is you will own
16:03
Speaker 2: nothing and be happy. This is what he's representing. Of course,
16:06
Speaker 2: it's beneficial for him and his companies to be doing
16:09
Speaker 2: this because that means that the only way the compute
16:14
Speaker 2: can be done, the only way that you can use
16:16
Speaker 2: a computer in the future... will be with the likes
16:19
Speaker 2: of them. And having the ability to run tasks on
16:22
Speaker 2: your own computer and not share your data with these
16:25
Speaker 2: types of companies, that's something that they absolutely want to
16:28
Speaker 2: avoid in the future because that's what their business model is.
16:32
Speaker 2: So they're doing everything they can to prevent ordinary people
16:35
Speaker 2: from running large language models on their own computers just
16:39
Speaker 2: by basically stocking or fixing the market and pricing everybody
16:46
Speaker 2: else out. Now, and then I'll just, by the way,
16:49
Speaker 2: I'll just mention this because the Financial Times here is,
16:53
Speaker 2: because Palantir was one of the companies that was pretty
16:56
Speaker 2: badly hit yesterday and continues to be. But I'll just
17:00
Speaker 2: mention that the Financial Times has decided to announce that
17:04
Speaker 2: the NHS contract is going to be renewed. It's, while
17:09
Speaker 2: they are drawing up plans, the British government, that is,
17:12
Speaker 2: to potentially replace Palantir as a supplier. But of course,
17:17
Speaker 2: In the meantime, they're extending the contract. Palantir, in the meantime,
17:21
Speaker 2: gets to continue to bury its way into British government infrastructure.
17:26
Speaker 2: And the longer it takes them to develop this plan
17:30
Speaker 2: for replacing Palantir, the harder.
17:32
Speaker 1: It is it's going to be to replace them.
17:34
Speaker 2: And I absolutely suspect, Patrick, that it's going to be
17:37
Speaker 2: the case that by the time these plans have been developed,
17:41
Speaker 2: Palantir will be so ingrained that they just can't get
17:43
Speaker 2: rid of them.
17:44
Speaker 4: Sure.
17:45
Speaker 1: And Trump had really hitched his horse to the big
17:50
Speaker 1: AI data center wagon. And all the big tech lords
17:54
Speaker 1: were there at the inauguration. So he really aligned himself
17:57
Speaker 1: with this whole agenda here. And it's been thoroughly rejected,
18:01
Speaker 1: especially by Gen X, Gen Z, even the younger generations.
18:05
Speaker 1: Let's look here, take a look at this. So we're
18:07
Speaker 1: looking at what they call Gen Z here. And let's
18:11
Speaker 1: just look at what they think. The numbers are in
18:14
Speaker 1: this week. And there's plenty of data to show this.
18:17
Speaker 1: And I'm surprised that this didn't factor into the political strategy.
18:21
Speaker 1: So there's the real Gen Z right there, which is
18:24
Speaker 1: the protest Gen Z, not just the happy, smartphone-loving Instagram
18:29
Speaker 1: using Gen Z. This is New York Times, Siena College.
18:32
Speaker 1: This is September. And they're saying 80% of the voters
18:34
Speaker 1: under 30 oppose the construction of AI data centers due
18:38
Speaker 1: to the climate concerns and general AI distrust. So it's skepticism, 80%.
18:43
Speaker 1: That's pretty significant here. And in addition, a CNBC General
18:47
Speaker 1: Labs survey, a similar age group there, adults, 18, 34,
18:53
Speaker 1: 45% expect AI to negatively impact their careers. These are
18:57
Speaker 1: people going to debt with their higher education. So this
19:00
Speaker 1: aligns with the data showing that only 30% of the
19:02
Speaker 1: recent college graduates secure jobs in their desired fields. So
19:08
Speaker 1: the fear is heightened that it's going to be even
19:10
Speaker 1: worse in Because of this data center driven agenda.
19:14
Speaker 2: I mean, just as an interjection there for a second,
19:19
Speaker 2: my daughter is doing a law degree at Exeter. Her
19:22
Speaker 2: lecturers have already told them it's unlikely they'll get graduate
19:25
Speaker 2: jobs when they leave.
19:27
Speaker 1: It's quite incredible.
19:28
Speaker 2: Three years at £ 9, 000 a year, plus all the other costs,
19:32
Speaker 2: all the debt that you load yourself up with as
19:34
Speaker 2: a student, and then you're being told by your lecturers
19:37
Speaker 2: that that the jobs aren't there when you get out.
19:40
Speaker 2: This is quite an incredible situation.
19:42
Speaker 1: Or maybe they can be a judge. We'll talk about
19:45
Speaker 1: judges in a minute. But it's just back to the
19:47
Speaker 1: numbers here. Let's just take one last one. Expressing deep
19:50
Speaker 1: distrust towards prominent tech executives. Non-trust ratings. So I'm going
19:55
Speaker 1: to show you the most untrustworthy from the top here.
19:59
Speaker 1: So the highest non-trust ratings, 81% for Alex Karp, CEO
20:04
Speaker 1: of Palantir. 79% of non-trust for Peter Thiel. Wow, look
20:09
Speaker 1: at this. 71% non-trust for Mark Zuckerberg, head of Meta
20:14
Speaker 1: and Facebook, Instagram, Facebook here. 70% distrust for Elon Musk,
20:19
Speaker 1: the world's richest man, who's going to take us to Mars,
20:22
Speaker 1: we're told. I guess not. 69% distrust rating for Sam Altman.
20:27
Speaker 1: So there it is. They do not like these people,
20:30
Speaker 1: all these people that ingratiated themselves with the Trump White
20:33
Speaker 1: House incoming. It's backfired. And so the election results, you
20:38
Speaker 1: can read into it, this AI agenda, this data center agenda,
20:43
Speaker 1: the young generations are not on board with it at all.
20:46
Speaker 2: Well, that is true in one sense, Patrick, but if
20:49
Speaker 2: we just put that on screen. A second, because there
20:52
Speaker 2: can't be any irony in the fact that the Gen
20:55
Speaker 2: Zs in the background there are all holding mobile phones.
20:58
Speaker 2: And this is part of the problem, isn't it? They
21:01
Speaker 2: have these attitudes about the leaders of these organizations, but
21:05
Speaker 2: they're still determined to use their products.
21:07
Speaker 1: Well, they like the tech up to a point. But
21:09
Speaker 1: if liking the tech also includes that the advancement, the
21:14
Speaker 1: next generation is going to mean you won't have a
21:17
Speaker 1: job and you own nothing to be happy. All of
21:20
Speaker 1: a sudden, Gen Z and Gen Xs are waking up,
21:23
Speaker 1: and they're sort of red-pilling on this issue very quickly.
21:26
Speaker 1: And you're also seeing this Luddite movement within young people.
21:30
Speaker 1: We see a lot of coverage on this in real
21:32
Speaker 1: meetup groups, real activities. Kids are going out to dance
21:37
Speaker 1: and making the effort to do things that the last
21:40
Speaker 1: generation simply had just discarded as not happening because everyone
21:45
Speaker 1: was in their virtual worlds.
21:46
Speaker 2: How much do you think.
21:48
Speaker 2: Young people's experience of the COVID years has contributed to
21:51
Speaker 2: this as well?
21:52
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, you could read this as the COVID years
21:55
Speaker 1: was selling us this idea that it was all going to,
21:59
Speaker 1: the virtual world was going to be our salvation, that
22:02
Speaker 1: we would find like respite and, you know, abundancy and
22:06
Speaker 1: fortunes and our future would be in a digital world. Well,
22:10
Speaker 1: I can see a rejection of that out of hand.
22:13
Speaker 1: And sure, people coped with it during COVID. It was
22:16
Speaker 1: a coping bridge solution, but it can't be a permanent one.
22:20
Speaker 1: And I think the numbers that we're seeing now and
22:22
Speaker 1: the fact that big tech have really ran forward at
22:25
Speaker 1: an aggressive pace with this. And it's ruining the economy.
22:29
Speaker 1: And when this bubble pops, as we said before, it's
22:32
Speaker 1: going to take the whole stock market, the whole economy
22:34
Speaker 1: down with it. The credit default swaps we talked about
22:37
Speaker 1: last week, it's just asking for a disaster. And hopefully
22:41
Speaker 1: this will all be understood by the younger voters because
22:46
Speaker 1: they're going to be in charge eventually. Anyway, unless Peter
22:49
Speaker 1: Thiel comes up with longevity products that will allow the
22:53
Speaker 1: current ruling class to rule into their 120th and 130th years.
22:57
Speaker 1: Wouldn't that be wonderful? Another 12 years of Trump. Maybe
23:01
Speaker 1: they could bring Biden back for another. Maybe he's just
23:04
Speaker 1: hitting his prime now. Who knows? What a nightmare.
23:07
Speaker 6: Yeah.
23:07
Speaker 1: Yes, indeed.
23:08
Speaker 2: Okay, well, let's move on then, because over the last
23:10
Speaker 2: couple of days then, a wave of hoax bomb threats
23:13
Speaker 2: has disrupted air travel across Europe, forcing diversions, prompting fighter
23:18
Speaker 2: jet escorts, and briefly closing an airport in Poland. No explosives, surprise, surprise,
23:25
Speaker 2: have been found on any aircraft. The disruption began on
23:28
Speaker 2: Monday when a Wizz Air flight from London Luton to
23:30
Speaker 2: Sofia was diverted to Budapest. On Tuesday, further threats followed.
23:35
Speaker 2: Euronews reported that the number of flights targeted on Tuesday
23:38
Speaker 2: was 27. A lot Polish airline service from Heathrow was
23:41
Speaker 2: diverted to Warsaw-Modlin, which closed while 181 people were evacuated
23:46
Speaker 2: and the aircraft searched. The Italian Air Force escorted a
23:49
Speaker 2: Ryanair flight from Lisbon to Rome, and part of Mercia
23:54
Speaker 2: Airport in Spain was cordoned off over a threat against
23:56
Speaker 2: another Ryanair flight, this time from Manchester. And then a
24:00
Speaker 2: second larger wave hit yesterday. affecting somewhere between 20 and
24:05
Speaker 2: 30 flights. I think it was 27, but something around that. Anyway,
24:09
Speaker 2: French military aircraft escorted an Aer Lingus flight, which was
24:12
Speaker 2: on its way from Dublin to Rome, and it landed
24:15
Speaker 2: in Normandy. And Italian jets again escorted a Finnair flight
24:19
Speaker 2: from Helsinki to Rome. And so this went on. A
24:23
Speaker 2: lot was Air EasyJet, Iberia, Air Europa, Air Serbia, KLM, SAS.
24:29
Speaker 2: They were also all targeted and all right across Europe.
24:34
Speaker 2: So the question is, what's going on here? Well, here's
24:37
Speaker 2: the BBC. And they asked the question, who could be
24:41
Speaker 2: behind the hoax bomb threats to European air travel? And
24:45
Speaker 2: if we just scroll down the article here a little bit,
24:47
Speaker 2: what did they have to say? Well, they said, so
24:50
Speaker 2: is Russia behind this? There are many who argue, based
24:53
Speaker 2: purely on circumstantial evidence, that this must surely be yet
24:56
Speaker 2: another example of hybrid grey zone or sub-threshold warfare. And
24:59
Speaker 2: this is a narrative which is going right through the
25:03
Speaker 2: mainstream press. And on the breakfast programme that the BBC
25:08
Speaker 2: runs every morning this morning, then, well, this was the question.
25:12
Speaker 1: That was asked.
25:15
Speaker 6: Well, we're joined now by the BBC security correspondent, Frank Gardner.
25:18
Speaker 6: And Frank, it's believed that the people behind these bomb
25:22
Speaker 6: hoaxes is an extreme far-right organisation based in Russia. What
25:26
Speaker 6: can you tell us about that?
25:30
Speaker 1: So what can he tell us about that?
25:32
Speaker 2: Well, Let's listen to what he told, because this is
25:36
Speaker 2: all being blamed on an anti-feminist Russian movement, which was
25:40
Speaker 2: founded in 2016 and later banned by a Russian court
25:44
Speaker 2: as extremists. But let's hear what Frank Gardner had to say.
25:48
Speaker 7: After they were banned in Russia in 2021, they continued
25:51
Speaker 7: to attract tens of thousands of followers on Telegram. They
25:55
Speaker 7: were kicked off VKontakte, which is the Russian equivalent of Facebook,
26:00
Speaker 7: but they continued to cheerlead the full-scale invasion of Ukraine
26:05
Speaker 7: for quite some time afterwards. So they described their ideology
26:10
Speaker 7: as being national, patriarchal.
26:13
Speaker 4: Bit of a mystery.
26:14
Speaker 7: I mean, this was a highly coordinated move. Of course,
26:19
Speaker 7: the suspicion inevitably is that was the Kremlin behind this?
26:23
Speaker 7: So far, as of close of yesterday, no evidence has
26:28
Speaker 7: emerged to link it to Moscow, to the actual government.
26:34
Speaker 2: That's the kind of narrative that's been coming out of
26:36
Speaker 2: the corporate media. The BBC was desperate to draw a
26:39
Speaker 2: link at Russian link, but of course, they couldn't quite
26:42
Speaker 2: get that far. In the article, as we showed a
26:48
Speaker 2: second ago, they're saying, was Russia behind this? It's quite
26:54
Speaker 2: incredible because all this happened just in time for this
26:59
Speaker 2: report from the House of Commons library here, Russia's Hybrid
27:03
Speaker 2: Warfare campaign in Europe. And of course, this is following
27:06
Speaker 2: on from so much of the narrative that we've heard
27:08
Speaker 2: over the last number of months about drones being flown
27:12
Speaker 2: into European airspace and so on. But Russia's campaign of
27:15
Speaker 2: instability is considered by NATO and several European intelligence agencies
27:19
Speaker 2: to be escalating. Incidents of alleged Russian sabotage, criminal damage, disinformation,
27:24
Speaker 2: and aggressive military tactics and rhetoric are becoming more commonplace.
27:28
Speaker 2: This is the the narrative that they're attempting to build.
27:31
Speaker 2: And this is just yet another example of it. But
27:33
Speaker 2: the point here is what Frank Gardner did not mention
27:37
Speaker 2: in his section segment there was that in fact, the, the,
27:41
Speaker 2: the leader of this organization, the person that set this up,
27:44
Speaker 2: this organization up that they're blaming for this has reports
27:48
Speaker 2: told Reuters that the organization doesn't exist anymore. It hasn't
27:51
Speaker 2: existed for some time. Uh, and in fact, uh, you know, uh,
27:57
Speaker 2: and absolutely denied having any involvement in this. So on
28:01
Speaker 2: one hand, Patrick, you could say that that sort of
28:05
Speaker 2: falls into the narrative that, well, it could be the
28:08
Speaker 2: Russian state, but then it could also be the Ukrainian
28:10
Speaker 2: state or the British state.
28:13
Speaker 4: It could be anybody really, couldn't it?
28:14
Speaker 1: Well, anyone who stands to benefit from Russia being blamed
28:18
Speaker 1: is a potential suspect. Because what a key bono, what
28:22
Speaker 1: does Russia have to gain from it? Russia is the
28:25
Speaker 1: preeminent world nuclear power. has the largest air force by
28:29
Speaker 1: orders of magnitude in Europe. It's winning the war in
28:31
Speaker 1: Ukraine by leaps and bounds. Why does it need to
28:35
Speaker 1: do a hoax? But then the circular logic clicks in
28:39
Speaker 1: for people like that pundit you just showed on the news. Like, well,
28:43
Speaker 1: it doesn't make sense, but this is the sort of
28:45
Speaker 1: devious things that Putin gets up to because this is
28:47
Speaker 1: what the Russians do. It's sub-threshold psychological warfare. I mean,
28:52
Speaker 1: these people are just reaching. The only hybrid warfare that
28:56
Speaker 1: we see, as we said, Previous weeks ago, great article
28:59
Speaker 1: by Thomas Fassi on this very subject, which we featured previously,
29:03
Speaker 1: was that there is hybrid warfare against the people of Europe,
29:07
Speaker 1: but it's not being waged by Russia. It's being waged
29:09
Speaker 1: by the governments of NATO member states of Europe. They're
29:14
Speaker 1: involved in hybrid warfare. All of these hoaxes, the Leipzig
29:17
Speaker 1: airport drone attack, all of these non-events, they can't connect
29:21
Speaker 1: to Russia, which are being blown up in the media
29:24
Speaker 1: as Russian plots. It is literally Orwellian at this point. Absolutely.
29:29
Speaker 2: So we've got to keep an eye on the games
29:31
Speaker 2: that are being played for our minds. But anyway, let's
29:35
Speaker 2: move on. If you like what we do here at
29:36
Speaker 2: the UK Column, we do need your ongoing support. Have
29:38
Speaker 2: a look at the website. details there you can make
29:41
Speaker 2: a donation that's good for us because it's vat free
29:44
Speaker 2: but if you'd like to get access to members only
29:47
Speaker 2: content like news extra join as a member if you
29:50
Speaker 2: possibly can if you can't support us financially do share
29:53
Speaker 2: this program or any of the content on the website
29:57
Speaker 2: or you could uh pick up a copy of the magazine,
30:00
Speaker 2: which is available at the moment, our quarterly magazine. Issue
30:03
Speaker 2: four will be out very soon, but issue three is
30:05
Speaker 2: still available if anybody would like a copy. Now, tonight
30:09
Speaker 2: at seven, Germ is suggesting Europe is finished. It can't
30:13
Speaker 2: be saved. That discussion will take place at seven tonight.
30:17
Speaker 2: And following on from the Trump's worst nightmare, join Carl
30:24
Speaker 2: at nine for Silk and Steele And then on Sunday
30:27
Speaker 2: at 7 p.m., Claire Salerno is Jake Fern's guest for
30:32
Speaker 2: a Thousand Words podcast, 7 p.m.
30:34
Speaker 1: On Sunday. Join Jake for that.
30:36
Speaker 2: And I just also want to highlight this article from
30:38
Speaker 2: Vanessa on the column website, Serious History of Anti-Colonialist Resistance
30:42
Speaker 2: is Still Under Attack. If you haven't seen that yet,
30:46
Speaker 2: do read it and let us know your thoughts. Now,
30:49
Speaker 2: let's move on, Patrick, to the Palestine Action Supreme Court
30:54
Speaker 2: case report.
30:55
Speaker 1: Where are we going to start with this? Well, first
30:58
Speaker 1: of all, Mike, the headlines you've probably seen, this is
31:02
Speaker 1: a major high court case, and it has huge ramifications
31:05
Speaker 1: for freedom of speech, freedom to protest. And it seems
31:09
Speaker 1: like a lot of labor backbenchers, I will say before
31:12
Speaker 1: we go and show you what Craig Murray has said
31:14
Speaker 1: about this, a lot of labor backbenchers are having buyer's remorse.
31:18
Speaker 1: Over 4,000 people have been arrested for holding placards, many
31:23
Speaker 1: of them elderly and pensioners. Dan Jarvis, the former security minister,
31:26
Speaker 1: had given assurances that peaceful protesters wouldn't have been affected
31:30
Speaker 1: by this. Those were the assurances back during the Starmer regime,
31:33
Speaker 1: but that didn't happen. Clive Lewis, MP, is calling it
31:36
Speaker 1: a SHIT show and basically saying this is a continuation
31:40
Speaker 1: of the toxic legacy of Keir Starmer. So it's absolutely
31:47
Speaker 1: harmed the right to protest. Labor backbenchers, a little delayed reaction.
31:50
Speaker 1: They're finally rebelling on this. So here's what Craig Murray
31:54
Speaker 1: says he is. reporting from the trial, what a great
31:59
Speaker 1: court reporter he is here. Palestine Action Supreme Court hearing
32:02
Speaker 1: day one. This is the definitive update. If you want
32:06
Speaker 1: to go, just go to craigmurray.org.uk and read his reporting
32:11
Speaker 1: on this. He's been doing 24-hour shifts. He's up all
32:14
Speaker 1: night writing so that you guys can have all the
32:16
Speaker 1: information here. And here's a short vlog from Craig Murray from,
32:22
Speaker 1: I believe, just after the trial. Listen to this.
32:27
Speaker 8: I'm here in this cheap hotel in London because I
32:29
Speaker 8: was at the Supreme Court hearing on Palestine action today. Now,
32:34
Speaker 8: most of you will have seen and been horrified by
32:38
Speaker 8: these videos of hundreds of old age pensioners, of chieftains,
32:45
Speaker 8: of magistrates, of all kinds of perfectly nice, respectable people
32:50
Speaker 8: being arrested for holding up signs and exercising freedom of
32:53
Speaker 8: speech in the UK. Well, today the British government defended that,
32:59
Speaker 8: said these people are criminals, and said this is further
33:04
Speaker 8: evidence that Palestine Action is a terrorist organisation. And these
33:08
Speaker 8: old-age pensioners holding signs are terrorists because they are engaged
33:15
Speaker 8: in a deliberate attempt by Palestine Action to overwhelm the
33:20
Speaker 8: justice system. by getting themselves arrested. The British government really
33:25
Speaker 8: said that. It's not their fault they're arresting all these
33:28
Speaker 8: old age pensioners. They have to do it because these
33:30
Speaker 8: people are terrorists. And the reason they're terrorists is the
33:34
Speaker 8: fact they're getting arrested. This is so ridiculous. You can't
33:39
Speaker 8: believe it's happening. You know, we really have a near
33:44
Speaker 8: fascist government in the UK.
33:47
Speaker 1: Thank you. I mean, there's some crazy arguments. And when
33:53
Speaker 1: you go and read the highlights of this, one of
33:55
Speaker 1: them is the judges are coming up with some bizarre,
33:58
Speaker 1: convoluted arguments. One of them is that, so Huda Amari,
34:03
Speaker 1: she is the founder of Palestine Action. So her advocates
34:07
Speaker 1: are making the case. And then the judges, the courts
34:09
Speaker 1: coming back saying, no, no, no, existing criminal legislation isn't enough.
34:14
Speaker 1: And her defense is saying, no, no, it's on the books.
34:17
Speaker 1: That should be enough to deal with criminal damage. And
34:21
Speaker 1: the court is instead saying, no, no, it's not enough
34:23
Speaker 1: because it failed to deter Palestine Action from doing their actions.
34:28
Speaker 1: So therefore, we needed the terrorist upgrade designation in order
34:33
Speaker 1: to deter future people from engaging in this type of activity.
34:37
Speaker 1: So by that logic, Mike, that means that no criminal
34:40
Speaker 1: legislation is sufficient because crimes are still being committed every day.
34:45
Speaker 1: So hence, all crimes should then be classed as terrorism crimes.
34:49
Speaker 1: in order to deter all crime. Is that where we're
34:52
Speaker 1: heading when we're talking about fascism? Because that's exactly what
34:56
Speaker 1: happens in fascist regimes. That's exactly where you go. History
35:02
Speaker 1: shows that. I can't believe they're publicly making judges, high
35:06
Speaker 1: court judges are making these types of arguments that almost
35:10
Speaker 1: are synonymous with other fascist regimes in history. I mean,
35:14
Speaker 1: it's a straight out of Franz Kafka's The Trial. We
35:17
Speaker 1: have just... A minute left. Before we get to our guest, Basil,
35:21
Speaker 1: on this, some of these arguments made by the judges, extraordinary.
35:26
Speaker 1: I don't know if you have a quick comment before
35:27
Speaker 1: we go to your guest.
35:30
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, the government have dug themselves a huge,
35:33
Speaker 3: great hole. It would be so much simpler just to
35:35
Speaker 3: climb down, but they've been under a lot of pressure,
35:38
Speaker 3: of course, from the Israel lobby not to do so.
35:40
Speaker 3: Various Zionist organizations have submitted evidence to the court explaining
35:45
Speaker 3: why the ban should remain in place. Amongst the things
35:49
Speaker 3: that the bench, the Supreme Court judges, have said to
35:55
Speaker 3: Raza Hussein KC for Palestine Action, and I quote, spraying
36:00
Speaker 3: paint could in some circumstances cause serious damage to property.
36:05
Speaker 3: So just saying it's spraying paint doesn't lead us anywhere.
36:09
Speaker 3: Could you explain why it isn't terrorism? So, you know,
36:14
Speaker 3: supposedly highly intelligent, well-educated high court judges asking a KC
36:19
Speaker 3: to explain why spraying paint isn't terrorism.
36:24
Speaker 4: Absolutely ludicrous.
36:26
Speaker 3: And, of course, the government have ended up in a
36:28
Speaker 3: totally dead-end argument, but one being supported by the judges,
36:34
Speaker 3: which is that the Home Secretary has supreme authority, that
36:37
Speaker 3: it's a political decision in the country.
36:39
Speaker 4: In which case, what's the point of any human rights legislation?
36:44
Speaker 4: Every time.
36:46
Speaker 4: Sorry, Basil.
36:46
Speaker 2: Sorry, that is the point, Basil, because the point is
36:50
Speaker 2: that human rights legislation starts with a blank piece of
36:52
Speaker 2: paper and then a government or an agency says, well,
36:55
Speaker 2: you have this right, but they don't say, and we'll
36:58
Speaker 2: never take this away from you again.
37:00
Speaker 1: I think that is the point that has to be
37:02
Speaker 1: made there.
37:04
Speaker 4: Well, absolutely.
37:06
Speaker 3: I mean, it's all completely and utterly redundant if everything
37:09
Speaker 3: can be overruled by the Home Secretary because, according to
37:13
Speaker 3: the bench that the judges. She has democratic accountability. Well,
37:18
Speaker 3: Shabana Mahmood wasn't penciled in for Home Secretary at the
37:22
Speaker 3: last general election. Nowhere in the Labour manifesto did it
37:26
Speaker 3: say that they would be banning Palestine action and describing
37:31
Speaker 3: it as a terrorist organisation with all the associated punishments
37:35
Speaker 3: that go with that designation. And she isn't up for
37:39
Speaker 3: election in three years' time. So I'm not quite sure
37:41
Speaker 3: what democratic accountability there is. As I've said before, we
37:44
Speaker 3: have effectively an elected dictatorship, one elected by a wholly
37:49
Speaker 3: inadequate plebiscite once every five years.
37:53
Speaker 2: Yes. Well, Basil, we're delighted to have a guest with
37:57
Speaker 2: us to discuss this, Dr.
37:59
Speaker 1: Clive Dolphin.
38:00
Speaker 2: Just take us through this.
38:03
Speaker 4: Yes. Welcome to the programme, Clive.
38:06
Speaker 3: Great that you can join us, Dr Clive Dolphin, from
38:08
Speaker 3: Defend Our Juries, who have been right at the forefront
38:11
Speaker 3: doing tremendous work. bringing this whole issue to public attention.
38:17
Speaker 3: And it really has illustrated the huge holes in our constitution, Clive.
38:22
Speaker 4: We'll come to that in a moment.
38:23
Speaker 3: But first of all, as we heard from Craig Murray there,
38:26
Speaker 3: the government is doubling down on its claim that priests,
38:29
Speaker 3: pensioners and peaceniks being arrested for holding signs really are
38:35
Speaker 3: terrorists because they're trying to overwhelm.
38:38
Speaker 4: The justice system. But on what legal basis are they
38:42
Speaker 4: making that claim?
38:45
Speaker 9: There is no legal basis for this. And I would
38:49
Speaker 9: ask you to compare the actions of the Metropolitan Police
38:53
Speaker 9: last Saturday with the actions of Police Scotland. There were
38:57
Speaker 9: protests in Edinburgh that Police Scotland policed, and there were
39:01
Speaker 9: protests outside the American Embassy which Met Police policed. Met
39:07
Speaker 9: Police had row after row after row of police vans there.
39:12
Speaker 9: They even brought a bus in. And they went along
39:15
Speaker 9: arresting these people who all sat there quite calmly waiting
39:19
Speaker 9: to be arrested. And that was a choice by Met Police.
39:24
Speaker 9: By contrast, Police Scotland went along, they had a look
39:27
Speaker 9: and they said, well, everything appears to be calm. There
39:29
Speaker 9: appears to be no disorder. We will photograph people. And
39:33
Speaker 9: then in slow time, we will go through and process
39:35
Speaker 9: this if it turns out that this is a criminal offence.
39:39
Speaker 9: So the decision to arrest hundreds and hundreds of people,
39:43
Speaker 9: it's a policing decision. And it's one that's been driven
39:46
Speaker 9: by Sir Mark Rowley. And Sir Mark Rowley He knows
39:50
Speaker 9: that he has that job because his predecessor, President Dick,
39:54
Speaker 9: fell out with the Home Secretary. So he is more
39:58
Speaker 9: politician than police officer, I would say. And he is
40:02
Speaker 9: following that line of, I will do whatever the government
40:05
Speaker 9: bidding is. Palestine Action, the only reason that these arrests
40:10
Speaker 9: can be made is because Palestine Action is a prescribed group.
40:14
Speaker 9: And Palestine Action is a prescribed group in the UK
40:17
Speaker 9: in the same way that Greenpeace is a banned group
40:20
Speaker 9: in Russia. The comparison is the same. Greenpeace carried out
40:26
Speaker 9: a disruptive action against oil installation in Russia, which Putin
40:30
Speaker 9: didn't like, and therefore they were banned. Over here, Palestine
40:34
Speaker 9: Action have carried out an action embarrassing the government because
40:38
Speaker 9: they spray-painted some planes. The government doesn't like it, and
40:41
Speaker 9: they are banned in the UK. Yes.
40:45
Speaker 3: Now, I gather the legal counsel for Palestine Action, Raza
40:48
Speaker 3: Hussein QC, was interrupted by the judges 89 times during
40:53
Speaker 3: his submission. And Henry Blaxland QC, also for Palestine Action,
40:57
Speaker 3: 62 times interruptions, which prevented them from developing their case. Meanwhile,
41:03
Speaker 3: Sir James Eadie for the government was challenged by the
41:05
Speaker 3: bench only eight times.
41:07
Speaker 4: On that evidence, it's.
41:09
Speaker 3: Increasingly clear that we don't really have an independent and
41:12
Speaker 3: unbiased judiciary in the UK anymore, do we?
41:18
Speaker 9: The difference was really striking. You could see that, particularly
41:22
Speaker 9: with Raza, but also with Henry, he barely got two
41:26
Speaker 9: sentences out before the judges interrupted and asked a question.
41:30
Speaker 9: And even when he said, I'm coming to that point
41:32
Speaker 9: a little later, they would still press the point. They
41:34
Speaker 9: didn't want him to develop a flow. If you compare
41:38
Speaker 9: that with Sir James Eadie, the government barrister, by day two,
41:42
Speaker 9: they were laughing along with his jokes. There was just
41:46
Speaker 9: such a striking difference. And the argument that the judges
41:51
Speaker 9: appear to be pushing time and time again is that
41:54
Speaker 9: the Home Secretary has one and two institutional competence. And
42:02
Speaker 9: institutional competence just means that there are civil servants there
42:05
Speaker 9: and civil servants who can provide the information that she
42:08
Speaker 9: would need in order to make a reasonable decision. But
42:12
Speaker 9: we already know from what happened with the arms embargoes
42:16
Speaker 9: that the Foreign Office was looking at. When the advice
42:18
Speaker 9: from the civil servants wasn't what the government wanted, they
42:21
Speaker 9: reorganized the unit. So the government will ensure that they
42:25
Speaker 9: get the information that they want. Having really competent, well-informed
42:32
Speaker 9: civil servants doesn't guarantee that the information that the Home
42:35
Speaker 9: Secretary doesn't want arrives at her desk. And then you
42:39
Speaker 9: look at the other pillar, democratic accountability. Well, nowhere in
42:44
Speaker 9: the Labour manifesto was this. The Labour Party has a
42:48
Speaker 9: substantial majority in the Commons, so they're not going to
42:50
Speaker 9: be held accountable in the House of Commons. We're at
42:53
Speaker 9: least two years away from the next election. Where does
42:57
Speaker 9: democratic accountability kick in? And the answer is it doesn't.
43:04
Speaker 3: Of course, thousands of people are due to go to trial, Clive,
43:08
Speaker 3: including some people who, the weekend in front of the
43:11
Speaker 3: American embassy, were holding up signs repeating what Sarah Helm
43:15
Speaker 3: had said, the wife of Jonathan Pelt. Police decided not
43:19
Speaker 3: to arrest her, of course, but have now arrested people
43:21
Speaker 3: for saying exactly the same thing. This is a complete
43:27
Speaker 3: quagmire for the judiciary, and I would have thought they
43:30
Speaker 3: wanted to get the whole thing cancelled as quickly as
43:33
Speaker 3: possible because it's a total minefield and it's going to
43:37
Speaker 3: come to grief, isn't it, these prosecutions?
43:41
Speaker 1: It will.
43:43
Speaker 9: It was really interesting that Sarah Helm on social media
43:47
Speaker 9: then looked at having seen Tim Crossland, the co-founder of
43:52
Speaker 9: Defend Our Juries, being arrested for holding very similar signs
43:54
Speaker 9: to hers, said, hold on, this is madness. I've been
44:00
Speaker 9: in court watching the court proceedings going through the magistrate's court,
44:03
Speaker 9: and it's very clear that the magistrate's court can't deal
44:06
Speaker 9: with this. When you look at people holding signs, you'll
44:10
Speaker 9: see police officers coming along with video cameras and then
44:14
Speaker 9: holding that in front of the sign. And that's so
44:16
Speaker 9: that a legal officer sat in a bunker somewhere can
44:20
Speaker 9: look at that sign and make a decision about whether
44:22
Speaker 9: that sign is unlawful or not. At the point where
44:26
Speaker 9: it requires a legal expert to decide whether a sign
44:29
Speaker 9: that somebody has just written with a belted pen on
44:32
Speaker 9: a piece of paper is lawful or not, where's free speech?
44:37
Speaker 9: Where has that gone to? And the point I should
44:41
Speaker 9: have made in the previous answer, if judges are too
44:45
Speaker 9: scared to apply human rights legislation to ministers, well, then
44:50
Speaker 9: Craig Murray is completely right. We are on a slide
44:54
Speaker 9: into fascism.
44:57
Speaker 3: Yes, very quickly, of course, forgotten in this Faragrav nonsense
45:00
Speaker 3: is the fact that the government is actually required by
45:03
Speaker 3: the Geneva Convention to do what it can to prevent genocide.
45:08
Speaker 3: You know, actually, law in this country, international law, have
45:11
Speaker 3: both been turned on their head, haven't they, Clive?
45:13
Speaker 4: They're doing the opposite of what they're supposed to do.
45:18
Speaker 9: The UK government is a signator to the Genocide Convention.
45:23
Speaker 9: And the Genocide Convention very clearly says... If genocide is
45:28
Speaker 9: happening and you're a signatory to the convention, you have
45:31
Speaker 9: a legal obligation to prevent that genocide. Not a strongly
45:36
Speaker 9: worded letter, not an ordeal. You have a legal obligation
45:40
Speaker 9: to prevent. And this is why we'll see so many
45:44
Speaker 9: government ministers avoiding the word genocide. Because as soon as
45:49
Speaker 9: the government admits that what's happening there is genocide, they
45:52
Speaker 9: have a legal obligation to try and prevent it. This
45:58
Speaker 9: has gone to the ICJ and the ICJ has said
46:01
Speaker 9: there is an arguable case here. And we know that
46:05
Speaker 9: cases that go to the ICJ, they take years to resolve.
46:09
Speaker 9: And quite often by the time the case is resolved,
46:12
Speaker 9: then the incident that they're referring to has already resolved
46:14
Speaker 9: itself in whatever horrible way.
46:18
Speaker 1: So clearly there is a legal obligation here.
46:21
Speaker 9: And a moral obligation, I would argue, on the UK
46:24
Speaker 9: government to act to prevent the genocide, which is quite
46:28
Speaker 9: clearly happening before our eyes in Gaza.
46:34
Speaker 4: Patrick, Mike, I know you'd like to jump in.
46:37
Speaker 1: Well, a question for Clive, just briefly, Clive. The mass
46:41
Speaker 1: arrests still continuing. Are the courts... instituting what they were
46:47
Speaker 1: calling for earlier this year, which was speed trials, an
46:51
Speaker 1: average of 20 minutes, and really kind of doing away
46:53
Speaker 1: with the whole due process using juries as per normal.
46:58
Speaker 1: How are they processing these?
47:05
Speaker 9: So there's two types of offences that people have been
47:08
Speaker 9: charged with. Section 13, which goes to the Magistrates' Court,
47:13
Speaker 9: and Section 12, which goes to the Crown Court. A
47:17
Speaker 9: number of the organisers, well, the senior members of the
47:22
Speaker 9: Defend Our Juries, have Section 12 charges against them. It
47:27
Speaker 9: went all the way through in the Old Bailey, the
47:30
Speaker 9: terrorist court in the UK. They have all now been
47:33
Speaker 9: put on hold and they've all been put on hold
47:35
Speaker 9: because they couldn't decide whether the actual prescription of Palestine
47:39
Speaker 9: action was lawful or not. The Section 13 cases, which
47:44
Speaker 9: is the majority of them, I've watched the judges and
47:49
Speaker 9: the magistrates struggling to cope with 4,000 cases going through.
47:55
Speaker 9: As yet, most of the people, I think, yeah, just
47:58
Speaker 9: over the majority of the people who have been charged
48:00
Speaker 9: have not even had a plea hearing, which is the
48:02
Speaker 9: first instance you go to court, the first opportunity for
48:05
Speaker 9: you to say whether you plead innocent or guilty. The
48:09
Speaker 9: Chief Magistrate said he thought insufficient thought had been put
48:15
Speaker 9: when the charges were being brought for the burden that
48:19
Speaker 9: this would cause to UK courts. When all of this
48:24
Speaker 9: began a year ago, just over a year ago now,
48:28
Speaker 9: there was only one magistrates court in the UK that
48:31
Speaker 9: handled terrorism cases because they were very rare. There are
48:36
Speaker 9: now three magistrates courts dealing with them. And if all 4,000
48:42
Speaker 9: cases are to be put through the magistrates courts, we
48:45
Speaker 9: know that that will cause serious issues for the ability
48:49
Speaker 9: of the courts to be able to deal with it.
48:51
Speaker 9: And the courts are looking at it and they're saying
48:53
Speaker 9: the majority of these people, they're people who have no
48:57
Speaker 9: prior criminal record. They're likely to get a small fine
49:01
Speaker 9: or a conditional discharge where conditional discharge basically says don't
49:05
Speaker 9: do anything bad again for whatever period of time and
49:08
Speaker 9: we'll forget about it. Is it worth arresting people for that?
49:13
Speaker 9: Is it worth pushing them through the court system for that?
49:16
Speaker 9: I would argue it's a misuse of the court system.
49:19
Speaker 1: Absolutely. It amounts to a caution, basically. I want to
49:23
Speaker 1: thank Dr. Clive Dolphin. Thank you very much for joining
49:27
Speaker 1: us on the program. And as well as Basil Valentine,
49:30
Speaker 1: thank you for bringing a lot of depth and insight
49:32
Speaker 1: to this really critical issue.
49:34
Speaker 2: Okay, Patrick, let's then move on to, well, let's move
49:38
Speaker 2: over to Israel, in fact. Well, just a shock horror here. Well,
49:42
Speaker 2: I think the Israeli government's under pressure public relations-wise. Israeli
49:47
Speaker 2: President Herzog is now warning that Jewish terrorism in the
49:51
Speaker 2: West Bank against Palestinians can cause and spark a civil war.
49:56
Speaker 2: I can't believe I'm actually reading this, but it shows
50:00
Speaker 2: you how the winds are blowing slightly differently right now
50:03
Speaker 2: as a result of the elections in Israel and also
50:06
Speaker 2: the U.S. elections as well. So here, We have up
50:10
Speaker 2: on here the Benjamin Netanyahu urgent letter to the caretaker
50:14
Speaker 2: government from Israel Katz, of all people, very hawkish, ethno-nationalist
50:20
Speaker 2: defense minister there, basically pleading, warning that Jewish violence in
50:25
Speaker 2: the West Bank could spiral into Israel.
50:27
Speaker 1: A civil war. We are a step away from disaster.
50:30
Speaker 1: I'm trying to work out what this all means, Mike,
50:32
Speaker 1: because it just seems so counterintuitive. So Israeli settlers brutalizing
50:38
Speaker 1: Palestinian men as pogroms, says the cradle in the occupied
50:41
Speaker 1: West Bank, reach a historic peak. So we're in the
50:46
Speaker 1: 2026 Jewish pogroms carried out against the native Palestinian population.
50:52
Speaker 1: History has come full circle here. And just a quick
50:55
Speaker 1: update on the Israeli elections. Eizenkot, the opposition bloc, is
51:02
Speaker 1: set to receive a mandate to form an Israeli government.
51:06
Speaker 1: So this is going to happen, it looks like. They
51:08
Speaker 1: have the requisite number of seats. This includes the endorsement
51:12
Speaker 1: from the Arab parties and the 19 Arab, what they
51:15
Speaker 1: call the Arab list, as it were. Not all of
51:19
Speaker 1: them are going to join the coalition, though, but they
51:20
Speaker 1: will back the new government. But they're not going to
51:23
Speaker 1: formally go into coalition once they retain power. But let's
51:28
Speaker 1: look at the timeline here. And this is the thing.
51:30
Speaker 1: What are we looking at in terms of the risk
51:33
Speaker 1: on this? And this is the sort of, I would say,
51:36
Speaker 1: the window of danger, which is Netanyahu is still in
51:39
Speaker 1: power and will remain in power up to a month
51:42
Speaker 1: and a half from now. So November 8th, this coming week,
51:47
Speaker 1: Herzog is expected to name the candidate to form the
51:51
Speaker 1: government on Sunday or by Sunday here. And on the 10th,
51:54
Speaker 1: the 26th, Knesset will be sworn in regardless of whether
51:58
Speaker 1: a full coalition government has been finalized yet. And then
52:02
Speaker 1: we have a further 28 days. So we'll say from
52:06
Speaker 1: December 10th being the next deadline to negotiate and form
52:10
Speaker 1: a governing majority of at least 61 seats in the
52:13
Speaker 1: Knesset there. And then finally, there's a potential 14-day extension
52:18
Speaker 1: to that. So a final deadline there. be december 24th
52:21
Speaker 1: so we have until now to december 24th that netanyahu
52:26
Speaker 1: could do something extreme like attack iran and then declare
52:30
Speaker 1: a state of emergency following the iranian retaliation uh and
52:33
Speaker 1: then he would remain in power and then the new
52:36
Speaker 1: government would be suspended um until further notice or until
52:40
Speaker 1: the quote the crisis is over now netanyahu has done
52:42
Speaker 1: this before and has managed to keep a coalition from forming,
52:46
Speaker 1: and ended up, through that interim process, putting a coalition
52:50
Speaker 1: together eventually, probably in the immediate time to threaten and
52:53
Speaker 1: blackmail as many Israeli MPs as he could, in order
52:57
Speaker 1: to break the opposition and bring his coalition together, the
53:01
Speaker 1: monstrosity that it is, this far-right Likudite coalition that's currently
53:06
Speaker 1: in power. So those are the risks going forward. So
53:09
Speaker 1: that's what we're going to call the... the window of
53:12
Speaker 1: danger there, the next 30 days. Yes.
53:16
Speaker 4: Yes.
53:16
Speaker 1: Okay.
53:17
Speaker 2: Well, let's come back to the UK then. And let's
53:19
Speaker 2: bring on Neil Holland, who's the UK's ambassador to the OSCE,
53:23
Speaker 2: because Britain and 14 other states have told the Organization
53:27
Speaker 2: for Security and Cooperation in Europe that journalists across the
53:29
Speaker 2: region face an increasingly hostile environment. And this is in
53:34
Speaker 2: two statements, one both published by the FCD or the
53:37
Speaker 2: Foreign Commerce and Development Office. But as recently, We got
53:41
Speaker 2: on screen here, beginning with the statement made by the
53:43
Speaker 2: UK's representative, Neil Holland. We get a sense of the
53:46
Speaker 2: absolute sheer hypocrisy. And we also wonder at how he
53:49
Speaker 2: can make statements like this with a straight face, because
53:51
Speaker 2: he told the Permanent Council at least 26 Ukrainian journalists
53:56
Speaker 2: remain in Russian captivity, many convicted on what he called
53:58
Speaker 2: fabricated charges. He condemned politically motivated detentions in Georgia and
54:04
Speaker 2: urged the country to reverse sanctions. repressive legislation. And we
54:08
Speaker 2: bring the quote back on screen. He said, we fully
54:10
Speaker 2: agree with your assessment that media freedom is a necessary
54:12
Speaker 2: condition for peace and security, not a peripheral or second
54:17
Speaker 2: order issue. As we mark the international day to end
54:20
Speaker 2: impunity for crimes against journalists, we reiterate that attacks against
54:23
Speaker 2: journalists must be investigated and those responsible held to account.
54:29
Speaker 2: And then he went on to say that inside both
54:31
Speaker 2: Russia and Belarus, systematic repression seeks to silence dissenting voices
54:38
Speaker 2: and criminalize journalism and shut down independent media. And he
54:41
Speaker 2: said the UK will not tolerate foreign states targeting critics,
54:45
Speaker 2: including journalists on British soil. Journalists in exile must be
54:48
Speaker 2: able to work safely. And all the while, nothing is
54:51
Speaker 2: said about Israel's direct systematic targeting of journalists in Gaza,
54:56
Speaker 2: the West.
54:56
Speaker 1: Bank, and Lebanon.
54:57
Speaker 2: And all the while, the targeting of pro-Palestine journalists in
55:02
Speaker 2: the UK at the UK border is and censoring independent
55:05
Speaker 2: journalists here in the UK.
55:07
Speaker 1: It's quite incredible.
55:08
Speaker 2: And the second statement then came in the form of
55:10
Speaker 2: a joint statement from the informal group of friends on
55:14
Speaker 2: the safety of journalists delivered by Finland on behalf of
55:17
Speaker 2: the country's part of that group, including UK, Germany, France,
55:21
Speaker 2: and Canada. And it cited harassment, censorship, violence, arbitrary detention,
55:27
Speaker 2: and legal pressure. It said judicial and penal systems were
55:30
Speaker 2: too often being used against journalists while the attacks on
55:33
Speaker 2: them went unpunished. And they called on Russia to release
55:39
Speaker 2: all imprisoned media workers, including in occupied areas of Ukraine,
55:44
Speaker 2: and highlighted the closure of Novaya Gazeta and the designation
55:49
Speaker 2: of its editorial team as foreign agents. And all the while,
55:52
Speaker 2: those countries making up the informal group are creating foreign
55:56
Speaker 2: influence laws to label journalists in their home countries as
55:59
Speaker 2: foreign agents. And let's not forget, as just one example,
56:02
Speaker 2: the closure of the Canary recently, apparently because it was debunked.
56:06
Speaker 2: And so it's said that independent journalism had effectively been
56:12
Speaker 2: criminalized in Belarus. It listed arrest prosecutions and so on
56:16
Speaker 2: in Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. And,
56:28
Speaker 2: you know, all the while we're seeing exactly the same
56:31
Speaker 2: type of behavior in this country towards journalists that are
56:33
Speaker 2: working here. It is just incredible how they can say
56:36
Speaker 2: this stuff with a straight face and no sense of
56:39
Speaker 2: irony at all.
56:40
Speaker 1: Well, the worst violator here, Mike, is Israel. They've been
56:43
Speaker 1: targeting and slaughtering record numbers of journalists, as you mentioned,
56:47
Speaker 1: and we've reported on previously. So that is the biggest
56:49
Speaker 1: offender on the planet by orders of magnitude. And by
56:52
Speaker 1: the way, how many UK, American and Western journalists are
56:56
Speaker 1: on UK... Ukrainian hit lists that are publicly posted online.
57:01
Speaker 1: And I personally know at least one editor of a
57:04
Speaker 1: publication in Odessa that was kidnapped and put in a
57:08
Speaker 1: solitary confinement, and nobody has seen him since 2022. Why?
57:12
Speaker 1: Because he was talking about signing or negotiating a peace
57:16
Speaker 1: deal between Ukraine and Russia before the war kicked off.
57:19
Speaker 1: And even during the war, he was the Istanbul Accords
57:22
Speaker 1: and things like that. It got him basically disappeared. And
57:26
Speaker 1: so a lot of people we know are on those
57:28
Speaker 1: Ukrainian hit lists, a lot of journalists, including myself. OK,
57:32
Speaker 1: so I really don't and I don't know of Russia
57:36
Speaker 1: imprisoning any Ukrainian journalists. That's the first I've heard of that.
57:39
Speaker 1: And I would like to we'd like to know evidence,
57:41
Speaker 1: get some more information about that. Yeah, but we see
57:44
Speaker 1: a lot of evidence of Ukraine, British and NATO backed
57:47
Speaker 1: Ukrainian forces and intelligence harassing and in some cases killing.
57:55
Speaker 1: Western journalists like Gonzalo Lira. There should be an inquiry
57:59
Speaker 1: into that. I mean, this is just kind of amazing
58:02
Speaker 1: how they spin these narratives, but they don't actually look
58:04
Speaker 1: at the real violators that are actually happening. Absolutely.
58:09
Speaker 2: Basil, back to you then. Let's finish today's program with
58:12
Speaker 2: some more in case you missed it.
58:15
Speaker 4: Yes, thanks, Mike.
58:16
Speaker 3: First of all, Israel, you must remember, is not only
58:20
Speaker 3: not racist, but also the only democracy in the Middle East,
58:24
Speaker 3: which is why Abed Abu Shehadeh, a Palestinian journalist who
58:29
Speaker 3: lives within the borders of Israel, he gave an interview
58:33
Speaker 3: to Al Jazeera talking about how the Arab parties are
58:37
Speaker 3: marginalized in the Nesset area. The Israeli authorities didn't like it,
58:42
Speaker 3: so 15 masked police raided his home in the middle
58:46
Speaker 3: of the night and dragged him away to the torture
58:50
Speaker 3: gulag where he remains. make of that, of course, what
58:55
Speaker 3: you will. Jodie McIntyre here on X pointing out that
58:59
Speaker 3: the Labour MP calling for the return of compulsory military
59:02
Speaker 3: service chairs, the parliamentary group bankrolled by Israeli army-linked weapons manufacturers. Yes,
59:08
Speaker 3: new research shows that the all-party armed forces group has
59:12
Speaker 3: taken £ 525, 000 from 10 firms that supply the Israeli military.
59:19
Speaker 3: This is Alex Bollinger MP. And over the last decade,
59:24
Speaker 3: this group has received £ 800, 000 in financial benefits. The majority
59:29
Speaker 3: of those coming from suppliers of the Israeli army. You
59:32
Speaker 3: can find more detail on that on Jody McIntyre's account
59:35
Speaker 3: on X. Now, facial recognition, something we keep a close
59:39
Speaker 3: eye on here. This is Big Brother Watch. A framework
59:43
Speaker 3: has now been announced for facial recognition. And this is
59:47
Speaker 3: what it looks like. First, the government has announced following
59:51
Speaker 3: a public consultation that that there's good news and bad news.
59:55
Speaker 3: The good news is that the government has now admitted
59:59
Speaker 3: that there are real concerns about privacy bias and discrimination
1:00:05
Speaker 3: and has vowed to rein.
1:00:07
Speaker 4: In facial recognition.
1:00:10
Speaker 3: Big Brother Watch point out this shows the tide is turning,
1:00:12
Speaker 3: but the devil is in the detail because instead of
1:00:15
Speaker 3: a strong law, we've been offered a code of practice
1:00:19
Speaker 3: that will take years to come into effect, of course.
1:00:23
Speaker 3: And in the meantime, the government is aggressively expanding this
1:00:26
Speaker 3: Orwellian technology all over the country, seeking a five-fold increase
1:00:32
Speaker 3: in facial recognition cameras in our town centres and high streets.
1:00:38
Speaker 3: Do go to bigbrotherwatch.org to sign their petition. Data centres,
1:00:43
Speaker 3: one in Scotland, Chapel Cross, the planning application for that
1:00:49
Speaker 3: is says that the power sources are not yet identified.
1:00:53
Speaker 3: This thing is going to use as much electricity as 2.2
1:00:58
Speaker 3: million homes. Yes, about 8 million people. Absolutely extraordinary numbers,
1:01:04
Speaker 3: and they've no idea where they're going to get the
1:01:06
Speaker 3: power from. Perhaps they'll put some windmills up on the roof.
1:01:10
Speaker 3: The workforce is unlikely to be sourced solely from the
1:01:13
Speaker 3: immediate area.
1:01:15
Speaker 4: So all this stuff about... jobs coming.
1:01:18
Speaker 3: Well, a lot of them will no doubt be technical
1:01:21
Speaker 3: specialists who don't necessarily live in the immediate vicinity. And
1:01:25
Speaker 3: of course, there is likely to be a direct permanent
1:01:28
Speaker 3: adverse visual effect, which is significant. These are all quotes
1:01:32
Speaker 3: from the planning application itself, not critics quotes. In other words,
1:01:37
Speaker 3: it's an ugly, great monstrosity, but you're just going to
1:01:39
Speaker 3: have to put up with it. There's also plans for
1:01:42
Speaker 3: a similar thing in Norfolk, as we can see here,
1:01:46
Speaker 3: and a campaign is well underway.
1:01:47
Speaker 4: To stop it.
1:01:51
Speaker 3: So this is the, yeah, this is the Norfolk, right,
1:01:56
Speaker 3: we've jumped, it's okay. That was very briefly the campaign
1:02:00
Speaker 3: against a huge data center in the Norfolk countryside. Jake Humphrey,
1:02:05
Speaker 3: the TV personality, has made a personal video complaining about that,
1:02:10
Speaker 3: quite rightly. So big campaign to stop it. And finally,
1:02:13
Speaker 3: something a little bit more cheerful. Dozens of orchestras got
1:02:16
Speaker 3: together in France, as you can see, in Metz, Marseille, Rennes, Caen,
1:02:22
Speaker 3: in Normandy, Montpellier down in the southwest. And this was
1:02:27
Speaker 3: all to provide orchestral accompaniment to the protests going on.
1:02:32
Speaker 3: Grenoble there, look, Lyon, huge orchestras of volunteers playing Dvorak's
1:02:39
Speaker 3: New World Symphony to provide a cultural counterpoint. to the protests.
1:02:47
Speaker 3: So I've always said the French are a cultured lot.
1:02:50
Speaker 3: I wonder if we could ever see that happening in Britain.
1:02:56
Speaker 3: Would all the musicians turn out in Huddersfield to play
1:03:00
Speaker 3: Sir Edward Elgar when the balloon goes up, gentlemen?
1:03:04
Speaker 2: Well, Basil, we've got to remember why that's happening. That's
1:03:07
Speaker 2: happening because of the orchestra that turned up in Paris
1:03:11
Speaker 2: and ended up being tear gassed by the police and
1:03:14
Speaker 2: the way that they were treated. So this is clearly
1:03:16
Speaker 2: a response to that. And I think that's fantastic to see.
1:03:19
Speaker 1: They wouldn't be able to do it in the UK
1:03:20
Speaker 1: because they would need to apply for an entertainment license
1:03:23
Speaker 1: and fill out a very thick health and safety risk assessment,
1:03:27
Speaker 1: if you know what I mean. Yeah, indeed. Okay.
1:03:30
Speaker 4: Thank you, Basil.
1:03:31
Speaker 2: Thank you, Patrick. We've got to leave it there for today.
1:03:34
Speaker 2: Thanks to everybody that's been watching. If you are a
1:03:37
Speaker 2: UK cult member, stay on the stream for News Extra
1:03:39
Speaker 2: in a few minutes. Otherwise, have a great weekend. Don't
1:03:42
Speaker 2: forget interviews tonight and also Jake's interview on Sunday, 7pm.
1:03:47
Speaker 2: We'll see you at 1pm as usual on Monday.
1:03:50
Speaker 1: See you then. Bye-bye.