Latest / UK Column Radio / UK Column News Podcast 20th November 2024

Transcript

UK Column News Podcast 20th November 2024 · UK Column Radio

0:08
Speaker 1: Good afternoon. It's Wednesday, the twentieth November twenty twenty four,
0:12
Speaker 1: just after one o'clock. Welcome to the UK Column News.
0:14
Speaker 1: I'm your host, Mike Robinson joining me today. We've got
0:16
Speaker 1: Vanessa Billy from Damascus as usual, and Charles Mallett for
0:20
Speaker 1: the final time for New York at least for this sorry,
0:23
Speaker 1: from Hong Kong, at least for this year. I don't
0:25
Speaker 1: know quite high I managed that particular slip, but anyway,
0:29
Speaker 1: yesterday was the Farmer's demonstration in London and Brian and
0:35
Speaker 1: I attended. Richard Matthews was there, one of the speakers
0:38
Speaker 1: at the UK Calme event in Bristol last month and
0:42
Speaker 1: took this picture. Probably between ten and twenty thousand people attended.
0:46
Speaker 1: That was sort of the figures that we heard on
0:49
Speaker 1: the day. Not enough, I think of the general public
0:52
Speaker 1: there in support, most vast majority of people from the
0:56
Speaker 1: farming community itself, no question, a great fantastic group of
1:03
Speaker 1: people that were there with the right intentions. They're really
1:07
Speaker 1: at Their only interest is in continuing their passion, which
1:10
Speaker 1: is growing food for us all. Neither was supposed to
1:13
Speaker 1: be a procession or a march to Parliament Square, in
1:17
Speaker 1: back that and the event was canceled, but there was
1:21
Speaker 1: a march of a type which I guess is the
1:24
Speaker 1: eighteen hundred people that from the National Farmers Union that
1:27
Speaker 1: were going to speak to MPs in Parliament. So they
1:31
Speaker 1: left before the speakers spoke on the podium just a
1:36
Speaker 1: few minutes after this. Now, the location itself was kind
1:43
Speaker 1: of problematic because it was quite constrained, so ten or
1:47
Speaker 1: twenty thousand people in that space was extremely tricky. People
1:51
Speaker 1: couldn't move, there was no way to get through or
1:54
Speaker 1: around to other areas and so on. So and also
1:58
Speaker 1: half the crowd could not actually see the speakers. But
2:02
Speaker 1: nonetheless it was a good turnout as far as it went. Now,
2:07
Speaker 1: having said all that, you know, the sort of negatives
2:10
Speaker 1: around it, it was generally a very positive day. I've
2:13
Speaker 1: got to say well done to the organizers for this
2:15
Speaker 1: first event. I hope to see much more. Hopefully this
2:18
Speaker 1: is just the beginning of a journey. We'll talk about
2:21
Speaker 1: the actual presentations in a minute. Many of the farmers, well,
2:27
Speaker 1: let's have looked the tractors. First of all, there were a
2:28
Speaker 1: couple of tractors brought into the center of London, but
2:32
Speaker 1: many of the farmers brought in food and that food
2:35
Speaker 1: was all going to food banks, which I thought was
2:38
Speaker 1: a fantastic gesture. It also makes the point, of course,
2:41
Speaker 1: about what this was all about, which is food production,
2:44
Speaker 1: and that is something that in general people seem to
2:47
Speaker 1: have forgotten. Now the people speaking on the podium itself,
2:54
Speaker 1: that was slightly another matter. So let's start off here
2:58
Speaker 1: with a couple of comments from David Curtin, because David
3:02
Speaker 1: Curtin from the Heritage Party was there as well. Let's
3:05
Speaker 1: just listen to him for a second, and then I'll
3:08
Speaker 1: add some comments after this.
3:11
Speaker 2: But reflecting on this, I'm a little bit in two
3:16
Speaker 2: minds about the protests, not the people protesting, but the
3:22
Speaker 2: organization and what was presented to people on the stage.
3:26
Speaker 2: And yet there were a lot of there was a
3:28
Speaker 2: lot of talk about the issues and so on, the
3:30
Speaker 2: big one being the inheritance tax grab. But the people
3:35
Speaker 2: on the stage were all part of the uniparty, who
3:39
Speaker 2: are just as much of a problem in many ways
3:44
Speaker 2: as the Starmer regime. So of course the headliner they
3:47
Speaker 2: had was Camie Bardinoch, the head of the fake Conservative Party,
3:56
Speaker 2: And as well as that.
3:57
Speaker 1: There were people like Nagel Faras there, Jack Jacob rist
4:01
Speaker 1: maug was the I mean, they weren't speaking on the stage,
4:03
Speaker 1: but they were there making sure that people saw that
4:06
Speaker 1: they were there being interviewed by the media and so on,
4:10
Speaker 1: and so I mean, I think the point that David
4:12
Speaker 1: Curtin is making is a valid one, and certainly this
4:15
Speaker 1: was quite a bit of the feedback that we got
4:17
Speaker 1: from people that were not part of the farming community
4:21
Speaker 1: there that really they need to consider, they need to
4:25
Speaker 1: really perhaps the message that they were giving was a
4:30
Speaker 1: little bit naive. I mean, for example, everybody was holding
4:33
Speaker 1: up a placard with Starmer's name on it. And so
4:37
Speaker 1: one of the things that we would absolutely argue here
4:39
Speaker 1: is that the organizers and the people attending need to
4:43
Speaker 1: begin to understand that this is not about local domestic policy.
4:47
Speaker 1: This wasn't a Starmer decision. We've got to remember Starmer's
4:51
Speaker 1: comment from several months ago where he was asked, you know,
4:56
Speaker 1: are you for Parliament or you for the World Economic
4:59
Speaker 1: Forum in Davos, and he said Davos every time. So
5:02
Speaker 1: we've got to remember this policy isn't coming out of
5:05
Speaker 1: Starmer's head, It's coming out of international net zero redeploying
5:11
Speaker 1: farmland from food production into other things and mainly you know,
5:17
Speaker 1: landscape management and so on. And of course the farming
5:20
Speaker 1: community are kind of stuck here in the sense that
5:24
Speaker 1: they're reliant on many of the subsidies because their business
5:27
Speaker 1: model is based unfortunately based on supermarkets to such a
5:31
Speaker 1: degree in the supermarkets have undercut them to such a
5:34
Speaker 1: degree that they're reliant on subsidy from government, And subsidy
5:39
Speaker 1: from government is there at this point in time to
5:42
Speaker 1: reward them for landscape management and rewilding and these kinds
5:45
Speaker 1: of projects taking them away from food production and their
5:49
Speaker 1: core value. So I think the key thing that the community,
5:54
Speaker 1: the farming community has to recognize is it is not
5:56
Speaker 1: domestic policy. This is international policy. For while it's always
6:01
Speaker 1: good to personalize things in Starmer's name being on the placards, fine,
6:06
Speaker 1: but we've got to recommend that they need to recognize
6:08
Speaker 1: nice I would argue who Starmer is and what he represents.
6:12
Speaker 1: And then one of the speakers, for example, was mentioning
6:17
Speaker 1: direct action. And the question then is what kind of
6:21
Speaker 1: direct action are they going to carry out? Are they
6:23
Speaker 1: going to carry out this kind of direct action, the
6:25
Speaker 1: kind of thing that we've seen from France or are
6:28
Speaker 1: they going to carry out this kind of direct action
6:30
Speaker 1: also from France, And so you know, this question has
6:37
Speaker 1: to be asked, what kind of direct action are they
6:39
Speaker 1: willing to take and what kind of direct action are
6:42
Speaker 1: they going to get support from from the general public
6:45
Speaker 1: as well? And at the end of the day, of course,
6:47
Speaker 1: whatever the plight the direct plight of farming and farmers
6:52
Speaker 1: in the country at the moment, this all comes down
6:54
Speaker 1: to us as individuals and as Charles. The point that
6:57
Speaker 1: Charles is making last week was this one. You know,
7:00
Speaker 1: where we buy our food from. If we are buying
7:03
Speaker 1: stuff from these companies, these massive corporations that actually are
7:08
Speaker 1: producing products which I would struggle to describe as food
7:12
Speaker 1: in the first place, if this is what we personally
7:15
Speaker 1: consider to be what we want to be shoving down
7:18
Speaker 1: our throats, then we cannot expect to maintain a farming
7:22
Speaker 1: industry in this country. I don't know, Charles, if you've
7:27
Speaker 1: got any thoughts and what have said, there are any
7:30
Speaker 1: sort of thing to add to that.
7:35
Speaker 3: Yeah, thanks Mike, good afternoon, Good afternoon.
7:37
Speaker 4: All.
7:37
Speaker 3: I think the thing that I would add is really
7:39
Speaker 3: that what has characterized the nature of process so far
7:42
Speaker 3: this year in twenty twenty four, with all the various
7:45
Speaker 3: challenges that farmers have been presented with. And this is
7:48
Speaker 3: going to sound like perhaps an unwarranted criticism, but I
7:51
Speaker 3: think is a failure to articulate exactly what it is
7:55
Speaker 3: they are hoping to achieve and setting metrics by which
7:59
Speaker 3: they know whether or not they have achieved this, and
8:01
Speaker 3: that makes it very difficult to coalesce underneath one single banner.
8:07
Speaker 3: And of course what's happened now as a result of
8:08
Speaker 3: the budget is that the focus has been drawn towards
8:12
Speaker 3: APR and therefore the inheritance tax issue, which has the
8:16
Speaker 3: unfortunate consequence of knocking to one side all the much
8:20
Speaker 3: bigger issues that do concern exactly what you've been talking
8:23
Speaker 3: about with subsidy and in particular the skewing of the
8:26
Speaker 3: landscape by the environmental land management schemes.
8:30
Speaker 1: One of the other comments that make Charles is that
8:32
Speaker 1: in the course of speaking to people and also listening
8:34
Speaker 1: to other conversations were going on, it was clear that
8:37
Speaker 1: there was a significant proportion of the farmers that were
8:39
Speaker 1: there that were already starting to think about how they
8:42
Speaker 1: could sell direct to the public. But of course part
8:47
Speaker 1: of the problem that we have here is that the
8:49
Speaker 1: public that you and I are used to cheap food.
8:53
Speaker 1: We have been taught to eat cheap food in the
8:55
Speaker 1: last forty to fifty years, and we perhaps fair cheap
9:00
Speaker 1: food and going on holidays twice a year, foreign holidays,
9:05
Speaker 1: whereas in the past the proportion of our incomes which
9:08
Speaker 1: went on what we eat was a lot higher. Do
9:12
Speaker 1: you think that that's part of the reason that they're
9:15
Speaker 1: not getting support is because actually people don't want to
9:18
Speaker 1: fierce reality of what had actually cost to run to
9:23
Speaker 1: run a viable farming business.
9:27
Speaker 3: I think that's a large part of it. I think
9:29
Speaker 3: the education is a bigger part of it. And they're
9:31
Speaker 3: sort of propagandizing against the health benefits of choosing to
9:35
Speaker 3: spend more on food and getting what would be described
9:38
Speaker 3: as greater effect in terms of nutrient density. And I
9:43
Speaker 3: think that's the bit that people are not allowed to
9:45
Speaker 3: understand and the subversion of, for example, the organic farming movement,
9:50
Speaker 3: which Julian Rose described so very well that in the
9:54
Speaker 3: initial stages there was a benefit both to the environment
9:57
Speaker 3: and the consumer on a sort of health base. But now,
10:00
Speaker 3: of course corners can be cut, and therefore the supposed
10:04
Speaker 3: gain that one gets from something that might be labeled
10:07
Speaker 3: as organic food is perhaps not translated into the human
10:10
Speaker 3: health aspect, which makes the food effectively overpriced. But of
10:14
Speaker 3: course that's not to say that dealing with farmers direct
10:17
Speaker 3: is not worth doing. It absolutely is, but people are
10:19
Speaker 3: not drawn towards it because of the propagandizing against it,
10:23
Speaker 3: which is controlled, of course by the enormous corporations that
10:26
Speaker 3: you've just showed on screen.
10:27
Speaker 1: Yes, indeed, so you know, well done for organizing this
10:30
Speaker 1: for the organizers, but I think there's a lot of
10:33
Speaker 1: work to do in terms of working out what it
10:36
Speaker 1: is they're actually fighting and whether those were the appropriate
10:38
Speaker 1: people to have on the stage. But I just wanted
10:40
Speaker 1: to finish off with this little bit of video here
10:43
Speaker 1: and then just very briefly comment on the policing at
10:46
Speaker 1: the event. So that happened after the main demonstration had
11:13
Speaker 1: broken up for the day and that group of people
11:17
Speaker 1: occupied the street outside Parliament Square. The policing was very gentle,
11:22
Speaker 1: very different to what has happened, for example, pro Palestine
11:26
Speaker 1: demonstrations or at lockdown demonstrations. So we'll talk a little
11:30
Speaker 1: bit more about that. An extra as well, but very
11:32
Speaker 1: different policing at that event. Maybe we've been talking extra
11:35
Speaker 1: about why that might have been. But Charles, let's move
11:38
Speaker 1: on to related topic. Actually, bio security.
11:45
Speaker 3: Absolutely a very much related topic and something that again
11:48
Speaker 3: we've talked about a lot over the past year. And
11:50
Speaker 3: we'll start with the campaign this week starting on Monday,
11:55
Speaker 3: to raise awareness for something Debbie Evans I spent a
11:57
Speaker 3: lot of time talking about, which is antimicrobial. So we'll
12:00
Speaker 3: just put a video on screen from the FAO, the
12:03
Speaker 3: Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, which they described
12:08
Speaker 3: as being a growing global threat, exactly as Debbie has
12:11
Speaker 3: articulated specifically with regard to humans. But of course what
12:14
Speaker 3: you see in this video now is that they are
12:16
Speaker 3: pushing the envelope to capture the zoonotic threat, or at
12:21
Speaker 3: least specter of a threat, and to suggest that AMR
12:24
Speaker 3: now is broadened to affect the environment and of course
12:28
Speaker 3: animals as well. And then we see plants. So they're
12:33
Speaker 3: pushing us ever further into considering that we are in
12:36
Speaker 3: mortal peril. We shouldn't be taking certain drugs, but of
12:39
Speaker 3: course there's always one in reserve to counter that, and
12:43
Speaker 3: we look towards vaccines in particular and those that are
12:47
Speaker 3: going to make ever more money out of it. And
12:51
Speaker 3: just to put you in the picture as to who
12:54
Speaker 3: exactly the FAO are, or at least where they get
12:57
Speaker 3: their funding from, we see that they're part of the
13:01
Speaker 3: UNFA Livestock, Food and Noncriultural Organization, but of course, like
13:05
Speaker 3: so many of the UN's tentacles, they are funded partly
13:10
Speaker 3: by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is no
13:13
Speaker 3: great surprise. We have the APHA Animal and Plant Health
13:17
Speaker 3: Agency jumping on the bandwagon on the Mr Weak Awareness Week,
13:24
Speaker 3: and of course, again this is something we've talked about.
13:26
Speaker 3: They're pushing the idea that responsibility for dealing with this
13:32
Speaker 3: is incumbent upon every person and in terms of raising
13:37
Speaker 3: awareness and therefore with it fear. We have blue tongue,
13:40
Speaker 3: which again we talked about much earlier in the year,
13:43
Speaker 3: something that's been very poorly articulated in terms of exactly
13:47
Speaker 3: how it comes about it partly due to Midge's they say,
13:50
Speaker 3: but again that's not really a sort of concrete definition.
13:54
Speaker 3: And then, of course, always working in the background, we
13:56
Speaker 3: have bird flu. We had a declaration earlier this year
13:59
Speaker 3: that the U had zero bird flu, but of course
14:02
Speaker 3: the requirement to register all poultry having come in variously
14:07
Speaker 3: across the UK on the first of September and the
14:10
Speaker 3: first of October, we're now being warned again about the
14:14
Speaker 3: protection zones and the surveillance aspect of this. We've got
14:17
Speaker 3: the BBC obviously acting as the government's mouthpiece, reminding people
14:22
Speaker 3: that the risk remains, and this was a specific article
14:26
Speaker 3: about Jersey where the officials are urging bird keepers to
14:29
Speaker 3: register their birds with the government for quick communication in
14:33
Speaker 3: case of an outbreak, or at least that's how they're
14:37
Speaker 3: terming it. Now. Alongside this, we've had a recent update
14:41
Speaker 3: to the document about the movement of mammals, interestingly, which
14:45
Speaker 3: again has been in existence for a while, even though
14:48
Speaker 3: technically supposed to be a disease that affects poultry. Of course,
14:52
Speaker 3: as Debbie was talking about recently, and I've spoken about
14:55
Speaker 3: much in the past, we've got this idea that these
14:57
Speaker 3: things jump from species to speci hies and then really
15:01
Speaker 3: we get to the central point of all of it,
15:04
Speaker 3: which of course is the government's ability to be able
15:07
Speaker 3: to slaughter all poultry that is designated as having had
15:12
Speaker 3: bird flu and so I refer back to the curiously
15:16
Speaker 3: named Animal Welfare Committee who gave their opinion earlier in
15:19
Speaker 3: the year about the use of nitrogen foam for culling poultry,
15:23
Speaker 3: and will just remind you some of the things that
15:25
Speaker 3: they'd said, which mass killing of poultry requires culing methods
15:29
Speaker 3: which can be rapidly and practically deployed whilst avoiding all
15:33
Speaker 3: unnecessary pain suffering and distress to the flock, and being
15:38
Speaker 3: mindful of human health and safety during the process. Now,
15:43
Speaker 3: to refer to a cull as being necessary is an
15:48
Speaker 3: extremely contentious thing to be doing, but that is the
15:52
Speaker 3: way in which the Animal and Plant Health Agency do
15:54
Speaker 3: do it. And they go on say that maskilling may
15:56
Speaker 3: be required for culling, especially with regard to infectious disease
16:01
Speaker 3: or those considered to be dangerous contact or those killed
16:04
Speaker 3: promptly as slaughter on suspicion, something that has been a
16:10
Speaker 3: practice in effect for a couple of decades. But of
16:13
Speaker 3: course this is after veterory assessment to prevent or reduce
16:17
Speaker 3: the spread of significant infectious disease and so on. The
16:20
Speaker 3: point to make here is that in actual fact, whilst
16:23
Speaker 3: it's described as being veterinary assessment. What that really means
16:27
Speaker 3: is use or of course, as we know, misuse of
16:30
Speaker 3: the PCR test, which may not by virtue of the
16:34
Speaker 3: fact that it is not a diagnostic tool. It may
16:36
Speaker 3: not tell the user that a specimen is an indication
16:41
Speaker 3: of the presence of disease or indeed the presence of
16:44
Speaker 3: an agent which may infect another bird as opposed to
16:48
Speaker 3: the one that's actually being tested. So the ramping up
16:52
Speaker 3: of the fear campaign as we move into a sort
16:55
Speaker 3: of effectively a human flu season. But now we have
16:57
Speaker 3: the AMR and the zoo not tick background to all
17:02
Speaker 3: of this, so we can expect there to be a
17:04
Speaker 3: great deal more pushing with of course, the ultimate goal,
17:08
Speaker 3: which is to push people into getting vaccinations against all
17:11
Speaker 3: of these apparent threats.
17:13
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, thank you, Charles, Thank you for that. Vanessa,
17:16
Speaker 1: let's welcome you to the program then, and well, what's
17:20
Speaker 1: the leads from the Middle East?
17:24
Speaker 4: Well, I'm going to focus on the Lebanon quote sea
17:28
Speaker 4: fire negotiations. Amos Hockstein is currently in Beirut trying to
17:34
Speaker 4: broker a deal, of course, just as he regularly did
17:36
Speaker 4: regarding Israel and Gaza. So Lebanon and Nsbuler agree to
17:43
Speaker 4: US proposal for a ceasefire with Israel. Lebanese official sets.
17:47
Speaker 4: So this is in Reuter's the font of all knowledge
17:49
Speaker 4: for many of the mainstream media outlets. You and Resolution
17:54
Speaker 4: one seven oh one is the focus of the diplomacy.
17:57
Speaker 4: And then let's have a look at what they can
18:00
Speaker 4: knew to say. So Ali Hassan Khalil and Aid to
18:04
Speaker 4: Parliament Speaker Nabibari said Lebanon had delivered its written response
18:08
Speaker 4: to the US Ambassa in Lebanon on Monday, and White
18:11
Speaker 4: House Envoy Amos Hostein was traveling to Beirut to continue talks.
18:16
Speaker 4: There was no immediate comment from Israel HEZBLA. And this
18:20
Speaker 4: is Reuters remember a heavily our movement backed by Iran,
18:23
Speaker 4: of course, endorsed its longtime ally Bury to negotiate over
18:28
Speaker 4: a ceasefire. Labanon presented its comments on the paper in
18:32
Speaker 4: a positive atmosphere. All the comments, we presented a firm
18:35
Speaker 4: the precise adherence to You and Resolution seventeen oh one
18:39
Speaker 4: with all its provisions. Now you'll see later in the
18:42
Speaker 4: writer's article, which is the next slide, basically that the
18:46
Speaker 4: focus when Western media talk about Resolution seventeen oh one,
18:50
Speaker 4: which ended a previous war between Hezbla and Israel in
18:53
Speaker 4: two thousand and six. They focus on the fact that
18:57
Speaker 4: the terms of seventeen oh one require has Bla to
18:59
Speaker 4: have no armed presence in the area between the Lebanese
19:02
Speaker 4: Israeli border and the Latani River, which runs some thirty
19:06
Speaker 4: kilometers twenty miles north of the frontier. This is what
19:10
Speaker 4: you will hear about, and that's why I wanted to
19:11
Speaker 4: do this section today to go into greater depth on
19:15
Speaker 4: Resolution seventeen oh one and what it actually means for
19:18
Speaker 4: Israel as well. Israel has long claimed that Resolution seventeen
19:22
Speaker 4: oh one was never properly implemented, pointing to the presence
19:26
Speaker 4: of haspolar fighters and weapons along the border. Lebanon has
19:29
Speaker 4: accused Israel a violations, including flying wallplanes in its space.
19:34
Speaker 4: Notice how that is put in very much as in adendum.
19:37
Speaker 4: It's not a focal point, and that is then reflected
19:40
Speaker 4: in all the media reports including BBC, CNN, et cetera.
19:45
Speaker 4: So to basically demonstrate seventeen oh one's reality, I just
19:49
Speaker 4: took this post on x from Middle East Observer. I
19:53
Speaker 4: recommend following them. They do good work on deciphering, particularly
19:57
Speaker 4: Western media reporting on the Middle Eastern events. So if
20:03
Speaker 4: we look at sorry is this, we've gone back to
20:08
Speaker 4: autism up, that's my fault. Sorry, my bad. So if
20:14
Speaker 4: we move slide on. Sorry that confused me for a second.
20:18
Speaker 4: Israel's continuous breach of clause one. So let's have a
20:22
Speaker 4: look at one and two. The first two clauses calls
20:27
Speaker 4: for a full cessation of hostilities, based upon, in particular,
20:30
Speaker 4: the immediate cessation by his Blah of all attacks and
20:34
Speaker 4: the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations.
20:39
Speaker 4: This is a very important point. Two upon full cessation
20:43
Speaker 4: of hostilities, calls upon the Government of Lebanon and UNIFL
20:47
Speaker 4: the UN peacekeepers as authorized by paragraph eleven, to deploy
20:52
Speaker 4: their forces together throughout the south, and calls upon the
20:55
Speaker 4: Government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to withdraw all
20:59
Speaker 4: of it forces from southern Lebanon in parallel. Again very important.
21:04
Speaker 4: So then let's have a look at what he mentions
21:06
Speaker 4: about this. The cessation of hostilities, very different to a ceasefire,
21:12
Speaker 4: is a non binding announcement by one or both sides
21:14
Speaker 4: to suspend fighting, which may be a step towards peace negotiations.
21:19
Speaker 4: Cessations of hostilities are usually less structured than ceasefires and
21:23
Speaker 4: may not cover issues like timelines, security, or objectives. The
21:27
Speaker 4: first point calls for a full cessation of hostilities. Hezbela
21:32
Speaker 4: never stopped Hesbla, sorry stopped firing at Israel and engaging
21:36
Speaker 4: in hostilities. However, Israel never stopped its air land and
21:40
Speaker 4: sea breaches. Israeli wallplanes never stopped flying over eleven and
21:45
Speaker 4: since two thousand and six Cessation of Hostilities Breach twenty
21:50
Speaker 4: two thousand, one hundred and eleven Israeli military aircraft have
21:54
Speaker 4: violated Lebanese as base from two thousand and seven to
21:57
Speaker 4: twenty twenty two, not counter numerous land and sea breaches.
22:03
Speaker 4: So let's have a look at the Israel's breach of
22:08
Speaker 4: Clause two, which is full withdrawal from Lebanon. Lebanon Lebanese territory.
22:13
Speaker 4: There are thirteen contested border points between the occupation and Lebanon,
22:18
Speaker 4: seven of which Israel recognizes as Lebanese, but they haven't
22:21
Speaker 4: vacated those areas of Lebanese territory. For the sake of simplicity,
22:26
Speaker 4: we will discuss the clearest, non disputable violation. Israel occupied
22:30
Speaker 4: the Lebanese part of the Gaja village in the two
22:33
Speaker 4: thousand and six war and never withdrew from it. Israel
22:37
Speaker 4: recognizes that this is Lebanese land. In November twenty ten,
22:41
Speaker 4: the Israeli Kavanagh agreed in principle to withdraw from the town,
22:44
Speaker 4: but they have never done so. And then if we
22:47
Speaker 4: have a look at the map here that shows clearly
22:49
Speaker 4: I re highlighted it in red the Siba Farm territories,
22:54
Speaker 4: which is Lebanese territory that Israel occupied with the Syrian
22:58
Speaker 4: Golan Heights in ninety sixty seven. Israel refuses to withdraw
23:03
Speaker 4: from it on the basis that there's ambiguity whether it's
23:06
Speaker 4: Lebanese or Syrian territory. I'm not quite sure what difference
23:09
Speaker 4: that makes. However, Lebanon did submit documents proving that it's
23:13
Speaker 4: Lebanese territory, but Israel has never vocated that particular territory,
23:21
Speaker 4: nor has it, of course left the occupied Golan Heights,
23:23
Speaker 4: which is Syrian territory. Now what's interesting. This article was
23:27
Speaker 4: published in the last two days in the Jerusalem Post.
23:30
Speaker 4: Southern Lebanon is actually Northern Israel, opinion and This is based,
23:35
Speaker 4: of course, on the religious argumentation that southern Lebanon was
23:40
Speaker 4: promised to the Zionis. Now what's interesting, This article or
23:44
Speaker 4: a similar one was published by Jerusalem Posts a few
23:48
Speaker 4: weeks ago and then rapidly withdrawn, so clearly the timing
23:52
Speaker 4: was not right for them to be putting out this
23:54
Speaker 4: kind of propaganda. Again, he goes on, if Israel is
23:59
Speaker 4: not ill into and wants to strip has Bla of
24:02
Speaker 4: its narrative, why is it occupying Lebanon and breaching its
24:05
Speaker 4: sovereignty If it's not important and just small villages in
24:09
Speaker 4: relation to the flyovers by Lebanese aircraft, Why doesn't Israel
24:14
Speaker 4: withdraw and stop its aggression on Lebanon. Why the constant
24:17
Speaker 4: stubbornness to violate Clauses one and two? Because Israel is
24:21
Speaker 4: an aggressor expansionist state that seeks total military security and
24:25
Speaker 4: political dominance over all countries in the region, and it's
24:29
Speaker 4: not hidden either by the USA nor by Israel. Has
24:32
Speaker 4: Blara and Lebanon have never breached Resolution seventeen oh one.
24:37
Speaker 4: They're still waiting for Israel to abide by the first
24:40
Speaker 4: two clauses, So and then he kind of finishes off
24:46
Speaker 4: if we can, just knowing Israel's nature, it will not
24:50
Speaker 4: accept to implement Resolution seventeen oh one as it is
24:53
Speaker 4: because Israel has been breaching this resolution every day since
24:57
Speaker 4: two thousand and six. Will Israel act now to get
25:00
Speaker 4: out of Lebanon, including Gajhar Village, the seven Points and
25:04
Speaker 4: kickstart the process of the withdrawal from the sheep of
25:07
Speaker 4: farms that, in my view also has implications on their
25:10
Speaker 4: occupation of Syrian territory in the Golan. This is absolutely
25:15
Speaker 4: not happening. Lebanon by saying it wants to implement Resolution
25:19
Speaker 4: seventeen oh one shows that it's Israel that does not
25:22
Speaker 4: actually want to stop the war, and so effectively what
25:25
Speaker 4: has Blar is saying, if Israel were to, for example,
25:30
Speaker 4: broker a realistic ceasefire with Gaza and the West Bank,
25:37
Speaker 4: then has Bila would stop firing and seventeen oh one
25:40
Speaker 4: would probably remain in place as it is, so the
25:43
Speaker 4: status quo would remain the same. If Israel only wants
25:47
Speaker 4: to broker a deal with Lebanon, seventeen oh one will
25:50
Speaker 4: be enforced with all the implications for Israel having to
25:54
Speaker 4: relinquish territory that it's occupied since nineteen sixty seven and
25:58
Speaker 4: two thousand and six. So this is from the Cradle.
26:01
Speaker 4: So Israel provided the US with a document last week
26:04
Speaker 4: detailing its conditions for a diplomatic solution to end it's
26:07
Speaker 4: war in Lebanon. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office gave
26:12
Speaker 4: the paper to the White House ahead of President Biden's
26:15
Speaker 4: envoy Amos Hockstein's visit to Beirout on Monday to discuss
26:19
Speaker 4: the diplomatic solution. Ron Dermer, Israel's Minister for Strategic Affairs,
26:24
Speaker 4: sent the document to Amos Hockstein last week ahead of
26:26
Speaker 4: his plan trip to Lebanon. According to the document, so
26:29
Speaker 4: here we have Israel again adding clauses to an already
26:34
Speaker 4: existing document. Israel is demanding that its forces be permitted
26:38
Speaker 4: to carry out active enforcement inside Japanese territory. This aims
26:43
Speaker 4: to ensure that the Lebanese resistance does not re arm
26:46
Speaker 4: and rebuild close to the border. One of the officials
26:50
Speaker 4: in a following article from the Cradle goes on in
26:53
Speaker 4: this vein, if we can just move on to the
26:58
Speaker 4: next one. The amendments, sorry, the amendments proposed by Hockschain's
27:03
Speaker 4: Resolution seventeen oh one reveal Israel's broader strategy of using
27:07
Speaker 4: international mechanisms to further its objectives. These changes would extend
27:13
Speaker 4: UNIFIS jurisdiction two kilometers north of the Latani River, allowing
27:18
Speaker 4: international forces to conduct searches, patrols, and inspections without requiring
27:23
Speaker 4: approval from Lebanese authorities. These inspections can include searching vehicles,
27:28
Speaker 4: private properties, and suspected weapon sites. Effectively, this is a
27:33
Speaker 4: demand for Lebanon to seed control over its own territory,
27:37
Speaker 4: a clear infringement on its sovereignty. Under the guise of peacekeeping,
27:41
Speaker 4: this would grant Israel indirect control over Lebanon's internal security dynamics,
27:46
Speaker 4: especially since intelligence for those operations may be influenced by
27:51
Speaker 4: or even originate from Israeli sources. So, you know, we
27:56
Speaker 4: have a very familiar pattern here, very very similar to
28:00
Speaker 4: what was going on in Gaza. Israel acting as an
28:03
Speaker 4: honest broker when in reality it's trying to basically include
28:09
Speaker 4: new expansion of its own influence and power inside Lebanon
28:14
Speaker 4: under the guise of adhering to the original resolution.
28:21
Speaker 1: Something that strikes me, Vanessa, is that no matter what
28:26
Speaker 1: position you take on the Ukraine war or on the
28:29
Speaker 1: Middle East. We have a Western international rules based order
28:35
Speaker 1: which says that Russia has no entitlement to run a
28:39
Speaker 1: special military operation across the border in Ukraine in order
28:42
Speaker 1: to create a sort of demilitarized zone between Ukraine, a
28:45
Speaker 1: buffer between Ukraine and Russia. But Israel does have the
28:49
Speaker 1: right to do that in South Lebanon, apparently, seems to
28:52
Speaker 1: be what's going on here? Are these two positions compatible.
28:56
Speaker 4: Well, they're not compatible, nor were the West positions over across.
29:00
Speaker 4: Of course, the alleged you know, coross of our independence.
29:04
Speaker 4: So the hypocrisy is rank, but we should be pretty
29:07
Speaker 4: used to it by now.
29:09
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
29:10
Speaker 1: Okay, well, let's let's just come on to a bit
29:12
Speaker 1: more hypocrisy, and David Lammy in the in the Host
29:16
Speaker 1: of Commons, it.
29:19
Speaker 5: Has been one thousand days. One thousand days since Russia's
29:26
Speaker 5: full scale invasions stunned the world, one thousand days in
29:31
Speaker 5: which Ukrainian bravery has inspired the world, and one thousand
29:36
Speaker 5: days whose horror and bloodshed has dismayed the world. In
29:42
Speaker 5: our first week in office, my ride honorable friend, the
29:45
Speaker 5: Prime Minister, confirmed that we would provide three billion pounds
29:49
Speaker 5: a year in military aid this year, next year, and
29:53
Speaker 5: every year that it's needed. This includes my ride, honorable friend,
29:58
Speaker 5: the Defense Secretary's announcements today with more funding for Ukraine's navy,
30:05
Speaker 5: more funding for Dreams, the extension of Interflex, which has
30:10
Speaker 5: trained more than fifty thousand Ukrainian troops to date, and
30:14
Speaker 5: I've also increased non military support.
30:19
Speaker 1: And you know, farmers want to know why they need
30:21
Speaker 1: to have their farms stolen. Perhaps this gives some indication.
30:26
Speaker 1: But in the meantime, of course, the United States, as
30:28
Speaker 1: everyone will know BENI, has given permission for Ukraine to
30:32
Speaker 1: use long range missiles into Russian territory. This is RT's
30:36
Speaker 1: animation of the kind of ranges that we're talking about.
30:41
Speaker 1: I'm not quite sure what's going on with Britain and
30:43
Speaker 1: France at the moment. Has come on to in a second,
30:46
Speaker 1: but Britain and France, by the way, Brand just sent
30:50
Speaker 1: me this before the program. Britain, France, Germany and Poland
30:54
Speaker 1: have apparently been informed by United States intelligence of information
30:57
Speaker 1: about an eminent and unprecedented airstrike on Kiev. Now that's
31:02
Speaker 1: probably going to be in retaliation for the long range
31:06
Speaker 1: weapons strike on Russian territory. That's already happened. Apparently Turkey
31:10
Speaker 1: does not agree with this decision, but maybe Vanessa will
31:13
Speaker 1: have say some sorry, some more to say about that.
31:16
Speaker 1: An extra I'm talking about with the decision to allow
31:19
Speaker 1: Ukraine to use long range weapons in this way on
31:23
Speaker 1: the front lines. Then the statistic, the latest statistic seems
31:29
Speaker 1: to be that armed forces, the Ukrainian armed forces now
31:33
Speaker 1: consist twenty five percent volunteers seventy five percent conscripts, and
31:38
Speaker 1: therefore they continue to experience a massive problem with manpar
31:44
Speaker 1: and that was according to Bloomberg. Now let's just have
31:48
Speaker 1: a look at this because the question is the US
31:50
Speaker 1: has made this decision about long range weapons. What has
31:53
Speaker 1: the response been from US politicians? Perhaps on surprising let's watch.
32:00
Speaker 6: Decision.
32:00
Speaker 1: This should have happened two years ago.
32:02
Speaker 3: I think it was a smart move. They're giving an
32:04
Speaker 3: advantage Ukraine.
32:06
Speaker 6: This is a step in the right direction. We've got
32:08
Speaker 6: to give Ukraine more leverage.
32:10
Speaker 3: I think it's a very big deal. We should have
32:12
Speaker 3: come many many months earlier.
32:16
Speaker 1: And well, Emmanuel Macron here saying that it was a
32:20
Speaker 1: great deal. And I have to say Macron is looking
32:23
Speaker 1: pretty old. In fact, he's almost looking like to be
32:25
Speaker 1: age appropriate for his wife, but that's another question. He
32:29
Speaker 1: is saying that the US has made a good decision
32:31
Speaker 1: to lift limits on Ukraine missile use. It's interesting that
32:34
Speaker 1: French media was suggesting a couple of days ago that
32:38
Speaker 1: storm Shadow will be part of this, and that comment
32:41
Speaker 1: was withdrawn very quickly. We'll say more about that in
32:45
Speaker 1: the meantime, but British media at least forces news here
32:49
Speaker 1: saying Dining Street tight Lipton whether it will let Ukraine
32:53
Speaker 1: news storm shadow in Russia. Mainstream media today very excited
32:57
Speaker 1: about the potential for this permission to be given by
33:01
Speaker 1: the UK and France. But of course we've got to
33:05
Speaker 1: remember that Russia has a response in mind.
33:08
Speaker 6: Now.
33:08
Speaker 1: This is putin from September talking about nuclear doctrine.
33:15
Speaker 7: Aggression against Russia by any non nuclear state but with
33:19
Speaker 7: the support of a nuclear state is proposed to be
33:21
Speaker 7: considered as their joint attack on Russia. Russia will also
33:25
Speaker 7: consider the possibility of using nuclear weapons when receiving reliable
33:28
Speaker 7: information about a massive launch of means of aerospace attack
33:32
Speaker 7: and the crossing of our state border. This includes strategic
33:36
Speaker 7: and tactical aircraft, as well as cruise missiles and drones,
33:39
Speaker 7: hypersonic and other delivery vehicles. Russia reserves the right to
33:43
Speaker 7: use nuclear weapons in case of aggression, including if the
33:46
Speaker 7: enemy using conventional weapons poses a critical threat.
33:51
Speaker 1: So he's not making any bones about that. And in fact,
33:54
Speaker 1: the news from earlier today is from yesterday, is this
33:58
Speaker 1: that Putin has lowered the threshold for using his nuclear
34:01
Speaker 1: arsenal after the decision to allow these weapons to be
34:06
Speaker 1: used from Ukraine. So this clearly is viewed by the
34:10
Speaker 1: Russians as a massive escalation and well, they are not
34:15
Speaker 1: going to take that lying down. And most people are
34:18
Speaker 1: making the assumption that Putin is making these noises in
34:22
Speaker 1: order to try to limit the use of these weapons.
34:26
Speaker 1: I think that's a very dangerous attitude to take if
34:29
Speaker 1: they think that Russia is not going to react with
34:34
Speaker 1: the use of these weapons. So we'll see what happens
34:36
Speaker 1: if there is going to be an attack in Keevan
34:38
Speaker 1: next day or two. But in the meantime, BBC Verify
34:43
Speaker 1: feeling the need to comment on the Russian on the
34:45
Speaker 1: Ukrainian front, sorry, saying that it could collapse as Russia
34:49
Speaker 1: gains accelerate, and that's a warning by experts and it's
34:53
Speaker 1: very interesting that BBC Verify is normally about verification of
34:57
Speaker 1: a claim that's made on the Internet and with a
35:00
Speaker 1: few to debunking it. In this case, they're absolutely behind
35:05
Speaker 1: the claims from what they're describing as experts that the
35:08
Speaker 1: Ukrainian Front could collapse. We will keep you posted on this,
35:12
Speaker 1: but things beginning to move very quickly on the Ukrainian side. Now,
35:17
Speaker 1: let's say that if you like what the UK Column does,
35:20
Speaker 1: you would like to support us. Please go to support
35:22
Speaker 1: dot UK column dot org. There are options to help
35:25
Speaker 1: us out there. You can make a donation, you can
35:28
Speaker 1: join us as a member that gets you access to
35:30
Speaker 1: extra for example the various membership levels. Please do join
35:35
Speaker 1: us if you can support us by buying something from
35:38
Speaker 1: the UK Column Shop or by buying something from climb
35:41
Speaker 1: tocarl dot com. If you use if you click on
35:44
Speaker 1: the graphic that's on this page and that gives us
35:47
Speaker 1: a small percentage of any purchases you make. But please
35:50
Speaker 1: do share material you find on the platforms. We do
35:54
Speaker 1: need your continued support with that. Now tomorrow at one pm,
35:58
Speaker 1: as Brian will be speaking the Reverend doctor Stephen Sisser.
36:02
Speaker 1: This is on Christian Zionism, so looking at the origins,
36:09
Speaker 1: the goals, the influence of Christian Zionism. Joined Brian at
36:12
Speaker 1: one PM for that if you can, very briefly, Charles,
36:16
Speaker 1: your interview with Brian Risinger.
36:20
Speaker 3: Yeah, really good insight into the mindset of the small farmer.
36:26
Speaker 3: I think, not just in America, but probably in the West.
36:29
Speaker 3: And I think the effectively he brings to the foe
36:32
Speaker 3: the sorts of considerations that people have who are not
36:35
Speaker 3: fully aware of the manipulation by both the state and
36:40
Speaker 3: the corporation. So it's a really interesting insight.
36:43
Speaker 1: And very apt bearing in mind the protest yesterday and
36:46
Speaker 1: then finally on this the CC Advisory Assembly or hosting
36:53
Speaker 1: two ZOOM meetings on Monday, the twenty fifth of November
36:56
Speaker 1: and Wednesday, the twenty seventh of November. Sandy Adams involved
37:01
Speaker 1: in this, please join this if you possibly can. This
37:04
Speaker 1: is about bringing the fight of the councils on net
37:06
Speaker 1: zero policy and other things, but in this case actually
37:09
Speaker 1: they are going to be looking at how net zero
37:12
Speaker 1: and climate emergency policies are affecting food security. So very
37:17
Speaker 1: apt as well, Charles. Let's come back to you and
37:21
Speaker 1: the question of contrails.
37:26
Speaker 3: Yes, thanks Mike, Yeah, really the evolution that the tactical
37:32
Speaker 3: evolution of the globalist response to dissent really in this
37:38
Speaker 3: case in the form of the much highlighted awareness of
37:45
Speaker 3: what are referred to by the government by as sorry
37:48
Speaker 3: as persistent contrails, which of course have earlier in the
37:51
Speaker 3: year been used as the suggestion of a conspiracy theory
37:56
Speaker 3: denoting extremism, which of course can be conflated with terror.
38:00
Speaker 3: And we have the BBC here writing about what they're
38:04
Speaker 3: describing as a cheap fix. So note the reference initially
38:08
Speaker 3: or immediately to cost, and they say that the climate
38:12
Speaker 3: damaging vapors left behind by jet planes could easily be
38:15
Speaker 3: tackled with a new study suggesting they could be eliminated
38:19
Speaker 3: for a few pounds per flight. So hey, presto, they've
38:23
Speaker 3: come up with a solution, and they have priced it in.
38:27
Speaker 3: And of course this is coincided exactly to have been
38:31
Speaker 3: sort of discussed at the recent COP twenty nine. So
38:34
Speaker 3: therefore all the nations dealing with this can act in
38:37
Speaker 3: lockstep and the result will be that we end up
38:41
Speaker 3: paying more for in effect, something that has no solid
38:46
Speaker 3: foundation at all. Associated with this is the work of
38:49
Speaker 3: what's called the Jet zero Council, which is alarmingly a
38:53
Speaker 3: partnership between industry, academia and government. They have no chief
38:58
Speaker 3: executive at the moment. They were founded in twenty twenty,
39:01
Speaker 3: of course, and they describe themselves as being the catalyst
39:04
Speaker 3: for zero emission flight across the Atlantic. So they'll focus
39:08
Speaker 3: on developing UK capabilities to develop net zero and zero
39:13
Speaker 3: emissions technologies. They say that they'll do this with aviation
39:17
Speaker 3: and aerospace technology and also critically what they're describing as
39:20
Speaker 3: sustainable aviation fuels, driving the industry, driving the production costs down,
39:26
Speaker 3: and a regulatory framework of course, in order to deliver
39:30
Speaker 3: this by twenty fifty.
39:32
Speaker 6: Now.
39:33
Speaker 3: The practical ramifications of this are delivered in the policy
39:37
Speaker 3: paper on budget.
39:39
Speaker 6: Well, just for the.
39:39
Speaker 3: Budget came out the air passenger duty rates from first
39:43
Speaker 3: of April next year and how that's going to change.
39:46
Speaker 6: Now.
39:47
Speaker 3: Some of the language in this document was perfectly extraordinary,
39:49
Speaker 3: including the bit back equality. They say that it includes
39:52
Speaker 3: a behavioral effect to account for the change in flights taken,
39:56
Speaker 3: and it's not expected to impact on family formations, stability
40:00
Speaker 3: or breakdown. We are talking about air passenger duty here.
40:03
Speaker 3: They went on to say that it's not anticipated that
40:06
Speaker 3: it will have any impacts on those in groups sharing
40:09
Speaker 3: protected characteristics, so they really were covering all the bases
40:15
Speaker 3: except for the science behind.
40:17
Speaker 6: Any of this.
40:18
Speaker 3: Now, just to give an idea of what this means,
40:20
Speaker 3: if for what presumed is a first class flight, it
40:24
Speaker 3: involves sticking an extra six hundred and seventy three pounds
40:29
Speaker 3: on a ticket for a flight over five hundred miles.
40:32
Speaker 3: And of course the standout phrase from this document is
40:35
Speaker 3: that we expect the measure to have a negligible impact
40:38
Speaker 3: on the environment, so standby for yet more cost with
40:43
Speaker 3: apparently the environmental concern at the heart of it, but
40:47
Speaker 3: absolutely nothing to substantiate this will make any difference whatsoever.
40:52
Speaker 1: So we are not going to be allowed to travel.
40:56
Speaker 3: Well, yes, in effect, and we will continue you to
41:00
Speaker 3: be blamed for the apparent conspiracy theory surrounding persistent contrails
41:06
Speaker 3: which are now decided that are that they are offled
41:09
Speaker 3: and we must pay for their elimination as we stopped
41:12
Speaker 3: flying at the same time.
41:14
Speaker 1: Ex So thank you, Charles Vanessa. Let's come back to
41:17
Speaker 1: you then, and well Israel has been receiving has blood attacks.
41:25
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean basically with the negotiations underway. We've described
41:29
Speaker 4: we can just run this clip while I'm talking. A
41:32
Speaker 4: Israel has increased and expanded its attacks into Central Bay Road.
41:37
Speaker 4: Of course, previously it was attacking Dahe the southern suburb.
41:42
Speaker 4: Many of the refugees that were displaced from the southern
41:44
Speaker 4: suburbs into Central Bay Road are now also being affected
41:49
Speaker 4: by the expansion of Israeli attacks into Christian areas, into
41:54
Speaker 4: residential areas, murdering or assassinating the head of Hasbola's media department,
42:03
Speaker 4: so effectively a journalist not a combatant. This is this
42:08
Speaker 4: has been collated since I guess it's since October the first,
42:13
Speaker 4: when Israel began its expansion of aggression into Lebanon. One
42:17
Speaker 4: hundred and ninety martyred medics, including civil defense actual civil
42:23
Speaker 4: defense centers have been bombed on a regular basis. Particularly recently,
42:28
Speaker 4: fifty five hospitals have been targeted, some put out of operation,
42:31
Speaker 4: altogether two hundred and forty six ambulances now in return
42:36
Speaker 4: for this expansion by Israel. Bearing in mind, this is
42:40
Speaker 4: all related to the pressure that's been put on by
42:43
Speaker 4: both Hasbala and Israel during the negotiations for some kind
42:48
Speaker 4: of cessation of hostility hostilities Hasbla missiles Pamel Tel Aviv,
42:55
Speaker 4: numerous wounded and killed. So let's just run again a
42:59
Speaker 4: video showing some of those missiles that landed and were
43:03
Speaker 4: not intercepted.
43:11
Speaker 3: Thought why.
43:14
Speaker 8: Why?
43:15
Speaker 1: Why?
43:15
Speaker 4: Are right?
43:32
Speaker 2: So?
43:33
Speaker 4: Apparently this was the first time that husband I used
43:36
Speaker 4: this particular kind of ballistic missile, and as I say,
43:40
Speaker 4: having the the reinforcements of the third interceptors from the
43:45
Speaker 4: US were unable to prevent impact. This is from Amal Sad,
43:50
Speaker 4: who's a professor at the American University in Beer. Today,
43:55
Speaker 4: as I mentioned, Israel assassinated Muhammad al fIF his Lla's
43:58
Speaker 4: media head, killing him along with other civilians in a
44:01
Speaker 4: Christian residential neighborhood of Frout. Of course, this is part
44:05
Speaker 4: of Israel's attempts to turn factions within Lubanon against Hasbola,
44:12
Speaker 4: so far very much failing, apart from those factions that
44:15
Speaker 4: are already very much aligned with the Zioni entity. Beyond
44:19
Speaker 4: its clear violations of international humanitarian law targeting a journalist,
44:25
Speaker 4: the timing of this assassination exposes Israel's strategic failures. They have,
44:30
Speaker 4: of course failed to move forward in the South and
44:33
Speaker 4: reflects a campaign fueled by desperation and a desire for retribution.
44:37
Speaker 4: She goes on to say, setting aside all moral, ethical
44:41
Speaker 4: and legal considerations and judging Israel's actions purely through the cold,
44:46
Speaker 4: pragmatic lens of real politic, this war is set to
44:49
Speaker 4: end not only without achieving any of its objectives, but
44:53
Speaker 4: with Israel emerging significantly weaker. This is because the historically
44:57
Speaker 4: unparalleled scale of violence that it has unleashed against Garza
45:01
Speaker 4: and Lebanon has exhausted nearly all conceivable methods, of course,
45:06
Speaker 4: leaving it with nothing further to escalate, except, of course
45:09
Speaker 4: nuclear Such over each follows the law of diminishing returns,
45:13
Speaker 4: where greater violence yeads yields increasingly limited results, ultimately undermining
45:19
Speaker 4: its strategic position. We can talk about that a bit
45:22
Speaker 4: more in extra but never fear, because the British envoy
45:26
Speaker 4: in Israel says that the UK will put its own
45:29
Speaker 4: personnel in harm's way to defend Israel from Iran, and
45:33
Speaker 4: of course, bearing the mind that every single resistance faction
45:36
Speaker 4: is determined to be nothing more than a proxy of Iran,
45:41
Speaker 4: the UK will protect Israel and again, should Iran attacks,
45:44
Speaker 4: says British and void to Israel. The United Kingdom will
45:47
Speaker 4: be a close ally in and is prepared to put
45:49
Speaker 4: its own aircraft and its own personnel in harms way
45:52
Speaker 4: to defend Israel, says Ambassador Simon Walters, speaking to Israeli
45:56
Speaker 4: journalists that his ramat Gan residence. He notes that the
46:01
Speaker 4: Royal Air Force flew alongside Israeli and US pilots during
46:04
Speaker 4: the April Iranian missile and droan attack on Israel, and adds,
46:08
Speaker 4: without going into detail, on October the first, the British
46:11
Speaker 4: armed Forces again played a role in trying to disrupt
46:14
Speaker 4: the Iranian attack on Israel. This is quite extraordinary that
46:18
Speaker 4: basically he's putting forward British Army personnel to defend another country.
46:24
Speaker 4: And this was back in February twenty twenty four when
46:26
Speaker 4: the BBC even pointed out that the UK's armed forces
46:29
Speaker 4: will not be ready for a high intensity war unless
46:32
Speaker 4: shortages and personnel and equipment are rapidly addressed. And of course, Mike,
46:37
Speaker 4: we've been or you've been talking about this extensively on
46:41
Speaker 4: UK column, and not forgetting that the Ergon and Stern
46:45
Speaker 4: Zionist terrorist gangs carried out several attacks against British forces.
46:51
Speaker 4: From nineteen forty six onwards, and yet were expected to
46:55
Speaker 4: put our British military personnel at risk to defend as well.
47:01
Speaker 1: Yes, okay, thank you Vanessa and Charles. Let's stick with
47:06
Speaker 1: international affairs. You're in Hong Kong at the moment. What's
47:09
Speaker 1: been going on there?
47:12
Speaker 5: Well?
47:13
Speaker 3: Over the last couple of weeks, I've spoken about the
47:15
Speaker 3: relationship between the National Security Law in Hong Kong supposedly
47:19
Speaker 3: imposed by China in twenty twenty and the National Security
47:22
Speaker 3: Act in the UK of twenty twenty three, and as
47:26
Speaker 3: I say, the relationship between the two couple of developments
47:28
Speaker 3: in the last few days in Hong Kong. First of all,
47:31
Speaker 3: we see on screen the trial of Jimmy Lai, who
47:35
Speaker 3: effectively provided media coverage of protests in twenty nineteen via
47:41
Speaker 3: his news organization, and then the sentencing of forty five
47:46
Speaker 3: of the forty seven activists standing trial for their parts
47:50
Speaker 3: in the protests in twenty nineteen. Of course, foreign interference
47:57
Speaker 3: being very much part and parcel of all of this
48:00
Speaker 3: and indeed the narrative around it, southwinda Morning Post reporting
48:05
Speaker 3: that it brought to a close the city's largest and
48:07
Speaker 3: longest running national security trial and involved a group of
48:11
Speaker 3: forty seven accused of plotting to ride on the momentum
48:13
Speaker 3: of the twenty nineteen anti government protests to win control
48:17
Speaker 3: of the Legislative Council. Now, this has been an opportunity
48:21
Speaker 3: for the mainstream, of course, to both demonize China and
48:25
Speaker 3: deflect attention from what's going on in the United Kingdom,
48:28
Speaker 3: nonetheless from the government. Here we have Catherine West, the
48:32
Speaker 3: Indo Pacific Minister, here providing a statement and again reinforcing
48:38
Speaker 3: the point China's imposition of the National Security Law has
48:41
Speaker 3: eroded the rights and freedoms of Hong Konger's today's sentencing
48:45
Speaker 3: is a clear demonstration of the Hong Kong authorities use
48:48
Speaker 3: of the National Security Law to criminalize political dissent. It's
48:52
Speaker 3: almost as though she was completely oblivious to what was
48:55
Speaker 3: going on in the United Kingdom just a couple of
48:58
Speaker 3: months ago, in the wake of, in particular the south
49:00
Speaker 3: Port killings, that she went on to say that those
49:03
Speaker 3: sentences today were exercising their right to freedom of speech,
49:06
Speaker 3: assembly and political participation as guaranteed under the Covenant on
49:11
Speaker 3: Civil and Political Rights and Basic Law. And then hipocrisy
49:16
Speaker 3: upon hypocrisy, the UK will always stand up for the
49:19
Speaker 3: people of Hong Kong, and all states should uphold their
49:24
Speaker 3: international obligations to protect these fundamental rights. Of course, more
49:29
Speaker 3: recently we've seen the meeting between the Chinese Premier Xi
49:35
Speaker 3: Jinping and Kirs Starmer, the Prime Minister, of course, presumably
49:39
Speaker 3: the Chinese premiers chance to push the UK Prime Minister
49:44
Speaker 3: on the abuses of human rights going on in the
49:46
Speaker 3: United Kingdom at the moment, and it certainly doesn't look
49:50
Speaker 3: like Starmer was in a position to be pushing China,
49:54
Speaker 3: of course, caught between two stools as he effectively wants
49:57
Speaker 3: to cozy up to China and yet apparently appear sort
50:01
Speaker 3: of tough in the face of the types of goings
50:04
Speaker 3: on in China, exactly like Catherine West has been referring to.
50:08
Speaker 3: Now the BBC have gone into a bit more depth
50:10
Speaker 3: on who exactly these activists are, and the reason that
50:14
Speaker 3: it's worth looking at this is because we have one
50:17
Speaker 3: such here labeled as the LGBT campaigner, Jimmy Sham. A
50:21
Speaker 3: longtime activist, he also led one of Hong Kong's largest
50:24
Speaker 3: pro democracy groups, Civil Rights Sorry Civil Human Rights Front
50:28
Speaker 3: ch r F. Now, the reason that that's relevant is
50:32
Speaker 3: because I previously spoke about the National Endowment for Democracy
50:35
Speaker 3: set up in nineteen eighty three and effectively the sort
50:38
Speaker 3: of above board actor for the CIA, which of course
50:43
Speaker 3: China has an awful lot to say about, but particularly
50:46
Speaker 3: this Chap Qing Yung, and he's a former convener of
50:51
Speaker 3: the CHRF, an organization focusing on human rights, and he
50:54
Speaker 3: previously served as the Deputy General Secretary of the Federation
50:57
Speaker 3: of Students, a platform for youth and gagement in social action.
51:02
Speaker 3: So for the NED to try and wash the hands
51:04
Speaker 3: of any interference in Hong Kong seems a bit of
51:06
Speaker 3: a stretch. And as I say, the fact sheet on
51:08
Speaker 3: the NED from China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs cites the
51:14
Speaker 3: turbulence in twenty nineteen, they went from being behind the
51:17
Speaker 3: scenes to the front line, directly engaging with major anti
51:20
Speaker 3: China destabilizing forces in Hong Kong and offering subsidies and
51:25
Speaker 3: training to those involved in the riots. So I'm sure
51:30
Speaker 3: there's going to be plenty more to come out about this,
51:33
Speaker 3: But as far as the UK is concerned, it seems
51:36
Speaker 3: a perfect opportunity to both bash China and deflect attention
51:40
Speaker 3: from the very real abuse of political power in the UK.
51:46
Speaker 1: Yes, indeed, we'll talk more about that and extra as well.
51:49
Speaker 1: Now let's come back to the UK and cash and well,
51:53
Speaker 1: the parliamentary one of the parliamentary committees in this case,
51:56
Speaker 1: the Treasury Select Committee is acting for ever dent or
52:00
Speaker 1: asking for evidence sorry on the acceptance of cash. So
52:03
Speaker 1: acceptance of cash to investigated by Treasurer Committee is what
52:06
Speaker 1: they announced on the fourth of this month. And so
52:10
Speaker 1: they're looking to answer a few questions. What is the
52:13
Speaker 1: current state of recent trends in and forecasts for cash
52:17
Speaker 1: acceptance in the UK? Are there groups in society that
52:20
Speaker 1: disproportionately rely on businesses and public services accepting their cash?
52:25
Speaker 1: Could government or should government require parts of the economy
52:28
Speaker 1: to always accept cash. So some of these questions are
52:30
Speaker 1: going to be for the general public and some of
52:33
Speaker 1: them are going to be for special interest groups, but
52:35
Speaker 1: there are certainly questions that can be answered by many
52:37
Speaker 1: many people. Other questions they want to look at, what
52:41
Speaker 1: are the practical challenges that businesses might face from having
52:44
Speaker 1: to always accept cash, What would the cost be to
52:47
Speaker 1: private firms in the public sector from any imposed requirements
52:50
Speaker 1: to always accept cash? And high might such requirement for
52:55
Speaker 1: cash acceptance affect financially financial services firms, and are there
53:00
Speaker 1: the other areas or particular sectors where a declining in
53:02
Speaker 1: cash acceptance would cause problems? So the evidence is the
53:09
Speaker 1: form for submitting evidence is certainly open for anybody that's
53:13
Speaker 1: an individual. You're welcome to make any suggestions and to
53:18
Speaker 1: add your evidence and it will be all publicly published.
53:21
Speaker 1: I believe fourth of December is the closing date for this,
53:25
Speaker 1: so people can get involved. But Charles's come back to
53:29
Speaker 1: you then. And policing in the.
53:31
Speaker 3: UK indeed yet another Home Secretary suggesting that she's going
53:39
Speaker 3: to crack it and all the failures and abuses of
53:42
Speaker 3: police power, authority and all the rest of it are
53:44
Speaker 3: going to be swept away as she conducts a series
53:47
Speaker 3: of major policing reforms. Here tweeted out by the Home Office.
53:52
Speaker 3: Of course, the most significant part of the original announcement
53:58
Speaker 3: from the government, which says here an ambitious program of
54:01
Speaker 3: reformed policing has been unveiled by the Home Secretary, making
54:03
Speaker 3: the start of a new partnership between government and policing.
54:07
Speaker 3: Now the threat to operational independence of police has never
54:11
Speaker 3: been greater, and to suggest that there's going to be
54:15
Speaker 3: the forging of a new partnership between government and policing
54:18
Speaker 3: should be considered as highly alarming, and they described as
54:23
Speaker 3: being part of a strategic reset in the relationship, and
54:26
Speaker 3: they reinforce the point with the Home Office taking a
54:29
Speaker 3: more active role in working with policing leaders to drive
54:33
Speaker 3: improvements and insure policing is set up to succeed rather
54:36
Speaker 3: than frustrated by weak national structures. Now that is suggestive
54:40
Speaker 3: of meddling, political meddling in policing, which is entirely inappropriate
54:46
Speaker 3: and very much discordant with the Pelian principles of course,
54:50
Speaker 3: and every other piece of policing policy that should really
54:54
Speaker 3: dictate the way in which police carry out their business.
54:58
Speaker 3: She's specific in terms of what she cites, at least
55:03
Speaker 3: in terms of an infrastructure and particularly on the technology
55:06
Speaker 3: side of it. She talks about a new Police Performance
55:08
Speaker 3: Unit to track national data on local performance and drive
55:11
Speaker 3: up standards, neighborhood police and guarantee to rebuild trust between
55:15
Speaker 3: local forces and communities, a National Center of Polting to
55:17
Speaker 3: harness new technology and forensics, and all of this will
55:21
Speaker 3: be augmented by thirteen thousand new staff mixture of frontline
55:25
Speaker 3: police and effectively civilian support staff. Now I shall make
55:29
Speaker 3: it clear I think there are two sides to this.
55:31
Speaker 3: One is the description of this partnership, which will in
55:35
Speaker 3: effect be via the communication channel from the Home Office
55:39
Speaker 3: to police leadership, which I think is, as I say, alarming.
55:44
Speaker 3: The delivery of Cooper's proposals for new technological innovations and
55:49
Speaker 3: the sorts of things that people are going to be
55:51
Speaker 3: doing on a day to day basis I think are
55:53
Speaker 3: Pine and Sky, which is why I think it's worth
55:56
Speaker 3: looking at something of paper published by the Carnegian die
56:01
Speaker 3: from last year, really a criticism of Russia, as so
56:04
Speaker 3: much literature is these days, and the site make this
56:08
Speaker 3: point which I think the Home Secretary should bear in mind.
56:10
Speaker 3: It should be noted that in both implementing and failing
56:13
Speaker 3: to implement measures that should help the system to survive,
56:16
Speaker 3: the bigger fear is not public protests or discontent, but
56:19
Speaker 3: administrative dysfunction. That the authorities should proclaim something and nothing follows,
56:25
Speaker 3: and they go on to say this is what happened
56:26
Speaker 3: in the late Soviet Union, and then the elitist worldview
56:29
Speaker 3: of the Russian ruling class. Any mass protest or public
56:32
Speaker 3: disobedience is what follows this administrative impotence, not what causes it. So,
56:38
Speaker 3: as I say, I think there are two parts to this,
56:41
Speaker 3: but the critical bit really that we should be concentrating
56:45
Speaker 3: on is this suggestion that the home sectary is to
56:48
Speaker 3: have a closer relationship with the decision making processes of
56:51
Speaker 3: the Chief Constables. And that is not right at all.
56:55
Speaker 1: Absolutely police did as far as I can see, but
56:59
Speaker 1: we shall talk about that more in a minute.
57:01
Speaker 6: Now.
57:02
Speaker 1: We began with the farmer demonstration in London. We're going
57:06
Speaker 1: to end with that as well, and I just want
57:08
Speaker 1: to show about a minute and a half of Jeremy
57:11
Speaker 1: Clarkson speaking to Victoria Derbyshire from the BBC.
57:18
Speaker 9: Why are you here, mister Clark's at RM.
57:20
Speaker 8: Well, because I'm here to support farmers.
57:22
Speaker 9: Right.
57:23
Speaker 4: Are you angry.
57:25
Speaker 8: Still? You've got to be angry on somebody else's behalf.
57:27
Speaker 8: That's like being yes, no, I'm not angry on someone
57:30
Speaker 8: else's behalf.
57:31
Speaker 9: Right, So it's not about you. It's not about your
57:34
Speaker 9: farm and the fact that you bought a farm to
57:36
Speaker 9: avoid inheritance tax.
57:39
Speaker 8: Classic BBC then classic, Oh yeah, it's not the fact
57:43
Speaker 8: that the fact that I bought a farm to avoid
57:45
Speaker 8: inheritance tax, the.
57:47
Speaker 9: Fact you told Sunday Times in twenty twenty one, that's
57:50
Speaker 9: why you bought it.
57:53
Speaker 6: People. Sorry BBC.
57:55
Speaker 8: Okay, let's start from the beginning. I wanted to shoot. Okay,
57:59
Speaker 8: that's you and worse to the BBC. I wanted to shoot,
58:03
Speaker 8: which comes with the benefits of not having to pay
58:05
Speaker 8: inheritance tax. Now I do, but people like me will
58:08
Speaker 8: simply put it in a trust and as long as
58:10
Speaker 8: I live for seven years, that's fine. And as my
58:13
Speaker 8: daughter said, you will live for seven years. You might
58:14
Speaker 8: be in a deep freeze at the end of it,
58:16
Speaker 8: but you will live for seven years. But it's incredibly
58:19
Speaker 8: time consuming to have to do that. And why should
58:22
Speaker 8: all these people have to do that? Why should they?
58:26
Speaker 9: So one of the reasons Rachel Reeves says she brought
58:28
Speaker 9: this in is to stop wealthy people using it as well.
58:31
Speaker 6: Though that was the only reason she did.
58:33
Speaker 9: Well, No, the other reason was to raise money for
58:36
Speaker 9: public services. You listening to this, have you tried to
58:42
Speaker 9: get a GP appointment lately?
58:44
Speaker 6: Yes? I just recently had a heart attack.
58:46
Speaker 9: Okay, so you know it's tough. Yes, So where where
58:50
Speaker 9: should they get the money from if it's not from
58:53
Speaker 9: from far.
58:56
Speaker 6: With thinks you should be paying for everything.
59:01
Speaker 1: So on one hand, fair play. On the other hand,
59:05
Speaker 1: missed opportunity because of course, what was the BBC journalist
59:10
Speaker 1: Victoria Darbyshire doing. She was effectively acting as the mouthpiece.
59:14
Speaker 1: She was pretending that she was just asking questions, we're
59:16
Speaker 1: effectively asking acting as the mouthpiece for the BBC. What
59:21
Speaker 1: Clarkson could have done at that point was simply say well,
59:25
Speaker 1: we could stop funding the Ukraine War, we could stop
59:30
Speaker 1: funded providing weapons to Israel, we could stop running wars
59:34
Speaker 1: right around the country, just as a starter. How much
59:38
Speaker 1: money has been spent on the Ukraine War so far?
59:42
Speaker 1: That is a question that needs to be asked. So
59:45
Speaker 1: he missed an opportunity. Charles, I don't know, very briefly
59:47
Speaker 1: if we've got any thoughts on that.
59:51
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, but you're absolutely right, that is, as
59:55
Speaker 3: he says, classic BBC. But it does illustrate well the
59:58
Speaker 3: point that's the BBC absolutely the government mostly so there's
1:00:02
Speaker 3: no journalistic integrity or serious sort of point of questioning.
1:00:05
Speaker 3: But I think, yeah, I think you're right. I think
1:00:06
Speaker 3: you did absolutely miss an open goal. But the fact
1:00:08
Speaker 3: that it was even a suggestion that farmers should in
1:00:12
Speaker 3: some way bear the brunt of the responsibility for the
1:00:16
Speaker 3: nation when also they are meant to be feeding the
1:00:18
Speaker 3: nation seems an extraordinary pill to try to make them swallow.
1:00:23
Speaker 1: Absolutely well, we will leave it on that note for today.
1:00:26
Speaker 1: Thank you very much to Vanessa and Charles for joining
1:00:29
Speaker 1: me today, and for everybody that is watched. Stick around
1:00:32
Speaker 1: on the stream. If you're a UK call a member
1:00:34
Speaker 1: for some extra we'll be back in a few minutes
1:00:36
Speaker 1: for that. Don't forget the interview tomorrow, and we will
1:00:40
Speaker 1: see at one pm as usual on Friday for another
1:00:42
Speaker 1: news program. See then, Bye bye,