Latest / UK Column Radio / Charles Malet on the UK lying about its involvement in Iran | Jerm Warfare

Transcript

Charles Malet on the UK lying about its involvement in Iran | Jerm Warfare · UK Column Radio

• 0:30
  Speaker 1: My name is Jim.
• 0:31
  Speaker 2: This is Jim Warfe the Battle of Ideas. We were
• 0:34
  Speaker 2: just saying a moment ago.
• 0:36
  Speaker 3: I loved your comment about they should have just stopped
• 0:39
  Speaker 3: at bicycles.
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: Well, I think so. We had a little bit of
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: a tech grumbling before we started recording, and this is
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: not entirely uncommon. I think anyone who has dealt with
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: the inevitable video calls since twenty twenty it would have
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: had exactly the same temptation to thump whiche a bit
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: of technology is called and the problem but it is.
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: I think it's a reasonable question, and without one to
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: force the segue, it absolutely speaks to what we are
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: going to discuss today, because look at where we are
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: now due to the advancements in technology which will enable well,
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: I mean we'll get into this, but enable a country
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: there to attack another country there, and there's well anyway,
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: there's a heck of a lot to draw out of this.
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: But no, the tech frustrations are are perennial. And again
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: at the time that we're being convinced that the answer
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: to everything is to go digital, well, why would that
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: be the answer if the gizmo's supporting the technology, don't
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: actually do what they're supposed to do. I mean, you
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: know how many times when you try to get cash
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: out of your wallet do you not manage to get
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: cash out of your wallet?
• 1:52
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I've got a little card holder that I have
• 1:55
  Speaker 3: in my pocket which has my idea in driver's license,
• 1:58
  Speaker 3: and it takes me half a day just to try
• 2:00
  Speaker 3: and get the card out.
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: Well there's a solution there, Germ, I think. Yeah. But
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: whether you want to go for it or not, yeah,
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: up to you.
• 2:13
  Speaker 3: Just don't carry it. Speaking of driving, Ah, there's the seguae.
• 2:21
  Speaker 3: Speaking of driving, I quite enjoyed your video to the
• 2:26
  Speaker 3: air base. That's what we're gonna chat about. But yeah,
• 2:30
  Speaker 3: I'm not quite sure. Charles, wait to start. Okay, take
• 2:33
  Speaker 3: me back a little bit. Create the context.
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: Well, it happends half about one month ago. I suppose,
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: really I should go back to the nineteen fifties. But
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: to put people out of their misery. In terms of
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: the suspense, this was to do with a visit made
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: to Ori. Yeah, this's an Iran story, but actually not
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: just about Iran at all. I went to rif Fairford
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: in on the sort of gloucestershi Wiltshire border. What is
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: now nearly a couple of weeks ago, and the reason
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: I did it was several fold, but mostly to do
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: with the fact that it had become public knowledge that
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: the Americans, in the form of what are referred to
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: as the United States Visiting Forces well had brought in
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: a number of bomber aircraft, and this was after the
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: offensive action had started in Iran, the Israeli and United
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: States action. We can talk about exactly sort of how
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: that started and all the rest of it now for context,
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: Arif Fairford, which has a runway suitable for bombers of
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: all natures, has been used by the Americans in this
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: way over the years, many many times. That the fundamental
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: difference with what's happening now as compared with the previous instances,
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: at least in most cases, that the United Kingdom is
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: trying to walk a line that is distinguishing between offensive
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: and defensive action with regard to what's happening in Iran.
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: And if that doesn't immediately sound like it can't possibly
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: make sense, then I think you'd be on the right track.
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: But there was you know, there have been many explicit
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: statements made by the British government, by government ministers that
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: the United Kingdom has not been involved in any offensive
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: action and will not be and will not be drawn
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: into the wider war and all this sort of thing.
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: And I think really what I wanted to get a
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: sense of was how does Fairford in particular fit into
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: this as a place from which strikes on Iran are
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: being launched. And it doesn't matter whether you call them
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: offensive or defensive. The result is the same, which is
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: that Iranian are dying, and Iranian infrastructure is being destroyed,
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: and the conflict is being escalated. And it's I think
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: it's the it's the brazen approach, not just of the
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: British government to try to pretend that if you say
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: the word defensive that somehow that means something different, but
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: also the way in which the Americans can push and
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: push to be able to use British space and land
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: in order to conduct what looks absolutely like unlawful warfare.
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: So that was really that was what I wanted to
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: get a sense of. Obviously difficult to understand exactly what's
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: going on, but also the other thing was what's the
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: public response. I mean, Fairford over the years. As I say,
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: the reason the context is important is that Fairford has
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: been a magnet for plain spotters absolutely over the years.
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: I mean always a busy site because of the nature
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: of the aircraft that come and go from there, but also,
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: for want of a better term, for peace protesters. And
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: that was the bit that I wanted to find out about,
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: because there was a report prior to my going there.
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: There was one report of a small gathering outside the
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: main gate, and interesting to know, there was also a
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: counter gathering. So the way that the split was done
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: was one half were effectively saying this is unlawful and
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: we should be pursuing peace, and the others were saying,
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: how dare you suggest that we shouldn't sort of back
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: our boys, that the whole sort of hero thing and
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: its national security and this, that and the other. It's
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: a very interesting split. But you know, was there any
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: sincerity to that on either side and indeed had it
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: just been puffed up for the cameras or was it an
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: ongoing thing in the way that so many of these
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: protests have been over the years. So that's the sort
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: of background to why I was intending to go over
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: there and have a look.
• 7:08
  Speaker 3: Very typically, as we saw in the COVID years, the
• 7:13
  Speaker 3: art of war tactic has been used quite effectively inverting
• 7:18
  Speaker 3: everything left right, defense offense.
• 7:23
  Speaker 2: The lines become.
• 7:24
  Speaker 3: Blurry and they don't really the words don't really mean anything.
• 7:28
  Speaker 3: I mean Keir Starmer said that the UK was going
• 7:31
  Speaker 3: to adopt a defensive position.
• 7:33
  Speaker 2: What does it even mean?
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: Yeah, well this is it. What does it mean? It
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: means that you're able to create a sort of flowery
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: narrative around it about in then that you talk about
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: you talk about British nationals, talk about British interests, you
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: talk about British bases, and in doing so you you
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: really overlook quite a lot of critical parts of history,
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: certainly which would be well, why why now, or even
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: why then? Why do we still have these basics? Cypress
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: was the sort of trigger point, if you'll forgive the
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: not quite pun. But the story was that the RAF
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: based Acriteria in southern Cypress was struck by a missile
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: from Iran, and that was supposed to justify the decision
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: making process that led to any sort of involvement and
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: therefore the deployment of aircraft, of Bridge aircraft to that area,
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: more Busgh aircraft. Of course, it subsequently turned out that
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: that projectile had not come from Iran, but was reckoned
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: to have come from Lebanon. And even then it was
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: the line was, well, that's the same because Hesbalaes supported
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: by or funded by, or controlled by Iran, so already
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: the narrative was being particularly stretched. But that it's the
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: it's the sort of historical context it's but it's we
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: just take it as it is now, like twenty twenty six.
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: We just take it as it is now, and we
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: don't consider any of the controversial or contentious factors that
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: pertain to it. And there's no better example than Diego Garcia,
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: which has just come into well, not just but obviously
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: that's been in the news again because again the history
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: there part of the Chagossian Island group, and that is
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: an absolutely dreadful and shameful episode in history, which is
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: that the islanders, the native island population, was expelled in
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: the late nineteen sixties by the British government in order
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: that an airfield could be instructed for the use of
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: offensive action by the United Kingdom and the United States.
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: And again that's just air brushed over now. It's as though, well,
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: if Diego Garcia is potentially targeted by Iran, then that
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: constitutes just cause for a further escalation, escalation in activity
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: or intentions from the United States or the United Kingdom,
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: which is absolutely reprehensible considering the totally unlawful nature by
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: which the airfield by which there was any ever any
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: presence in Diego Garcia in the first place. So, you know,
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: when one does talk about sort of why, what are
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: the reasons for saying collective self defense or taking a
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: defensive posture or defensive stance on not being involved in
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: offensive things, you know that the whole thing is not
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: just a lie at face value on its own merits,
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: given the situation in twenty twenty six, but it's a
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: lie built on an absolutely enormous pyramid of historic lies
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: and terrific treachery and sort of really barbarism. I mean,
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: you know, the way in which the nations have behaved
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: towards or sorry, the state, have behaved towards the island
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: and other populations that have been affected by this. But
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: of course, when you have the mouthpiece via the media
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: to be able to constantly pump out your narrative and
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: have these you know, you just talked about the COVID
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: period when they that was known for the sort of
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: the pithy mantras that people, you know, don't kill granny hands,
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: face space, whatever it is. People just you know, there
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: was a sort of shut down, right, yeah, okay, got it.
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: And it's the same thing now. You know, we will
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: not be drawn into the wider war. We are preserving
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: collective self defense and pursueing or protecting British interests in
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: the region. Well what do you mean by that? You know,
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: what are the British interests in the region, and are
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: those interests actually entirely overlapping with the interests of the
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: region or are they just the British interests in the
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: region and actual fact are not to the advantage of
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: in particular you know, the Gulf State. I mean, look
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: what's happened with the energy infrastructure, and look what's happened now.
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: I mean, as a further anecdote, here we are three
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: weeks three, you know, three weeks plus since this action
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: in Iran started, and the effect of the actions and
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: inactions of in particular Donald Trump, Benjamin Utan, Yahoo and
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: Keir Starmer that the population of the United Kingdom is
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: now subject to changes like this, which is that yesterday
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: which was what was it the twenty third of March.
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: So I went back to Fairford, very briefly. I was
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: just passing, so I drove around the airfield. And it
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: is remarkable when I left, When I left, my hope
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: and I drove past the closest petrol station to hear
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: the price of petrol was one pound thirty eight alter.
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: The price of diesel was one pound fifty four. When
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: I came back three hours later, the price of petrol
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: had jumped to one pound fifty eight and the price
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: of diesel had dumped jumped to one pound eighty nine
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: in a three hour period. And that is only because of,
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: in effect, the actions or in actions of three people.
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: And to anyway, no for anyone who might be thinking, well,
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: hang on, what about Iran? What about Iran? I mean
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: they quite literally did not start it. So yes, to
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: return to the original question, what does it mean? What
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: does defensive thing? Well? I mean so far it seems
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: to mean a complete panic, and the actual economic shockwaves
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: not necessarily in a very real sense, because, as is
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: pointed out regularly, the strait of Hormers is only host
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: to a certain percentage. I mean, admittedly a substantial percentage
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: of the movement of oil through the various routes that
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: oil does travel to countries which purchase it, which use it.
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: But nonetheless there is you know, there's rank opportunism there
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: of course, price fixing and all the rest of it.
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: But the point is that the result for the taxpayer,
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: who is first of all funding any conflict, whether it's
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: described as being defensive or offensive, and on top of
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: that has the very real issue of finding that the
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: fuel that they're going out to buy is you know, no,
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: what's certainly here it's a price of well, as I
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: say that the pump that I just looked at, the
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: increase is it's nearly a fifty percent increase since the
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: end of February. And you know what do we do?
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: Just take that on the chin. I mean, it's perfectly extraordinary.
• 15:19
  Speaker 3: But this something weird going on, Charles, in terms of
• 15:24
  Speaker 3: the oil price or fuel petrol price inflation versus the
• 15:30
  Speaker 3: Strait or almost let me give you an example. So
• 15:33
  Speaker 3: the Uranian government has explicitly said that South Africa won't
• 15:38
  Speaker 3: be affected by that because we're part of bricks and
• 15:41
  Speaker 3: so our oil will will pass through no issues. The
• 15:45
  Speaker 3: oil tankers should I say, rather, yet our fuel price
• 15:51
  Speaker 3: is projected to go up.
• 15:54
  Speaker 2: That means the two are not related.
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: Absolutely, yeah, I mean, this is it. So this is
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: why I say, while I am specifically pointing out, you know,
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: in the case of the United Kingdom, three individuals that
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: are responsible for this, what I mean is that they
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: have set the conditions under which people can profit here,
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: and that is exactly what happens. So it doesn't matter.
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: I mean, look at the COVID period, was no different
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: prices for certain commodities shot through the roof, not because
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: of scarcity, but because because of the idea of scarcity,
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: and and that means that the result, as I say,
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: for the for the end user, is the same. So
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: it doesn't It doesn't actually matter whether the oil can
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: move or can't move, but the narrative that's being created
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: around it is sufficient for those controlling prices to be
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: able to jack them up en mass and basically get
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: away with it. So it is it is a very
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: very frustrating to use a sort of tone and down word,
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: to find yourself as a you know, civilian citizen to
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: be to be found you know, you find yourself in
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: that in that situation, it is completely ridiculous and again no,
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: no parliamentary scrutiny in the UK. I mean, this is
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: obviously this you know, we're talking British focus here because
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: of the action that I saw unfolding at our a
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: f Fairford. But but it is phenomenal in this interconnected world,
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: how exactly like you describe how it doesn't actually really
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: matter what's happening on the ground, but it does matter
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: what people say about it, and that is that is
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: just you know, it totally cements I think that the
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: sort of commentary that we give all the time on
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: on these various issues, various issues, which is the fact
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: that it is an information battle, and if you don't
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: know what's going on, then then you are blissfully unaware why,
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: for example, you are now paying so much more for
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: your for your fuel and it's not obviously it's not
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: just going to be that. And then I've already had
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: a I've already had a communication from my heating oil provider,
• 18:14
  Speaker 1: you know, warning for this and the other I mean,
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: and actually, just as a frame of reference, exactly the
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: same thing happened when the United Kingdom voted to leave
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: the European Union back in twenty sixteen that happened. What
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: was it twenty I think it was twenty third of June,
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: and I was running a business at the time. The
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: very next day, every single supplier that I used for
• 18:38
  Speaker 1: all range of completely different things wrote and said, due
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: to currency volatility, this, that, and the other, our prices
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: are going up, you know, from anywhere between ten and
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: thirty percent. No one knew. I mean it was a
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: day later. At that point, no one had any idea
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: what the implications were going to be. So it was
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: just seizing that opportunity, and exactly the same way that
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: happened in twenty twenty. I mean, I'm not just talking
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: about prices. Look at what happened in twenty twenty. I mean,
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: this is something Ben Rubin was reporting great detail on
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: Monday's news program of this week, because of course we've
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: just had the sixth anniversary of the first the start
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: of the first lockdown in the United Kingdom, and that
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: was the opportunity to present this wonderful idea of the
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: great reset. You know, what better opportunity to do this
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: and the other basically take all your money and chuck
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: you in prison, and it is sort of here we
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: go again. So slightly different words, but the way in
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: which the narrative is run and the expected result is
• 19:39
  Speaker 1: more or less the same. So yeah, totally fascinating.
• 19:43
  Speaker 3: Do you think there is a link between the grade
• 19:46
  Speaker 3: reset and what's going on now with the oil because
• 19:48
  Speaker 3: we know that part of a gender twenty thirty sustainable
• 19:52
  Speaker 3: sustainable development goals are about forcing evs onto the general
• 19:59
  Speaker 3: public and removing internal combation engines, So pushing up or
• 20:04
  Speaker 3: artificially inflating the price of fuel seems to be part
• 20:07
  Speaker 3: of the agenda.
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: Yes, yes, I mean that's a very interesting question because
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: I don't think there's any there's absolutely no sincerity to
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: the suggestion that the Sustainable Development Goals or the Great Reset,
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: or any of these, any of these sort of projects
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: towards a cleaner, greener future, are in any way concerned
• 20:29
  Speaker 1: with the environment. They couldn't care less. And the very
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: obvious explanation for why they couldn't care less is that
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: if you're saying that the answer to not digging up
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: bits of ground in order to produce lumps of coal
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: or bits of oil, and you want to take sort
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: of smoky chimneys away, if your answer to that is right, well,
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: we're going to just dig up ground to find and
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: cobalt and all the other constituent parts, and then on
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: top of that, we're going to stick these terrifically ugly
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: solar panels and wind turbines. You've defeated your own point,
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: your own argument, So there can't be there cannot be,
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: on an objective level, any credence to the suggestion that
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: the sustainable development goals are about what they say they're about,
• 21:24
  Speaker 1: particularly those that concern the environment, and therefore the Great Reset,
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: the Terra Carata, all the stuff that the now King
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: Charles was instrumental in setting in motion. So it's certainly
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: not about that. I think what is very interesting that
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: has come out of the last few weeks with the
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: particularly the oil situation, is how this looks for China.
• 21:47
  Speaker 1: And I don't know if you've heard Karl Zar's most
• 21:52
  Speaker 1: recent podcast with Warwick Pearl, but Warwick Powell is absolutely
• 21:57
  Speaker 1: brilliant Australian professor, very very flued up on you know,
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: I mean all kinds of sort of geobolitical international relations
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: and whatnot, but specifically the relationship between what's regarded as
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: sort of Chinese economic power in the world and as
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: compared with that of the United States. And you know,
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: some years back, I think it was looked upon as
• 22:21
  Speaker 1: being you know, sort of perhaps stupid or hypocritical or whatever,
• 22:25
  Speaker 1: that the Chinese were going into what are described completely
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: misleadingly as renewables and they've covered vast area. I mean,
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry, by the way, I'm I'm absolutely not condoning
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: what they've done to the landscape. It is awful, It
• 22:42
  Speaker 1: would be awful anywhere. But the fact is that they
• 22:45
  Speaker 1: have created, via various solar particularly solar schemes, an absolutely
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: phenomenal amount of electricity, and therefore that has enabled them
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: to sort of divorce themselves from a supply that they
• 23:03
  Speaker 1: couldn't guarantee, a supply of oil that they couldn't guarantee.
• 23:05
  Speaker 1: Now there's another dimension that Warry Power mentioned, which is
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: the Chinese technology that enables coal, of which they have
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: a lot, to be turned into oil. So the point
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: I'm making is that the Chinese have i would say,
• 23:19
  Speaker 1: very cleverly positioned themselves ideally for a situation such as this,
• 23:24
  Speaker 1: which is that they are not dependent upon oil hydrocarbons
• 23:30
  Speaker 1: in the way that the rest of the world has
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: turned out to be and therefore is susceptible to the
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: type of shock that we see. Whether or not the
• 23:36
  Speaker 1: shock is actually genuine or a confected one, it doesn't matter,
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: because what does matter is the price. Now, I think
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: there are lots of other things that come out of that,
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: but I do think that is a very interesting one. Obviously, Again,
• 23:50
  Speaker 1: the Chinese narrative on it is again that they say
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: this is you know, they are describing it as renewable.
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: They are suggesting that this is of benefits to the environment.
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: So I'm not trying to say that the Chinese are
• 24:03
  Speaker 1: sort of straight talking necessarily on this, but the fact
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: is they have in actual fact been you know, they've
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: been very clever about it. Okay, do you then take
• 24:14
  Speaker 1: out of that well that enables them to electrify everything,
• 24:17
  Speaker 1: all their infrastructure and therefore control it, because as we know,
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: the control of evs as they're described is much more
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: simple than controlling combustion engine vehicles in terms of where
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: people are able to get to where they have to
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: get to to charge them, and you know, and indeed
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: providing or having control of the electric grid that enables
• 24:41
  Speaker 1: basically everything. So there are there are other elements to
• 24:44
  Speaker 1: that conversation. But I do think that that is a
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: very interesting thing to have come out of the activity
• 24:52
  Speaker 1: over the last couple of weeks. And I think again,
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: it does totally explode the idea that that the reset
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: was about anything other than money and power, money and control.
• 25:08
  Speaker 2: Yeah, so.
• 25:10
  Speaker 3: China amazes me in so many ways. And at the
• 25:14
  Speaker 3: risk of sounding like a Chinese shild because that is
• 25:16
  Speaker 3: always the label that gets thrown, but I've been there,
• 25:21
  Speaker 3: and I've traveled across the countryside, and I've seen those
• 25:25
  Speaker 3: one hundreds of kilometers of very ugly wind turbines, and
• 25:29
  Speaker 3: like you, I hate them. But what's fascinating is the
• 25:34
  Speaker 3: genius of what the Chinese actually are doing. So remember
• 25:37
  Speaker 3: when France decided to shut down all of its nuclear power. Meanwhile,
• 25:42
  Speaker 3: as I understand it, right now, China's building I think
• 25:45
  Speaker 3: over fifty nuclear paersations. So what they've done is they've
• 25:49
  Speaker 3: created this very wide net where they cover all territory
• 25:54
  Speaker 3: in terms of energy. So, and by the way, if
• 25:59
  Speaker 3: we're going to talk about actually clean energy, nuclear is
• 26:03
  Speaker 3: probably one of the best options. Yes, it takes up
• 26:08
  Speaker 3: very little space, it's clean, and I think the fears
• 26:11
  Speaker 3: around it are are completely overhyped by anti nuclear lobbies.
• 26:17
  Speaker 3: So so so what's interesting to me is they also have,
• 26:21
  Speaker 3: going back to sort of the Iranian defense offensive narrative,
• 26:26
  Speaker 3: they also maintain a defensive position. They don't go onto
• 26:32
  Speaker 3: the offensive, but they do have a huge military and
• 26:35
  Speaker 3: they do look after their own country. It's the art
• 26:38
  Speaker 3: of war strategy, have a very thick skin in the
• 26:42
  Speaker 3: event that you get attacked. Whereas what the UK is doing,
• 26:45
  Speaker 3: it's it's doesn't it doesn't make any sense. It's it's contradictory.
• 26:50
  Speaker 3: It's a paradox. They're saying, Okay, well we're going to
• 26:53
  Speaker 3: defend the UK. But then Kirstima also said the UK
• 26:57
  Speaker 3: isn't a target for Iran. Yes, military, Yeah, this is it.
• 27:06
  Speaker 1: So this is this is sort of where I wanted
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: to get to with part of it. But no, sorry,
• 27:11
  Speaker 1: just to get your you're absolutely right on the nuclear
• 27:13
  Speaker 1: thing and again you know the other Sorry, just to
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: go back to China, because clearly if you all you're doing,
• 27:20
  Speaker 1: if you say, right, we're going to we're going to
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: move away from hydrocarbons, because it doesn't matter why, never
• 27:24
  Speaker 1: mind the why. But if you say we're going to
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: move away and we're going to create our own new system,
• 27:31
  Speaker 1: and you know it's going to be brilliant, and this,
• 27:33
  Speaker 1: that and the other. Yeah, fine, but are you any more
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: sure that you are going to have a consistent supply
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: of all the things that you need? And in the
• 27:45
  Speaker 1: case of the United Kingdom, if you're going to go
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: into electricity, then lithium is a critical part of this,
• 27:52
  Speaker 1: and we don't have a We don't have a guaranteed
• 27:57
  Speaker 1: supply of lithium in the same way that China does.
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: So it's again, it is just completely ridiculous, especially in
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: the United Kingdom. And I know people will have all
• 28:09
  Speaker 1: sorts of economic and practical arguments against this, but the
• 28:16
  Speaker 1: United Kingdom does have oil and gas, and yet because
• 28:20
  Speaker 1: it's in the control of corporations, we have in effect
• 28:23
  Speaker 1: very little, if any control over where it ends up.
• 28:27
  Speaker 1: So it is it is a completely dark situation to
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: be in. And again on China, I think what is
• 28:33
  Speaker 1: very interesting. You will have a better sense of this
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: because of your trip to Shinjang last year. But the
• 28:39
  Speaker 1: way I would see China is that it is just
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: at a totally different point on its timeline than much
• 28:46
  Speaker 1: of the rest of the world. In that I don't
• 28:49
  Speaker 1: consider China to be a country. I mean, yes it
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: is in name, and yes it is mostly unified, but
• 28:54
  Speaker 1: I do consider it rather more to be an empire,
• 28:57
  Speaker 1: and an empire an empire that still does what it
• 29:03
  Speaker 1: was designed to do, which is that the western, the
• 29:07
  Speaker 1: sort of northern and western extremities, protect the more valuable
• 29:13
  Speaker 1: in terms of sort of people and resources, the eastern
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: southeastern side. And so because it's called China, it is
• 29:24
  Speaker 1: always credited to an extent with not having expansionist tendencies
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: and this, that and the other, which is true, but
• 29:31
  Speaker 1: it definitely did. Look at what happened to Tibet in
• 29:34
  Speaker 1: nineteen fifty one, look at what happened, look at what
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: happened with the acquisition of Shinjang in the first place.
• 29:39
  Speaker 2: And indeed, hold on, hold on call will argue this point.
• 29:44
  Speaker 3: You'll say that that's not expansionism, that's just getting back
• 29:47
  Speaker 3: what had lost.
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: Okay, Well, I mean the result is that is basically
• 29:55
  Speaker 1: the same, which is that the state that we refer
• 29:59
  Speaker 1: to as now, isn't it, by which I mean that
• 30:02
  Speaker 1: the people you know there is there is absolutely there
• 30:05
  Speaker 1: are hardly any hand Chinese there, The people are different,
• 30:08
  Speaker 1: so at some point in time. Yeah, anyway, well okay,
• 30:11
  Speaker 1: all right, yeah, a point point taken, absolutely fair enough.
• 30:14
  Speaker 1: But but they're on a they're on a different, a
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: different timeline, and and I think they make they make
• 30:21
  Speaker 1: many Western European nations now sort of look silly. And
• 30:24
  Speaker 1: certainly I think North America, particularly the United States, is
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: looking very very silly, and and the Chinese are looking sensible.
• 30:33
  Speaker 1: But no, I mean, you're going back to your point
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: about being a sort of you know, pro China shill
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: or whatever. I mean, how totally extraordinary? Why why China?
• 30:40
  Speaker 1: Why why the sensivity? I don't want to get drawn
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: off down a rabbit hole now, but it is just fascinating.
• 30:44
  Speaker 1: You know, if I said I went to Georgia years ago,
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: Georgia in the Caucasus, and Georgia is not without it's
• 30:51
  Speaker 1: it's troubles, but I found it to be a completely
• 30:53
  Speaker 1: charming place, and the people were disarming in their honesty.
• 30:57
  Speaker 1: And again that might for anyone who hasn't been there,
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: they might be surprised to find that that is basically
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: how it is. So I'd be perfectly happy to say
• 31:04
  Speaker 1: that I was very much pro Georgia pro Georgian people
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: and all the rest of it, and you know, but
• 31:09
  Speaker 1: that wouldn't matter somehow, there's this is this bizarre sort
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: of reaction to giving China credit where frankly, I think
• 31:18
  Speaker 1: the credit is you anyway, that's a slightly a slightly
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: separate issue. But yes, I mean to come back to
• 31:27
  Speaker 1: the use of British basis, and you know, whether you
• 31:31
  Speaker 1: were just mentioning whether or not Iran can strike this,
• 31:35
  Speaker 1: that and the other. This against is absolutely straight to the
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: heart the inconsistencies. We have been told in the United
• 31:42
  Speaker 1: Kingdom since at least the beginning of twenty twenty four
• 31:45
  Speaker 1: that we all have to be on the lookout for
• 31:48
  Speaker 1: what are called increased or enhanced state threats. And there
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: was a little bit of well, I think Russia could
• 31:55
  Speaker 1: be a threat, but mostly Iran has been the target
• 32:01
  Speaker 1: in terms of being the example by which you justify
• 32:05
  Speaker 1: changing your policy and introducing new legislation. And we then
• 32:10
  Speaker 1: so we saw the introduction of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme,
• 32:15
  Speaker 1: We've seen the National Security Act twenty twenty three, and
• 32:20
  Speaker 1: generally just an increase in the rhetoric about state threats
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: from Iran, and of course that sits alongside the narrative
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: promulgated by the Foreign Office, Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office,
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: which have maintained the idea that even if you don't
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: have any credible intelligence to suggest that what you're saying
• 32:41
  Speaker 1: is true, you still say that Iran is developing a
• 32:44
  Speaker 1: nuclear program, by which they mean not a nuclear power program,
• 32:48
  Speaker 1: but a nuclear weapons program. So you have those things
• 32:51
  Speaker 1: alongside each other. You never actually demonstrate that there is
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: a state threat from Iran manifesting inside the United Kingdom. Instead,
• 33:01
  Speaker 1: you get Ken McCullum, the head of the Security Service
• 33:05
  Speaker 1: Internal MI five, to say that up to or more
• 33:10
  Speaker 1: than twenty state threats, twenty terror plots have been foiled
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: by MI five, all run from Iran by Iranians. And
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: then you say that we know they have nuclear weapons.
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: So you say all that, and then you also say,
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: when it comes to it, oh, no, Iran doesn't have
• 33:31
  Speaker 1: the weapons capability to strike the United Kingdom. That's just
• 33:34
  Speaker 1: not possible. So it's perfectly incredible that, with no evidence,
• 33:40
  Speaker 1: we're able to or at least expected to believe that
• 33:42
  Speaker 1: they have the ability to strike the United Kingdom from within,
• 33:46
  Speaker 1: that they also have the ability to develop that nuclear
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: weapons program that Natanyahu's been speaking about since he was
• 33:51
  Speaker 1: in nappies, and at the same time, we don't credit
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: it as being at all possible that they have a
• 34:00
  Speaker 1: long range strike capability. It is absolute madness. But of
• 34:03
  Speaker 1: course this has just come to the fore because the
• 34:06
  Speaker 1: the Israel Defense Force, I mean, you know, you just
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: in a way you couldn't make it up. But they
• 34:14
  Speaker 1: sent out a tweet a few days ago saying that
• 34:18
  Speaker 1: Iran can send missiles over for that or sort of
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: up to and over four thousand kilometers and that therefore
• 34:25
  Speaker 1: that puts Berlin, Paris, in London at risk. Now it
• 34:29
  Speaker 1: seems that somebody hasn't quite got their measurements right, because
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: there's no doubt that those places are further than four
• 34:36
  Speaker 1: thousand kinometers from Iran. But never mind, let's not split
• 34:40
  Speaker 1: the hair. The point is that it's been suggested that
• 34:43
  Speaker 1: there is now a direct threat. And this, sorry, in
• 34:46
  Speaker 1: a rather long winded way, this is exactly why I
• 34:48
  Speaker 1: wanted to go to Fairford, because how do we how
• 34:51
  Speaker 1: are we able to be so utterly stupid as to think, yes,
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: Iran's got nuclear weapons. Iran has got eight backed terror
• 35:01
  Speaker 1: plots running in this country. The whole time. But somehow
• 35:03
  Speaker 1: letting the Americans bomb Iran from our Airfairford does not
• 35:07
  Speaker 1: present a threat either to that airfield or to the
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: civilian population surrounding that airfield. How can all that be
• 35:16
  Speaker 1: true at the same time. So that was really part
• 35:19
  Speaker 1: of it, and it is you know, I mean, you
• 35:21
  Speaker 1: won't be surprised to learn, but it is pretty staggering.
• 35:24
  Speaker 1: First of all, Okay, it was just one day, and
• 35:27
  Speaker 1: perhaps it's too much to expect that there would be
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: a sustained presence, but there was no one anywhere near
• 35:33
  Speaker 1: the main gate considering any sort of protest activity, So
• 35:37
  Speaker 1: that's just not a thing. There was no evidence in
• 35:41
  Speaker 1: the surrounding villages. I mean, Fairford is a sort of
• 35:45
  Speaker 1: small market town. There was nothing there to suggest that
• 35:49
  Speaker 1: there was any reaction against what they were basically playing
• 35:53
  Speaker 1: host to. Again, the village of Marston Mayzie was full
• 35:58
  Speaker 1: of lots of sort of traffic cones stuff to stop
• 36:01
  Speaker 1: plane spotters and other interested parties from parking outside their houses,
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: but there was no suggestion that there was any judgment
• 36:08
  Speaker 1: being passed on what could constitute a significant raising in
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: the threat that they face on a daily basis. So
• 36:18
  Speaker 1: that side of it was extraordinary. The other element was
• 36:22
  Speaker 1: the way in which the action had already been taken
• 36:27
  Speaker 1: by British police at the behest of the Americans to
• 36:31
  Speaker 1: cordon off roads that led up to the fence of
• 36:35
  Speaker 1: the airfield, because being in rolling countryside, there are certain
• 36:38
  Speaker 1: places where you can have a very very good advantage
• 36:43
  Speaker 1: point from just outside the fence, assuming you're able to
• 36:49
  Speaker 1: get down one of these tracks that leads to it.
• 36:51
  Speaker 1: Now they'd all been corded off. Very interestingly, yesterday when
• 36:56
  Speaker 1: I drove back round the base, a couple of those
• 36:59
  Speaker 1: roads which had had police signs police closed signs are
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: now not there and you can drive down and of
• 37:05
  Speaker 1: course Leermberhold, because this has been reported in mainstream media,
• 37:09
  Speaker 1: there were quite a number of people down there, but
• 37:11
  Speaker 1: they were all plane spotters. They are just there to
• 37:14
  Speaker 1: take photographs because they're interested in the aircraft. Now, I'm
• 37:17
  Speaker 1: not absolutely not passing any judgment on those people, but
• 37:21
  Speaker 1: isn't it staggering that people can be motivated to travel
• 37:24
  Speaker 1: the length and breadth of the country to take photographs
• 37:27
  Speaker 1: of an aeroplane because they're interested in it, but no
• 37:29
  Speaker 1: one can get off their backside to perhaps criticize a
• 37:34
  Speaker 1: government that is first of all acting in defiance of
• 37:38
  Speaker 1: international law, but also, I would say, if not now,
• 37:44
  Speaker 1: but in future, presenting a direct threat or risk to
• 37:48
  Speaker 1: the population surrounding not just Fairford, but any airfield that's
• 37:52
  Speaker 1: used by United States visiting forces in order to conduct
• 37:55
  Speaker 1: offensive or defensive, destructive kinetic military operations in Iran. Someone's
• 38:04
  Speaker 1: telling a lot of FIBs. Yeah, they absolutely are. Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly.
• 38:30
  Speaker 1: And I say, I mean when we started out, and
• 38:33
  Speaker 1: I said, for context this this has happened on and
• 38:36
  Speaker 1: off for absolutely years. It has. But the difference being,
• 38:39
  Speaker 1: let's go back to say two thousand and three IRANQ,
• 38:42
  Speaker 1: despite the appalling optics and the very obvious lack of
• 38:49
  Speaker 1: there being a case for war, you know, the dodgy dossier,
• 38:53
  Speaker 1: the forty five minute claims, all the absolutely absurd sort
• 38:59
  Speaker 1: of items of I was going to say ammunition, that's
• 39:03
  Speaker 1: not quite the right word, but all the various arguments
• 39:05
  Speaker 1: that were brought out by the Blair administration in order
• 39:08
  Speaker 1: to support the action that George Bush Junior was so
• 39:12
  Speaker 1: intent on taking in Iraq. So Fairford did play host that.
• 39:16
  Speaker 1: But the point was that we were supposedly on side.
• 39:18
  Speaker 1: You know, we were part of that in an offensive capacity,
• 39:22
  Speaker 1: and therefore the role of Fairford, in particular hosting those
• 39:28
  Speaker 1: bombers was was much more obvious, much more clear for
• 39:33
  Speaker 1: people to understand, and therefore they could make a I suppose,
• 39:36
  Speaker 1: a more binary decision on whether or not they felt
• 39:38
  Speaker 1: that they supported that or they didn't support that. I
• 39:41
  Speaker 1: think the picture has confused people now, which just goes
• 39:43
  Speaker 1: to show that, you know, if you do chuck enough
• 39:45
  Speaker 1: soundbites out regularly enough, unfortunately a large number of people
• 39:49
  Speaker 1: will either support the view that's put out or they
• 39:53
  Speaker 1: will be discombobulated and confused to the point where they
• 39:55
  Speaker 1: didn't really understand and therefore they didn't feel in any
• 39:57
  Speaker 1: position to pass judgment. And I think that is probably
• 40:01
  Speaker 1: what's happening now. But but it is. I mean, I
• 40:04
  Speaker 1: think it really is an indictment that that nobody has
• 40:07
  Speaker 1: been jumping up and down particularly about this, because you
• 40:12
  Speaker 1: know that I was actually I've just I've just written it.
• 40:15
  Speaker 1: I wrote the quote down. I mean, Starmer had had
• 40:17
  Speaker 1: the nerve when he addressed the House Commons on what
• 40:21
  Speaker 1: was it? I think it was the first of no
• 40:24
  Speaker 1: wrong sorry, second of Monday's second of March. I think
• 40:26
  Speaker 1: it was, and he said, I quote, the United Kingdom
• 40:29
  Speaker 1: played no role in these strikes. I mean, it's it's
• 40:35
  Speaker 1: just not true. And you know because actually then we're
• 40:40
  Speaker 1: talking about Lakenheath, another RAF place in the on the
• 40:43
  Speaker 1: east side of England. But that there's no way that
• 40:47
  Speaker 1: the United Kingdom played no role in these strikes. And
• 40:50
  Speaker 1: it doesn't matter whether there were not British personnel act
• 40:54
  Speaker 1: act actually or actively involved on that particular day, but
• 40:59
  Speaker 1: there is there there is so much more to it,
• 41:01
  Speaker 1: the intelligence picture, the sharing of intelligence, the provision of surveillance,
• 41:06
  Speaker 1: all the activity that was running from Arif Acriteri concerning Gaza,
• 41:12
  Speaker 1: and entirely all the build ups that supposedly prompted Israel
• 41:17
  Speaker 1: to act in such a manner. So, I mean, you know,
• 41:20
  Speaker 1: that is basically an outright lie. And also he went
• 41:25
  Speaker 1: on to say, you know, using your words, he went
• 41:29
  Speaker 1: on to talk about commitment making commitments to the security
• 41:32
  Speaker 1: of allies in the Middle East. Okay, fine, what exactly
• 41:36
  Speaker 1: do you mean by that? And then he said, talking
• 41:39
  Speaker 1: about what we would either commit or what we already
• 41:42
  Speaker 1: had in the region. We have a range of defensive
• 41:44
  Speaker 1: capabilities which we've recently taken steps to strengthen Well, that's
• 41:50
  Speaker 1: an interesting remark, because you know, there's been let's say,
• 41:57
  Speaker 1: rising tensions or conflict or whatever you want to describe
• 41:59
  Speaker 1: it any euphemistic word that doesn't actually explicitly say genocide
• 42:04
  Speaker 1: since October twenty twenty three, and yet only just before
• 42:09
  Speaker 1: something has gone down in Iran, the British have strengthened
• 42:16
  Speaker 1: their defensive capabilities in the region. I mean, that is interesting,
• 42:20
  Speaker 1: but again it was just sort of stated and completely ignored,
• 42:25
  Speaker 1: so totally and utterly extraordinary. But the reason this is
• 42:29
  Speaker 1: significant in another respect is because if well, I say,
• 42:36
  Speaker 1: if this should turn out to be unlawful, and if
• 42:39
  Speaker 1: it is unlawful, then that despite the fact that night
• 42:44
  Speaker 1: well again, okay, sorry, I'll start again. Towards the end
• 42:48
  Speaker 1: of the nineties, when the International Criminal Court was being
• 42:51
  Speaker 1: set up, there were two notable absentees from ratifying the treaty,
• 42:56
  Speaker 1: the United States and Israel. The United Kingdom is a
• 42:59
  Speaker 1: signatory and indeed on the British statute. In two thousand
• 43:03
  Speaker 1: and one, the International Criminal Court Act two thousand and
• 43:07
  Speaker 1: one what became you know it went live now Section
• 43:12
  Speaker 1: fifty one of that Act deals with crimes against humanity,
• 43:15
  Speaker 1: war crimes and genocide and any involvement in any of
• 43:20
  Speaker 1: those things by any person in any place. So it's
• 43:23
  Speaker 1: that we're not just talking about stuff that's gone on
• 43:26
  Speaker 1: in the UK or indeed just concerning British people. So
• 43:32
  Speaker 1: that's significant. But more significant is the fact that Section
• 43:36
  Speaker 1: fifty two deals with what's described as conduct, conduct and sillery.
• 43:41
  Speaker 1: And this is where places like raf Fairford or Lakenheath
• 43:46
  Speaker 1: or Mildenhall or Frankly or pressed with, you know, anywhere
• 43:50
  Speaker 1: that's been used by the United States visiting forces in
• 43:53
  Speaker 1: order to conduct what is unlawful action in Iran. Means
• 43:58
  Speaker 1: that liability is absolutely held by anybody who had any
• 44:02
  Speaker 1: involvement in that. And this is why this loops directly
• 44:07
  Speaker 1: back to my experiences in Fairford, because I was going
• 44:13
  Speaker 1: around the fence and I was attempting to get a
• 44:18
  Speaker 1: better view of what was going on. Now, what I
• 44:20
  Speaker 1: did see if anyone didn't see that news report that
• 44:23
  Speaker 1: contained my sort of thoughts and findings from that day.
• 44:28
  Speaker 1: First of all, I did see a B one bomber
• 44:31
  Speaker 1: having its engines tested very very close to the fence
• 44:34
  Speaker 1: with a load of Jadam bunker buster bombs on the
• 44:39
  Speaker 1: tarmac behind it, so evidently it was being prepared to
• 44:43
  Speaker 1: be loaded up. Now, I wasn't there for the whole
• 44:46
  Speaker 1: day and therefore didn't actually see that happen, but that
• 44:48
  Speaker 1: has been well documented elsewhere. Declassified have just put out
• 44:52
  Speaker 1: very Declassified UK just a very good report which does
• 44:55
  Speaker 1: show exactly that. So there's no question that this is
• 44:59
  Speaker 1: not happening. Again, when we go back to the you know,
• 45:02
  Speaker 1: can Iran strike the United Kingdom, either from Iran or
• 45:05
  Speaker 1: from within, it should be noted that the distance that
• 45:09
  Speaker 1: those bombs were from residential houses was less than three
• 45:12
  Speaker 1: hundred meters. Now, the blast radius and the kill radius
• 45:16
  Speaker 1: for that ordinance should it be detonated for whatever reason,
• 45:21
  Speaker 1: means that from my understanding of reading the various and
• 45:27
  Speaker 1: very complicated documents on sort of safe handling of ammunition
• 45:31
  Speaker 1: and whatnot, I'm fairly sure that's a breach of the
• 45:36
  Speaker 1: way in which that should be done. So again that's significant.
• 45:40
  Speaker 1: But no, so I was going around, first of all,
• 45:43
  Speaker 1: I was able to see that a lot of year
• 45:44
  Speaker 1: fourteen I counted fourteen B one bombers plus ammunition. You know,
• 45:50
  Speaker 1: there was no doubt this was actually happening, So that
• 45:52
  Speaker 1: was the first thing to prove. And then I went
• 45:54
  Speaker 1: further around the fence and I saw a few guys
• 45:58
  Speaker 1: just sitting in a couple of vehicles near one of
• 46:00
  Speaker 1: the crash gates. And what was interesting to me was
• 46:03
  Speaker 1: that already, you know, after only a week in a bit,
• 46:06
  Speaker 1: I considered that what was going on there was highly
• 46:09
  Speaker 1: controversial for all the reasons that we've discussed so far,
• 46:12
  Speaker 1: and I would have expected that, given the sensitivity of it,
• 46:16
  Speaker 1: that those holding responsibility for primitive security, for force protection,
• 46:21
  Speaker 1: which is completely standard in any sort of military activity.
• 46:24
  Speaker 1: It doesn't matter whether you're training or actually operating on
• 46:28
  Speaker 1: an operational footing, that all these elements are constant. Yes,
• 46:32
  Speaker 1: there are levels, but nonetheless they are constant. And Fairford
• 46:36
  Speaker 1: is a very very big covers a very big footprint.
• 46:39
  Speaker 1: There's a very very long fence and for anyone to
• 46:43
  Speaker 1: get through, and you know, cause mischief would not be
• 46:46
  Speaker 1: tricky at all if you're not surveilling and monitoring and
• 46:49
  Speaker 1: portrolling that. And of course there was absolutely nothing going on.
• 46:51
  Speaker 1: So therefore it was of interest to me to turn
• 46:54
  Speaker 1: up ada gate and to be able to film these
• 46:58
  Speaker 1: guys who were three out of four of them were
• 47:00
  Speaker 1: just sitting slouched back in chairs, just on messing around
• 47:04
  Speaker 1: on mobile telephons, and they could easily have just been
• 47:06
  Speaker 1: teenagers on my side of the fence. So there was
• 47:09
  Speaker 1: no interest in what I was doing. Apparently, I waived.
• 47:13
  Speaker 1: I would have been interested if any of them had
• 47:15
  Speaker 1: come over, just so that I could have a conversation
• 47:18
  Speaker 1: through the fence. It would have been very interesting just
• 47:20
  Speaker 1: to get their take on, you know, sort of how
• 47:22
  Speaker 1: they perceived what was going on outside the fence. Anyway, nothing, nothing, nothing.
• 47:26
  Speaker 1: And then five minutes later a United States police vehicle appeared,
• 47:32
  Speaker 1: a white police vehicle, and a couple of people got out.
• 47:35
  Speaker 1: There was a bit of a conversation, but no one
• 47:37
  Speaker 1: paid me any attention. No one came over to see me.
• 47:40
  Speaker 1: I carried on filming through the fence, which by the way,
• 47:44
  Speaker 1: is completely permissible. But I will I'll come on to
• 47:48
  Speaker 1: that in just second. And then I set off, carried
• 47:53
  Speaker 1: on around the corner, at which point I passed a
• 47:57
  Speaker 1: British Ministry of Defense police vehicle, a big pickup, and
• 48:00
  Speaker 1: as we passed, the passenger in that vehicle pointed at
• 48:05
  Speaker 1: my vehicle, and I thought all right, here we go.
• 48:08
  Speaker 1: He's obviously obviously been warned off. And sure enough, when
• 48:12
  Speaker 1: I then parked up on the verge round by the
• 48:14
  Speaker 1: main gate a couple of minutes later, as I was
• 48:17
  Speaker 1: just about to get out of my vehicle with flashing
• 48:20
  Speaker 1: lights on, this pick up steamed across the road, mounted
• 48:23
  Speaker 1: the curb straight in front of me to block my path.
• 48:26
  Speaker 1: Now that's fine. I have no issue with that, because
• 48:29
  Speaker 1: if they were unsure as to what I was up to,
• 48:32
  Speaker 1: you know, absolutely fine. We had a very civilized conversation
• 48:35
  Speaker 1: conversation to armed police working for Ministure Defense Police, and
• 48:41
  Speaker 1: they were asking me sort of what I was doing.
• 48:44
  Speaker 1: I was very happy to talk about that, mainly because
• 48:46
  Speaker 1: I think it was good that they got the sense
• 48:49
  Speaker 1: that what was going on there was being scrutinized, and
• 48:51
  Speaker 1: I was explicit to talk about describing what I'd seen.
• 48:54
  Speaker 1: I showed them some footage and this, that and the other.
• 48:56
  Speaker 1: So I had no hesitation in doing that because I
• 48:59
  Speaker 1: think it's important that then, and I think it's important
• 49:01
  Speaker 1: that they know because of Section fifty two of the
• 49:03
  Speaker 1: International Criminal Court Act two thousand and one, because if
• 49:06
  Speaker 1: it turns out that the activity being conducted at are
• 49:09
  Speaker 1: if Fairfort is unlawful in so far as it does
• 49:12
  Speaker 1: constitute crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide, they, I'm afraid,
• 49:16
  Speaker 1: are complicit because they are providing force protection. So that
• 49:19
  Speaker 1: was one issue. The other thing was that they had
• 49:21
  Speaker 1: quite clearly been directed by the United States Visiting Forces
• 49:25
  Speaker 1: to deal with something on the outside of the base.
• 49:28
  Speaker 1: Now they don't have any control over that. Whilst there
• 49:31
  Speaker 1: was no problem with Minister of Defense police intervening in
• 49:34
  Speaker 1: the way that they did with me, they should not
• 49:36
  Speaker 1: have been directed to do so. That is well outside
• 49:38
  Speaker 1: of the Status of Forces agreement going back to nineteen
• 49:42
  Speaker 1: fifty one. And it's just, you know, it's very interesting.
• 49:45
  Speaker 1: I was reading about through the text that from nineteen
• 49:47
  Speaker 1: fifty two the Churchill Truman communicate specifically said that these arrangements,
• 49:54
  Speaker 1: this is arrangements between US visiting Forces and the effectively
• 49:58
  Speaker 1: the United Kingdom. These arrangements are made for common defense.
• 50:03
  Speaker 1: Well that's very interesting because what is going on now
• 50:07
  Speaker 1: has absolutely nothing to do with common defense. And this
• 50:10
  Speaker 1: is what Patrick Henningson's report on Friday's news program just
• 50:14
  Speaker 1: gone absolutely exploded. Through the very awkward testimony given by
• 50:21
  Speaker 1: Talca Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence in the United States,
• 50:24
  Speaker 1: where her narrative just absolutely collapsed like a soufle a,
• 50:27
  Speaker 1: because they are absolutely lying, you know, for you to,
• 50:31
  Speaker 1: like you said earlier, that they are all lying. So
• 50:34
  Speaker 1: I think there are there are a lot of very
• 50:36
  Speaker 1: very serious issues just beneath the surface here which are
• 50:40
  Speaker 1: not being allowed to come out because we are exactly
• 50:44
  Speaker 1: like COVID, exactly like blinking Brexit or whatever it is,
• 50:48
  Speaker 1: we are just being fed these banal and pointless lines.
• 50:53
  Speaker 1: We will not be drawn into the wider wall. We
• 50:56
  Speaker 1: are protecting the British interests in the region, We are
• 51:00
  Speaker 1: providing collective self you know, all this stuff, and I'm
• 51:04
  Speaker 1: afraid there's a hell of a lot that's going on
• 51:06
  Speaker 1: that is not being that is not being looked at.
• 51:09
  Speaker 1: And just to finish this point, sorry, because I did
• 51:11
  Speaker 1: refer to it whilst it is permissible in my capacity
• 51:15
  Speaker 1: as a journalist to go and to go and photograph
• 51:19
  Speaker 1: or film through the fence of an mod base, you know,
• 51:23
  Speaker 1: really interestingly, as all this stuff has built and built
• 51:28
  Speaker 1: and built, and I refer to the National Security Act
• 51:30
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, one of the prohibited activities is actually
• 51:34
  Speaker 1: the taking of photographs, videos, and recordings. And just to
• 51:38
  Speaker 1: illustrate the way in which the law may be made
• 51:41
  Speaker 1: to do anything, I will just read the text because
• 51:44
  Speaker 1: it is pretty staggering. So unauthorized entry to a prohibited
• 51:48
  Speaker 1: place under the National Security Act twenty twenty three, So
• 51:51
  Speaker 1: if the person enters, inspects, or passes over or under
• 51:54
  Speaker 1: a prohibited place. So effectively, a lot of this is
• 51:56
  Speaker 1: talking about sort of drone activity. However, as I say,
• 52:00
  Speaker 1: taking video and footage may count. And listen to this
• 52:04
  Speaker 1: as this if anyone wants to look this up. This
• 52:06
  Speaker 1: is this is section five, sub section two. A person's
• 52:09
  Speaker 1: conduct is unauthorized if the person is not entitled to
• 52:15
  Speaker 1: determine whether they may engage in the conduct. Now that's
• 52:20
  Speaker 1: quite silly language, but that's basically saying that even if
• 52:25
  Speaker 1: you think that you're within your rights to be doing this,
• 52:29
  Speaker 1: or even if you don't think that you're within your
• 52:32
  Speaker 1: rights to be doing this, it may still be said
• 52:35
  Speaker 1: that you are not entitled to determine whether or not
• 52:38
  Speaker 1: you may engage in the conduct. I mean, it is,
• 52:42
  Speaker 1: it is absolutely remarkable, but it's only going to be
• 52:45
  Speaker 1: I would say, it's only going to be a matter
• 52:47
  Speaker 1: of time before that specific piece of legislation gets used,
• 52:51
  Speaker 1: if there is further interest in what's going on at Fairford,
• 52:55
  Speaker 1: and indeed we get to the point where there is
• 52:57
  Speaker 1: any attempt at any sort of intervention.
• 53:00
  Speaker 3: And that attack on that school that killed over one
• 53:07
  Speaker 3: hundred and sixty girls, parts that were in the bombing
• 53:13
  Speaker 3: came from the UK, actual parts in bonds.
• 53:19
  Speaker 2: Did you know that?
• 53:20
  Speaker 1: Okay? What so sorry, we're talking about manufacturing now, you
• 53:23
  Speaker 1: mean okay, yes, yes, yes, I would I would imagine
• 53:26
  Speaker 1: that would be the case. And again this will they
• 53:29
  Speaker 1: go that. That's another absolutely massive issue which we could
• 53:31
  Speaker 1: probably spend another hour talking about. But I mean, but
• 53:34
  Speaker 1: in summer reason.
• 53:35
  Speaker 2: But the UK.
• 53:36
  Speaker 3: Government in its response said this is just what happens
• 53:41
  Speaker 3: in war orry.
• 53:43
  Speaker 1: Yes exactly, No, I know, I mean it is completely scandalous.
• 53:47
  Speaker 1: But given what we've been talking about for the last hour,
• 53:48
  Speaker 1: why should we be surprised by any of that? But no,
• 53:50
  Speaker 1: I mean, this is this is precisely I mean crikey,
• 53:53
  Speaker 1: I because it encapsulates the sort of propaganda that people
• 53:57
  Speaker 1: who are still serving are subjected to. I I read
• 54:01
  Speaker 1: what's called Soldier Magazine. It's the in house British Army
• 54:04
  Speaker 1: publication which comes out once a month, and it's it's
• 54:07
  Speaker 1: publicly available. I mean you can look it up on
• 54:09
  Speaker 1: the on the Army website, but I'm maybe not sure
• 54:13
  Speaker 1: about this month's issue. But forever Albit Systems, which if
• 54:20
  Speaker 1: you're unaware, is an Israeli arms company, has been at
• 54:22
  Speaker 1: the center of a lot of the actions carried out
• 54:24
  Speaker 1: by Palestine action and has been has caused just horrific
• 54:30
  Speaker 1: conditions to be imposed upon people who intervened down at
• 54:33
  Speaker 1: their plant in Filton. Albit Systems still advertises in Soldier magazine,
• 54:38
  Speaker 1: you know, as though as though nothing is going on,
• 54:41
  Speaker 1: as though there is no issue. I mean it is.
• 54:44
  Speaker 1: It is a very very strange place that we're in.
• 54:47
  Speaker 1: But also you see the other issue that you raise there,
• 54:50
  Speaker 1: I mean that was that was a tomahawk, And yes
• 54:52
  Speaker 1: it is. I mean I didn't know that actually, but
• 54:55
  Speaker 1: that that is entirely possible that componentry, and even if
• 54:58
  Speaker 1: not componentry, then then surveillance, targeting, you know, reconnaissance, anything
• 55:04
  Speaker 1: anything else could have been done from within the United Kingdom.
• 55:07
  Speaker 1: But what we have now, and I have mentioned this before,
• 55:10
  Speaker 1: we have a situation in which the manufacturer retains an
• 55:16
  Speaker 1: extraordinary level of control over whatever product it is that
• 55:19
  Speaker 1: they are producing, particularly if it refers to surveillance or
• 55:26
  Speaker 1: monitoring or some sort of digital remote control capability. So
• 55:30
  Speaker 1: in effect, if you have I mean, you know, for
• 55:33
  Speaker 1: the sake of argument, if you have an Israeli company
• 55:37
  Speaker 1: manufacturing parts that have that have a communications dimension to them,
• 55:44
  Speaker 1: and that they are being delivered into British weapon systems,
• 55:49
  Speaker 1: you have to ask the question, well, who actually controls that?
• 55:53
  Speaker 1: Because yes, you might say that whoever's purchased it does
• 55:57
  Speaker 1: control it in most cases, but actually, if you wanted
• 56:01
  Speaker 1: to override it, and this goes exactly back to the
• 56:04
  Speaker 1: ev discussion with with remote interference with vehicles or geo
• 56:09
  Speaker 1: fencing or any of those sorts of things, the same
• 56:11
  Speaker 1: thing is absolutely theoretically possible by a corporation or by
• 56:18
  Speaker 1: a corporation, you know. So the state, because sorry to
• 56:23
  Speaker 1: concentrate on Israel, is totally legitimate because so many of
• 56:26
  Speaker 1: these parts and intelligence systems and everything else are created
• 56:29
  Speaker 1: by Israeli companies. But it just means that through the
• 56:34
  Speaker 1: corporate entities, the State of Israel may exert a much
• 56:38
  Speaker 1: greater degree of control over many of the munitions and
• 56:43
  Speaker 1: weapons systems that we think by we that say, the
• 56:46
  Speaker 1: United Kingdom, that we think we own and have control over,
• 56:50
  Speaker 1: and I don't think we do.
• 56:52
  Speaker 3: As an interesting tid, but I don't know if you
• 56:54
  Speaker 3: know this, but Project Maven is part of peneteers AI
• 57:00
  Speaker 3: tick which works hand in hand with clawed AI. It
• 57:06
  Speaker 3: was used in that attack on that school.
• 57:10
  Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, yeah, no, I mean it is. It is
• 57:15
  Speaker 1: perfectly dire. So so we go back to you know,
• 57:17
  Speaker 1: what was I saying haha as a joke about gosh,
• 57:20
  Speaker 1: if only to go a bit in terms this was
• 57:23
  Speaker 1: to do with frustration. But if only they had just
• 57:25
  Speaker 1: stopped when they made the bicycle and I only I okay,
• 57:30
  Speaker 1: I don't, I don't. I definitely don't want to be
• 57:33
  Speaker 1: throwing the baby out with the bath water. But what
• 57:35
  Speaker 1: I what I do? You know, people will I'm afraid
• 57:38
  Speaker 1: regret for some substantial period of time to come. Is
• 57:41
  Speaker 1: the utterly unthinking way in which so many of the
• 57:45
  Speaker 1: technological advancements of the last I would say, in particular
• 57:48
  Speaker 1: thirty years have been just charged on ahead with and
• 57:53
  Speaker 1: there's not been any proper regard to the two considerations.
• 57:58
  Speaker 1: One is well, what if you know, what if it
• 58:01
  Speaker 1: does do this, how do we stop it? How do
• 58:03
  Speaker 1: we put it back in the box. No one's ever
• 58:05
  Speaker 1: thought that through, because it can't be done, and therefore
• 58:09
  Speaker 1: it leads directly into the second one, which is how
• 58:12
  Speaker 1: do we regulate or control it whilst it is in play?
• 58:14
  Speaker 1: And that has not been done satisfactorily or actually, you
• 58:17
  Speaker 1: might say at all either. And of course the only
• 58:20
  Speaker 1: way control has been affected or manifested is always in
• 58:23
  Speaker 1: the wrong way. So control over what we would like
• 58:27
  Speaker 1: to call free speech, or control over identity or identity ownership,
• 58:33
  Speaker 1: identity verification, or control over sort of you know, what's
• 58:38
  Speaker 1: described as online security, all of this is inverted. It
• 58:42
  Speaker 1: all ends up working the wrong way. So rather than
• 58:44
  Speaker 1: children being protected, actually it's anonymous adults that get protected.
• 58:49
  Speaker 1: Rather than free speech being protected, it's free speech that
• 58:52
  Speaker 1: gets shut down, and so on and so on. But
• 58:55
  Speaker 1: you know, the question is, how on earth does any
• 58:57
  Speaker 1: of this stuff get unpicked in the same way that
• 58:59
  Speaker 1: if if these weapon systems and these technologies have already
• 59:02
  Speaker 1: been made and the controls are already held by people
• 59:06
  Speaker 1: who who absolutely can override the original or intended use
• 59:12
  Speaker 1: for it. I'm not suggesting that the intended use of
• 59:14
  Speaker 1: a munition is right in the first instance, but nonetheless
• 59:19
  Speaker 1: for that to be subverted or diverted is deeply is
• 59:22
  Speaker 1: deeply alarming, And again it plays straight back into the
• 59:25
  Speaker 1: whole thing of well, why is it not being considered
• 59:27
  Speaker 1: that our aff Ford, for example, is not the biggest
• 59:30
  Speaker 1: target in the country.
• 59:31
  Speaker 3: Right now, I think I'm going to if you don't
• 59:36
  Speaker 3: mind a touch or include your video six video into
• 59:41
  Speaker 3: this particular episode. I don't know what I'm going to
• 59:44
  Speaker 3: do at the beginning or the end, one way the other.
• 59:46
  Speaker 3: That's going to be part of this right and normally
• 59:50
  Speaker 3: at the end of my conversations I ask how I
• 59:52
  Speaker 3: can follow you?
• 59:53
  Speaker 2: But I think that's quite obvious.
• 59:55
  Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I hope it should be. But I do
• 59:57
  Speaker 1: remember when we spoke while ago, you said that I
• 1:00:00
  Speaker 1: don't know whether you worded it differently, and I was
• 1:00:03
  Speaker 1: not at all. I was miles away and I couldn't
• 1:00:08
  Speaker 1: think what you meant. I thought you were talking about
• 1:00:10
  Speaker 1: how do you follow that remark? And I said something
• 1:00:13
  Speaker 1: utterly nonsensical. So that was a classic. But since we're on,
• 1:00:17
  Speaker 1: since we're on a little bit of humor, I will
• 1:00:20
  Speaker 1: just say, because I alluded to it very briefly in
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 1: the in my report, and I've for the sake of clarity,
• 1:00:27
  Speaker 1: I was I've spent some short period of time in
• 1:00:30
  Speaker 1: the police, so I know how this works. The two
• 1:00:33
  Speaker 1: police guys that I met who were interested in sort
• 1:00:36
  Speaker 1: of what I was doing, really nice. We had a
• 1:00:38
  Speaker 1: we had a very good conversation, but being police, they
• 1:00:43
  Speaker 1: were just sort of, you know, wondering about poking about
• 1:00:45
  Speaker 1: looking at this, that and the other. And sure enough,
• 1:00:48
  Speaker 1: one of them noticed that the tread on my tire,
• 1:00:51
  Speaker 1: on one of my tires was insufficient and fair enough
• 1:00:57
  Speaker 1: to a certain extent. But this does this does open
• 1:00:59
  Speaker 1: the much wider issue of police sort of being on
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 1: fishing expeditions and you know, really whether you're if you're
• 1:01:07
  Speaker 1: you know, if you're dealing with one matter, should should
• 1:01:09
  Speaker 1: you really be poking about looking for something else. I'm
• 1:01:12
  Speaker 1: not trying to say what they did was wrong. It
• 1:01:14
  Speaker 1: absolutely wasn't, and it was obviously a serious issue, but
• 1:01:18
  Speaker 1: it did result in just utter comedy. Because their their
• 1:01:22
  Speaker 1: Ministry of Defense police and therefore they had no they
• 1:01:27
  Speaker 1: they were unable to deal with it because it was
• 1:01:29
  Speaker 1: a traffic violation, so they had to call out a
• 1:01:32
  Speaker 1: van from nearby Sirencester at some poor comfortable being dragged
• 1:01:36
  Speaker 1: out of bed to come and deal with my tires.
• 1:01:39
  Speaker 1: Of course, knowing the area, I knew that there was
• 1:01:41
  Speaker 1: a garage literally quarter of a mile down the road.
• 1:01:44
  Speaker 1: So I said to them, look, okay, I'm not, you know,
• 1:01:47
  Speaker 1: not trying to dodge an issue. I'm very happy to
• 1:01:49
  Speaker 1: get it dealt with right now. Can I just drive
• 1:01:52
  Speaker 1: down to that garage? And they said, well, I told
• 1:01:54
  Speaker 1: you what you can't do that we would be very
• 1:01:56
  Speaker 1: happy to escort you. Okay, fine, that's that's really kind.
• 1:02:00
  Speaker 1: And they just they just waited. They waited and waited
• 1:02:03
  Speaker 1: and waited. The van came out from sciences to like,
• 1:02:06
  Speaker 1: you know, anyone who's had any engagement with the police,
• 1:02:08
  Speaker 1: straight back to technology. You have. Everything's on a flipping
• 1:02:11
  Speaker 1: device now it looks like a big mobile telephone and
• 1:02:13
  Speaker 1: none of these systems really work. And sure enough it
• 1:02:15
  Speaker 1: kept locking him out and it didn't work, and it
• 1:02:17
  Speaker 1: didn't work anyway, long and boring story, but we got
• 1:02:19
  Speaker 1: to the point where we'd all, you know, we'd all
• 1:02:21
  Speaker 1: got on very well. And I always said this when
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 1: I was on the inside when policing. If you treat
• 1:02:27
  Speaker 1: people in the right manner, with respect, you will always
• 1:02:29
  Speaker 1: get the right outcome. And that's that works. The other side,
• 1:02:32
  Speaker 1: if you deal with police, don't antagonize, don't escalate, you know,
• 1:02:37
  Speaker 1: don't argue the toss, just be be firm if necessary,
• 1:02:41
  Speaker 1: but be cordial anyway. So we all we all became
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 1: friends and then and then it was hilarious because it
• 1:02:46
  Speaker 1: was then agreed whilst I, you know, was clearly going
• 1:02:49
  Speaker 1: to get a penalty of some description or there again hilarious.
• 1:02:52
  Speaker 1: Another tech story. You're meant to be able to connect
• 1:02:55
  Speaker 1: a tiny little sort of handheld printer to the device
• 1:02:58
  Speaker 1: to be able to print out it didn't work. So
• 1:03:02
  Speaker 1: I said, look, it's not for me to tell your job.
• 1:03:04
  Speaker 1: But having said I wouldn't give you my email dress
• 1:03:06
  Speaker 1: because it's constantly spammed, I will actually give you an
• 1:03:09
  Speaker 1: email dress if you want. So they said, okay, yeah, fine,
• 1:03:11
  Speaker 1: let's do that. So he went back into the form
• 1:03:13
  Speaker 1: to put my email dress and he said, oh, no,
• 1:03:15
  Speaker 1: I'm afraid it's locked me out because I've I've submitted it,
• 1:03:18
  Speaker 1: so I can't enter your email a dress. And I said,
• 1:03:20
  Speaker 1: I'll tell you what, Look, what about putting it in
• 1:03:22
  Speaker 1: the post. Would that work? Oh yeah, okay, yeah, yeah,
• 1:03:25
  Speaker 1: we'll put We'll put it in the post. So we
• 1:03:27
  Speaker 1: did that and then and then and then eventually we said, okay,
• 1:03:31
  Speaker 1: now can I go to this garage please? Yeah? Yeah, yeah.
• 1:03:34
  Speaker 1: But but they there was a sort of territorial battle
• 1:03:37
  Speaker 1: because they both felt that they wanted to escort me,
• 1:03:41
  Speaker 1: to think, and I think that was because we had
• 1:03:43
  Speaker 1: all got on well, and they wanted to have the
• 1:03:46
  Speaker 1: sort of reflected glory of feeling that they'd you know,
• 1:03:49
  Speaker 1: they'd had a good interaction and they'd resolved it because
• 1:03:52
  Speaker 1: they'd taken me to the to the garage. So in
• 1:03:55
  Speaker 1: the event, the solution was right, well, let's go in convoy.
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 1: You know. It was all really sort of cheerful and
• 1:03:59
  Speaker 1: happy and the guys. So the armed blokes led off
• 1:04:02
  Speaker 1: and then I fell in behind, and then I had
• 1:04:05
  Speaker 1: the van and of course because i'd pre warned the
• 1:04:08
  Speaker 1: garage and he'd driven past and seen me talking to police,
• 1:04:12
  Speaker 1: and he joked and said, oh that was you, was it? Yeah? Yeah,
• 1:04:14
  Speaker 1: that was me. So when we got into the trading
• 1:04:18
  Speaker 1: estate where the garage was, all the employees of the
• 1:04:22
  Speaker 1: garage and neighboring units were out on the fore course
• 1:04:25
  Speaker 1: as a sort of reception committee to see me being
• 1:04:29
  Speaker 1: led in by two police vehicles. So the story had
• 1:04:32
  Speaker 1: a sort of a happy ending, but you know, only
• 1:04:34
  Speaker 1: for now, because on a really serious note, you think, well,
• 1:04:38
  Speaker 1: those guys they're doing their job, they're doing what they
• 1:04:41
  Speaker 1: believe is right, but they really need to think very
• 1:04:44
  Speaker 1: long and hard about providing force protection for unlawful actions
• 1:04:48
  Speaker 1: being conducted by United States visiting forces. And I think
• 1:04:51
  Speaker 1: that's the point to fall out this as well as
• 1:04:55
  Speaker 1: many others, but just on that human level. So yes, anyway,
• 1:04:59
  Speaker 1: all did well, but with a sort of very serious undertone.
• 1:05:04
  Speaker 1: Hy sorry, and you should follow me by going to
• 1:05:06
  Speaker 1: UK column all the time and tell all your friends.
• 1:05:13
  Speaker 1: Is that right? All right?
• 1:05:17
  Speaker 2: Charles Matta, thank you for joining me in the Rangers.
• 1:05:19
  Speaker 1: Thank you. Having reported on the escalation in Britain's contradictory
• 1:05:32
  Speaker 1: defensive posture, I set off for rif Fairford during the
• 1:05:37
  Speaker 1: small hours of Thursday, the twelfth of March to find
• 1:05:40
  Speaker 1: out for the UK column audience what exactly was going
• 1:05:43
  Speaker 1: on with the United States visiting forces in their use
• 1:05:48
  Speaker 1: of the air base. In particular, I wanted to substantiate
• 1:05:53
  Speaker 1: mainstream media reporting of munitions being loaded onto B one bombers,
• 1:05:59
  Speaker 1: and and I wanted to get a sense of what impression,
• 1:06:02
  Speaker 1: if any, the increased activity had had on the surrounding
• 1:06:05
  Speaker 1: area in the local population. During the airfield from the
• 1:06:09
  Speaker 1: north through the coming dawn, there was plenty of evidence
• 1:06:12
  Speaker 1: of activity, in particular the arrival of an Atlas air
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 1: flight part of the Civil Reserve air Fleet, moving personnel
• 1:06:20
  Speaker 1: and equipment for the United States Visiting Forces, and also
• 1:06:24
  Speaker 1: the presence of what appeared to be a drone taking
• 1:06:28
  Speaker 1: up a surveillance overwatch position. Still very much all quiet,
• 1:06:33
  Speaker 1: just on the perimeter of the airfield. It's half past
• 1:06:37
  Speaker 1: six in the morning, just on the outskirts of a
• 1:06:40
  Speaker 1: village called Marston Maisie, and there's a dead end track
• 1:06:43
  Speaker 1: that leads right to the fence which has been cordoned
• 1:06:46
  Speaker 1: off with a police road closed sign. And interestingly, whilst
• 1:06:51
  Speaker 1: out taking a photograph of that sign, a vehicle made
• 1:06:56
  Speaker 1: its way through the cones and it turned out to
• 1:06:58
  Speaker 1: be a chap called Chris who described himself as being
• 1:07:01
  Speaker 1: from the press. He's obviously been here quite a bit
• 1:07:03
  Speaker 1: over the last couple of weeks, and the view that
• 1:07:08
  Speaker 1: we are so surprised in a way that perhaps we
• 1:07:11
  Speaker 1: shouldn't be that nobody seems to care what's going on.
• 1:07:14
  Speaker 1: I made my way northeast along the track from Marston Maze.
• 1:07:18
  Speaker 1: Within just a couple of minutes, several things became clear.
• 1:07:21
  Speaker 1: First of all, within very easy viewing distance of the fence,
• 1:07:25
  Speaker 1: there were several B one B bomber airframes on the tarmac.
• 1:07:29
  Speaker 1: The second thing to note was how close some of
• 1:07:32
  Speaker 1: the residential housing was, not just to the perimeter fence
• 1:07:35
  Speaker 1: of the airfield, but to the aircraft themselves. And I'll
• 1:07:39
  Speaker 1: go on to explain the significance of that. I'm now
• 1:07:43
  Speaker 1: on the fence, having gone down the dead end track
• 1:07:47
  Speaker 1: from Marston Maze, and this is what I find. B
• 1:07:54
  Speaker 1: One's parked up here. Now, interestingly, I've just had a
• 1:08:02
  Speaker 1: chat with a photographer who has been coming down here
• 1:08:07
  Speaker 1: for the last few days, and he's got no dog
• 1:08:11
  Speaker 1: in the fight. In his own words, he's just here
• 1:08:16
  Speaker 1: to photograph aircraft. But what was fascinating was to hear
• 1:08:21
  Speaker 1: him say that last night he was down here at
• 1:08:25
  Speaker 1: exactly this location, and the Americans drove a load of
• 1:08:31
  Speaker 1: vehicles up and pointed the headlights towards the fence in
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 1: order to try to stop people from being able to
• 1:08:39
  Speaker 1: take effective photographs. So there's no doubt that there is
• 1:08:47
  Speaker 1: activity going on here, which obviously to me now it's
• 1:08:50
  Speaker 1: completely visible. I mean I'm standing by the fence, there
• 1:08:52
  Speaker 1: are no far from somebody just under the nose of
• 1:08:55
  Speaker 1: that aircraft. There's no one around. Of course, what I
• 1:08:58
  Speaker 1: should absolutely point out that there are bombs on a
• 1:09:04
  Speaker 1: carrier just behind that aircraft. Those are GBU thirty one
• 1:09:10
  Speaker 1: Joint direct attack munitions or jay dams, which have a
• 1:09:14
  Speaker 1: two thousand pound so called bunker buster warhead. They're also
• 1:09:18
  Speaker 1: within three hundred meters of residential dwellings, which makes one
• 1:09:21
  Speaker 1: consider the threat level as described by the Security Service,
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 1: who say they have foiled twenty plots by Iranians within
• 1:09:30
  Speaker 1: the last year, and one has to ask the question
• 1:09:33
  Speaker 1: does this sort of activity in such colost proximity too
• 1:09:37
  Speaker 1: residential houses pose a threat that has not yet been
• 1:09:41
  Speaker 1: described or countered. I work my way round the fence
• 1:09:44
  Speaker 1: to the crash gate at Chempsford, where I was able
• 1:09:46
  Speaker 1: to observe a couple of vehicles that looked like they
• 1:09:49
  Speaker 1: were providing perimeter security, although on closer inspection three out
• 1:09:53
  Speaker 1: of the four personnel was simply sitting in their vehicles
• 1:09:55
  Speaker 1: on mobile telephones. But in a fairly short space of
• 1:09:58
  Speaker 1: time an American Milli police vehicle arrived and I moved
• 1:10:04
  Speaker 1: off having filmed what I wanted to film, only to
• 1:10:07
  Speaker 1: find that when I next parked up on a grass verge,
• 1:10:10
  Speaker 1: I had the flashing lights and the presence of Minister
• 1:10:14
  Speaker 1: of Defense Police for wheel drive vehicle mounting the curb
• 1:10:18
  Speaker 1: and blocking my path, whereupon two armed constables got out
• 1:10:23
  Speaker 1: to have a word. Now it was a very cordial exchange,
• 1:10:26
  Speaker 1: and they were simply interested in what I was doing.
• 1:10:28
  Speaker 1: The thing that fell out of it was that it
• 1:10:30
  Speaker 1: appeared very clear that they had been directed to act
• 1:10:34
  Speaker 1: by the United States military. The day was not without comedy,
• 1:10:38
  Speaker 1: because as we were having our exchange and understanding of
• 1:10:42
  Speaker 1: exactly what it was I was doing, one of them
• 1:10:45
  Speaker 1: noticed that the tread on my tire was insufficient for
• 1:10:50
  Speaker 1: the use of the roads, and I ended up having
• 1:10:53
  Speaker 1: a police escort into a nearby garage, much to the
• 1:10:56
  Speaker 1: amusement of those that worked there. There is absolutely no
• 1:10:59
  Speaker 1: doubt about the level of involvement that we should attribute
• 1:11:04
  Speaker 1: to the United Kingdom in what is now being described
• 1:11:07
  Speaker 1: as the US Israel war against Iran. That would not
• 1:11:12
  Speaker 1: be happening without the explicit support of not just the
• 1:11:16
  Speaker 1: British government but also the Ministry of Defense personnel, both
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 1: civil and military. Very significant concern is the apparent ability
• 1:11:30
  Speaker 1: of the United States visiting forces to be able to
• 1:11:35
  Speaker 1: direct the operational activity of Ministry of Defense police that
• 1:11:41
  Speaker 1: is well outside of the bones of the relationship that
• 1:11:45
  Speaker 1: should exist between those two organizations. Is Charles Mannett for
• 1:11:49
  Speaker 1: UK column at Raf Fairford