Latest / UK Column Radio / UK Column News — 17th June 2026

Transcript

UK Column News — 17th June 2026 · UK Column Radio

0:08
Speaker 1: Good afternoon. It's Wednesday, the seventeenth of June twenty twenty six,
0:11
Speaker 1: just after one o'clock. Welcome to UK Colin News. I'm
0:13
Speaker 1: your host Mike Robinson joining me in the studio today
0:16
Speaker 1: Charles Mallett welcomes to the program.
0:17
Speaker 2: Charles, Thank you, Mike.
0:19
Speaker 1: By videolink. We have Fanessa Billy joining us as usual
0:21
Speaker 1: night letter. In the program, we're going to be reporting
0:23
Speaker 1: on the Appeals court decision on Palestine Action, the National
0:26
Speaker 1: Security Bill, the let us on the social media ban
0:30
Speaker 1: for under sixteens and the return of the off assisted
0:33
Speaker 1: dying to the political agenda, as well as the letters
0:36
Speaker 1: from Lebanon. But we're going to begin with well, is
0:39
Speaker 1: it parisy, Charles.
0:40
Speaker 2: It's an extremely good question. It's certainly very theatrical.
0:43
Speaker 3: And this is the story concerning what's happened in well
0:46
Speaker 3: international waters. But to much fanfare, an oil tanker was
0:50
Speaker 3: boarded earlier this week, described of course, as being part
0:54
Speaker 3: of the so called Russian shadow fleet. And this is
0:57
Speaker 3: the brand new Secretary of State for Defense Dan Jarvis,
1:01
Speaker 3: telling the House of Commons what he would like us
1:03
Speaker 3: to believe happened.
1:07
Speaker 4: In the early hours of the morning twenty five miles
1:09
Speaker 4: south off the Isle of Wight, Royal Marine Commandos fast wrote,
1:14
Speaker 4: under the cover of darkness onto the deck of the Smirtos,
1:18
Speaker 4: within a matter of minutes, our Marines should seize control
1:21
Speaker 4: of the vessel without resistance. They worked closely in this
1:25
Speaker 4: operation with specialist officers from the National Crime Agency and
1:29
Speaker 4: were supported by aircraft from the Maritime Air Group, including
1:33
Speaker 4: Chinook's Merlin Mk four and Wildcat helicopters an RAFP eight
1:39
Speaker 4: and Type twenty three for HMS Sutherland and mine hunter
1:42
Speaker 4: HMS Ledbury. I also want to take the opportunity to
1:45
Speaker 4: recognize the vital contribution of the Home Offices, Border Security
1:49
Speaker 4: Command maritime teams. Lasting six hours, this Royal Navy led
1:53
Speaker 4: interdiction was the first of its kind for UK forces
1:57
Speaker 4: and the result of careful and meticulous planning across multiple
2:02
Speaker 4: government departments and agencies. All military and law enforcement personnel
2:08
Speaker 4: are safely accounted for, and I know that the whole
2:12
Speaker 4: House will join me in paying deepest respect and sear
2:16
Speaker 4: thanks to the hundreds of people who were involved.
2:21
Speaker 3: Now, as you heard him say, that was the first
2:24
Speaker 3: of its kind and the authorization for this sort of
2:26
Speaker 3: activity was granted, we're told by the Prime Minister's office
2:30
Speaker 3: back in March in what was described as the latest
2:34
Speaker 3: blow to Russia. Of course, early discernible puff might be
2:39
Speaker 3: more accurate, but the statement released then said that each
2:42
Speaker 3: target ship will be individually considered by law enforcement, military
2:46
Speaker 3: and energy market specialists before recommendation is made to ministers
2:50
Speaker 3: and an operation is executed. So the result several months
2:55
Speaker 3: later for the so called Shadow Fleet, which is described
2:58
Speaker 3: by the government as comprise at least five hundred and
3:01
Speaker 3: forty four decrepit and sanctioned vessels, has been the very
3:07
Speaker 3: theatrical interdiction of the smirtos. Now, I've got some footage
3:12
Speaker 3: of the incident itself which has been put out by
3:16
Speaker 3: the Ministry of Defense, which will just put on screen now,
3:19
Speaker 3: and of course you heard Jarvis. They're listing several significant
3:23
Speaker 3: resources in terms of manpower and equipment, and as far
3:25
Speaker 3: as we can see from the footage which is playing
3:29
Speaker 3: at the moment, one can only assume that most of
3:31
Speaker 3: this must be to carry the filming kit. Now, that
3:36
Speaker 3: this could be described as anything other than a gratuitous
3:38
Speaker 3: and entirely hollow gesture of propaganda is fanciful and the
3:43
Speaker 3: mod rhetoric suggested that the Russians had nowhere to hide.
3:47
Speaker 3: You're watching quite literally now, and I would say, rather
3:50
Speaker 3: amusingly the footage confirming that, in fact the small band
3:53
Speaker 3: of cities on board did in fact have plenty of
3:55
Speaker 3: places to hide. Because nobody appears in these videos. Public
4:00
Speaker 3: supposed to take seriously the spectacle of clearance drills being
4:03
Speaker 3: conducted in the direction of a cameraman who has by
4:07
Speaker 3: definition already cleared the way. This does seem intended to
4:11
Speaker 3: show the potency and the relevance of the new UK
4:17
Speaker 3: commando force, which the Roll Marines are unfortunate enough to
4:21
Speaker 3: find themselves operating under the banner of Now it's supposed
4:25
Speaker 3: to convince the public perhaps that the description of the
4:27
Speaker 3: Role Navy as a hybrid force can mean something other
4:30
Speaker 3: than a spent force. And further, it's supposed to maintain
4:34
Speaker 3: the narrative that there exists a clear threat from Russia,
4:37
Speaker 3: and that somehow interfering with the movement of oil is
4:40
Speaker 3: of some benefit to the British taxpayer and consumers of
4:44
Speaker 3: petrochemical products, which of course is almost everybody watching. Jarvis
4:49
Speaker 3: wound up his speech by saying that we should be grateful,
4:52
Speaker 3: but for what is not really clear. And in terms
4:57
Speaker 3: of press releases, I think the latest from the FCDO
5:00
Speaker 3: might be regarded as a drop short. Sorry, I just
5:03
Speaker 3: finish off the text which I did talk about last week.
5:07
Speaker 3: Actually Jenkins there describing the change from three Commando Brigade
5:11
Speaker 3: to the UK Commando Force as being more than a
5:13
Speaker 3: name change, reflecting a decade of transformation. Of course, that
5:16
Speaker 3: transformation being effectively the wilful destruction of all three services.
5:21
Speaker 3: But the press release I was talking about is now
5:25
Speaker 3: on sorry, just about to go on screen, and it
5:28
Speaker 3: does actually refer to shady networks. Those are the very
5:32
Speaker 3: words used amazingly by the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Ofvius.
5:35
Speaker 3: The UK clamps down on shady networks supplying Putin's illegal
5:39
Speaker 3: war with sanctions package. Now if you remember the UK
5:44
Speaker 3: column news broadcast dealing with this, of course, is undermined
5:48
Speaker 3: entirely by the relaxation of the sanctions that are related
5:51
Speaker 3: to the purchase of oil, and based on the operational
5:56
Speaker 3: requirements which were needed to pull off the stunt that
6:01
Speaker 3: we are talking about, it may be conceivable that as
6:04
Speaker 3: many as four per month could be conducted in future
6:07
Speaker 3: leaving well over ninety vessels to continue to do absolutely
6:11
Speaker 3: as they please. Also, it should be pointed out that
6:13
Speaker 3: Russian warships are able to pass freely through the English
6:17
Speaker 3: Channel because part of it is considered to be international waters.
6:20
Speaker 3: Now the BBC point this out in the extraordinarily amplified
6:25
Speaker 3: account of a yacht which did not in fact collide
6:28
Speaker 3: with the Russian frigate. And here we go put the
6:30
Speaker 3: text on screen from the BBC article. Russian warships regularly
6:34
Speaker 3: pass through international waters in the Channel, which are separate
6:37
Speaker 3: from UK and French territorial waters. The ships are routinely
6:41
Speaker 3: monitored by Role Navy vessels. So therefore this being the case,
6:45
Speaker 3: questions should really be asked about the mod's television show
6:50
Speaker 3: because the smithtos too was in international waters. And I
6:54
Speaker 3: think really there can be very little doubt at the
6:58
Speaker 3: purpose of this exercise, which was to create an illusion,
7:01
Speaker 3: and certainly the coincidence of the start, or rather with
7:05
Speaker 3: the start of the G seven meetings can't be ignored either. Now,
7:08
Speaker 3: with regard to the creation of illusions, now would be
7:11
Speaker 3: the time to mention the intense hype surrounding the supposed
7:15
Speaker 3: value of space x which is apparently another brainchild of
7:20
Speaker 3: Elon musk So we're to believe reportedly valued now at
7:25
Speaker 3: two point six trillion dollars, which is a figure pulled
7:29
Speaker 3: largely but not entirely from thin air. Reuter's is quoting
7:33
Speaker 3: Musk karc non screen as saying that the business could
7:36
Speaker 3: turnover as much as one trillion dollars in just a
7:40
Speaker 3: few years.
7:40
Speaker 2: And now how are we going to get there?
7:41
Speaker 3: Because twenty twenty five or a turnover of just eighteen
7:46
Speaker 3: billion dollars with a loss of four point ninety four billion. So,
7:49
Speaker 3: of course, the keyword in must statement is could, so
7:54
Speaker 3: one might consider this is pie and sky. However, the
7:58
Speaker 3: reason this is related to directly to the activities of
8:01
Speaker 3: the nascent UK command A Force is that the primary
8:05
Speaker 3: applications of SpaceX capabilities will be the enabling of warfare
8:10
Speaker 3: and the management of all communications related to it. And
8:15
Speaker 3: it is this which could see vast amounts of money
8:17
Speaker 3: swilling into its coffers. This is dealt with this exact subject.
8:20
Speaker 3: It's dealt with in a recent UK column article entitled
8:24
Speaker 3: space Wars overboard on sea piece and that has gone
8:27
Speaker 3: into in some debt. Now I think there will be
8:31
Speaker 3: plenty to talk about in extra with regard to this,
8:34
Speaker 3: But I think one thing that struck me, which I
8:37
Speaker 3: would come back to, is his reference to the Border Force,
8:39
Speaker 3: which of course was involved in this. And whilst they
8:42
Speaker 3: seem capable of clambering aboard or dropping on too large
8:48
Speaker 3: vessels in international waters in the middle of the night,
8:50
Speaker 3: that they're apparently not able to do anything about boats
8:53
Speaker 3: landing on British beaches a bit of a discrepancy among
8:56
Speaker 3: many discrepancies, I think, yeah, But.
8:59
Speaker 1: It's just another example of the comedy of the entire incident,
9:02
Speaker 1: because it is a comedy show. And does anybody really
9:05
Speaker 1: believe that they are achieving anything with this other than
9:10
Speaker 1: the because I use the word paracy at the beginning
9:13
Speaker 1: of the program, Charles, But first of all, was that
9:16
Speaker 1: an unreasonable thing to do? But it just looks to
9:18
Speaker 1: me like it's yet another example of how we just
9:21
Speaker 1: dispense with any international law that we don't agree with.
9:25
Speaker 2: I think it's exactly it.
9:26
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean again, not that absolutely enormous inconsistency, but
9:28
Speaker 3: certainly the justification of that that much force being brought
9:32
Speaker 3: to bear on a vessel that's populated by a small
9:35
Speaker 3: number of civilians. Again, is that portunate? Is it realistic?
9:39
Speaker 3: Certainly in the context of the size of the so
9:41
Speaker 3: called shadow fleet. I mean, the whole thing is utterly empty,
9:46
Speaker 3: and I think even in the main street there are
9:48
Speaker 3: you know, there is in a way an irresistible urge
9:53
Speaker 3: to highlight it for what it is.
9:55
Speaker 2: I mean, it cannot be ignored. It is so obviously
9:59
Speaker 2: full of hot and nothing else.
10:01
Speaker 1: Have they said where they've taken this ship, not as
10:04
Speaker 1: far as more are, and they're going to steal the
10:06
Speaker 1: oil if there is any oil.
10:08
Speaker 2: Well, this is it. I mean, this is one of
10:10
Speaker 2: the big questions.
10:11
Speaker 3: What is the result for that, for the and how
10:14
Speaker 3: in any way does this improve the situation of any
10:16
Speaker 3: of the sorts of things that they're trying to deal with.
10:18
Speaker 1: It's fascinating. On the PM program last night they were
10:21
Speaker 1: talking about how the Aberdeen has completely collapsed as a
10:26
Speaker 1: result of the fact that drill you're drilling in the
10:29
Speaker 1: North Seas no longer allowed. But we're happy to justnke
10:32
Speaker 1: it from other countries. I know, it is incredible. Well, look,
10:36
Speaker 1: let's let's stick with this in a certain sense, because,
10:39
Speaker 1: of course, as everybody knows, the UK column has been
10:42
Speaker 1: somewhat skeptical over the last few years about the scripp
10:46
Speaker 1: All affair and have we've published, thanks to Tim Norman
10:51
Speaker 1: and others, a number of articles on that and why
10:55
Speaker 1: that skepticism is justified. Now, clearly this scripp Ale affair
11:00
Speaker 1: was a complex operation and the narrative didn't really stack
11:04
Speaker 1: up when it was examined. So it seems like there's
11:07
Speaker 1: been an attempt and just speculating here to a certain degree,
11:11
Speaker 1: to carry out a similar type of operation but make
11:13
Speaker 1: it a lot a lot simpler in the way that
11:15
Speaker 1: it's executed. So here we have the BBC coverage of
11:19
Speaker 1: this reporting that Ukrainian national Roman.
11:25
Speaker 2: Lovnovich.
11:26
Speaker 1: Sorry, I did try that earlier on and I got it right,
11:28
Speaker 1: But so Loverdovitch there you go, who's twenty two and
11:31
Speaker 1: a Ukrainian born Romanian stanuswav Karpuch twenty seven. They were
11:36
Speaker 1: convicted by an old billy jury of conspiring to carry
11:39
Speaker 1: out arson attacks on property and a car connected to
11:42
Speaker 1: Kir Starmer. Now, this happened in May twenty twenty five
11:45
Speaker 1: when a Toyota which was once owned by kir Starmer,
11:49
Speaker 1: was set a light in the street in North London,
11:51
Speaker 1: and then that was followed by two homes being set
11:53
Speaker 1: on Far, one of which had been rented out to
11:57
Speaker 1: Starmer's sister in law, and it was a high Starmer
12:00
Speaker 1: still owned. Lavernovitch was acquitted of damaging property by far
12:06
Speaker 1: with an intent to endanger life on the eleventh and
12:08
Speaker 1: twelfth and May twenty twenty five at two properties in
12:12
Speaker 1: North London, but he was then convicted of alternate counts
12:15
Speaker 1: of damaging property by far being reckless as to whether
12:19
Speaker 1: life was endangered. I'm not clear which of those is
12:23
Speaker 1: more serious the first one, right, So they've absolutely downgraded
12:27
Speaker 1: the charges against them, okay. And then a third man
12:31
Speaker 1: was a thirty five year old, was fine not guilty
12:34
Speaker 1: of conspiracy commit arson. All three of them, according to
12:38
Speaker 1: the BBC Live in London, they had denied conspiring together
12:42
Speaker 1: and with others to damage the property by Far between
12:45
Speaker 1: the first of April and the thirteenth in May. But
12:48
Speaker 1: here's the thing. Part of the prosecution case was that
12:54
Speaker 1: Lavernovitch had carried out the arsenal attacks after being recruited
12:58
Speaker 1: online by a Russian speaking tell user called el Money,
13:02
Speaker 1: who promised them payment. And we're supposed to swallow the
13:06
Speaker 1: fact that such a name was used by a Russian operative.
13:11
Speaker 1: But anyway, I want to highlight this by Craig Murray
13:14
Speaker 1: on X because he's making a fairly valid point. I
13:17
Speaker 1: would suggest by saying that the BBC report that the
13:21
Speaker 1: man who organized the arson of Starmer related property was
13:24
Speaker 1: Russian speaking, they failed to report the evidence that he
13:27
Speaker 1: was also Ukrainian speaking. Almost every Ukrainian can speak Russian.
13:33
Speaker 1: Very few Russians can speak Ukrainian. Do you think that's
13:36
Speaker 1: a fair statement.
13:37
Speaker 3: It's absolutely fair. I've lived in Ukraine. It's completely the case.
13:39
Speaker 3: East to west there is broadly a split. There's more
13:42
Speaker 3: Ukrainian spoke in the west of Ukraine, more Russian spoke
13:44
Speaker 3: in the east. But absolutely that is true.
13:46
Speaker 1: So this looks like a pretty to me, it looks
13:49
Speaker 1: like a pretty pathetic attempt to once again create a
13:53
Speaker 1: narrative justifying conflict with Russia and perhaps justifying the paracy
13:57
Speaker 1: that we began the program.
13:58
Speaker 3: Absolutely yeah, I think so yeah, And of course I
14:00
Speaker 3: mean it does provide good ammunition. We saw an amusing
14:04
Speaker 3: I suppose meme might be the right word with somebody
14:06
Speaker 3: been going so far as to say that they might
14:08
Speaker 3: have found a Russian passport near the scene.
14:12
Speaker 2: That hasn't happened yet. Well, anything's possible, Vanessa.
14:16
Speaker 1: Let me welcome you to the program, and let's move
14:19
Speaker 1: over to Lebanon and our old friend Jilani, who's currently
14:25
Speaker 1: apparently president of Syria, seems to have been visiting.
14:30
Speaker 5: Yeah, I missed that. Al Qaeda.
14:32
Speaker 6: No, he hasn't been visiting Lebanon yet, but let's have
14:36
Speaker 6: a look. I mean back in May, I think early May.
14:39
Speaker 6: Trump first suggested that if the Zionist forces couldn't succeed
14:45
Speaker 6: in basically defeating Husbala, then maybe Joe Lani and the
14:50
Speaker 6: tech theory al Qaeda ISIS forces would be triggered to
14:56
Speaker 6: take over. And we've seen a number of incursions on
15:00
Speaker 6: the eastern and northern border areas with Lubanon since December
15:05
Speaker 6: twenty twenty four. Anyway, But let's just this is Trump
15:10
Speaker 6: basically speaking to reporters on Tuesday the G seven summit
15:14
Speaker 6: in avienre Les Bars in France, where he expressed frustration
15:19
Speaker 6: that the Zionist attacks in Lebanon are overshadowing his administration's
15:24
Speaker 6: newly broken Of course, I always put peace and inverted
15:27
Speaker 6: commas a peace accord with Iran.
15:30
Speaker 5: So let's just hear what he says here.
15:33
Speaker 1: And I suggested that Israel to let Siria take care
15:37
Speaker 1: of haswell.
15:39
Speaker 4: Is to be honest with you, I think they'll do
15:40
Speaker 4: a better job of doing it.
15:47
Speaker 6: So basically, Trump has said that as part of the
15:53
Speaker 6: agreement where they are allegedly Israel should withdraw from southern
15:59
Speaker 6: Lubanon and those would be a ceasefire. Of course, the
16:01
Speaker 6: ceasefire is non existent. Israel has continued since that date
16:06
Speaker 6: to pummel areas in the south, particularly the city of
16:10
Speaker 6: Tire and of Nabata, where I visited yesterday. There will
16:13
Speaker 6: be a report later on in the news on that,
16:17
Speaker 6: and Thattanyahu and Israel Katz have put out statements saying
16:20
Speaker 6: that they don't consider themselves to be part of this
16:23
Speaker 6: deal with Iran and that they will continue with their
16:26
Speaker 6: objectives in southern Lebanon. However, I recently recorded some information
16:33
Speaker 6: that I received from sources inside Syria at my own substack,
16:37
Speaker 6: but I'll be expanding on this article at UK column,
16:41
Speaker 6: So keep an eye out for that. The burning Borders
16:44
Speaker 6: will Jolani's tech fury forces intervene in Lubanon, So I'm
16:48
Speaker 6: basically going to go with a few mats now, just
16:51
Speaker 6: to show exactly what I'm talking about. There is potential
16:56
Speaker 6: for some kind of operation offensive operation from Jolanese forces.
17:01
Speaker 6: First of all, in the Homs area, so effectively to
17:06
Speaker 6: the north of Lebanon and to the south of Tatoos,
17:10
Speaker 6: that is ring there on the Syrian coast, there is
17:13
Speaker 6: a build up of forces. Now I'm being told there
17:17
Speaker 6: are mated seventy thousand tach fiery forces being gathered on
17:21
Speaker 6: the entire border area of Lebanon. If we look at
17:25
Speaker 6: the next map, you'll get a better idea of where
17:28
Speaker 6: I'm talking about. So including the countryside to the west
17:32
Speaker 6: of Homs, you have Alca Sah there at the top
17:36
Speaker 6: to the northeastern border with Lebanon, the Kalamun mountains Al Nabok,
17:42
Speaker 6: which is to the north of Damascus, relatively far away
17:46
Speaker 6: from the border area with Lebanon, but obviously being mountains,
17:52
Speaker 6: they can use that to launch artillery and drone attacks.
17:56
Speaker 6: And then the al Maasna border, which people might remember
18:00
Speaker 6: is the border that I crossed through when Damascus fell
18:04
Speaker 6: back in December twenty twenty four. So what I'm being
18:07
Speaker 6: told is that there are around seventy thousand militia, majority
18:12
Speaker 6: of which of foreign meaning Chechen Uzbek Wiga is one
18:18
Speaker 6: of the commands or one of the brigades, I think
18:21
Speaker 6: the seventieth and the eighty fourth brigade, So that's under
18:25
Speaker 6: the new Syria al Kaeda armed forces are headed up
18:30
Speaker 6: by Turkish assets. So this obviously means that Turkey has
18:34
Speaker 6: an interest in this operation as well as Israel. And
18:38
Speaker 6: if we just take a look at this map, which
18:41
Speaker 6: is in addition to what I've already talked about, this
18:44
Speaker 6: is a high area against Ragaya. Here they have been
18:48
Speaker 6: developing surveillance capabilities. They've been bringing in radar surveillance equipment
18:55
Speaker 6: in order presumably to surveil the border. And of course
18:58
Speaker 6: we shouldn't forget that I reported I think now two
19:01
Speaker 6: or three years ago that the British had established watchtowers
19:05
Speaker 6: along the eastern border, particularly in the Baalbak area, which
19:10
Speaker 6: in my opinion, will not be used to identify movements
19:14
Speaker 6: of ISIS and terrorist groups inside Syria, but will be
19:17
Speaker 6: used to inform those groups of the movements of Hesbula
19:21
Speaker 6: and the resistance in eastern Lebanon. And then finally, if
19:26
Speaker 6: we just look at this map I've rather clumsily drawn
19:31
Speaker 6: where Jolanese forces are established currently and are being reinforced
19:37
Speaker 6: and multiplied, So from the south of Tartus through the
19:40
Speaker 6: western Homes countryside around that entire border area. Now, what
19:47
Speaker 6: is important to note here. First of all, in that
19:50
Speaker 6: eastern area of Lebanon you have around thirty thousand former
19:55
Speaker 6: Syrian Arab Army soldiers who left the country in December
19:59
Speaker 6: twenty twenty four. There have already been threats from the
20:03
Speaker 6: Iraqi resistance like the PMU and Kataib has ballard that
20:08
Speaker 6: if Jolani does attack Lebanon, they will attack from the
20:12
Speaker 6: eastern Syrian border with Iraq, and that includes seventy thousand
20:18
Speaker 6: Syrian Arabami forces that left in December twenty twenty four.
20:23
Speaker 6: And the chances are Jorlani will try one of two things.
20:27
Speaker 6: He'll either try to create a buffer zone inclusion with
20:31
Speaker 6: the Zionists that are effectively trying to take control of
20:35
Speaker 6: the southeastern border of Lebanon. The buffer zone will be
20:40
Speaker 6: to prevent any re arming or supply to Hasbalar and
20:43
Speaker 6: to fully isolate Hasbla and Lebanon. Or it will be
20:48
Speaker 6: a full on attack with an invasion inside Lebanon along
20:52
Speaker 6: all the points that I mentioned, but effectively, Jolani is
20:57
Speaker 6: fulfilling his promise as his ed us asset.
21:03
Speaker 2: Thank you for that, Vanessa.
21:04
Speaker 1: No, let's stick with Jilani for a second then, and
21:07
Speaker 1: bring on because you already mentioned the G seven, So
21:09
Speaker 1: let's bring on the G seven family photograph and well,
21:14
Speaker 1: leaders of the Group of Seven countries are in France
21:18
Speaker 1: in Avion, drinking lots of water. No died, Sorry to
21:22
Speaker 1: make that joke, and yes, should be shot for that, shouldn't. Yes, Indeed,
21:29
Speaker 1: so this is they were largely talking about stepping up
21:34
Speaker 1: support for Ukraine. But the problem was that Donald Trump
21:36
Speaker 1: was busy urging negotiations with Russia and a peace deal,
21:40
Speaker 1: so that they were at least putting the idea of
21:43
Speaker 1: there being some kind of disagreement between them on the table.
21:48
Speaker 1: But here's here's the thing. Jolanie was invited to that
21:54
Speaker 1: meeting that was largely unreported at the time. Now, as
21:58
Speaker 1: it turns out, it seems they didn't go. But Vanessa,
22:01
Speaker 1: very briefly, I don't know if you'd heard that, but
22:04
Speaker 1: I wonder if that invitation, which was made by Macron
22:08
Speaker 1: at the Syrian embassy in Paris. I wonder if that
22:12
Speaker 1: invitation was to discuss the potential of action in Lebanon.
22:17
Speaker 1: I don't know if you've heard anything on this.
22:22
Speaker 6: I think from what I have been told, it could
22:25
Speaker 6: potentially be to do with that that he's busy preparing
22:28
Speaker 6: for whatever Trump and Israel want him to do. But
22:31
Speaker 6: also I think Macron is putting pressure on him now
22:35
Speaker 6: to follow through with French policy in Syria, which we
22:38
Speaker 6: can talk about.
22:39
Speaker 1: In extra super Thank you very much for that. Okay,
22:42
Speaker 1: let's move on. If you like what the UK Column does,
22:45
Speaker 1: we do need your ongoing support. Issue one of the
22:48
Speaker 1: column is available for sale on the UK Column Shop
22:52
Speaker 1: and issue to gohes to press today. Actually, so within
22:56
Speaker 1: the next week or so we'll have that available for
22:59
Speaker 1: sale as well. Do join us in September eighteenth and
23:03
Speaker 1: twentieth September for our twentieth anniversary events. Some tickets still available.
23:08
Speaker 1: What have you got for us on that specifically?
23:11
Speaker 3: And I've had to write it down because it is
23:12
Speaker 3: so absolutely jam packed with terrific speakers. But a list
23:16
Speaker 3: of those that are going to be speaking, because we've
23:18
Speaker 3: touched on some of this, but not all of it,
23:20
Speaker 3: and so get out your pad and pencil. Brian Gerish,
23:25
Speaker 3: Mike Robinson, Ben Rubin, Diane Rasmussen, Basil Valentine, Patrick Henningson,
23:30
Speaker 3: Jonathan Marshall, who obviously we've talked about with his falcons,
23:33
Speaker 3: Jake Fern, Alex Thompson, Lucy Morgan, Edwards Kate, markland Mark Devlin,
23:40
Speaker 3: Dictator and we hope very much Mark Anderson. So if
23:46
Speaker 3: that's not good enough for you, then I don't know
23:48
Speaker 3: what more we can do, but we think it's going
23:50
Speaker 3: to be an absolute songer of a weekend and we
23:52
Speaker 3: really do hope that you will be able to join us.
23:54
Speaker 3: We will put those faces onto a graphic so that
23:57
Speaker 3: you don't have to remember them all off the top
23:59
Speaker 3: of your head. But we've got a lot set up
24:01
Speaker 3: for this event that's going to be absoutely terrific and
24:03
Speaker 3: please do take a look at the website for a ticket.
24:06
Speaker 1: Absolutely thank you for that, Charles Night. Tonight, Jerem is
24:11
Speaker 1: speaking about the cancer swindle at seven pm. At nine pm,
24:14
Speaker 1: Carl will be speaking to Daniel Dunbrill about China's manufacturing boom.
24:21
Speaker 1: Tomorrow at one pm, Brian is going to have an
24:24
Speaker 1: interview at video an extended UK Calm video report on
24:28
Speaker 1: his recent visit to Germany to visit Ryan Fulmick. That's
24:32
Speaker 1: at one pm tomorrow. And then where does that take us, Well,
24:36
Speaker 1: we just wanted to mention because a couple of people
24:39
Speaker 1: had been discussing this, I think on the YouTube comments
24:43
Speaker 1: that we should be publishing show notes on YouTube. Well,
24:46
Speaker 1: the show notes are on the UK Column website and
24:49
Speaker 1: we publish them there primarily because we want to encourage
24:52
Speaker 1: people to come to the website, basically because there's so
24:54
Speaker 1: much more content on there other than the video content
24:57
Speaker 1: that we produce. So please mid use of the fact
25:01
Speaker 1: that that is published on the column website to come
25:05
Speaker 1: and look at what else we have avill will for you.
25:09
Speaker 1: And then finally, Charles, the guest that we had on
25:14
Speaker 1: last week talking about polonies, Well that seems to have
25:16
Speaker 1: broken into the mainstream, said sir.
25:18
Speaker 3: It does, and I think this is great testament to
25:21
Speaker 3: what I might describe as the UK Column effects. Now,
25:23
Speaker 3: this story was brought to me in the first instance
25:26
Speaker 3: by a UK column member. Of course, we were able
25:28
Speaker 3: to deal with it on the news program last week,
25:30
Speaker 3: and whilst it might be perceived as a local issue
25:33
Speaker 3: concerning hill ponies on Dartmoor. Of course, it speaks to
25:36
Speaker 3: a much wider problem, which is the huge amounts of
25:39
Speaker 3: control that Natural England have, the general state of environmental policy,
25:43
Speaker 3: and how anti nature it actually is. But nonetheless, there
25:46
Speaker 3: has been an amazing response to their petition which has
25:49
Speaker 3: gone at another thirteen thousand signatures and is now absolutely
25:53
Speaker 3: being pushed into the mainstream platform, with several MPs being
25:56
Speaker 3: effectively held to account. So to those of you that
25:58
Speaker 3: have supported that, well done, and I hope this is
26:00
Speaker 3: a good demonstration of the way in which an effect
26:02
Speaker 3: can be created on a single focus.
26:05
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Now you've got a bit of a preview of
26:07
Speaker 1: the next graphics, So let's bring it on screen. Because
26:10
Speaker 1: last week, of course, we were talking about the Defense
26:13
Speaker 1: Investment Plan, this was on Friday's news program, and of
26:17
Speaker 1: course the subsequent resignation of John Healey as Secret of
26:21
Speaker 1: State for Defense. Now I want to take a look
26:23
Speaker 1: at what seems to be a credible explanation for why
26:27
Speaker 1: he resigned, although he hasn't stated this explicitly, So just
26:31
Speaker 1: bring that back on screen again. We'll just have a
26:32
Speaker 1: look at what Healy said. So the quote that I
26:35
Speaker 1: want to highlight here from his resignation letter was, as
26:39
Speaker 1: I have outlined to you, there are credible ways of
26:41
Speaker 1: meeting the mid term funding challenges, working multinationally and as
26:46
Speaker 1: other European countries are doing to allow us to protect
26:49
Speaker 1: the ability to deliver the missions of our liberal labor government. Now,
26:53
Speaker 1: the question that came to my mind was, well, what
26:55
Speaker 1: is this multinational solution to defense funding. None of the
26:59
Speaker 1: other member states are in any better financial situation than Britain,
27:03
Speaker 1: So where is the money going to come from to
27:05
Speaker 1: fund the war that they are the wars that they're
27:07
Speaker 1: trying to create. Well, it looks like it's the so
27:11
Speaker 1: called Global Defense Bank, otherwise known as the Defense Security
27:15
Speaker 1: and Resilience Bank, which they say is modeled on the
27:19
Speaker 1: World Bank. The Defense Security and Resilience Bank is a
27:22
Speaker 1: proposed multilateral lending institution owned by participating nation states and
27:28
Speaker 1: designed to finance defense, security and resilience investments across NATO
27:33
Speaker 1: members and Allied democracies. It'll have a board of Governors,
27:37
Speaker 1: which we composed of finance ministers and a board of
27:41
Speaker 1: directors handling the operational decisions, and the bank's central business
27:46
Speaker 1: will be a combination of direct lending to member states
27:49
Speaker 1: which can be handed straight over to the military industrial complex,
27:53
Speaker 1: but also currency hedging and least financing arrangements between NATO allies.
27:59
Speaker 1: And this is where it it's a bit dark and
28:01
Speaker 1: murky and certainly pretty opaque, because bearing in mind that
28:05
Speaker 1: none of the country is involved have any money to
28:08
Speaker 1: pay in. The question then is how does this actually work?
28:11
Speaker 1: How can this help? Well, it turns out that the
28:14
Speaker 1: intention is to create a capital structure which will create
28:18
Speaker 1: two things. Paid in capital, in other words, money the
28:21
Speaker 1: member states have actually paid into the bank, and what's
28:24
Speaker 1: described as subscribed capital. This is money that member states
28:27
Speaker 1: have promised to put into a company. But this is
28:31
Speaker 1: how it would be under normal circumstances. But since this
28:33
Speaker 1: will basically basically be set up as a corporate entity,
28:36
Speaker 1: this is perfectly valid. So promise to put into a
28:38
Speaker 1: company by agreeing to buy its shares. They expect this
28:41
Speaker 1: is going to result in a triple A credit rating,
28:44
Speaker 1: so the bank can issue sovereign great bonds to raise
28:47
Speaker 1: money which can be lent to member states at low cost.
28:50
Speaker 1: But guess what they describe the bank's appeal as the
28:54
Speaker 1: off balance sheet treatment of what they describe as contingent liabilities.
28:58
Speaker 1: In other words, it's a way for governments to commit
29:01
Speaker 1: public money to defense spending while keeping those commitments off
29:05
Speaker 1: the national books, so we won't have any oversight of it.
29:10
Speaker 1: And so this is a structure which is designed to
29:13
Speaker 1: move enormous sums towards the arms industry, with sovereign guarantees
29:17
Speaker 1: behind it, outside ordinary budget scrutiny. It's quite an incredible
29:22
Speaker 1: deal that they have now. This idea began with a
29:24
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen briefing by Rob Murray, who was then NATO's
29:28
Speaker 1: inaugural Head of Innovation, and it was given to the
29:32
Speaker 1: Office of the NATO Secretary General. It was developed publicly
29:36
Speaker 1: through a twenty twenty Atlantic Council paper by Max Bergman
29:39
Speaker 1: and Siena Cinareli titled Open a Bank, and that was
29:45
Speaker 1: then in April twenty twenty three Financial Times opinion piece
29:48
Speaker 1: by Murray himself and also Murray's full length Atlantic Council
29:52
Speaker 1: In Depth Board high a new global defense bank, the
29:55
Speaker 1: Defense Security and Resilience Bank, can solve the US and
29:58
Speaker 1: Allied funding problems, and that was published in December twenty
30:02
Speaker 1: twenty four. That report proposed an initial capital subscription of
30:06
Speaker 1: about sixty four billion US dollars and with a debt
30:12
Speaker 1: to equity ratio from of one to one rising to
30:16
Speaker 1: two and a half to one, and again he was
30:18
Speaker 1: pointing out to this target at triple A rating. There
30:23
Speaker 1: was then quite a bit of political momentum over twenty
30:26
Speaker 1: twenty five, after the NATO members at the twenty twenty
30:30
Speaker 1: sorry the June twenty twenty five Higgs Summit adopted the
30:33
Speaker 1: five percent of GDP Defense Investment Pledge, and then in
30:37
Speaker 1: July twenty twenty five, a UK government task force co
30:42
Speaker 1: chaired by Chancellor Rachel Reeves and then Defense Secretary John
30:46
Speaker 1: Hilly apparently endorsed the creation of the DSRB, and I
30:51
Speaker 1: say apparently because there's a bit of a caveat to
30:53
Speaker 1: that we'll come on to in the second. And then
30:56
Speaker 1: in August twenty twenty five, transatlantic financial leaders including from
31:01
Speaker 1: JP Morgan, Chase, Commerce Bank, IG Group and Landis Bank
31:06
Speaker 1: announced their public backing. And then in September, the eighth
31:09
Speaker 1: of September twenty twenty five, the DSRB Development Group convened
31:14
Speaker 1: a high level meeting in the City of London, and
31:16
Speaker 1: this was attended by representatives of thirty seven nations, including
31:20
Speaker 1: G seven members, the European Commission, NATO, the European Parliament,
31:24
Speaker 1: and also the Global Ratings Agencies. Now the European Parliament
31:28
Speaker 1: passed the resolution in twenty twenty five, urging EU member
31:31
Speaker 1: states to participate, and then the twenty ninth of April
31:34
Speaker 1: this year, after charging negotiations Montreal, nineteen founding members unanimously
31:40
Speaker 1: selected Canada as the bank's post country, and therefore the
31:44
Speaker 1: wonderful Mark Carney and sorry Francois Philip Champagne will effectively
31:53
Speaker 1: lead the thing, and they certainly led the Canadian bid.
31:57
Speaker 1: So that timeline is how the Global Defense Bank and
32:00
Speaker 1: the mainstream media reported things, I mean, the Global Defense
32:04
Speaker 1: Bank themselves in their own press releases. But what seems
32:06
Speaker 1: to have actually happened was that in July last year,
32:10
Speaker 1: Reeves and the Treasury did not endorse DSRB, but it
32:14
Speaker 1: looks like Heley did, and so when the City of
32:17
Speaker 1: London event happened in September last year, the Stormer regime
32:20
Speaker 1: pulled the rug out from under it, but the meeting
32:23
Speaker 1: went ahead without them. So it looks like that's why
32:26
Speaker 1: Charles Heiley resigned. And now whether it's not whether or
32:30
Speaker 1: not that is true, it doesn't change the fact that
32:33
Speaker 1: nero countries don't have the money to cash the checks
32:36
Speaker 1: of the politicians are writing, and so they're trying to
32:39
Speaker 1: hide the scale effectively by creating this institution, and this
32:44
Speaker 1: institution is well on the way to full creation. This
32:48
Speaker 1: is hiding the scale of the well I'm going to
32:50
Speaker 1: describe them as bunks to the war industry by keeping
32:53
Speaker 1: the money off the books. So time will tell whether
32:57
Speaker 1: or not Britten eventually joins, But that absolutely seems to
33:00
Speaker 1: be the reason that Heale has resigned.
33:03
Speaker 3: It's about the truth, will I because I think in
33:05
Speaker 3: these sorts of situations there's too much vanity at stake
33:07
Speaker 3: for people to hold in the real reasons for what
33:10
Speaker 3: looks like a sort of honorable departure. But yeah, I mean,
33:14
Speaker 3: I think there's going to be a lot more to this.
33:15
Speaker 3: Of course, what this does totally and utterly just blow
33:18
Speaker 3: out of the water the rhetoric of the last two
33:19
Speaker 3: years that there is any sort of a defense dividend
33:22
Speaker 3: and what was written down in the Strategic Defense Review
33:25
Speaker 3: in particular last year. This idea obviously very much related
33:29
Speaker 3: to the Defense and Investment Plan that there really is
33:31
Speaker 3: anything going on. I mean, I think that ultimately it
33:34
Speaker 3: will be you and I that has to pay wherever
33:37
Speaker 3: payment is required. And literally just before we came down
33:40
Speaker 3: to start the program, Daisy Cooper was hectoring David Lammy
33:44
Speaker 3: Prime Minister's questions with her suggestion Liberal Democrats MP her
33:48
Speaker 3: suggestion that this is done but on a national level
33:51
Speaker 3: and that a effectively a defense bond is raised totally
33:54
Speaker 3: about twenty billion pounds. And I couldn't help think that
33:57
Speaker 3: that is an amazing concidence, because of course we've committed
33:59
Speaker 3: approximately twenty one billion into Ukraine over the last four years.
34:03
Speaker 1: Yes, but you know the fact that this is being
34:06
Speaker 1: kept off the books that should be raising alarm bells
34:08
Speaker 1: for everybody. And it's no wonder that there's relatively little
34:11
Speaker 1: coverage of this in the mainstream press. Vanessa. Let's come
34:15
Speaker 1: back to you then, and as you said in your
34:18
Speaker 1: first segment, you have been on the grind in Lebanon.
34:23
Speaker 5: Yes yesterday.
34:24
Speaker 6: If we just put them up up on the screen,
34:27
Speaker 6: you can see I went down to Nabatia in southern Lebanon,
34:33
Speaker 6: very close to the border where Israel is obviously trying
34:36
Speaker 6: to take control of strategic areas there and effectively there
34:42
Speaker 6: have been a number of new offensive towards the outskirts
34:45
Speaker 6: of Nabertier, heading towards what is known as Alitaha Hill,
34:48
Speaker 6: Kafa Tibnet and Nabatier Falca. According to local sources, Israeli
34:54
Speaker 6: troops were halted in their advance to now and people
34:58
Speaker 6: will remember that. I think a couple of weeks ago
35:01
Speaker 6: I showed a report from journalists Haddi Hotel. Unfortunately, I
35:07
Speaker 6: think it was yesterday or the day before, he was
35:10
Speaker 6: targeted by as well while he was filming in Carefetbnet
35:15
Speaker 6: close to alita Har Hill.
35:17
Speaker 5: So let's just have a look at this.
35:25
Speaker 7: I'm in the center of verteb neat right now the
35:33
Speaker 7: entrance of curdeb Need from this side. An artillery strike
35:38
Speaker 7: just targeted the area behind me. As you can see,
35:44
Speaker 7: there is heavy drawn activity in the vaccinity and of
35:49
Speaker 7: course the destruction, the amount of destruction is very strong.
35:57
Speaker 7: There is the Israelis did tried to destroy the entire area.
36:23
Speaker 6: So this was actually a Zionist quad copter that targeted him.
36:28
Speaker 6: This is hardly Luckily he survived, but with severe damage
36:32
Speaker 6: to his legs. This is him in the hospital, basically
36:35
Speaker 6: talking about the hospital staff that have remained despite the
36:38
Speaker 6: heavy bombardment.
36:42
Speaker 8: The medical things here who are insisting on staying here,
36:46
Speaker 8: insisting on working on double and triple shifts sometimes and
36:50
Speaker 8: not leaving this hospital are are real heroes, and they
36:55
Speaker 8: are unknown heroes.
36:56
Speaker 9: No one is reporting about their work. Their work is
37:03
Speaker 9: crucial and essensial, and this is why the Israelis are attacking.
37:11
Speaker 5: He then goes on to basically describe the extent of
37:15
Speaker 5: his injuries. So let's just play this.
37:18
Speaker 9: My injuries in my legs are not a minor. I have.
37:27
Speaker 10: About five or six injuries in my legs. Some of
37:30
Speaker 10: them are a bit deep and they might require further
37:39
Speaker 10: operations tomorrow. At least one of them is nearby nerve,
37:44
Speaker 10: and the neurologists have to assess if they will be
37:47
Speaker 10: able to take it out or no.
37:52
Speaker 6: So I'm sure we always shardy fast recovery. But this
37:57
Speaker 6: is what journalists face on an hourly, daily basi when
38:01
Speaker 6: they're reporting anywhere that the Zionis are attacking. I myself
38:05
Speaker 6: went to a Nabatia city Santa yesterday, but also went
38:09
Speaker 6: quite close to the outskirts and could see some of
38:12
Speaker 6: the skirmishes ongoing on the Alitaha Hills.
38:17
Speaker 5: This is what I'm.
38:19
Speaker 6: Going to show now is video of one of the
38:22
Speaker 6: most historic souks in the city, dating back to the
38:26
Speaker 6: Ottoman era, that has been basically bombed by Israel from
38:30
Speaker 6: two thousand and six onwards, once in a few times
38:34
Speaker 6: in twenty twenty four, twenty twenty five, and more recently
38:38
Speaker 6: in twenty twenty six, destroying some of the most historic
38:41
Speaker 6: buildings in the city itself a place where everyone would
38:45
Speaker 6: come on market day and gather. This is a predominantly
38:48
Speaker 6: Shia Muslim city, but also has a fairly large Christian community.
38:54
Speaker 5: So let's just roll the video.
39:57
Speaker 6: I'm sure at the end of that video everyone can
40:00
Speaker 6: probably hear the sound of the drones and quad copta's overhead.
40:05
Speaker 6: Now the next video that I'm going to play, I mean,
40:08
Speaker 6: every street in Nabertier was full of destruction.
40:13
Speaker 5: This was an area that was hit only three days ago.
40:17
Speaker 6: There were a number of high rise apartment blocks that
40:20
Speaker 6: were literally reduced to rubble. I was actually told that
40:23
Speaker 6: there was still dead bodies under the rubble that hadn't
40:26
Speaker 6: yet been recovered. So rather sobering thought when we walked
40:31
Speaker 6: around this area. On the left there was formerly a
40:35
Speaker 6: carpenter's kind of workshop.
40:38
Speaker 5: I guess that was completely destroyed.
40:42
Speaker 6: And I also just want to show a last video.
40:46
Speaker 6: I did take a number, but this is just driving
40:49
Speaker 6: through one of the residential streets in Nubertier, where again
40:53
Speaker 6: you can see the level of destruction, and virtually all
40:58
Speaker 6: of the buildings were civilly in apartments, residentss villas. They
41:05
Speaker 6: were also bombing right next to schools, to churches, to
41:12
Speaker 6: a nunnery, and so therefore when they talk about so
41:16
Speaker 6: called precision targeting, that's absolute nonsense. And the civilian toll.
41:22
Speaker 6: In fact, since March the second, the three eight hundred
41:26
Speaker 6: and twenty six civilians have been killed and almost twelve
41:30
Speaker 6: thousand injured. And finally, I just wanted to show a
41:33
Speaker 6: photo which demonstrates the beauty of Lebanon, because we always
41:38
Speaker 6: show the war torn areas. This is leban as it
41:42
Speaker 6: should look all the time, of course, peaceful and very beautiful.
41:47
Speaker 6: This is up in the mountains behind Beirute.
41:51
Speaker 1: Thank you, thank you very much for that. Vanessa. We'll
41:55
Speaker 1: talk about that more an extra as well. Have no diet.
41:57
Speaker 1: Now let's come back to the UK. And the Court
42:01
Speaker 1: of Appeal has ruled on Monday that the government's prescription
42:04
Speaker 1: of Palestine Action as a terrorist organization was apparently lawful
42:08
Speaker 1: and proportionate, and that, as everybody will know, overturns the
42:12
Speaker 1: High Court decision made in February that had found that
42:16
Speaker 1: the government's prescription of Palestine Action was unlawful. There were
42:21
Speaker 1: five senior judges involved in this decision was led by
42:25
Speaker 1: Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue car and of course this
42:31
Speaker 1: was following Shabanaman Mood's appeal, and they concluded that the
42:37
Speaker 1: decision was a fair balance between individual rights and national security.
42:43
Speaker 1: So they characterized Palestine Action as a covert organization operating
42:48
Speaker 1: through secret cells rather than a transparent direct action protest group.
42:53
Speaker 1: Let me just bring the Baroness on screen here and
42:57
Speaker 1: have a look at what she said. She said, it's
43:00
Speaker 1: a fundamental mistake to overlook the fact that Palestine Action
43:03
Speaker 1: overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism. She went on
43:08
Speaker 1: to say, it is not, as claimed, a direct action
43:10
Speaker 1: civil disobedience protest group like the Suffragettes, operating transparency transparently
43:16
Speaker 1: in the open. It is a covert organization which operates
43:20
Speaker 1: with secret cells to avoid the detection and prosecution of
43:24
Speaker 1: those using violence to destroy property and cause injury. So
43:29
Speaker 1: as a result of all that, then support for Palestine
43:33
Speaker 1: Action remains a terror offense. But the co founder, Huda Amory,
43:37
Speaker 1: intends to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
43:40
Speaker 1: But Charles, I was wanting to get your feedback on
43:44
Speaker 1: this because it seemed to me that Liddy Chief Justice
43:48
Speaker 1: Baroness Carr was being at the very least disingenuous with
43:53
Speaker 1: the comparison between suggesting that this is a covert organization
43:57
Speaker 1: that operates as a terrorist grouping that the Suffragettes for
44:02
Speaker 1: some high something different.
44:03
Speaker 3: Yeah, well absolutely, I think I think there are two things.
44:05
Speaker 3: First of all, by insinuating that the secrecy is synonymous
44:11
Speaker 3: with terrorism is misleading because there's absolutely not to be
44:14
Speaker 3: found in the legislation. And then the other thing goes
44:17
Speaker 3: to the incredible malleability of the Terrorism Act absolutely doing
44:22
Speaker 3: what it was designed to do, which is to be
44:23
Speaker 3: able to capture anybody of that the government didn't like
44:25
Speaker 3: the look of. And I will just quote from Section
44:29
Speaker 3: one of that Act because it is so important to
44:33
Speaker 3: understand how this gets used and this is symptomatic of
44:37
Speaker 3: legislation at large, not just Terrorism Act. Of course, this
44:39
Speaker 3: goes back to two thousand and so Section one in
44:41
Speaker 3: this act, terrorism means the use or threat of action
44:44
Speaker 3: that is designed to influence the government or intimidate the
44:47
Speaker 3: public or a section of the public, and that the
44:49
Speaker 3: use or threat is made purpose of advancing a political, religious,
44:52
Speaker 3: or ideological cause. And therefore the actions that fall into
44:57
Speaker 3: any of those categories, or rather the category of action
45:01
Speaker 3: our serious violence agats person, serious damage to property. Now
45:05
Speaker 3: these are the effectively what are being leveled at Palestine action.
45:10
Speaker 3: With specific regard to whether or not Suffragette would therefore
45:14
Speaker 3: be captured by this legislation had it been in place
45:16
Speaker 3: at the time, yes, absolutely beyond question, because they would
45:22
Speaker 3: completely have commissioned offenses. It then is just a matter
45:26
Speaker 3: of whether that's determined to be terrorism or not. And
45:28
Speaker 3: of course, if because the issue here is mostly concerning
45:32
Speaker 3: criminal damage, to ask a question, well, if they appeared
45:37
Speaker 3: not to have a connection to what they consider is
45:42
Speaker 3: going on in the Middle East, and they were conducting
45:45
Speaker 3: the same act of criminal damage, would they be labeled as.
45:49
Speaker 1: Terrorists so distinction rebellion or for example, well to a
45:52
Speaker 1: sudden extent.
45:53
Speaker 3: But even then, you know there is a sort of
45:55
Speaker 3: supposedly ideological course. But of course that's a very good point,
45:57
Speaker 3: because that is a complete inconsistency. The other thing that
46:00
Speaker 3: I would point out as I read that out is
46:02
Speaker 3: just cast your mind back to the language used by
46:06
Speaker 3: and the actions taken by the government in specifically twenty
46:09
Speaker 3: twenty and twenty twenty one, absolutely designed to intimidate the
46:12
Speaker 3: public or a section of the public, and with regard
46:15
Speaker 3: to the pushing out of an experimental medical product, absolutely
46:19
Speaker 3: endangering people's lives and creating a serious risk health or
46:23
Speaker 3: safety of the public. So there are inconsistencies absolutely across
46:28
Speaker 3: the piece. With this, let's move on to the topic
46:31
Speaker 3: of national security. Yeah, on the theme of inconsistencies. Now,
46:36
Speaker 3: it may well, it may or may not surprise you
46:39
Speaker 3: to learn that Dan Jarvis of course finds himself the
46:43
Speaker 3: man of the moment, bounced into defense in quick time.
46:46
Speaker 3: But also he's at the center of this story too,
46:49
Speaker 3: because it is he that was proposed, sorry announce the
46:52
Speaker 3: proposed National Security Brackets State Threats Bill twenty twenty six.
46:59
Speaker 3: Now if it rings a bell, because we already have
47:01
Speaker 3: a national security Act, which came out in twenty twenty three,
47:04
Speaker 3: and according to the government, it was supposed to strengthen
47:08
Speaker 3: the resilience of the UK's political system against covert foreign
47:12
Speaker 3: influence and provide greater transparency around the activities of specified
47:18
Speaker 3: foreign powers. And yet here we are again this runs
47:22
Speaker 3: absolutely parallel to the legislation and in particular the clauses
47:27
Speaker 3: around prescription. Of course, when I say the legislation, I
47:30
Speaker 3: mean the terrorism Legislation from the very Act I've just
47:33
Speaker 3: been quoting.
47:34
Speaker 2: From the bill itself.
47:36
Speaker 3: This new bill uses the descript a designated body rather
47:41
Speaker 3: than a prescribed organization, but it will in effect mirror
47:45
Speaker 3: it because it will become an indictable fence with a
47:48
Speaker 3: fourteen year sentence to support such a body. And of
47:52
Speaker 3: course it's the Secretary of State who will decide whether
47:54
Speaker 3: or not that body is concerned with the so called
47:58
Speaker 3: foreign power threat activity. Furthermore, that the designation is necessary
48:03
Speaker 3: to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.
48:06
Speaker 3: Now this is going through its second reading today in
48:09
Speaker 3: the House of Commons, and it comes almost immediately after
48:13
Speaker 3: the Joint Terrorism Analysis Center has increased the threat level
48:16
Speaker 3: from substantial to severe, mostly based on what was being
48:21
Speaker 3: described as an anti Semitic attack in golds Green. Of course,
48:25
Speaker 3: that actually involved the stabbing of two people who turned
48:27
Speaker 3: out to be Jewish and one person prior to that
48:30
Speaker 3: who was Muslim. Also, it builds on the idea of
48:35
Speaker 3: critical infrastructure as being concerned with national security, or at
48:39
Speaker 3: least there being an absolutely direct over that. So really
48:43
Speaker 3: the short of this is that if the bill goes
48:44
Speaker 3: through in any way similar to the form in which
48:47
Speaker 3: it's first been drafted, it would grant the government absolutely
48:50
Speaker 3: extraordinary powers in taking actions which of course it would
48:53
Speaker 3: never have to reveal on grounds of secrecy, to suppress
48:57
Speaker 3: almost any disciplent or propermatic activity, simply by pointing to
49:03
Speaker 3: the idea that there may be a malign foreign influence
49:06
Speaker 3: behind it. Now, it's also very closely related to the
49:10
Speaker 3: key phrase in Michael Gove's new Definition of extremism, which
49:14
Speaker 3: came into being in twenty twenty four, and it certainly
49:16
Speaker 3: should not be forgotten, for a new extremist is now
49:21
Speaker 3: one as ascribe as being one determined to undermine, overturn
49:26
Speaker 3: or replace the UK system of liberal parliamentary democracy and
49:30
Speaker 3: democratic rights. Obviously, you've just been talking about power sign action.
49:36
Speaker 1: I mean, but does it could be applied to any
49:38
Speaker 1: a campaign group or or alternative media.
49:41
Speaker 3: Organization, or the insinuation with that, as I say, without
49:44
Speaker 3: ever having to actually demonstrate your evidence that there is
49:49
Speaker 3: behind this a state actor, a state threat. And of
49:52
Speaker 3: course this is alongside everything that's been written in not
49:55
Speaker 3: just the Strategic Defense Review but the National Security Strategy.
49:58
Speaker 3: We've got this effect gold plated by Ken mccallumut M
50:02
Speaker 3: I five talking repeatedly year on year twenty more state threats,
50:07
Speaker 3: state incidents averted from Iran in particular. You know this
50:10
Speaker 3: is this is very very overt, it's very obvious. But
50:13
Speaker 3: as I say, first of all, there is a National
50:16
Speaker 3: Security Act. Secondly, there is eight hundred years worth of
50:19
Speaker 3: statute with which to do all of these things, and
50:22
Speaker 3: yet apparently we need another one.
50:24
Speaker 1: But something that I think we just need to highlight
50:27
Speaker 1: once again, Charles, is because we've been talking about this
50:30
Speaker 1: for years, but it's absolutely vital people understand this. The
50:33
Speaker 1: way that legislation is drafted in the modern world is
50:37
Speaker 1: so intentionally, so vague and basically gives them as much
50:43
Speaker 1: scope as they need to do to make whatever decisions
50:45
Speaker 1: they need to define whatever they need in whatever way
50:49
Speaker 1: they need to define it. And this is massively dangerous
50:52
Speaker 1: and for anybody to describe what we have at the
50:54
Speaker 1: moment as a liberal democracy on that basis is absolutely,
50:58
Speaker 1: you know, just.
50:59
Speaker 3: As absolutely, and you're immediately an extremist if you suggest that, right,
51:04
Speaker 3: So I'm.
51:05
Speaker 1: An extremists in that circumstance and you can hold me
51:09
Speaker 1: to that at my trial. Next, let's move on to
51:13
Speaker 1: online safety because ofcom's Group Director for Online Safety, Oliver Griffiths,
51:18
Speaker 1: has written to the Department for Science Innovation Technology yesterday
51:24
Speaker 1: setting out how OFCOM is going to deliver the government's
51:27
Speaker 1: planned social media ban for under sixteens and also restrictions
51:32
Speaker 1: on dangerous functions with with you know on these various platforms.
51:37
Speaker 1: Following confirmation of additional funding. He says OFCOM is ready,
51:42
Speaker 1: They stand ready to implement the measures and will produce
51:45
Speaker 1: detailed plans and a business case in the coming weeks
51:48
Speaker 1: and now. He stressed that clear, specific regulations are essential
51:52
Speaker 1: for compliance and enforcement and this is drawing on lessons
51:56
Speaker 1: from the first year of the Online Safety Act. OFCOM
51:59
Speaker 1: will deliver at technical assessment of highly effective age Assurance
52:02
Speaker 1: at sixteen by the end of October, and he says
52:06
Speaker 1: that initial observations are noting that age assurance at sixteen
52:10
Speaker 1: should be feasible, although sure methods exist than for age
52:13
Speaker 1: assurance at eighteen, with practical challenges around binary age accuracy
52:18
Speaker 1: and aging child accounts. So maybe you'll have more to
52:23
Speaker 1: say about this in a second. But anyway, Offcom is
52:25
Speaker 1: apparently drawing lessons from Australia's regime and they're warning that
52:30
Speaker 1: age inference models have not yet approved effective or privacy
52:34
Speaker 1: preserving for an under sixteen ban. I debate whether dispute
52:39
Speaker 1: whether privacy preserving is consideration. Actually, the letter stipulates that
52:46
Speaker 1: the ban within a wider program including the Crime and
52:51
Speaker 1: Leasing Act twenty twenty six, but also possible AI chatbot
52:56
Speaker 1: duties and screen time curfews are going to apply. Emphasized
53:00
Speaker 1: that edge checks alone cannot remove all risks and rearfirms
53:05
Speaker 1: Ofcom's commitment to enforcement, prioritization and parliamentary accountability. So why
53:12
Speaker 1: could we possibly be complaining on the basis of that right?
53:16
Speaker 3: Yes, I think we're to leave theirs to come to
53:19
Speaker 3: their own conclusions on it, but it is perfect extraordinary
53:23
Speaker 3: and actually for those who have watched the UK colin
53:25
Speaker 3: for a while you will be absolutely aware that reading
53:29
Speaker 3: or listening to anything that the government puts out is
53:33
Speaker 3: very much process of determining not so much what is
53:35
Speaker 3: in it, but what isn't. And I think with all
53:38
Speaker 3: of this, the element missing is the explanation for what
53:43
Speaker 3: happens to anybody who is nowhere near the age of
53:46
Speaker 3: sixteen with regard to their use of social media. Because
53:50
Speaker 3: presumably there's a requirement for anybody to have to prove
53:55
Speaker 3: who they are or what age they are, So it
53:56
Speaker 3: seemed reasonable to go to decent and ask them what
53:59
Speaker 3: their position was on this. So I did that, called
54:02
Speaker 3: them up yesterday and got the stock response, which is,
54:05
Speaker 3: I think this is a bit too complicated, so could
54:06
Speaker 3: you done an email? Which I did and I've got
54:09
Speaker 3: a few stock lines back. But I thought you would
54:12
Speaker 3: be interested to know what it was they said. Of
54:16
Speaker 3: course the sort of rather pland phrase. Today's announcement will
54:19
Speaker 3: provide additional protections on top of existing measures to keep
54:22
Speaker 3: children safe online. Not entirely clear what that meant, but
54:27
Speaker 3: to my specific point about how does this affect everybody?
54:32
Speaker 3: They hid behind two bits of furniture the first of
54:35
Speaker 3: which was many adults won't need to do checked because
54:39
Speaker 3: and there were reasons like they've already got a credit card,
54:42
Speaker 3: or they've been online for sixteen years, and rather spurious
54:45
Speaker 3: qualifications like that. And then the next one was some
54:48
Speaker 3: adults will have already done age verification checks, and again
54:53
Speaker 3: for reasons like they've already been forced into signing up
54:57
Speaker 3: to the government's one login or some such. So absolutely
55:01
Speaker 3: failing to answer the very very specific and very brief
55:05
Speaker 3: question I asked, which is, how does this affect everybody?
55:07
Speaker 3: And of course they've split the question into bits and
55:09
Speaker 3: answered it in the way that they wanted to. And
55:11
Speaker 3: I think the other thing just to bring into the
55:13
Speaker 3: equation here is what, of course is absolutely forgotten by
55:17
Speaker 3: the mainstream. But going back to twenty twenty four, this
55:19
Speaker 3: is the repurposed Labor Manifesto from twenty twenty four, which
55:23
Speaker 3: of course changes the rules because did they mention digital
55:28
Speaker 3: idea or indeed, what did they say about digital idea?
55:31
Speaker 3: Absolutely nothing? What did they say about social media? Absolutely nothing?
55:34
Speaker 3: And I think it is important to remember that this
55:38
Speaker 3: is one of many examples that have come up over
55:42
Speaker 3: the last two years that absolutely the Labor government was
55:45
Speaker 3: not voted in with the mandates to have any any
55:50
Speaker 3: dealings in now.
55:52
Speaker 1: Of course, if we're talking about democracy, if you get
55:55
Speaker 1: the wrong answer when you ask the people a question,
55:58
Speaker 1: and the best thing is just to keep asking the question.
56:01
Speaker 1: And of course we've just had the failure of an
56:04
Speaker 1: assisted dying bill in Parliament for various reasons.
56:08
Speaker 2: Apparently that's not enough.
56:10
Speaker 3: It's odd enough, no, and it is truly the bill
56:14
Speaker 3: which refuses to die, which I'm sure I've said every
56:16
Speaker 3: single time. It's previously been brought back, but it's this
56:19
Speaker 3: time to be brought forward again by the Labor MP
56:23
Speaker 3: Lauren Edwards, who took the seat of Rochester and strewd
56:27
Speaker 3: in twenty twenty four. Now, the only real reason that
56:30
Speaker 3: Edwards has come to the wider public attention is the
56:34
Speaker 3: historic content of her now deleted Twitter account. We'll just
56:39
Speaker 3: have a look at one of her tweets in a second. Now,
56:41
Speaker 3: one of several examples of points of view which would
56:43
Speaker 3: appear to qualify her for a seat in Parliament is
56:46
Speaker 3: on screen and it reads I want these effing Estonian
56:50
Speaker 3: retards out of my flat now. Now, I don't mean
56:53
Speaker 3: to judge her entire career, life and philosophy on the
56:56
Speaker 3: basis of one tweet. But this absolutely was part of
57:00
Speaker 3: a pattern, so I think we know where we are
57:03
Speaker 3: as it were in the way that she might be
57:05
Speaker 3: regarded by people first contact. Of course, as I say,
57:08
Speaker 3: her Twitter account no longer exists anyhow. She has written
57:11
Speaker 3: a statement about her decision, and I use those words
57:16
Speaker 3: with some trepidation, her decision to reintroduce this as a
57:20
Speaker 3: private member's bill. Now, there's not much to be said
57:22
Speaker 3: about the bill itself, because it's not yet published and
57:24
Speaker 3: it's not expected to be any different from the previous version.
57:28
Speaker 3: But what is relevant, I think are the surrounding circumstances,
57:32
Speaker 3: and the gist of her statement is the heat blame
57:35
Speaker 3: on the House of Lords for in effect doing its job.
57:38
Speaker 3: She states that this is supported by a large majority
57:41
Speaker 3: of people in the country, acclaim, of course, that she
57:43
Speaker 3: will not be able to provide any evidence for, and
57:46
Speaker 3: she uses her statement as an apparent explainer for the
57:49
Speaker 3: House of Lords just two years into her time as
57:51
Speaker 3: a member of Parliament, saying this is how democracy works.
57:55
Speaker 3: And I think it's relevant then that she had been
57:58
Speaker 3: actively discouraged from taking this action by her constituents again
58:01
Speaker 3: democracy in action, and that it's reported to be very
58:04
Speaker 3: very low down on the list of priorities of things
58:06
Speaker 3: that they had actually brought to her. She goes on
58:09
Speaker 3: to ask in her statement, should the decision of the
58:12
Speaker 3: elected Chamber be respected and not thwarted in the unelected
58:16
Speaker 3: House of Lords, before going on to dangle what might
58:19
Speaker 3: look like a threat because she uses the words it
58:23
Speaker 3: is not my intention that the Parliament Acts should be applied.
58:26
Speaker 2: It should apply to this bill.
58:28
Speaker 3: Of course, that's a position which could very easily be
58:31
Speaker 3: converted into using exactly that means to force this through.
58:35
Speaker 3: Now we know that Edwards is not keen on Estonians
58:38
Speaker 3: or disabled people, or in fact plenty of others for
58:41
Speaker 3: that matter, But how keen is she on assisted dying?
58:44
Speaker 9: Now?
58:44
Speaker 3: As I say, she's only been in the Commons for
58:46
Speaker 3: a couple of years, but there have been many debates
58:48
Speaker 3: on the matter over that period of time. So we
58:50
Speaker 3: refer to Hansard, which would just pop on screen now
58:53
Speaker 3: and as shown by the search results if you can't
58:56
Speaker 3: see the screen, I search for assisted dying over the
58:58
Speaker 3: period that she's served or not, once has Edwards made
59:02
Speaker 3: a contribution on the subject so I must ask you
59:05
Speaker 3: to draw your own inference. There now absolutely very much
59:09
Speaker 3: closely related to this. I got in touch with Not
59:11
Speaker 3: Dead Yet, which is a charity representing the views of
59:15
Speaker 3: disabled people who've absolutely been used as pawns in this campaign,
59:20
Speaker 3: and I now read the firm response sent by Phil
59:23
Speaker 3: friend of Not Dead Yet, which is Not Dead Yet.
59:25
Speaker 3: UK will oppose this bill as we oppose the last one.
59:29
Speaker 3: Opposition hasn't changed because the situation hasn't changed. Palliative care
59:33
Speaker 3: in this country remained seriously underfunded. Disabled and terminally ill
59:37
Speaker 3: people continue to face a system that too often fails
59:40
Speaker 3: to provide adequate support until those foundations are properly in place.
59:44
Speaker 3: We believe any assisted suicide legislation poses an unacceptable risk
59:48
Speaker 3: to the most vulnerable members of our society. The reintroduction
59:51
Speaker 3: of this bill so soon after the last one failed
59:54
Speaker 3: to pass does nothing to address those concerns. I think
59:59
Speaker 3: that's well. And for her to throw allegations at the
1:00:03
Speaker 3: House of Lords concerning how democracy should work, I think
1:00:06
Speaker 3: is fairly rich.
1:00:08
Speaker 2: Absolutely, I totally agree.
1:00:09
Speaker 1: We'll talk about that in a few minutes on UK
1:00:12
Speaker 1: called News Extra. So if you are a UK call member,
1:00:14
Speaker 1: stay on the stream and we'll have more for you
1:00:17
Speaker 1: in five or ten minutes. But if you're not a
1:00:19
Speaker 1: UK Call member, maybe you'd like to join us, and
1:00:22
Speaker 1: then you can join us for extra as well. Don't
1:00:24
Speaker 1: forget the interviews tonight and also Brian's extended report at
1:00:29
Speaker 1: one pm tomorrow. We'll be back as usual with Patrick
1:00:33
Speaker 1: and Basil on Friday at one pm. We shall see
1:00:36
Speaker 1: you then