Latest / UK Column Radio / UK Column News — 5th December 2025

Transcript

UK Column News — 5th December 2025 · UK Column Radio

0:08
Good afternoon. It's Friday the 5th of December
0:10
2025, just after 1:00. Welcome to UK called News.
0:13
I'm your host Mike Robinson and my Co host in the studio today,
0:16
Patrick Henningson. Welcome to the program, Patrick.
0:18
Great to be with you, Mike. And we'll be joined today by
0:20
journalist Tim Norman. Later in the program, we're
0:23
going to be covering the Eurovision Song Contest.
0:26
We're going to be looking at censorship.
0:27
We'll have a Ukraine update, the latest on potential military
0:31
action in Venezuela, and well, news of a very big donation to
0:36
reform. But we're going to begin with
0:39
the Don Sturgis Inquiry report. Now, just as a reminder, in
0:42
March 2018, the British regime accused Russia of using a
0:46
weapons grade chemical weapon to poison former KGB agent Sergei
0:50
Skripal and his daughter Yulia. Uh, several months later,
0:54
Charlie Rowley is said to have found a bottle of expensive
0:56
perfume and to have given it to his girlfriend Dawn Sturgis, who
1:00
fell ill, uh, when she sprayed the perfume on her wrists.
1:04
Uh, she subsequently died and well, the clamour from the
1:08
British regime is that the bottle contained enough novichok
1:11
to kill thousands of people. Now the inquiry into Don Sturgis
1:15
death was led by Lord Hughes. You just saw on screen there.
1:18
So let's have a quick listen to a little bit of what he said
1:23
when he was introduced. Good afternoon.
1:25
For those who haven't been at earlier hearings, I'm Anthony
1:28
Hughes, and this has been an inquiry into the untimely death
1:35
of Dawn Sturgis. It was established in March 2022
1:42
when I was appointed to chair it.
1:46
So, in summary, the conclusion of the report is that Dawn
1:50
Sturgis died an innocent victim of an attempt by officers of a
1:55
Russian state organization to conduct an assassination on the
2:00
streets of Salisbury using a highly toxic nerve agent.
2:08
The conduct of Petrov and Boshirov and their Gru superiors
2:15
and those who authorized the mission, up to and including, as
2:19
I found, President Putin, that conduct was astonishingly
2:24
reckless. There is a direct causal link
2:29
between the actions of all those individuals and Dawn Sturgis's
2:34
death, and they, and only they, bear moral responsibility for
2:42
it. So I'd like to welcome Tim
2:51
Norman to the program. And Tim, I suppose my first
2:55
question is, is there a direct causal link between the death of
3:00
Dawn Sturgis and an alleged Novichok attack in Salisbury?
3:06
Well, they're all hinges on the question of this bottle.
3:10
That's the causal link that the UK establishments and Lord
3:13
Hughes is trying to make, because this is the bottle that,
3:17
as he said in the introduction, allegedly was picked up by Dawn
3:21
Sturgis's boyfriend and given to her.
3:25
But it's it's, you know, it's very important that to
3:30
understand that his testimony is the sole foundation of this
3:33
entire narrative whereby he picks up a bottle, gave it to
3:38
Dawn, she sprayed herself, which is a question in itself.
3:42
When you think about a chemical weapon, would you really spray
3:44
that? But that is a narrative.
3:46
And then she died and he calls the ambulance.
3:49
That entire section of story belongs only to Charlie Rowley.
3:53
And Charlie Rowley is a admitted alcoholic and a heroin addict
3:57
and indeed a convicted petty criminal whose previous
4:00
girlfriend, two years in the before, had died of a heroin
4:04
overdose in his flat, in his presence.
4:06
He just put her to bed, knowing her that, knowing that she'd
4:08
taken a heroin overdose and she died.
4:12
So he didn't appear before the inquiry.
4:14
And this is really the critical factor.
4:16
I think that shows how the inquiry sort of failed to store
4:20
the surgeon's family in in many respects, because he's the key
4:23
witness and the inquiry simply failed to produce him.
4:26
I would suggest because if they did, everyone would see for
4:29
themselves that he's an extremely unreliable witness and
4:31
the narrative had a very very shaky foundations.
4:35
If for him not appearing at the inquiry.
4:38
Beg pardon, sorry. What reason did they give that
4:40
he did not appear at the inquiry?
4:43
Health issues he's, you know, apparently had his memory
4:46
affected by Novichok. And so the inquiry has to rely
4:51
on 6 year old transcripts of police interviews that he gave
4:54
at the time. And there's some of them are
4:56
sort of bordering on a comical there's the police are
4:58
effectively trying to suggest to him that he found this bottle.
5:01
They don't really know. He doesn't know where he denies
5:05
he doesn't recognise the packaging when it's showed him
5:07
in the first instance. He says, I think I found it on
5:10
the floor. It might have fallen in my
5:11
pocket. It could have been in Amesbury,
5:13
it could have been Salisbury. I don't know.
5:16
He just simply has a bank on it. Yeah, yeah.
5:19
OK. Well, look, we we will come back
5:21
to the the bottle a little bit later.
5:24
But I suppose the next question is this because the inquiry
5:27
nearly didn't happen and the result, well perhaps the result
5:32
of it demonstrates that it shouldn't have.
5:33
But but anyway, the question is why did the inquiry nearly not
5:40
happen? Because you have a couple of of
5:42
articles here. This is BBC from 2020.
5:47
Is that scope of Novichok victims inquest must be
5:50
reconsidered. And but also there's another one
5:54
here from Sky News which is saying that the home Secretary
5:57
had effectively, sorry, Home secretary had effectively put a
6:02
secrecy order on the Salisbury inquiry.
6:05
So, So what? How did how did this inquiry
6:07
actually come about in the first place?
6:10
Well, that's it. I mean, when you hear Lord
6:11
Hughes speaking as we just did, you'd be forgiven for thinking
6:14
that the British establishment established this inquiry purely
6:18
to help the Sturgis family understand what happened to
6:21
their loved 1 and in interest of transparency and, you know, due
6:25
process and justice and so forth.
6:27
But in fact, what happened is the original coroner in 2019 is
6:32
called David Ridley. He was Wiltshire's chief
6:35
coroner, held a very limited inquest and he said I don't want
6:41
to investigate Russian state culpability in Dawn Sturgess's
6:45
death and I'm not going even going to investigate the
6:47
provenance of the Novichok, where this Novichok chemical
6:50
weapon allegedly came from. And so the family objected to
6:54
this. And with Michael Mansfield, the
6:56
barrister, they took the Home Office to court effectively.
6:59
And that's what that first slide shows.
7:01
It's that they won. They won their case against
7:05
against the government effectively.
7:06
And that's what forced the government to set up this
7:08
inquiry. Of course, there are even public
7:10
inquiries that you can hold sessions and secrets behind
7:13
closed doors, unlike A coroner's inquest, which actually is fully
7:17
transparent and held completely in in the, if you like, in the
7:20
public eye and then sorry. Go ahead, I was.
7:24
Just going to say then. So then once the and it took
7:26
years before the inquiry as we know it took seven years really
7:29
from Dawn's deaf and till the hearings.
7:31
And yes, Priti Patel, the Home Secretary back in 2022, made
7:39
certain that even before, you know, the Chair was able to look
7:45
at the documents, there would be documents as that were redacted
7:48
from the Chair, even from Lord Hughes and prevented from being
7:51
shown to the Sturgis family. Which goes to show how genuinely
7:54
committed this inquiry was to actually getting to the truth as
7:57
far as the Sturgis family is concerned.
8:00
Have you any thoughts on that just before we move on?
8:03
Tim, you know, it's just incredible.
8:04
It just strikes me that we have the longest running criminal
8:08
investigation in British history.
8:11
We have no evidence signed off by any judge.
8:15
We have no murder weapon. We have really no confirmed
8:18
crime scene. We have no chief witness and we
8:22
have, well, initially we didn't have a, a dead victim from Nova
8:26
Chalk, but it seems like Don Sturgis has been in a way kind
8:30
of moved into this position. If if, if we look at the just
8:34
the lack of the cohesiveness of the case that's being made here
8:39
and the lack of any criminal due process from this, it almost
8:44
seems like they Don Sturgis is an incidental accessory to shore
8:50
up a narrative that Novichok is, you know, a deadly nerve agent
8:55
because it apparently we're told it didn't kill the script pals.
9:00
And by the way, where are the script pals?
9:01
We'll get to that in a moment. But Tim, where this isn't
9:04
really, it's incredible that this hasn't really gone through
9:07
any real criminal legal or criminal due process.
9:12
Well, that's right. In fact, this, you know, a
9:15
strange, strange inquiry is as close as the establishment
9:19
prepared to go. So it's a sort of false trial,
9:22
if you'll and people back in when the Skripals were allegedly
9:26
poisoned in March 2018, as you say, they weren't killed and
9:31
Yulia recovered. We can go into a bit more detail
9:33
about that later, maybe. And then and then Sergey
9:35
recovered and they were both released from hospital.
9:37
So this is before Dawn Sturgis died.
9:41
And so we had this kind of period of calm, if you like, for
9:43
the people of Salisbury where both victims had recovered.
9:46
They'd been released from hospital.
9:48
And The New York Times, for example, published an article
9:52
where they went to Salisbury and interviewed some of the people
9:55
in Salisbury. He was saying, well, you know, I
9:58
think if Mr. Putin had wanted to kill somebody, they'd be dead.
10:00
And, you know, I don't think we're ever going to get to the
10:02
bottom of this. And they were expecting.
10:03
So skepticism from the people of Salisbury being expressed in the
10:07
New York Times hardly a a minor publication.
10:10
And then once, you know, we got to this point, then this sort of
10:14
second act of the, of the whole of chalk poisoning began and
10:20
Dawn died, You know, she's, she's, she effectively died in
10:26
Charlie Rowley's flat. She had a heart attack and brain
10:28
damage by the time the paramedics came and they revived
10:31
her, but she had suffered catastrophic brain damage.
10:33
And she's actually died 8 days later when they turned off her
10:36
life support system. And then Charlie Rowley woke up
10:39
two days after that. So, and then of course, the
10:43
bottle was found in his flat after he woke up.
10:48
So this, this suggestion that the sort of bottle was found in
10:53
a bin really kept was, was given to him.
10:56
And you can actually see that in the transcripts of the of the
11:01
interviews that he was given giving to the police.
11:04
The time you can see the suggestion really first comes
11:07
from the police that he found this bottle somewhere because
11:11
he's he's as, as I say, he doesn't really remember anything
11:13
about it, although he does remember very clearly that it
11:16
was wrapped in plastic. And that's another detail which
11:19
the inquiry has to deal with it. So it has to engineer some
11:22
answers as to why this bottle was in two pieces and wrapped as
11:25
it were, as if new in a box. Well, look, let's, let's see if
11:30
we can deal with this bottle once and for all here, because
11:33
first of all, let's bring up the, the, the page from the Don
11:36
Sturgis inquiry report here. So that's, that's the front page
11:39
of the Don storage, the Don Sturgis inquiry report and
11:44
highlighted here is Section 1 sort of 4.71.
11:47
The larger sachet have been cut open unevenly.
11:50
The sachets appeared, particularly the smaller of the
11:53
two, to have both original manufacturers sealed edges, but
11:56
also an additional heat seals consistent with subsequent
11:59
application by the kind of domestic sealer readily
12:02
available for kitchen or similar use.
12:05
Those additional heat seals were consistent with the bottle
12:07
having been used in the Salisbury event involving Sergei
12:10
and Yulia Skripal and crudely repackaged before being
12:14
abandoned. This seems like such a
12:17
ridiculous narrative, Tim. Well, it seems to me that it's a
12:21
sort of a narrative that's being engineered around the evidence
12:24
that Charlie Riley presented. Because although as we
12:27
discussed, he has virtually no memory of where he found the
12:30
bottle. He had a very clear memory of
12:32
opening the bottle, cutting open the plastic and indeed spilling
12:36
the contents of the bottle on his hands.
12:37
He tried to put this applicator on the top of it.
12:41
And so the inquiry then has to try and answer this question of
12:45
how did the bottle come to be sealed if it was the bottle that
12:49
was used to contaminate script house door and there's a sub
12:53
theory that is a backup bottle. But really then why would there
12:56
need to be a bottle at all? That could have been anything if
12:58
that wasn't the bottle. Right, right, right.
13:01
So sorry. Just let me interrupt for a
13:02
second because you've just said that Charlie Roley poured,
13:06
spilled it over his hands. We'll come back to this in a
13:08
second. What I want to just mention here
13:10
in passing here that this man Hamish to Bretton Gordon, if we
13:13
can get him up on screen here, he was rolled out back in 2018
13:20
to terrify us all at that time about this with a headline in
13:23
the Telegraph. Why Novichok could be Russia's
13:25
most terrifying weapon in a war with the West.
13:28
Look, we have, I want to show a short clip from yesterday's
13:32
Channel 4 News report on this and well, guess who they rolled
13:37
out. But let's watch this.
13:41
And it was 3 Gru men who travelled to the UK to try to
13:44
kill her father eight years later, under aliases.
13:47
They were in reality Alexander Mishkin, Anatoly Chepiga and
13:52
Denis Sergeyev, who stayed in London while the other two
13:55
travelled to Salisbury smearing Novichok on.
13:57
Skripal's door handle The pair then discarded the perfume
14:01
bottle containing it before travelling back to Russia.
14:05
We're talking about something called Novichok, the most deadly
14:08
chemical ever manufactured by man.
14:10
And if you think that something like chlorine is maybe toxicity
14:14
one, this is toxicity 10,000. So this is toxicity 10,000
14:22
Charlie Rowley. Charlie Rowley pours it over his
14:24
hands, spills it. Toxicity 10,000.
14:28
It's killing thousands of people potentially, but it didn't kill
14:31
him. That's quite amazing.
14:32
Deadliest nerve agent known to man 10 times more deadly than
14:35
VXVX gas Tim. So this this means Charlie
14:39
Rowley should be donated to scientific research for his
14:43
incredible immune capabilities. Indeed, along with the Skripals
14:48
and along with the Skripals cat, which survived in the in the
14:51
Skripals house for weeks, apparently contaminated with
14:54
Novichok until the police decided to euthanize it.
14:58
Yes. I mean, Rowley doesn't just spit
15:01
on his hands. He then wipes his hands on his
15:03
jeans before he then washes them under the tap.
15:06
And then he goes out. I mean, at this point Dawn is
15:08
taken to hospital, but he doesn't accompany Dawn to the
15:11
hospital. He goes and gets his methadone
15:14
prescription from the Amesbury chemist and then with a friend
15:17
he goes to a BBQ at a Baptist Church.
15:20
Then he goes back to his flat and then he collapses.
15:24
So very delayed action, although of course in the case of Dawn
15:26
Sturgis apparently took 15 minutes before she was affected.
15:30
But just quickly going back to this question of the heat
15:32
sealing of the of the bottle and why this packaging was sealed,
15:37
sealed the bottle, according to the inquiry.
15:39
They the inquiry suggests that Boschrov and Petrov, these two
15:42
assassins who we just saw alleged assassins, had with them
15:45
in their backpack a portable heat sealing device such as you
15:48
might find in the kitchen and having poisoned the smeared the
15:53
substance on the door, as we just heard, they went to some
15:56
toilets in the This is the inquiry's suggestion.
15:59
This is not fantasy, which is fantasy.
16:02
Perhaps it's coming from the inquiry.
16:04
I went to some public toilets, took apart their bottle of WMD
16:08
10,000 times more deadly and then sealed it in plastic using
16:12
their heat sealer and then just dropped it in a bin and left.
16:16
And that is the narrative that was off seriously presented to
16:18
the inquiry to the point where they spent half a half a day at
16:21
the inquiry interviewing a forensic expert in heat, heat
16:24
sealing devices and heat seeders.
16:27
And I guess because, you know, our councils are also rubbish
16:30
these days, they don't empty the bin.
16:31
So it took four months for Charlie Rowley to find it in the
16:34
same bin. And but here's the key question,
16:38
Tim. Where was the part perfume
16:41
bottle found when Don Sturgis was taken to hospital?
16:46
Well, it was found on the worktop 10 days later, as I
16:48
think we mentioned. And in fact the photograph that
16:52
we're shown in the inquiry of the bottle is that is used to
16:56
suggest to Charlie by the police.
16:58
They'd show him the photograph. They say, can you see that
17:00
thing? And when you see the photograph
17:02
reproduced in the inquiry documents, the branding is
17:04
redacted, It's been blacked out, very conveniently also hides how
17:09
much liquid was in the bottle because clearly the amount of
17:12
liquid is quite important. We've apparently now smeared on
17:16
the door handle, then we've spilled, then rarely spilled on
17:20
his hands, and then yet again another amount has been used to
17:24
door by door and apparently on on ourself.
17:27
So that's a little interesting detail.
17:29
We never get to see how much liquid is in there in the this
17:32
bottle, which is the sole sort of forensic centre of this
17:35
rather baroque narrative. Right.
17:37
So just just let me understand this.
17:39
We're absolutely clear about this, that according to the
17:41
inquiry report, the bottle was found in the flat.
17:46
The in no, I mean, we know for a fact that's where it first
17:49
appeared and it appeared 10 days after the event.
17:51
The flat was thoroughly searched by the police.
17:54
But in the in terms of the report, it concedes that it
17:58
really, really has no idea where he found his account changed
18:01
constantly and it was it was unable to determine really he's
18:05
unable to say where, where, where it was found.
18:08
You know, no, I'm talking about when Don Sturgis went to the
18:11
hospital. It was definitely in the flat at
18:14
that time. Oh, no, no, no.
18:16
Well, we don't know that we know.
18:17
We know. The first sighting of the
18:18
bottle, if you like, is 10 days after the Amesbury flat
18:22
poisoning, when he is. Apparently he's first seen on
18:25
the work surface in the kitchen, so that's the first.
18:28
Of Charlie Rowley's flat right. Of Charlie Rowley's flat.
18:31
Of Charlie or Dawn's flat Charlie's.
18:32
Flat. It's just Charlie's flat.
18:33
I'm sorry, just say Dawn. Yeah.
18:35
Yeah, yeah. So this is very confusing,
18:37
right? Because we've got a video clip
18:38
of Ben Wallace here, who of course was Secretary of State
18:42
for war slash defence. Let's have a listen to what he
18:45
said about this. And I went to, I first went to
18:50
Ukraine in 2016 as security minister.
18:53
I remember thinking something had changed when Putin used
18:57
nerve agent at Salisbury. That was the real wake up call,
19:00
that this was a man who supposedly had been on a journey
19:05
from the Soviet Union authorizing the use of a banned
19:09
substance, nerve agent on the streets of a county town without
19:14
any real regard. I remember going to see the
19:17
discarded perfume bottle which was 98% pure.
19:21
It would have killed 34000 people if they'd been
19:23
distributed differently. We'd just been chucked under a
19:26
Bush in a park. There was a we went to a small
19:29
park in Salisbury and I went with the chief constable and the
19:31
head of terrorism and he was saying I'll show you where it
19:34
is. And there was a man sitting on
19:36
the bench eating his sandwiches and these policemen and Spooks
19:40
were pointing at the bench he was sitting on.
19:43
And he looked up and I thought, I can't tell him, I can't tell
19:45
him. So I, I don't get why everybody
19:50
was laughing there. Here we have a Secretary of
19:52
State talking about being taken to the scene of a crime by the
19:57
chief constable with a where there is a perfume bottle which
20:00
is enough stuff in it to kill 4 to 5000 people.
20:03
That place is apparently not cordoned off.
20:06
We've got a guy sitting eating sandwiches on the on the park
20:09
bench, Patrick, but. But no one in hazmat suits.
20:12
No, no one in hazmat suits. But the key point here is we we
20:16
clearly have no narrative because he's saying was found
20:20
under a Bush the inquiry saying, well, we don't don't know what
20:24
the inquiry saying, but but it was apparently found in in in
20:28
Charlie Raley's flat. So where was this blooming?
20:31
This perfume bottle is is absolutely it's like the magic
20:34
bullet for JFK. It it seems to be in but it's
20:36
multiple places at the same time.
20:38
But I mean, even by Ben Wallace's standards, that's just
20:41
a bombastic and outrageous statement.
20:43
I mean, this goes in the Hall of Fame of his gaffes, which is a
20:46
huge pantheon of bloopers. But I mean, this is just next
20:50
level. I mean, that's the that's the
20:52
Defense Secretary. Absolutely.
20:54
Talking, absolutely. And my question for you, Tim, is
20:56
why, if this inquiry was in any way serious, why would they not
21:00
have called Ben Wallace to testify about what he said at
21:04
that event? Well, indeed, and why didn't
21:07
they for that matter, call the script hours and they're
21:10
expected to believe that the UK's sort of security network is
21:14
incapable of protecting them such that, you know, if they
21:17
were to appear by secure video link, which of course happens in
21:22
court cases all the time, he would they would somehow be
21:25
tracked down by shooting strangely incompetent assassins
21:29
who would presumably once again failed to kill the script owls
21:32
with the most steady nerve agent known to man.
21:35
But yes, I mean, there's many witnesses that they could have
21:37
called. I mean, they're plenty of the
21:39
medical staff, the medical director of the hospital,
21:41
There's another very important witness that the the inquiry
21:44
should have called and because she was, of course, in charge of
21:46
the whole hospital during the response to the Nova shock, both
21:49
Nova shock attacks. Right.
21:51
Well, we'll get on. We'll get on to that in just one
21:52
second, Tim. But before we do, I just want to
21:54
remind everybody what the Sally Davies, who was at the at the
21:58
time Chief Medical Officer said. Let's just have a listen to
22:02
this. These two patients are in a
22:05
critical condition following exposure to the nerve agent
22:09
Novichok following events in March.
22:12
We have a well established response to this type of
22:14
incident and clear processes to follow.
22:17
Our priorities at this time are to care for the patients and to
22:22
understand the circumstances surrounding how these two
22:26
individuals became unwell, thus ensuring there is no further
22:29
risk to the public's health from this incident.
22:33
As the country's Chief Medical Officer, I want to reassure the
22:36
public that the risk to the general public remains low.
22:40
I understand that those in Salisbury and its surrounding
22:43
areas will be concerned that this news, particularly those
22:46
who've recently visited the areas now cordoned off by the
22:49
police. My advice for any individual
22:53
that may have been in any of the areas now cordoned off from
22:57
10:00 PM on Friday evening onwards is highly precautionary.
23:03
As before, my advice is to wash your clothes and wipe down any
23:07
personal items, shoes and bags with cleansing or baby wipes
23:11
before disposing of them in the usual way.
23:14
This is. So there we go.
23:17
That was the advice. That was how serious the the
23:19
contents of the bottle were. Baby wipes.
23:22
Baby wipes. Yeah.
23:24
Now you you mentioned the hospital doctor.
23:26
This is Doctor Stephen Cockroft. Well, now I was referring to
23:30
Christine Blanchard, but actually Stephen Cockroft is a
23:32
very interesting witness who appeared before the inquiry and
23:37
he was the senior ICU consultant who was present when the
23:40
Skripals were brought in to the ICU on the evening, afternoon,
23:43
4th of March 2018. But this, in this clip, which
23:47
we're about to see, he's describing what happened four
23:50
days later. Because the Skripals were put on
23:54
ventilators, they were intubated and they weren't able to speak.
23:58
But under these circumstances, it's common practice in Icus to
24:02
reduce the sedation of the patients on a periodical,
24:05
usually more than once a day, to see how their neurological
24:08
function is and see if in fact, they can be weaned off sedation
24:12
and can be can breathe for themselves.
24:14
So Yulius Gripal had her sedation reduced into his
24:19
absolute amazement because Doctor Crockroft believed that
24:22
she had been exposed to a deadly nerve agent who'd been told that
24:25
by Porton down this stage. He believed that she would be
24:29
brain dead. And as he says in this clip,
24:31
he's absolutely gobsmacked. So let's have a look.
24:34
Let's have a look at this clip here.
24:38
To be honest with you, I was actually gobsmacked.
24:42
This was a girl I never thought I'd see move again.
24:45
I never thought she'd be capable having a conversation.
24:47
I was quite convinced she suffered catastrophic brain
24:50
damage and I I I couldn't believe that she could be as
24:54
neurologically attacked. As she obviously was, she was
24:57
looking at me, she was nodding, she was crying, she looked
25:00
absolutely terrified. Yeah, I mean, you could not be
25:05
anything but gobsmacked, Tim. Yes.
25:08
And there's serious implications.
25:09
There's all kinds of ramifications to that.
25:11
And one thing would be, of course, at this point, Yulia
25:13
should be put on a rehabilitation program.
25:15
They've just discovered that she's very neurologically
25:17
intact. She should be almost immediately
25:20
should be given a brain scan, and she should be rehabilitated
25:23
and moved towards coming off ventilation.
25:25
Instead of which, as far as we know, she simply spent the next
25:29
three weeks under sedation without any further sedation
25:32
halts, while the geopolitics of the scribble affairs were
25:36
unfolded outside the hospital. Yeah.
25:39
OK, we can't let real medical conditions get in the way of the
25:42
narrative, Mike. No, absolutely.
25:43
Not but D notices were a thing. Well, it just brings us to the
25:48
question of media management and narrative management.
25:50
I have to point to this excellent report here by The
25:52
Grey Zone. We'll bring this up on screen
25:54
right now. Files expose Britain's secret D
25:58
notice censorship program. And this is a pretty incredible
26:02
most in the most in depth analysis with testimonies,
26:06
whistleblower testimonies regarding the D notice program.
26:09
This is a complete full spectrum censorship program in Britain
26:14
with the military leaning on mainstream media organizations
26:18
telling them what not to say, what not to report, anything
26:21
that could quote affect national security.
26:24
And it's just another damning indictment.
26:26
We've talked about D notices over the years.
26:28
We we're well aware of the practice.
26:30
But the level of detail in this is shocking.
26:32
And that brings us to this story.
26:34
Mike and I always thought and it this is I'll show you where I
26:38
got my references on this, but this is one of the lead
26:42
narratives that came out of this.
26:44
Now the question is Mike, will this be viewed as a cock up or
26:48
cover up after the inquiry? And this is always the big thing
26:51
with regards to British inquiries of major high profile
26:54
events. And of course we get the the
26:56
cock up rather than the cover up here.
26:58
Novichok attack MI 5 left ex Russian spy Sergei Skripal
27:03
alarmingly accessible to Putin assassins.
27:07
They didn't do enough to protect Sergei script out.
27:11
We need more resources for MI 5. We need more funding for MI 5.
27:15
And so this was a cock up by the system.
27:17
And you know what there's form here and this is always the case
27:20
after every major scandal. And I'll point you to this
27:25
excellent book here, which is called Power beyond scrutiny,
27:28
Media Justice and accountability.
27:30
This is Justin Schlossberg. It's a great book.
27:33
I often quote it here just to show you.
27:36
I've got a copy of it which I keep by my desk all the time.
27:39
For journalism. This is a fantastic resource,
27:42
but this is one of the key quotes in this book of many, and
27:45
it really focuses on the David Kelly incident, Mike, and we'll
27:49
bring this up on screen again here.
27:53
And this is what it says regarding cock up versus cover
27:56
up here. And this is regarding the David
27:58
Kelly of the Hutton inquiry. Several respondents now the the
28:01
author here talked to many people involved in the process.
28:05
And this was the conclusion several, several respondents did
28:08
profess belief in some sort of cover up regarding David
28:11
Kelly's, you know, suicide, stroke, murder, whilst at the
28:15
same time subscribing to the suicide verdict.
28:19
The common thread was a tendency to couch the notion of cover up
28:24
in terms of quote cock up rather than a conspiracy.
28:28
And to round out that point, that is to say, if a cover up
28:31
had taken place, the likely intention was to conceal
28:35
professional failings rather than unethical or criminal
28:39
behavior. And this is the institutional
28:42
leaning that we see time and time again.
28:44
It's almost like a formula, Mike.
28:46
They never the establishment always ends up and they appoint
28:50
probably people who will end up with.
28:52
This was the final narrative of this.
28:54
By the way, here's this book, which is available a good
28:57
independent publisher. By the way, Pluto Press power
29:00
beyond scrutiny. I have always said this is
29:03
required reading for anybody that's interested in these types
29:06
of events or anybody in journalism.
29:08
It's a fantastic resource. But, and again, we see the same
29:11
thing repeated here with script out.
29:14
Are we surprised? I certainly am not, but I'm
29:16
still disappointed. Well, indeed.
29:18
Well, look, Tim, thank you very much for joining us today.
29:21
You'll be with us an extra as well.
29:23
We'll talk about this a little bit more there.
29:24
But this narrative is so full of holes and this inquiry actually
29:28
has done nothing to fill those holes in in any way, shape or
29:31
form. But undoubtedly we'll be accused
29:34
of conspiracy theory for this and we'll explain why.
29:37
I say that in a few minutes time when we look at the censorship
29:40
issue. But before we get there, let's
29:43
just say to everybody that if you like what we do and you'd
29:45
like to support us, please have a look at the UK column website.
29:49
There is a link there which takes you to a page which
29:52
explains how you can support us. We do need your financial
29:55
support. If you can't support us
29:57
financially, please do share our material because that absolutely
30:00
helps beat the algorithm. Now tonight at 7:00 PM, Charles
30:04
and I are speaking to Jeremy again for our usual weekly
30:07
intercession. And we're taking a look at
30:08
Africa and Britain, the West's influence in Africa alongside
30:13
Russia and China, of course. Then later on at 9:00 PM, life
30:17
in China versus Western myths. That's Carl speaking to Jason RB
30:21
Smith on the Silk and Steel podcast.
30:24
That's at 9:00 PM and we're very pleased to say that tickets are
30:29
now on sale for our event on the 11th of December in Salisbury
30:34
entitled Skripal and Novichok. What didn't happen?
30:36
You can find this on Eventbrite. The link to that will be in the
30:39
show notes that begins at 7:30 PM at the location in Salisbury.
30:45
Details on the Eventbrite Eventbrite site, please.
30:48
If you are coming as AUK column member, we would be very
30:51
enthusiastic if you could find somebody from the local
30:54
community to bring along with that with you because we want to
30:58
to present this mainly to people in the local area.
31:01
I think they deserve to hear some of what's being said.
31:04
Craig Murray speaking, Patrick Hennigson speaking, and Tim
31:07
Norman that you just heard is going to be speaking at that as
31:10
well. And then finally, I just want to
31:14
mention that on Sunday the 14th, then we are hosting the third
31:18
annual David Ray Griffin Lecture and that is entitled 9/11 Truth
31:24
Today, A Social Movement at the Precipice.
31:27
It's got to be given by Professor Richard G Alfreds and
31:31
well, you can see on screen there who else is going to be
31:34
taking part Jason Burmas, James Corbett, Sandra Lara, Lara Toda
31:39
and Madava Get the SETI is going to be chairing the event.
31:44
So that's going to be live streamed on the UK column and on
31:47
ic911.org. Join us for that if you possibly
31:50
can. Looking forward to it, to both
31:54
those events, in fact. So now, Patrick, let's come then
31:59
on to the issue of Ukraine and what's been going on there.
32:03
It's important that people understand the update on this
32:06
because all these countries are involved in it.
32:08
Britain, of course, is also very much involved in it.
32:10
So where are we on the negotiations on this?
32:14
And very entertaining image. We'll just remind you of
32:17
Instinct, the Russian dolls. Zelensky has been added to the
32:20
street side. Russian dolls collections in
32:23
Moscow. If you travel to Russia, you
32:25
have seen this. It's very interesting indeed.
32:28
Now, how's the media reacting, Mike, to some of the recent
32:32
statements regarding what Russia is saying, what the US is
32:36
saying. Here's the Guardian straight up.
32:38
And you can see that this is the level of propaganda.
32:41
You see the headline, Russia is ready for war with Europe.
32:44
Of course, when you read the text, Mike, in the context of
32:47
this is a much broader conversation.
32:49
But it's interesting how the war mongering Guardian has chosen to
32:52
use that as their headline. Here is the actual statement in
32:56
context from President Putin. And it, it this should be a real
33:01
wake up call, I think for all of the war mongers in NATO land, at
33:07
least the European branch of NATO.
33:08
Listen to this. Europeans are not silent.
33:12
They are upset about being sidelined from the talks on a
33:15
Ukraine peace deal. But I want to note that nobody
33:19
sidelined them. They sidelined themselves.
33:23
For a time we had close contacts with them.
33:25
Then they abruptly cut ties with Russia.
33:28
That was their own initiative because they adopted the idea of
33:32
inflicting A strategic defeat on Russia.
33:34
And judging by everything, they still live in that illusion.
33:44
Seeing that they don't like today's results, they have
33:47
started obstructing the current US administration and President
33:50
Trump from achieving peace through negotiations.
33:54
They themselves refused peace talks and now they are hindering
33:59
President Trump. Thirdly, they have no peace
34:03
agenda. They are on the side of war.
34:08
Even when they claim to introduce changes to Trump's
34:11
proposal, we can clearly see all these changes are aimed at one
34:15
thing, to block the entire peace process.
34:18
They put forward demands that are absolutely unacceptable for
34:21
Russia and they know it. The goal is to later blame
34:25
Russia for the end of the peace process.
34:28
Therefore, if they want to return to reality based on the
34:31
situation on the ground, as they say, then by all means, we are
34:35
open to that. We are not planning to fight
34:38
Europe. I have said this 100 times.
34:40
But if Europe suddenly decides to wage war against us and
34:43
starts it, we are ready right now.
34:46
There can be no doubt about that.
34:48
The question is if Europe starts a war with us.
34:54
I believe that very quickly. This is not Ukraine.
34:58
With Ukraine, we act in a surgical, careful way.
35:01
You understand right? It is not war in the full modern
35:05
sense of the word. If Europe chooses to start a
35:08
war, the situation can very quickly reach a point where
35:11
there will be no one left for us to negotiate with.
35:17
Well, I mean, that's that's pretty clear.
35:19
And it's also pretty clear he's not threatening anybody there.
35:21
Quite the opposite. I think it's pretty clear the
35:23
the the US does not want a confrontation with Russia.
35:26
Russia does not want to have a war with Europe.
35:29
But the rhetoric coming from the European leaders, Mike says
35:32
something else. It's like they do want a war
35:34
with Russia. So what's interesting here is
35:36
what Putin is. Pay attention.
35:38
Putin has identified A fissure between Europe and Trump and
35:42
Washington. And he is absolutely using it.
35:45
He is really hammering the wedge in there.
35:47
And and by doing this, there's going to be a lot of back and
35:50
forth dilly dallying between Washington and and Europe and
35:54
Zelensky. And Russia knows this.
35:57
I believe they priced this all into the equation and but it's a
36:01
very, very good strategy, I think.
36:03
So where did this fissure come from between Europe and
36:06
Washington? Is this a genuine no?
36:08
But is it, was this something the Trump administration wanted
36:10
to distance himself like JD Vance at the Munich Security
36:13
Conferences from Europe? Whatever the case is, wherever
36:16
this originated from, Mike, or whether it's coming from
36:19
animosity with with the UK, between Washington, who knows?
36:22
But wherever it came. But this has changed the whole
36:25
calculus of this because under Biden you had total solidarity
36:28
between transatlantic solidarity on this.
36:31
They could run Lend Lease deals for the next 10 years, who
36:34
knows, and keep this thing grinding away.
36:36
So that's an interesting point of view.
36:38
Well, and here's the reaction from Trump's reprochement, if
36:42
you will, with Moscow. This is the Der Spiegel here
36:46
will bring this up on screen. We must not leave Ukraine and
36:49
Zelensky alone with these guys. And there's another reservoir
36:53
dogs style picture from the European meter to to make all
36:56
these European leaders look like they're really sort of with it
36:59
and tough. I mean it's just kind of a joke
37:02
at this point. So that's interesting.
37:04
You know the irony, Mike, this is AUS LED destabilization
37:07
project right from my from before the Maidan.
37:10
But now the US wants to exit the situation.
37:13
Europe is stuck with it and they're now running point on it.
37:16
They're going to have to wear the failure of this.
37:19
And I think that's inevitable based on what we're going to
37:21
show you in a moment here, because now you've got another
37:25
problem to contend with. We'll bring this up on screen, a
37:28
corruption scandal in Brussels. And this is the only the
37:31
beginning here. That is the former high
37:33
representative to the European Union on foreign policy.
37:37
That's Frederica Margherini. She is basically detained by the
37:42
police under questioning for a corruption regarding tenders,
37:46
contracts, all sorts of graft and things like this.
37:49
So officers have been raided, right?
37:52
All of this has happened. So this is just, I think, a
37:55
warning shot because there are other bigger scandals, Qatar
37:59
gate, von der Leyen's own vaccine graft as well that
38:04
hasn't been fully. This could be something to
38:07
placate the press, who knows? But this brings us back to the
38:10
original question, who is going to pay for Europe's war with
38:14
Russia? And this was Vanderline's recent
38:17
pronouncements here, She's saying all over their new plans
38:20
and schemes to finance Ukraine's needs for the next, like, three
38:23
years or something like that. But there's a problem.
38:27
And the problem has come in the form of guess who, Christina
38:30
Lagarde. This is a battle of the alpha
38:32
females here at the highest level.
38:34
Mike Lagarde says the ECB, the European Central Bank, will not
38:38
violate the EU treaty, the Treaty of Europe, and allow
38:42
Brussels to steal Russian assets to pay for the Ukraine war.
38:46
She has given it the thumbs down.
38:48
Here she is explaining why she's made her decision.
38:53
What I have said very clearly and what the team around me has
38:56
said is we will do everything we can, but we will not violate the
39:02
Treaty. It's not that we are refusing,
39:04
it's just that we are saying we have to respect the Treaty of
39:08
Europe in relation to the functioning of the European
39:12
Central Bank. So when the fiscal space is not
39:15
there, we have to find a way and there are ways that have been
39:19
identified and in particular. Option 2 is one of the ways that
39:23
has been identified the issuance of.
39:27
Bonds that would be specifically intended to finance Ukraine.
39:33
More debts. Perfect.
39:35
Answer, the bonds she's talking about are underwritten by Russia
39:38
losing the war and paying reparations.
39:41
Is that going to happen? I don't know.
39:43
So it looks like no way out really for Vander Leyen and
39:46
company on this. So just a summary on where we're
39:49
at. These are the key data points to
39:51
pay attention to. We'll bring this up on screen
39:53
here. Ukraine negotiations, key data
39:55
points, number one. EU corruption and scandals
39:58
abound. Bad news for Brussels makes them
40:01
weak right here. Rubio's absent from the NATO
40:04
meeting this week. First time ever the US Secretary
40:07
of State has not shown up. You can read that two different
40:10
ways. Could be Trump keeping Rubio
40:11
away, or could be Rubio basically blowing off NATO.
40:15
Either way, it's a bad look for NATO and for their prospects of
40:19
getting full solidarity on this issue.
40:22
Witkoff snubs Zelensky in Dublin Zelensky went to to the Irish
40:26
parliament did his. Normal grandstanding and was
40:29
posed to meet Witkoff while Witkoff was on the way home from
40:32
Moscow. Guess what?
40:33
Witkoff snubbed the little Green Man.
40:36
So this was a huge insult. And here is the big one in terms
40:40
of data points, that one Russian momentum on the battlefield,
40:45
this is an inescapable reality here.
40:47
So you combine all of these data points together, Mike, and the
40:50
conclusion is that while this US Moscow ripprochement
40:56
negotiations might stretch on into 2026, at least now there's
41:01
an acknowledgement by the US of the facts on the ground.
41:04
They're recognizing Russias winning and that they cannot,
41:08
Ukraine cannot turn the tide or NATO of this conflict.
41:11
That is a reality. They've US has acknowledged that
41:14
there's no NATO membership for Ukraine and Zelensky has been
41:18
effectively sidelined with corruption scandals in Ukraine.
41:23
Your mock his chief aide is out. That is Zelensky's brain.
41:26
He's gone. So all of these things together,
41:29
Mike, it, it looks like we're seeing a shift.
41:31
However, when is this going to be formalized into some kind of
41:35
a formal agreement or treaty? That is the big question.
41:40
It is, but the Europeans will kick and scream as long as they
41:43
possibly can. Or the the UK, who arguably
41:47
helped the Ukrainians to hit oil tankers in the Black Sea,
41:51
causing a huge environmental catastrophe in order to
41:54
basically sabotage these negotiations.
41:58
So that's continuing. And what's Russia's reaction?
42:00
They're ramping up their timetable on Odessa.
42:03
So well done NATO. Brilliant.
42:07
OK well let's let's move on then because trouble at Eurovision.
42:11
So let's bring your vision on and well for those non Europeans
42:15
who don't know what your vision is, it's a so-called Song
42:17
Contest where European countries compete to win with cheesy tunes
42:21
and cheesier performers. It's always been highly
42:24
politicized, and up until recent years the winner was chosen by a
42:28
selected panel of national representatives who would always
42:30
vote for their geopolitical buddies.
42:33
But in more recent years, an effort to lose this
42:35
politicization has been brought in with possibly also the skim
42:40
cash from the general public, of course, because they introduced
42:43
a popular vote via a phone in Now they claim to be united by
42:48
music. But in fact, not this year
42:52
because when Israel came second in the 2025 Song Contest, the
42:56
accusations flew that Israel had rigged the telephone vote,
43:00
causing the director of Eurovision to issue an open
43:03
letter denying the allegations. At the core was the unlikelihood
43:07
that Israel would receive such a popular vote in light of the
43:10
ongoing genocide in Gaza. And Martin Green there claimed
43:14
that there are all kinds of checks and balances in place to
43:18
prevent flooding fraud. But this is Israel we're talking
43:21
about and they've got their unit 8200, which we've got to
43:24
remember is an offensive cyber operation.
43:26
So anything's possible here, but the news today then is that
43:29
Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands and Slovenia are going to
43:32
boycott the 2026 Eurovision Song Contest after it was decided
43:36
that Israel could compete. And everyone paying attention
43:41
may be asking why Israel was ever involved in the 1st place.
43:43
Well, Eurovision is organised by the European Broadcasting Union,
43:47
and any country with a national broadcaster that is an active
43:50
member of the EBU is allowed to participate, even if the
43:54
country's not in Europe geographically.
43:57
So the Israel Broadcasting Authority became a member in
44:00
1957, and Israel first took part in 1973.
44:05
But a number of countries decided they should not be
44:08
taking part in 2026, bearing in mind what's going on, and Spain
44:11
led the charge for a secret ballot to be held on Israel's
44:14
participation. That idea was rejected and the
44:17
participation was pushed through.
44:19
And so these four countries so far have decided to abandon.
44:24
The chief executive of Israel's broadcaster said the attempt to
44:27
disqualify its entry can only be understood as a cultural
44:31
boycott. A boycott may begin today with
44:33
Israel, but no one knows where it will end or who else may
44:37
harm, he said. And is this what we truly want
44:40
the contest to be remembered for, for his 70th anniversary?
44:44
The BBC for its part, of course, broadcasts your vision in the
44:48
UK, said in a statement. We support the collective
44:51
decision made by members of the European Broadcasting Union.
44:54
This is about enforcing the rules of the EBU and about being
44:57
inclusive, and we don't worry too much about who's being
45:01
killed in the meantime, apparently.
45:03
I think it's great. It's now relevant again,
45:05
Eurovision, politically anyway, so I think this is great news.
45:09
Yes, indeed. But sticking with international
45:12
stuff, then Venezuela, Patrick. Hugely, hugely complicated
45:19
story. Obviously the the ramifications
45:21
of this are unbelievable here. Trump's new war on Venezuela,
45:25
this is exactly what it is. And this has taken some
45:28
interesting turns this week. And we'll look we'll look at
45:31
that, especially regarding the self declared secretary of war.
45:35
His name is Pete Hegseth here. And the controversy is over
45:39
this. It's the Venezuelan boat strike
45:42
fallout here. They're calling it the double
45:44
tap. This is being regarded as a war
45:46
crime. The press are now circling like
45:48
vultures, as well as the opposition, including Rand Paul
45:52
and the Republican side, putting a lot of pressure on the
45:55
government to have an inquiry regarding this incident.
45:58
Now, is this a war crime? Is it not a war crime?
46:01
This is obviously part of the national debate right now.
46:04
But you can see clearly that this is damaged the Trump
46:07
administration here. We'll bring this up on screen.
46:10
Trump's Venezuelan boat strikes fuel war crime allegations.
46:14
Are they legal? This is CBS News.
46:15
So this is dominating the political conversation here.
46:19
Certainly there's grounds for impeachment for Heg Seth.
46:23
But more than that, he would basically go under trial first
46:27
in front of Congress and then if if it goes any further for war
46:30
crimes, probably would get pardoned by Trump because Trump
46:33
has his habit of pardon, pardoning anybody who's a
46:36
criminal, basically. I'll show you one in a minute.
46:39
But this is what a defiant Heg Seth tweeted.
46:42
We'll bring this up on screen right now on his this ex
46:45
account. This is a children's book called
46:47
Franklin and he's made his own cover.
46:49
Franklin targets narco terrorists.
46:52
So I mean this this is the the maturity of the current Defense
46:56
Secretary calls himself the war secretary.
46:59
This is the sort of stuff he's putting out.
47:01
And if you think this is bad, he had to double down on this
47:04
because he got a lot of stick for this.
47:06
So what does he do? He goes and sticks this silly
47:09
mem outside of the Department of Defense there, and that's
47:13
Hegseth. You can see the tattoos on his
47:15
forearm. His body is completely covered
47:18
with tattoos. He's very proud of the fact that
47:20
he's done this year. So the the people who are
47:24
circling the wagons on this mic have pointed out that Hegseth
47:28
has incriminated himself by basically previously last month
47:33
calling for a change in the rules of engagement.
47:36
So if there is a trial, what I'm going to show you is going to be
47:39
evidence exhibit #1 watch this. We are preparing every day.
47:48
We have to be prepared for war, not for defence.
47:50
We're training warriors, not defenders.
47:53
We fight wars to win, not to defend.
47:55
Defence is something you do all the time.
47:57
It's inherently reactionary and can lead to overuse, overreach
48:01
and mission creep. War is something you do
48:04
sparingly, on our own terms and with clear aims.
48:09
We fight to win. We unleash overwhelming and
48:13
punishing violence on the enemy. We also don't fight with stupid
48:18
rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our war
48:22
fighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the
48:26
enemies of our country. No more politically correct and
48:29
overbearing rules of engagement. Just common sense, maximum
48:34
lethality and authority for war fighters.
48:37
That's all I ever wanted as a platoon leader.
48:41
A. Platoon leader.
48:44
I got a platoon leader as the head of the Pentagon.
48:46
Great. So who are the enemies of the
48:48
United States? Well, with this new rule book
48:51
that heck, Seth and Trump are trying to foist on the United
48:54
States and the world, if you can call someone a quote, narco
48:57
terrorist, this is a new term, Narco terrorist, then basically
49:01
it's carte blanche. You don't need any due process.
49:03
You can just kill whoever and do it extrajudiciously and so forth
49:07
with extreme prejudice. And so, and this is something
49:11
that's also happened here. And if you pay attention to this
49:14
story, this is from the Wall Street Journal here.
49:16
Hexet asked top Admiral to resign after months of
49:19
discourse. So basically pushing out anybody
49:22
who wants to follow the law or comply with the law.
49:27
We're talking about the US military code, the laws of war
49:30
and the Geneva Conventions. OK, Hexat's pushing out people
49:34
who are doing that now. Do you remember a couple months
49:36
ago when they hit a Colombian narco sub after this boat
49:39
incident? This boat incident took place,
49:41
this double tap in end of September.
49:43
After that, they had a narco submarine in the Pacific.
49:47
OK, What happened? They went and rescued the people
49:50
who were survived from that. There was a change in policy.
49:53
Why? Because there was a change of
49:55
command at JSOC or at this level of this operation whereby they
49:59
had already internally recognized what that this was a
50:03
war crime, you see. So this has been stewing under
50:06
the surface. This is why The Washington Post
50:08
had seven sources confirmed the story last week and then Hegseth
50:13
and Trump both lied to the public.
50:15
They denied it happened, then they changed the story, then
50:17
they changed the story again. So they've lied and you've got
50:20
war crime, evidence of a war crime here.
50:23
I mean, this is not good for the United States.
50:26
Now, the British reaction, Mike, was quite quick or early on.
50:30
This was from last week here. We'll bring this up on screen.
50:33
The UK paused intelligence sharing with the US on
50:36
suspected, quote, drug vessels in the Caribbean because Britain
50:40
didn't want to be implicated any potential war crimes.
50:43
So hats off to the British for recognizing the precariousness
50:48
of this. But again, the wagons are
50:49
circling again. Watchdog finds Hegseth violated
50:53
Pentagon protocol in the signal gate affair.
50:55
You remember that? Yes, that was months ago.
50:58
So they're they're lopping one after the other.
51:00
And here is the ultimate conclusion, Mike, is that this
51:05
relatively small event, this boat carrying allegedly narco
51:10
terrorists carrying drugs to America, a boat with a range of
51:12
60 miles or 990 miles. I mean, how could how could that
51:17
get to the US territorial waters?
51:19
But that could have thrown a wrench into Trump's war plans
51:24
politically. And we'll bring this up again,
51:26
this is mainstream here, this is CNN.
51:28
Trump struggles with Venezuelan dilemma as Maduro digs in and
51:33
storm builds at home over potential war crime.
51:36
Again, with Pete Hagseth, Trump is also implicated in this war
51:40
crime because he would executive wise, he would have given the OK
51:43
to Hagseth, who would have then told his Admiral, who they're
51:46
currently leaving out to dry on this, who would also get
51:49
pardoned by Trump. But you can see, Mike, how this
51:53
has created a delay. I think this is kind of, you
51:56
know, gummed up the effort by Trump to hit Venezuela.
52:00
Now, if Trump is seen to be bluffing on Venezuela, that's
52:04
it. I don't think you can pull this
52:06
one again. You can't do it twice because
52:09
the opposition and those enemies of Trump are going to see this
52:12
and they'll seize upon it if he tries this one again.
52:15
So again, there's so many different aspects.
52:18
By the way, Trump is claiming there's a major war on drugs.
52:22
This is all about stopping Maduro in Venezuela.
52:24
Trump just pardoned one of the biggest drug traffickers this
52:27
week, a former Honduran president, Juan Orlando
52:32
Hernandez, who did a 45 year sentence in AUS federal prison.
52:36
He's in AUS clink for 40 tons of cocaine trafficking it into the
52:41
United States and this Trump just pardoned him because he
52:45
said well, friends of mine said he was treated very badly.
52:48
And so apparently this is coming from Marco Rubio, who is Marco
52:53
Rubio friends with current president of Ecuador Naboa
52:57
massive connections implicated in huge drug trafficking
53:01
scandals. Are the cartels giving an order
53:04
to Trump to spring one of their own?
53:07
Is that what happened? It's nobody calling about for
53:10
this because he's running this anti narco state operation and
53:13
then he's releasing former heads of narco states.
53:16
How does that work? And he's justifying it on, well,
53:19
guys, I play golf with that. He was treated very badly.
53:22
So we're going to release him. No, it's Rubio and it's the
53:25
people behind Rubio. We have the level of criminal
53:28
corruption. Corruption in the US government
53:30
in this Trump administration is one of the most criminally
53:33
corrupt governments. It may end up being in history.
53:37
And this is only 10 months into his first second term, Mike.
53:41
I mean, what do the next three years have in store?
53:44
That's the question. So there's more to report on
53:46
this. We'll we'll be watching this
53:48
closely. Yes indeed.
53:49
OK, well let's come back to the UUK then and and censorship
53:53
agenda. So yesterday Ofcom find AVS
53:57
Group Limited which runs 18 adult websites.
54:00
They find the £1,000,000 for not having robust age checks in
54:04
place, plus 50,000 lbs for failing to respond to
54:07
information requests. And they say Ofcom says the
54:10
fines come as the regulator reports on how the online safety
54:14
landscape is changing following the new laws coming into effect
54:17
this year. Well, we'll talk about that a
54:18
little bit more in a second. But they said that for more than
54:23
two decades online platforms have been unregulated,
54:28
unaccountable and often unwilling to prioritise people's
54:32
safety over profits. And they said that illegal
54:35
content duties under the ACT came into force in March.
54:41
And then it goes on to say that new Ofcom research shows that
54:44
58% of parents believe the measures in Ofcom's codes of
54:49
practice are already improving the safety of UK children
54:51
online, and that 67% feel the measures will make a difference
54:56
in the future. And the 36% have noticed the
54:58
potential impact on their child's online safety.
55:01
So this is quite an incredible claim that they're making.
55:05
And they're saying that they're making sure that tech firms
55:07
assess the risk their platforms host the UK users and take
55:10
appropriate steps to address those risks.
55:13
And they're particularly claiming that these platforms
55:17
are having to deal with age checks and other child
55:21
protections. And they're also saying that
55:24
that the platforms most used by kids, including Facebook,
55:27
Instagram, Pinterest, TikTok, YouTube, Roblox and Snap must
55:33
tell Ofcom what they're doing to keep children safe.
55:35
And I'm just going to ask, how's that going, Ofcom?
55:39
Because the YouTube schlep built a huge following on YouTube,
55:45
tracking down alleged child protectors, child predators on
55:49
Roblox before he was kicked off until the platform is facing
55:56
multiple losses. Roblox, we're talking about over
55:59
child safety and the truth is, as we've mentioned many times
56:03
that Ofcom is doing nothing to protect children from grooming
56:06
and it's merely using child protection as a front for the
56:10
digital ID roll out, which is what this age verification thing
56:13
is all about. So, so that's that's where they
56:17
are with that. Now moving on then, I just want
56:21
to mention the fact that the wonderful people at News Guard,
56:26
this organization that is there to protect us all and make sure
56:30
that only trustworthy news sources are seen by everybody,
56:34
has sent us their annual e-mail. So let's bring it up on screen
56:38
here. So there it is.
56:41
I'm right. Good afternoon.
56:42
I'm writing from News Guard, a company that reads news and
56:44
information websites. For reliability, we assess each
56:47
site based on 9A political journalistic criteria and assign
56:51
a zero to 100 trust score based on those criteria.
56:55
Our rating processing criteria can be found in the links on
56:58
screen at the moment. So anyway they they have asked
57:00
us for comment because because they find some of our content
57:05
inappropriate. So I just wanted to highlight
57:07
the particular articles that they do find inappropriate with
57:10
a view to suggesting the people that you might want to pay
57:12
particular attention to them. So the first thing that they
57:15
were criticizing was this Patrick, your news programme
57:19
with Brian from from the 20th of November.
57:22
And they were very upset about Brian's statistics on on
57:26
Ukrainian deaths and because apparently the economist said
57:31
something different. So that that was the basis of
57:34
their complaints. So the CIA was upset about?
57:36
Hold on, we'll come on to that in a second.
57:38
Upset about the casualty numbers Brian was presenting, I got it.
57:41
Absolutely. And discussing An Inconvenient
57:44
Truth with Del Victory that was that was my interview with Del
57:47
Victory that was also deeply upsetting to them.
57:51
And then of course green bottles, yellow cylinders and
57:54
the increasingly fantastical claims made in support of Syria
57:57
Chemical weapons narrative part 4 by Doctor Pierce Robinson.
58:01
That is absolutely problematic to them.
58:04
And the final example that they had was the question of whether
58:08
vaccines have ever worked. 1 of germ warfare's.
58:12
Roman Bistrionic, co-author of Dissolving Illusions, one of the
58:16
The history of vaccines. Great book by the way.
58:18
Joe Rogan was promoting that book, so it made me news.
58:21
Guard need to get in touch with Joe Rogan.
58:24
Anyway, yes, so, so the question, the question then is,
58:29
you know, what is News Guard and what are they all about?
58:32
Patrick, good question. Well, according to a 2023
58:37
question in the European Parliament News Guards advisory
58:40
boards, as you pointed out to be earlier before the program,
58:42
Patrick includes Michael Hayden, former head of the CIA and NSA,
58:46
and also Tom Bridge, the former US Secretary of Homeland
58:49
Security. Wait, hold on.
58:50
So it's this is headed by a former CIA guy.
58:52
He's on the he's on the Advisory Board.
58:54
Oh, he's, he's chairman of the board or he's, I think he's
58:57
chairman, isn't he? Michael Hayden.
59:00
Anyway, the Advisory Board, Yeah, Wow.
59:02
So it's full of Spooks, including the head of the CIA.
59:04
That's great, very reassuring. Absolutely.
59:07
And then we've got other former senior, formerly senior U.S.
59:10
government officials, including ex heads of the security
59:13
defense, intelligence institutions.
59:15
They're listed amongst news guards advisors, according to
59:18
this this congressional report here.
59:21
So we could, could we call this a cut out?
59:23
Is this an intelligence government cut out?
59:26
It kind of falls under that definition, doesn't it?
59:28
Well, quite obviously that's what it is.
59:31
But they, they probably have people, they, they hire people
59:33
coming out of university who are, want a job and who are well
59:37
meaning and want to get their foot on the ladder of the, the
59:40
system. So they're probably doing their
59:42
the worker bees are doing their job, reaching out to nefarious
59:46
websites like the UK Column and 21st Century Wire and Consortium
59:51
News and others. And meanwhile this is all being
59:54
directed from the top. Right, absolutely.
59:57
We'll also just mention that they have previously boasted of
1:00:00
government ties and Breitbart was was hissing hinting at this
1:00:04
with their headline here. News Guard boasts of government
1:00:06
ties and censorship pitched to Twitter.
1:00:08
And well, then we have also this.
1:00:11
The fact that Consortium News is suing News Guard at the moment
1:00:15
for defamation. Oh, wow.
1:00:17
OK. But as part of this, they're
1:00:19
pointing out the government contracts between news Guards
1:00:22
and government agencies, including the Department of
1:00:25
Defence. So, you know, I think, I think
1:00:27
we don't see need to say any more about that.
1:00:29
We understand what News Guard is, what it represents.
1:00:32
And so if they're criticising our news coverage, I'm deeply
1:00:36
proud of that fact. Why don't they just why doesn't
1:00:39
the CIA just come out and just give a quote to the New York
1:00:41
Times or, you know, a mainstream media outlets just just change
1:00:45
the, the heading on the on, on the organization.
1:00:47
Just put it back under the CIA, let them publicly come out
1:00:51
criticizing websites because isn't that what this is anyway?
1:00:54
Absolutely. Narrative control, narrative
1:00:57
management. So Speaking of narratives and
1:00:59
and politics in Britain, Mike, we have to show this story,
1:01:03
which made the headlines, the front page.
1:01:05
This was the lead story in the Huffington Post today.
1:01:09
The Reform Party sparks outrage after receiving historic £9
1:01:13
million donation. Democracy should never be for
1:01:17
sale. Who made the donation?
1:01:19
Let's take a look at that for a moment here.
1:01:21
This came from according to Electoral Commission Mike
1:01:24
revealed that Christopher Harborne, A Boris Johnson
1:01:27
supporter and crypto investor based in Thailand, gave the
1:01:30
party millions of pounds in just one payment on August 1st, And
1:01:35
this is coming on the heels of the previous donations,
1:01:39
including, well 50,000 from Lady Rothermere.
1:01:43
This is of daily Rothermere's Daily Mail fame and this means a
1:01:46
reform received 10.5 million overall in the third quarter
1:01:49
2025 S. The Conservatives, in
1:01:52
comparison, received almost 7 million Labor 2.5 million Lib
1:01:56
Dems 2.1 million. So that's what they're saying
1:02:01
there, Mike, on the money side. So the question is, first of
1:02:04
all, is the crypto Bros overseas coming in backing reform, Do
1:02:09
reform have grassroots? Do they have a ground game,
1:02:12
first of all, for local elections to to be able to have
1:02:16
the kind of gains that that have been attributed to the hype
1:02:19
surrounding reform? And can you actually buy your
1:02:23
way into power in this fashion in Britain?
1:02:26
What do you think? We can talk about that an extra
1:02:29
because we're absolutely out of time for now.
1:02:31
I think we they probably can, but we'll we'll, we'll discuss
1:02:34
that more. An extra.
1:02:35
Yeah, yeah, brilliant. So, yeah, we'll have more
1:02:39
analysis on this an extra. And we'll also be talking about
1:02:43
Nigel Farage as will he or will he not be head of the party by
1:02:48
the time the next general election rolls around?
1:02:51
So all of that and more. Good question.
1:02:52
And Tim Norman is going to be joining us for more on the
1:02:55
Skripal affair, so stay with us. We'll see you in a few minutes.
1:03:00
Thanks.