Latest / UK Column Radio / UK Column News — 12th October 2026

Transcript

UK Column News — 12th October 2026 · UK Column Radio

0:15
Speaker 1: Good afternoon. It's Monday, the 12th of October, 2026, just
0:19
Speaker 1: after one o'clock. Welcome to UK Column News. I'm your host,
0:21
Speaker 1: Mike Robinson. Joining me today by video link, we have
0:24
Speaker 1: Charles Mallett and Ben Timberley. And now later in the program,
0:27
Speaker 1: we're going to be looking at the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill,
0:31
Speaker 1: We'll have something on public order in the UK and elsewhere.
0:35
Speaker 1: And also we will be commenting on the plans to
0:40
Speaker 1: live stream the firing squad in the United States later
0:44
Speaker 1: in the program. But we're going to begin today and
0:47
Speaker 1: welcome Ben Timberley to the program. Thanks for joining us, Ben.
0:50
Speaker 1: And well, what's been going on with the media over
0:54
Speaker 1: the weekend? Because stories seem to have been published and
0:57
Speaker 1: then removed.
1:00
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me. Yeah, it's been a very strange
1:02
Speaker 2: weekend this weekend. The internet was awash with stories regarding
1:08
Speaker 2: Michael Gove and his ex, recently ex-girlfriend. And honestly, the
1:16
Speaker 2: stories about Lola Seyman are lurid, very lurid. The sort
1:21
Speaker 2: of gist of this is that she's allegedly been arrested
1:24
Speaker 2: for some kind of CSAT or child sexual abuse materials.
1:28
Speaker 2: That's the scuttlebutt, according to the internet. But what's most
1:31
Speaker 2: interesting is that these stories that have been featured in
1:35
Speaker 2: the mainstream press have actually been removed in many cases.
1:38
Speaker 2: Some are still accessible, such as on Yahoo, I believe,
1:42
Speaker 2: and AOL, whereas in the mainstream British press or the
1:46
Speaker 2: right-wing British press, those stories have actually been taken down.
1:51
Speaker 2: As many people will know, Lola Salem actually has been
1:54
Speaker 2: writing for The Spectator, of which Michael Gove is indeed
1:58
Speaker 2: the editor, and it does appear that the stories and
2:01
Speaker 2: her work history at The Spectator have also been scrubbed.
2:05
Speaker 2: There's a very strange set of occurrences going on here.
2:07
Speaker 2: We can only suspect that there may be some kind
2:11
Speaker 2: of super injunction in place to try and prevent reporting
2:14
Speaker 2: of whatever it is that is actually going on. Now,
2:17
Speaker 2: we have actually seen other journalist account fits covering this
2:20
Speaker 2: that have apparently been threatened with legal action regarding this.
2:24
Speaker 2: That is the evidence that we have to suggest that
2:26
Speaker 2: there may be some kind of super injunction in place.
2:33
Speaker 1: Sorry, Ben. So if we just bring this on screen here,
2:36
Speaker 1: so this is from the Daily Mail. Now, is this
2:39
Speaker 1: article still up or not? This article's headlined, Richard Eden,
2:42
Speaker 1: Michael Gove splits from French lover, 26 years his junior.
2:46
Speaker 1: And they're talking about Michael Gove in pretty disparaging language, actually,
2:55
Speaker 1: and suggesting that he was punching well above his weight
2:57
Speaker 1: with this relationship. But this is from the 2nd of October,
3:00
Speaker 1: and the suggestion that he had split from her. Has
3:05
Speaker 1: that article been taken down yet?
3:07
Speaker 2: Yes, that one, at the time of researching this, was down.
3:11
Speaker 2: It may have been reinstated, we don't know. But at
3:15
Speaker 2: the time of researching, it was down. And it is
3:17
Speaker 2: a shame that they're focusing on really personal details here,
3:22
Speaker 2: because I don't think their relationship status or whether he's
3:25
Speaker 2: punching or not is really relevant here. What is relevant
3:29
Speaker 2: is that a former state minister, now turned podcaster and
3:32
Speaker 2: journalistic editor, is associated with somebody that has potentially had
3:37
Speaker 2: compromising materials floating around on them. And one wonders how
3:43
Speaker 2: this whole situation came about, how these materials would have
3:45
Speaker 2: been found, what sort of investigations are ongoing. And generally,
3:50
Speaker 2: the only reason a super injunction is granted by the
3:53
Speaker 2: government is if there is some kind of national security interest.
3:57
Speaker 2: So one has to wonder what exactly is going on here,
4:01
Speaker 2: who it is that's involved and what the circumstances are
4:04
Speaker 2: that brought this rather lurid situation to light, because we
4:08
Speaker 2: just don't know at this point.
4:10
Speaker 1: Yes, okay, so let's just have a look at the
4:13
Speaker 1: Daily Mail's coverage of the story itself. This has definitely
4:16
Speaker 1: been removed. As far as I know, the original story
4:19
Speaker 1: appeared in The Telegraph. That's been removed. But The Telegraph article,
4:23
Speaker 1: as you say, is still available on AOL. So the
4:28
Speaker 1: question is, I mean, of course, we do not know
4:32
Speaker 1: at this point that there is a super injunction or
4:34
Speaker 1: any kind of injunction in place. All we know at
4:36
Speaker 1: this point is that articles were up Now they're.
4:39
Speaker 3: No longer available.
4:41
Speaker 1: We've no explanation as to why they may have been removed.
4:46
Speaker 3: Correct.
4:47
Speaker 2: And like I say, we can only speculate at this point.
4:50
Speaker 2: But what is interesting is Gove was responsible or partly
4:55
Speaker 2: responsible for the crushing of any moves by the previous
5:01
Speaker 2: government or the previous party in power in the government.
5:04
Speaker 2: to actually look into allegations of pedophilia rings or anything
5:08
Speaker 2: like that within the British government. He was one of
5:11
Speaker 2: the key people who pushed that. I do believe we've
5:13
Speaker 2: got a screen capture somewhere that actually shows that. That
5:17
Speaker 2: is an interesting link here in terms of what could
5:20
Speaker 2: potentially have gone on. Again, we don't know. We don't
5:23
Speaker 2: know why this has happened. We don't know the intent
5:25
Speaker 2: of the people involved. But there is certainly a lot
5:28
Speaker 2: more to come out around this story that hopefully the
5:31
Speaker 2: press will actually report in good faith, because at the
5:34
Speaker 2: moment it is very, very unusual for stories to be
5:37
Speaker 2: retracted in this way or just deleted without any kind
5:40
Speaker 2: of editorial explanation to the viewers or to the rest
5:45
Speaker 2: of the journalistic trade, because this indicates a worrying trend
5:49
Speaker 2: of the government essentially being able to silence stories without
5:52
Speaker 2: any kind of explanation whatsoever.
5:55
Speaker 1: And particularly stories that are involving the courts. So if
5:58
Speaker 1: we just bring this on screen, this is the court
6:01
Speaker 1: record because you said arrested. In fact, she has been charged.
6:05
Speaker 1: Of course, we got to say everybody has the right
6:07
Speaker 1: to be considered innocent until proven guilty, but nonetheless, she
6:10
Speaker 1: has been charged and this is going to court. And
6:13
Speaker 1: so the first hearing was the 30th of September, it seems,
6:16
Speaker 1: which is probably why the newspapers felt that they could
6:20
Speaker 1: publish in the first place.
6:22
Speaker 2: And then... Sorry, go ahead.
6:26
Speaker 1: No, you go ahead, please.
6:28
Speaker 2: I was going to say, it is interesting. The commentary
6:31
Speaker 2: has actually revealed on the internet that there has been
6:33
Speaker 2: multiple hearings already in terms of getting to this point.
6:36
Speaker 2: So to back up what you were saying about the
6:38
Speaker 2: press feeling comfortable in terms of reporting this, it has
6:41
Speaker 2: advanced through the initial stages of the hearing process, which
6:45
Speaker 2: are usually in place to determine whether there is actually
6:48
Speaker 2: a case to answer, whether there are any blockers to
6:51
Speaker 2: it being heard in that court and all the sort
6:53
Speaker 2: of usual processes for due diligence on the case. So
6:57
Speaker 2: it does appear broadly that those have actually been moved
7:01
Speaker 2: out of the way and that it is progressing into
7:02
Speaker 2: the main thrust of the case now.
7:05
Speaker 1: Charles, let me welcome you to the programme and ask
7:08
Speaker 1: what are your thoughts on this story?
7:13
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mike, and good afternoon all. Fascinating from Ben.
7:17
Speaker 4: I think what I would say is, given how many
7:20
Speaker 4: things do get put into the public domain without being
7:23
Speaker 4: apparently removed or there being any sort of appeals for
7:27
Speaker 4: calm or lack of speculation on so many things, the
7:31
Speaker 4: coincidence that this concerns the abuse of children is, And
7:34
Speaker 4: whether or not a heavy handed response, but obviously we're
7:37
Speaker 4: talking about legal action having been threatened at a couple
7:39
Speaker 4: of publishers and the like. It does seem to be, well,
7:43
Speaker 4: I would say extraordinary, but that wouldn't be the right word,
7:46
Speaker 4: of course, because we've seen it happen so many times before.
7:49
Speaker 4: So the fact that she has been charged obviously is
7:50
Speaker 4: not an indication whatsoever. But clearly there's something there that
7:54
Speaker 4: needed to be investigated concerning the abuse of children. And
7:57
Speaker 4: yet here we find ourselves with stories being removed on
8:01
Speaker 4: that very subject, which makes the entire situation look not
8:06
Speaker 4: good at all. And then, of course, we consider on
8:08
Speaker 4: the other side of it, how many people have been
8:11
Speaker 4: prosecuted and even jailed for sending out social media posts
8:15
Speaker 4: on matters that are, frankly, illegal. far less sensitive so
8:19
Speaker 4: i think there's i mean you know if we do
8:21
Speaker 4: ever get to the bottom of it's going to be
8:22
Speaker 4: very interesting to find out what has actually happened.
8:26
Speaker 1: And i mean that that is one of the key
8:28
Speaker 1: points ben uh because while the mainstream media has been
8:32
Speaker 1: apparently forced to take this down um social media is
8:35
Speaker 1: awash with the story it is i mean the lid
8:38
Speaker 1: is well and truly off so any suggestion of any
8:40
Speaker 1: kind of injunction or an attempt to keep this under
8:44
Speaker 1: wraps has failed.
8:47
Speaker 2: Absolutely, it has failed. And I think it's important to
8:50
Speaker 2: note that the article we saw showing the AOL piece,
8:54
Speaker 2: that falls outside of UK jurisdiction. So when this story
8:57
Speaker 2: travels beyond UK jurisdiction, Any super injunction has absolutely no
9:01
Speaker 2: power whatsoever. That has been proved repeatedly in the past.
9:05
Speaker 2: So they have to get these in early in order
9:07
Speaker 2: to stop the story from spreading. But even then, when
9:10
Speaker 2: that story syndicates beyond the control of UK law, there
9:14
Speaker 2: is no way to actually contain that situation. So I
9:17
Speaker 2: think the genie is well and truly out of the
9:19
Speaker 2: bottle on this particular story.
9:22
Speaker 3: Yes.
9:23
Speaker 1: And sorry, you just in your graphics, you just had
9:26
Speaker 1: this tweet. What were you wanting to comment on this?
9:30
Speaker 3: So, yeah, it is interesting.
9:32
Speaker 2: There is an element to this story that potentially plays
9:36
Speaker 2: into the current debates that are happening in UK society
9:40
Speaker 2: at the moment around the role of Zionism and around
9:44
Speaker 2: the role of Jewish personas within public society. I think
9:50
Speaker 2: there is a strong whiff of cultural appropriation around this
9:55
Speaker 2: story and is, how shall we say, concerning that there
10:00
Speaker 2: are unanswered questions in terms of her role within the
10:04
Speaker 2: Spectator and what that actually means. Because as we know,
10:07
Speaker 2: the Spectator has been staunchly Zionist in terms of their reporting.
10:11
Speaker 2: And one wonders where that has come from, what the
10:15
Speaker 2: inputs of that have been. And dare I say it
10:17
Speaker 2: in terms of the editorial control, given the relationship between
10:20
Speaker 2: Gove and Lola, there are questions to answer. Yes.
10:26
Speaker 1: And I see on social media at the moment, one
10:28
Speaker 1: of the real dividing lines here is a comparison between
10:33
Speaker 1: the way that her case has been treated and the
10:36
Speaker 1: way that the case of the Oxford academic who committed
10:39
Speaker 1: suicide has been treated. absolutely being pushed on social media
10:44
Speaker 1: as being a left-right divide?
10:48
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
10:49
Speaker 2: I think the left-right divide is indeed one question, as
10:52
Speaker 2: is the Zionist, non-Zionist question. If this was a non-Zionist person,
10:58
Speaker 2: and it is fairly clear from a little bit of
11:01
Speaker 2: online sleuthing that the Salem is indeed a Zionist, that
11:06
Speaker 2: the reporting has been very much softer and, shall we say,
11:09
Speaker 2: much friendlier towards this situation than it would have been
11:13
Speaker 2: were she in someone like Professor Arday's position, a person
11:17
Speaker 2: that was hounded to death. Now, obviously, we don't want
11:20
Speaker 2: that to happen to anyone else. So there is a
11:23
Speaker 2: limit in terms of the commentary and the speculation that
11:25
Speaker 2: we can provide in this case. But given what we're seeing,
11:28
Speaker 2: And the total shutdown of commentary and reporting on this case,
11:33
Speaker 2: with the potential for a super injunction, it does beg
11:36
Speaker 2: the question, is there a double standard being applied here?
11:41
Speaker 3: It does.
11:41
Speaker 1: Thank you very much for that, Ben. Charles, let's move
11:44
Speaker 1: over to you now. And a question of public order.
11:50
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mike.
11:50
Speaker 4: Yes, well, I think this follows very closely because, Ben,
11:53
Speaker 4: they're referring to the left-right divide, which, of course, is
11:55
Speaker 4: something that neither the media nor the government is ever
11:58
Speaker 4: going to allow people in the United Kingdom to forget
12:01
Speaker 4: exists in some form or other. So we go up
12:04
Speaker 4: to Sheffield, where we look at what the Star was
12:07
Speaker 4: reporting from the weekend. A large group of black clad
12:11
Speaker 4: men seen marching through Sheffield neighbourhood. This is the Darnall
12:15
Speaker 4: area in Sheffield bearing the union flag. Of course, the
12:19
Speaker 4: intimation there is that the union flag and black cladding
12:24
Speaker 4: or at least black clothing should be associated with danger.
12:29
Speaker 4: And as you see on the headline there, it's being
12:32
Speaker 4: referred to as an emergency incident. Now, this is in
12:37
Speaker 4: relation to the Lindbergh coach travel company, which is... reckoned
12:42
Speaker 4: by the Patriot platform to be moving irregular migrants and
12:46
Speaker 4: is therefore a target for the Patriot platform for activists
12:52
Speaker 4: to assemble there in order to stop what it is
12:54
Speaker 4: that they are doing. Now, South Yorkshire police put out
12:58
Speaker 4: a statement about this, which was slightly conflicted in nature.
13:01
Speaker 4: And I just thought I'd draw attention to it with
13:03
Speaker 4: the potential for there being, you know, political influence or
13:07
Speaker 4: indeed challenge to operational independence. But it was reported by
13:11
Speaker 4: the police, officers have increased patrols in Darnall following a
13:14
Speaker 4: large gathering.
13:14
Speaker 3: Of people this morning.
13:17
Speaker 4: They go on to say that they attended and the
13:18
Speaker 4: group dispersed at around 8.40am. The event largely passed without incident,
13:23
Speaker 4: so effectively not much to report. However, Andrew Rimmer, the
13:28
Speaker 4: inspector who was quoted, said, we understand this gathering will
13:31
Speaker 4: have caused concern within the local community. There was a
13:34
Speaker 4: contained incident involving a nationally coordinated gathering in front of
13:38
Speaker 4: a locked bus compound and there is no intelligence to
13:41
Speaker 4: suggest there is any wider risk to the local community. So,
13:45
Speaker 4: sort of Treading a strange line there, not absolutely sure
13:49
Speaker 4: as to whether to report it as being an incident
13:52
Speaker 4: that does merit concern or not. Then we see in
13:55
Speaker 4: West London a similar action outside BM Coaches for exactly
13:59
Speaker 4: the same reason. We see here a statement being read
14:01
Speaker 4: again by the Patriot Platform, who have adopted the same
14:04
Speaker 4: tactic of wearing all black and in most cases white.
14:07
Speaker 4: covering their faces, which is something we're going to come
14:10
Speaker 4: back to. Now, I started, indeed continued, from Ben talking
14:13
Speaker 4: about the left-right divide, because, of course, on the other
14:16
Speaker 4: side of it, The Telegraph, which has openly declared itself
14:18
Speaker 4: as a Zionist publication, inflaming the situation from the other side,
14:23
Speaker 4: describing pro-Palestine reporters as trampling poppies at the Battle of
14:28
Speaker 4: Britain memorial. Now, there was a photograph that accompanied this,
14:31
Speaker 4: which is really very scant evidence for there being a deliberate...
14:35
Speaker 4: or intentional trampling of poppies, effectively a wreath, a synthetic
14:41
Speaker 4: wreath on the site. But I think the important point
14:45
Speaker 4: to draw out of this is that very much only
14:48
Speaker 4: just below the surface is that there is an inference
14:51
Speaker 4: here from both sides that this is a, in effect,
14:54
Speaker 4: a conflict between the legitimate reclaiming of the Christian heritage
14:58
Speaker 4: of this country against an Islamic uprising, even if there's
15:02
Speaker 4: actually barely any overlap between the practising of the faiths
15:05
Speaker 4: concerned by the personalities that appear to be driving it, Now,
15:10
Speaker 4: I think the other thing that's seen even less is
15:12
Speaker 4: the fact that both apparent sides are actually dealing with
15:16
Speaker 4: factors of the same thing from the right, the pull factors,
15:19
Speaker 4: such as the apparent or imagined quality of life and
15:23
Speaker 4: wealth in the West or the United Kingdom, and the
15:25
Speaker 4: left concentrating on the push factors of the state of
15:28
Speaker 4: war that's been inflicted by and encouraged by the West.
15:32
Speaker 4: But of course, the main point is to divide and rule. Now,
15:37
Speaker 4: on this very element, there was a notable tweet put
15:40
Speaker 4: out with a A meme, if you can't see it,
15:43
Speaker 4: it's a cycle around somebody effectively dressed as a crusader
15:45
Speaker 4: with St.
15:46
Speaker 3: George's Cross on their chest.
15:47
Speaker 4: I wake up, I read the news, the urge to
15:50
Speaker 4: crusade intensifies, and so the cycle perpetuates. Now, the reason
15:54
Speaker 4: I've put this on is because it has been retweeted
15:56
Speaker 4: by the Node Project, and it says, real, and... I
16:00
Speaker 4: just want to make the point, which I have done before,
16:02
Speaker 4: that this is, whilst it is playing out in real life,
16:05
Speaker 4: there is a fictional element to this, which is playing
16:08
Speaker 4: a large part in driving and, to an extent, glamorising
16:11
Speaker 4: the narrative. So we're just going to have a look
16:12
Speaker 4: at the fictional Danny Bones character describing his role in
16:16
Speaker 4: what was described by The Node Project as civil war.
16:21
Speaker 5: It's 2029, fourth year of the civil war. Still sounds
16:27
Speaker 5: strange saying that now. Civil war. Nobody called it that
16:32
Speaker 5: when it started. Government didn't have the balls. It was unrest,
16:38
Speaker 5: they said. Disorder.
16:41
Speaker 6: Tensions.
16:43
Speaker 5: Same old words while the country was very clearly falling apart.
16:48
Speaker 5: I was involved in all of it more than I
16:50
Speaker 5: should have been. And I can already feel people starting
16:54
Speaker 5: to lie about what this was. There was the Patriots.
16:58
Speaker 5: The Islamic Front. Westminster, or what was left of it anyway.
17:04
Speaker 5: And the unity movement. Unity were all over it early on. Marches, slogans,
17:11
Speaker 5: all that. Thought they were going to hold the country together.
17:14
Speaker 5: Didn't last. Spent too long appeasing the Islamic front. Got used,
17:21
Speaker 5: then flattened. Most people adapted, kept their heads down. Something
17:27
Speaker 5: happened in the summer of 2026. And when the riots
17:31
Speaker 5: kicked off, it was like people were fucking waiting for it.
17:35
Speaker 5: They didn't stop for ages. To be honest, they never did.
17:41
Speaker 5: By mid-27 or so, it weren't chaos anymore. It was
17:46
Speaker 5: just different. I could go on forever. That's why I'm here.
17:51
Speaker 5: I want to get it down while I'm still living it.
17:54
Speaker 5: The truth. What I saw. What I lived. before it
17:58
Speaker 5: gets rewrote into some bullshit. Memoirs, I suppose. Memoirs of
18:04
Speaker 5: a patriot. That's as good a name for it as any.
18:12
Speaker 4: So when one looks at the footage just played there
18:15
Speaker 4: and indeed that from Sheffield or from West London, I
18:17
Speaker 4: think it's reasonable to ask what is driving what. And
18:21
Speaker 4: another thing that now draws us into the realm of
18:24
Speaker 4: policy and legislation is this issue of face covering. And
18:29
Speaker 4: we've got a tweet here from the Patriot Network saying,
18:31
Speaker 4: talking about the supposed sort of camouflage, which is to
18:36
Speaker 4: do with face paint. I've just got a short video
18:38
Speaker 4: of something that a policeman said to a passerby, which
18:42
Speaker 4: illustrates the difficulty in identifying people who have painted faces.
18:46
Speaker 6: Can you help me out?
18:49
Speaker 3: I know it sounds ridiculous. Who was I talking to earlier?
18:52
Speaker 3: I'm getting confused. Mate, I haven't got a clue, guys.
18:54
Speaker 3: I haven't got a clue, mate.
18:56
Speaker 6: Sorry.
18:58
Speaker 3: I've got to ask, go on. Yeah, yeah, mate, I
19:00
Speaker 3: haven't got a close gaze, to be honest with you, mate.
19:07
Speaker 4: No, the audio wasn't great there, but the point to
19:09
Speaker 4: be made is that a lot of these people, in fact,
19:12
Speaker 4: almost all, had either wearing a face covering or they
19:16
Speaker 4: had their faces painted. And now this is where we
19:18
Speaker 4: come back to the Crime and Policing Act from... earlier
19:21
Speaker 4: this year, 2026, some of which is now in force.
19:25
Speaker 4: And in terms of what they were going to do
19:27
Speaker 4: and how are they going to do it, there are
19:28
Speaker 4: a couple of things which, of course, relate exactly to
19:30
Speaker 4: what I've just been describing over the weekend to introduce
19:32
Speaker 4: a new criminal offence of climbing on specified memorials. That
19:36
Speaker 4: is a government typo, specified memorials.
19:39
Speaker 3: Well done them.
19:40
Speaker 4: And then the other thing is concealing identity at a protest.
19:44
Speaker 3: It's very, very specific, this.
19:46
Speaker 4: And what they say is that it will enable the
19:49
Speaker 4: police to put a stop to individuals hiding behind masks
19:53
Speaker 4: to avoid conviction for criminal activity at protests. I think
19:57
Speaker 4: it would be reasonable to say that actually this is
20:00
Speaker 4: not really so much what it's about. This is about
20:02
Speaker 4: the use of CCTV and increasing use of live facial
20:05
Speaker 4: recognition and people not wanting to be surveilled in order
20:09
Speaker 4: for their activity at what is a peaceful and legitimate
20:11
Speaker 4: protest is then carried over into some other realm of
20:17
Speaker 4: their life. But of course, this is the way that
20:18
Speaker 4: it's being justified by the government. And of course, in
20:22
Speaker 4: trying to close a loophole, they have simply opened another
20:25
Speaker 4: one because when they ask, what about people who wear
20:27
Speaker 4: masks for religious or medical reasons, in effect, they are exempt. Now,
20:33
Speaker 4: what I should point out is that actually, this doesn't
20:36
Speaker 4: prevent arrest because under the Crime and Policing Act, the
20:39
Speaker 4: designation can be made that people may not cover their
20:42
Speaker 4: faces for reasons that do sound spurious or at least
20:45
Speaker 4: somewhat spurious. However, the fact is that people can still
20:48
Speaker 4: be arrested. It may be a defence afterwards that you
20:50
Speaker 4: had an exemption for a religious or health reason. So
20:54
Speaker 4: I think there's a huge amount more confusion to come.
20:57
Speaker 4: But the main point to draw out of this is
20:58
Speaker 4: it's just this continued push of dividing left and right
21:04
Speaker 4: or people who are supposed to cling to the idea
21:06
Speaker 4: that they belong to either the left or the right. Now,
21:09
Speaker 4: I think we're sort of out of time there, but
21:11
Speaker 4: perhaps we can come back to this in extra.
21:14
Speaker 1: Yes, indeed. But I'll just say, Charles, and ask for
21:16
Speaker 1: your comment on this, of course, go back five years
21:20
Speaker 1: and we were required to wear masks. And so does
21:24
Speaker 1: this put an end to that from now on, since
21:26
Speaker 1: they are rolling out live facial recognition? Any future pandemic,
21:31
Speaker 1: any future lockdown would prevent masks being worn, right?
21:37
Speaker 4: Well, except for this idea that there is a medical exemption.
21:41
Speaker 4: But of course, as was well pointed out at the time,
21:43
Speaker 4: there was no health benefit to wearing such a thing
21:46
Speaker 4: in the first place.
21:46
Speaker 3: So it is ridiculous.
21:48
Speaker 4: But this, again, shows the frank idiocy of being quite
21:52
Speaker 4: so prescriptive in lawmaking and chasing these very, very specific targets, which,
21:57
Speaker 4: apart from anything else, if one assumes sort of good faith,
22:00
Speaker 4: make life very, very difficult for police because everything becomes
22:03
Speaker 4: so specific.
22:04
Speaker 7: Yes.
22:05
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, look, related to this issue of public order,
22:09
Speaker 1: then the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill returns to the House
22:12
Speaker 1: of Commons this week. And Secretary of State Chris Bryant,
22:16
Speaker 1: the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, took to X to, quote,
22:21
Speaker 1: set out the importance of the legislation which will enable
22:24
Speaker 1: people impacted by the troubles to seek answers about what
22:26
Speaker 1: happened to their loved ones. Now, this is a topic
22:29
Speaker 1: that we've covered quite a bit over the last year
22:32
Speaker 1: in particular, but let's just see what he had to say.
22:36
Speaker 8: After almost 30 years of peace, the impact of the
22:39
Speaker 8: Troubles continues to be felt right across the United Kingdom.
22:42
Speaker 8: Whether you live in Birmingham or Bangor or Belfast, there
22:47
Speaker 8: are so many families that are living with the legacy. Truth,
22:53
Speaker 8: accountability and reconciliation were key words in the Good Friday
22:56
Speaker 8: Belfast Agreement. But the truth is, we can't shape the
22:59
Speaker 8: future unless we deal with the issues of the past.
23:03
Speaker 8: Families are still living with the legacy. Finding answers for
23:07
Speaker 8: those who have suffered the loss of loved ones is
23:10
Speaker 8: our shared national responsibility. That's not only my personal commitment,
23:14
Speaker 8: it's also the commitment of the whole UK government.
23:23
Speaker 1: Now, normally I would have chopped off the little ending
23:28
Speaker 1: section there. But Charles, just to start off with this,
23:33
Speaker 1: they've put a brand on it. And I'm finding that
23:36
Speaker 1: fascinating because if you looked at the end screen on that,
23:40
Speaker 1: the troubles is a particular typeface in a particular style,
23:44
Speaker 1: they've put a brand on it. And we should not
23:49
Speaker 1: underestimate or understate the fact that this is only answers
23:53
Speaker 1: for one side of the conflict.
23:58
Speaker 4: Well, that's exactly the point. And I think that's very significant.
24:00
Speaker 4: Of course, viewers will remember that we had, or at
24:04
Speaker 4: least a recording from an interview that Lincoln Jopp gave
24:07
Speaker 4: me the other day, who tried a private member's bill
24:10
Speaker 4: in order to make sure that there would have to
24:12
Speaker 4: be declaration of any kind of further investigation of the
24:15
Speaker 4: actions of British soldiers in order that this isn't simply
24:18
Speaker 4: a one-sided exercise. But of course, Brian, they're very clear
24:23
Speaker 4: to steer away from suggesting what he and what the
24:26
Speaker 4: government actually mean by this.
24:29
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Now, I continue to be fascinated by it. Suddenly
24:32
Speaker 1: we have the Drum Cree situation kicking off again. This
24:36
Speaker 1: is where the Orange Parade attempts to walk through a
24:41
Speaker 1: Catholic area of Portadown in Northern Ireland. And of course,
24:45
Speaker 1: they get opposition to that. That was a big deal
24:49
Speaker 1: in the late 90s. It has been very, very quiet
24:51
Speaker 1: since then. And suddenly it's kicking off again. And we
24:56
Speaker 1: have this backward looking rhetoric from Brian. So what's going on?
24:59
Speaker 1: And I'm going to say, Charles, my personal view is
25:01
Speaker 1: that the whole of Europe actually is being destabilized at
25:04
Speaker 1: this point. We've got the education riots in France. We've
25:07
Speaker 1: got housing riots in Spain or protests. We've got austerity
25:10
Speaker 1: and protests in Belgium. We've got national strikes in Italy.
25:14
Speaker 1: We've got anti-asylum protests in the Netherlands. We've got anti-AFD
25:18
Speaker 1: protests in Germany. We've got mass strikes in Portugal. We've
25:21
Speaker 1: got recurring general strikes in Greece. We've got anti-migration protests
25:25
Speaker 1: in Ireland. And of course, here in the UK, as
25:27
Speaker 1: you've been pointing out, we've got the anti-migration, the pro-Palestine
25:32
Speaker 1: and the Palestine action defiance demonstrations going on. And now
25:35
Speaker 1: we've got drum crea in Northern Ireland. And now we've
25:38
Speaker 1: got further, we've got this bill continuing to go through Parliament.
25:44
Speaker 1: And I'm going to suggest this is designed to inflame
25:46
Speaker 1: feelings of injustice in people. No matter where anybody sits
25:50
Speaker 1: on the political spectrum, actually, they're on the receiving end
25:52
Speaker 1: of perceptions of injustice. And I think that makes the
25:59
Speaker 1: outflow of angst be particularly dangerous.
26:07
Speaker 3: I would completely agree.
26:08
Speaker 4: And I think this is being instilled in young minds
26:10
Speaker 4: from very, very early age through certain causes, through the
26:13
Speaker 4: mainstream education system. I think the other thing to point
26:16
Speaker 4: out is that with any of these causes, there is
26:18
Speaker 4: always an opposition, whether that opposition is apparently another group
26:23
Speaker 4: of people who are ideologically opposed to it, or whether
26:25
Speaker 4: it is the state via usually the police. The point
26:29
Speaker 4: is that you're creating an enormous conflagration, and therefore you're
26:33
Speaker 4: drawing time, money, effort, resources, and all the rest of
26:36
Speaker 4: it into a situation which ultimately goes nowhere, enabling all
26:41
Speaker 4: the other things that we talk about to simply steam
26:44
Speaker 4: on ahead.
26:45
Speaker 7: Yes.
26:46
Speaker 1: Ben, have you got any comment on this?
26:50
Speaker 3: Yeah, I have.
26:50
Speaker 2: I think there are a lot of unusual coincidences happening
26:55
Speaker 2: when it comes to Northern Ireland at the moment. I
26:57
Speaker 2: have familial ties to Northern Ireland, and we're familiar with
27:01
Speaker 2: the troubles. So we know some of the situation on
27:04
Speaker 2: the ground there. And in terms of the happenings here,
27:09
Speaker 2: I think the timing is critical. Ireland has been a
27:13
Speaker 2: thorn in the side of certain regimes throughout the world
27:15
Speaker 2: that have significant information warfare capabilities. So it would make
27:19
Speaker 2: absolute sense to inflame that conflict in Northern Ireland between
27:24
Speaker 2: people who consider themselves British and folks who consider themselves
27:28
Speaker 2: to be Irish. There is absolutely a reason to inflame that.
27:31
Speaker 2: I've also come across documentation and, you know, circumstantial evidence
27:36
Speaker 2: at this point that suggests some of the trouble has
27:39
Speaker 2: been fermented by forces, agencies, groupings within America, the United States,
27:47
Speaker 2: who have potentially gained and garnered an interest in seeing
27:52
Speaker 2: this conflict raise its head again, if nothing else for
27:55
Speaker 2: sectarian politics being the central drive of this. Yeah.
28:01
Speaker 1: Thank you for that. And I just want to end
28:03
Speaker 1: with this graphic here because, of course, David Ellis, back
28:08
Speaker 1: in 2020, interviewed one of the former squaddies that had
28:14
Speaker 1: been deployed to Northern Ireland during the Troubles. And that
28:20
Speaker 1: was Dennis Hutchings. And, of course, he ended up being
28:23
Speaker 1: taken to court in Belfast while he was going through
28:26
Speaker 1: treatment for stage four cancer. And he passed away before
28:29
Speaker 1: that incident. that lawfare on him came to a conclusion. So,
28:36
Speaker 1: you know, it does have absolutely detrimental effects on people
28:41
Speaker 1: who are being on the receiving end of this kind
28:45
Speaker 1: of action. Now, let's just say that if you like
28:48
Speaker 1: what we do here at the UK Column, we do
28:49
Speaker 1: need your ongoing support. Have a look at the website,
28:51
Speaker 1: details there for how you can support us. You can
28:54
Speaker 1: make a donation. You can join us as a member, monthly,
28:58
Speaker 1: annual donation.
28:59
Speaker 3: Or Lifetime.
29:00
Speaker 1: But if you can't support us financially, please do share
29:03
Speaker 1: material you find, this program, anything else that you like.
29:06
Speaker 1: You could pick up a copy of issue three of
29:08
Speaker 1: the column. That is available now. And of course, we
29:10
Speaker 1: have annual subscriptions available for that as well, if you'd
29:13
Speaker 1: like to grab one of those. And Charles, tomorrow at 1pm,
29:19
Speaker 1: you are interviewing Tracey Wooster.
29:22
Speaker 3: That's right.
29:23
Speaker 2: Yes.
29:23
Speaker 4: Fantastic interview with Tracy, who has an awful lot to
29:25
Speaker 4: say about a lot of subjects that she has very,
29:28
Speaker 4: very much direct knowledge and experience of. But I think mainly,
29:31
Speaker 4: I mean, I've entitled the interview Sovereign Soils. She makes,
29:34
Speaker 4: I think, a very, very strong case for the undermining
29:38
Speaker 4: and the erosion of local community culture that is bound
29:43
Speaker 4: around connection to the land as being very much responsible
29:47
Speaker 4: for a lot of the trends that we're seeing in society.
29:50
Speaker 3: And I've got a short clip of her speaking.
29:55
Speaker 6: So you can't get the corporations coming in and pushing
29:59
Speaker 6: down the price so that the farmers go out of business. Now,
30:02
Speaker 6: that's neoliberal politics. That's what the West has completely embraced.
30:09
Speaker 6: It's a globalist mindset where your food, your food is
30:15
Speaker 6: treated like a toaster or a pair of shoes. No,
30:20
Speaker 6: it has to be local. It just has to be
30:25
Speaker 6: produced in a way where the actual nutritional value of
30:29
Speaker 6: that food is in that what you're going to put
30:33
Speaker 6: in your body so that you remain healthy and you
30:37
Speaker 6: don't get illnesses. I really envy countries that still have
30:43
Speaker 6: a peasant culture and actually I went to the Amish
30:48
Speaker 6: in Washington. And they were so welcoming and they said,
30:52
Speaker 6: usually people come and they sort of look at us
30:54
Speaker 6: like animals in a zoo. But you, you come in.
30:58
Speaker 6: You actually have our culture. Come and talk to our children.
31:02
Speaker 6: Show them how you don't have it better out there.
31:07
Speaker 1: So that's at 1pm tomorrow. Join us for that. Thanks, Charles.
31:11
Speaker 1: Now let's move on then to Brexit. Because the BBC
31:15
Speaker 1: was carrying this article this morning. Burnham says it's clear
31:19
Speaker 1: Russia interfered in the Brexit vote. So he's saying that
31:23
Speaker 1: in the 2016 EU referendum, Russia was involved in swaying
31:28
Speaker 1: the decision. He was speaking on the The Rest is
31:31
Speaker 1: Politics podcast with Alistair Campbell and Rory Stewart. And he
31:36
Speaker 1: said that on entering Downing Street in July, he had
31:38
Speaker 1: asked whether Russia had interfered in the 2016 vote. Let's
31:42
Speaker 1: just listen to what he said about it.
31:45
Speaker 9: There is certainly misinformation, disinformation that is emanating from Russia
31:51
Speaker 9: into German politics, as I heard yesterday. And I've asked
31:56
Speaker 9: the question myself coming in to this role, because I
31:59
Speaker 9: gave a speech to the UN recently on this very topic.
32:02
Speaker 9: I don't think we knew back then the extent to
32:05
Speaker 9: which there was state-sponsored interference in the British democratic process.
32:10
Speaker 9: But I asked the question coming into Downing Street, well,
32:13
Speaker 9: was there interference in the 2016 referendum from Russia? And
32:17
Speaker 9: I've had the clear answer that yes, there was. And
32:20
Speaker 9: these things are important now to put clearly on the
32:23
Speaker 9: record and, I believe, help voters in Germany and France
32:28
Speaker 9: understand that some of this politics is instigated via our enemies,
32:34
Speaker 9: namely Russia. I think we've been too much on the
32:37
Speaker 9: back foot on that, actually, and we haven't informed people
32:40
Speaker 9: sufficiently about the extent to which people are seeking to
32:44
Speaker 9: disrupt the political process from overseas.
32:48
Speaker 1: The hypocrisy is off the charts. We'll come on to
32:51
Speaker 1: that in a second. But he also said that he
32:55
Speaker 1: told German Chancellor Merz his view that AFD is linked
33:00
Speaker 1: to and funded by Russia. So there we go. Neither
33:05
Speaker 1: Merz nor the AFD, by the way, has responded publicly
33:08
Speaker 1: to that claim as yet. Of course, naturally, the Conservatives,
33:13
Speaker 1: trying to be different, accused Burnham of casting doubt on
33:16
Speaker 1: the vote's legitimacy. And of course, that's really what it's about,
33:19
Speaker 1: because the suggestion is that the referendum result was not
33:23
Speaker 1: legitimate and therefore we probably need to have it again.
33:25
Speaker 1: And so it does seem pretty clear he intends to
33:29
Speaker 1: use this alleged interference as grounds revisiting the referendum. As
33:34
Speaker 1: we know, he mentioned at the Labour Party conference last
33:38
Speaker 1: week that he was going to review all options for
33:41
Speaker 1: Britain's relationship with the EU, and he was very keen
33:44
Speaker 1: to push forward this notion that we might even want
33:47
Speaker 1: to rejoin, and that the conference that they're going to
33:51
Speaker 1: have later in the year is going to be particularly
33:53
Speaker 1: important for that. Now, of course, the Russians have always
33:57
Speaker 1: absolutely denied any involvement. Look, this is yet another example
34:02
Speaker 1: as I say, of the sheer hypocrisy of the British regime.
34:05
Speaker 1: Let's just mention here the Integrity Initiative, Zinc Network, BBC
34:09
Speaker 1: Media Action, Thomson Reuters Foundation, just to name a few,
34:12
Speaker 1: designed to interfere in news agendas and politics abroad, and
34:17
Speaker 1: at home for that matter. Ben, it is quite incredible
34:21
Speaker 1: to me the level of hypocrisy here.
34:24
Speaker 3: It's off the charts. I completely agree with you.
34:27
Speaker 2: I think one of the things that Andy Burnham said,
34:30
Speaker 2: which is that the Russians are interfering in our democratic processes,
34:36
Speaker 2: that made me laugh because the biggest interferers in our
34:40
Speaker 2: democratic processes here in the UK is actually the UK
34:44
Speaker 2: government and our own intelligence services and the NGOs that
34:47
Speaker 2: they surround themselves with. We've seen massive quantities of interference
34:52
Speaker 2: recently and a propaganda program that is dwarfing anything else
34:56
Speaker 2: I've seen before it to send us to war with Russia,
35:00
Speaker 2: to paint the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, anyone that
35:04
Speaker 2: doesn't fit in with the Western agenda as the enemy.
35:07
Speaker 2: And I think it's quite clear that part of their
35:11
Speaker 2: agenda is to try and push us back into Europe
35:14
Speaker 2: so that we can participate in some kind of united
35:17
Speaker 2: front against what they class as the Russian threat, whether
35:22
Speaker 2: that's through NATO or potentially through some kind of European
35:25
Speaker 2: Union armed force approach is as yet unclear. But there
35:30
Speaker 2: are very strong indications that that is what they're trying
35:33
Speaker 2: to do.
35:34
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
35:35
Speaker 1: And look, I just want to put this back on
35:37
Speaker 1: screen for one second, because if anybody hasn't read our
35:40
Speaker 1: coverage of the Integrity Initiative, which is really where this
35:45
Speaker 1: agenda of demonizing Russia in an organized way kicked off,
35:50
Speaker 1: have a look at the UK Column website for that.
35:52
Speaker 1: There's going to be much more to come on this. Charles,
35:56
Speaker 1: let's come back to you now and wind energy.
36:02
Speaker 3: Yes, wind energy.
36:04
Speaker 4: We could have looked at probably a variety of the, well,
36:08
Speaker 4: varied alternatives to conventional means of generating electricity. But wind,
36:13
Speaker 4: because Renewable UK has just produced a report which does
36:17
Speaker 4: show that a vast increase of 38% in operational floating
36:24
Speaker 4: offshore wind capacity has been apparently been achieved over the
36:28
Speaker 4: past 12 months. So I just make the point that
36:30
Speaker 4: this is worldwide. And with regard to the United Kingdom's capacity,
36:35
Speaker 4: rather more limited, the UK has two fully operational floating
36:38
Speaker 4: wind projects, Kincardine and Highwind. But in bold, that's the
36:43
Speaker 4: bold that I've put in, a project pipeline of 28.4 gigawatts. Now,
36:49
Speaker 4: that figure might not mean anything to you, but I
36:51
Speaker 4: would like you to hold it in mind, because what
36:55
Speaker 4: we're going to do now is take a look at
36:57
Speaker 4: the energy dashboard from earlier this morning, and you will
37:01
Speaker 4: see circled in red that the total generation output for
37:06
Speaker 4: the whole of the United Kingdom was only 31.28 gigawatts.
37:11
Speaker 4: So suddenly we have the idea that the floating wind
37:15
Speaker 4: technology or capacity, capability, whatever you want to call it,
37:18
Speaker 4: of the United Kingdom will be equivalent to almost the
37:21
Speaker 4: entire total of what the system produces now. So that's
37:26
Speaker 4: the first point to make. Also, in terms of overall generation,
37:30
Speaker 4: of course, there is much drum banging going on about
37:33
Speaker 4: the delivery of so-called renewable energy into the main system,
37:37
Speaker 4: which is shown at roughly a third this morning. But
37:40
Speaker 4: of course, also just below a third is so-called fossil
37:44
Speaker 4: fuels and the sort of defeating or self-defeating purpose, because
37:50
Speaker 4: in order for this to be the case at all,
37:53
Speaker 4: there is a huge carbon emissions crisis. bill attached to that,
37:58
Speaker 4: if that is indeed something that.
38:00
Speaker 3: You think is relevant.
38:01
Speaker 4: Now, the point or the reason for mentioning both of
38:04
Speaker 4: these things is because they need to be balanced against
38:07
Speaker 4: each other. And that is the job of the National
38:09
Speaker 4: Energy System operator, NISO. And we look at their 2025
38:13
Speaker 4: annual balancing costs report, because it's not simply a case
38:17
Speaker 4: of making this happen. There is actually a financial cost
38:22
Speaker 4: to making it work. And perhaps alarmingly, perhaps not surprisingly,
38:27
Speaker 4: depending on how much consideration you've given to the subject,
38:30
Speaker 4: under the heading future cost drivers thermal, they say of
38:34
Speaker 4: the numerous changes anticipated across the energy system, the expected
38:38
Speaker 4: increase in offshore wind remains the most notable with just
38:41
Speaker 4: over 50 gigawatts expected on our networks by 2030 under
38:45
Speaker 4: our most ambitious decarbonisation scenario. Well, the decarbonisation scenario is
38:53
Speaker 4: like most things driven by modeling and they've put a
38:57
Speaker 4: rather fantastic together which shows to the left the left
39:02
Speaker 4: hand side is 20 up to approximately 2050 and i
39:06
Speaker 4: think the most notable thing which is shown by natural
39:13
Speaker 4: gas is replaced as time goes on by hydrogen and
39:17
Speaker 4: there's no real justification of how this would work but
39:20
Speaker 4: i think it's worth going to the figures produced by
39:23
Speaker 4: the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, just to
39:26
Speaker 4: highlight or at least unpick the very, very fragile state
39:30
Speaker 4: of the evidence that's provided. So the hydrogen production demand
39:34
Speaker 4: in the UK 2022 to 2024 contained very little information
39:39
Speaker 4: about the production of hydrogen because at the moment it
39:42
Speaker 4: is absolutely minimal, currently about 4% in relation to the
39:46
Speaker 4: amount of natural gas and around 20% of the hydrogen
39:50
Speaker 4: that is produced is produced from natural gas, if you
39:54
Speaker 4: can make sense of that. But not only that, of course,
39:58
Speaker 4: that produces carbon dioxide itself. And then the other considerable
40:05
Speaker 4: generator of hydrogen is the refining of oil. So there's
40:11
Speaker 4: another contradiction there. But not only that, about 70% of
40:15
Speaker 4: the hydrogen that is produced from that means actually goes
40:18
Speaker 4: back into the use of the refinery in the first place.
40:22
Speaker 4: So that there are so many problems with all of this,
40:26
Speaker 4: it's hard to know where to begin. In terms of
40:28
Speaker 4: the specifics and where this is going, we'll just go
40:30
Speaker 4: back to a separate document put out by NISO Energy
40:32
Speaker 4: explaining the costs of balancing Britain's electricity system. And just
40:36
Speaker 4: in case you're not quite clear on what this does
40:38
Speaker 4: actually mean, they say that the balancing costs are increasing
40:41
Speaker 4: and are predicted to go up from around 2 billion
40:43
Speaker 4: a year now to as much as 8 billion by 2030.
40:46
Speaker 4: So there's really no plan in place for how to
40:50
Speaker 4: make this work. And The reason for this is thermal transmission.
40:54
Speaker 4: So to prevent the existing cables from overheating and catching
40:57
Speaker 4: fire due to excessive current flowing through them, NISO acts
41:00
Speaker 4: to turn down wind output to avoid a power outage.
41:04
Speaker 4: So in effect, the system is not ready for it,
41:06
Speaker 4: can't handle it. And the only way we have of
41:09
Speaker 4: doing that is paying the wind farm compensation to switch off,
41:13
Speaker 4: known as a curtailment cost, and then paying for an
41:15
Speaker 4: alternative energy provider, typically in the south, to turn on
41:19
Speaker 4: to support demand needs there. This is based on the
41:23
Speaker 4: predication that the wind blows more in the north and
41:25
Speaker 4: therefore Scotland and the north of England have the greater
41:28
Speaker 4: array of wind projects. They then conclude on this note,
41:32
Speaker 4: Britain needs around 620 miles of new high voltage onshore
41:36
Speaker 4: power lines and roughly 4,000 miles of undersea cables to
41:40
Speaker 4: meet its 2030 decarbonisation targets. It's the biggest energy infrastructure
41:45
Speaker 4: upgrade our country has seen in 70 years. Now, considering
41:50
Speaker 4: what I've been reporting on up to that point, I
41:54
Speaker 4: leave it to you to decide whether or not that
41:57
Speaker 4: 2030 target is in any way realistic, but also to
42:00
Speaker 4: consider this continued push for more and more and more
42:04
Speaker 4: wind projects when it is absolutely beyond any shadow of
42:08
Speaker 4: a doubt that this increases the cost of energy rather
42:12
Speaker 4: than decreases or makes it more efficient. And also there
42:15
Speaker 4: is absolutely no net benefit in so far as decarbonization
42:19
Speaker 4: is concerned. Mike, I mean, it sounds like complete lunacy.
42:22
Speaker 4: I don't know if we've got time for a brief
42:24
Speaker 4: comment on that.
42:25
Speaker 1: I do. You know, the bottom line here is where
42:29
Speaker 1: we've got to always keep in mind, in my opinion,
42:31
Speaker 1: where is this demand for energy coming from? Because it's
42:34
Speaker 1: not coming from the industrialization of the UK. It is
42:38
Speaker 1: going to be coming from data centers. And so it
42:41
Speaker 1: is effectively the panopticon that we keep hearing about. So
42:46
Speaker 1: if we continue to support this policy of rolling out
42:51
Speaker 1: renewables in this way, in order to increase the overall
42:59
Speaker 1: energy production capacity in the UK, this is to feed
43:02
Speaker 1: our own demise.
43:06
Speaker 4: That's exactly right. Nothing further to add.
43:09
Speaker 2: Yeah.
43:10
Speaker 3: Okay.
43:11
Speaker 1: Well, look, speaking of our own demise, let's just have
43:13
Speaker 1: a look at the war agenda at the moment then, because, well,
43:16
Speaker 1: first of all, NATO is very excited. They continue to
43:20
Speaker 1: have me in stitches. Tomorrow sees the beginning of this
43:23
Speaker 1: year's exercise, Steadfast Noon. Their press release says, NATO will
43:28
Speaker 1: host its annual nuclear deterrence exercise, Steadfast Noon, beginning on Tuesday,
43:33
Speaker 1: 13th of October, 2026. The exercise is a long-planned, routine
43:37
Speaker 1: training activity that is part of NATO's effort to maintain
43:40
Speaker 1: readiness and test procedures that contribute to the Alliance's deterrence
43:44
Speaker 1: and defence. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte highlighted that, NATO
43:49
Speaker 1: is a defensive alliance. This exercise helps us to ensure
43:52
Speaker 1: a safe, secure, effective and credible capability to preserve peace,
43:57
Speaker 1: prevent coercion and deter aggression. It also sends a clear
44:00
Speaker 1: message of unity and resolve. Now, this year's exercise is
44:04
Speaker 1: taking place in Italy. It'll involve 17 nations, and the
44:09
Speaker 1: overall scale is in line with previous iterations, they say.
44:12
Speaker 1: There are not going to be any live weapons used
44:16
Speaker 1: in steadfast noon. Well, since there's nuclear deterrence, then perhaps
44:18
Speaker 1: that's good. And they say that the exercise is not
44:22
Speaker 1: linked to current world events and is not directed against
44:25
Speaker 1: any country. Do you believe that, Charles?
44:29
Speaker 3: I don't. No, I absolutely don't believe it.
44:32
Speaker 4: And I don't believe any of the other sort of
44:34
Speaker 4: throwaway remarks either. I mean, there is always some relation
44:39
Speaker 4: to ideology or the current state of affairs. There's absolutely
44:43
Speaker 4: no point in just exercising for the sake of exercising.
44:47
Speaker 3: Well, indeed.
44:48
Speaker 1: Now, in the past year or so, we have highlighted
44:52
Speaker 1: the attack on General Bode. I apologise for the pronunciation
44:59
Speaker 1: of his name. who, of course, was debunked because he
45:03
Speaker 1: was criticizing the anti-Russia agenda over the last period of time. Now,
45:08
Speaker 1: we've got another example of it. This is retired Spanish
45:11
Speaker 1: Colonel Pedro Baños. He's a military anti-war voice. He's got
45:18
Speaker 1: a YouTube channel. It's all in Spanish, of course, but
45:21
Speaker 1: I'm sure there is live translation available on that now.
45:25
Speaker 1: He's got nearly a million subscribers on that YouTube channel.
45:29
Speaker 1: But he reported on X that TikTok has shut down
45:32
Speaker 1: his TikTok account with nearly 185,000 followers. No reason was given.
45:37
Speaker 1: He said, in Europe, censorship is being imposed with force
45:43
Speaker 1: and brazenness through the implementation of the European Digital Services Act,
45:47
Speaker 1: along with actions of certain intelligence agencies in collaboration with
45:51
Speaker 1: subsidized private entities. They're managing to silence narratives that deviate
45:55
Speaker 1: from the official line. God forbid they let us have
45:58
Speaker 1: the freedom to think for ourselves and the audacity to
46:02
Speaker 1: claim freedom to express ourselves. Now, this follows an article
46:06
Speaker 1: published in early August and placed in the Spanish digital
46:11
Speaker 1: newspaper with an English name, The Objective. And it was
46:16
Speaker 1: asserted that Allied counterintelligence accuses Banos of following directives from Moscow.
46:23
Speaker 1: Everywhere we look, we've got this narrative being built that
46:26
Speaker 1: everybody's being influenced by Moscow. You're not allowed to have
46:30
Speaker 1: an opposing position. You're not allowed to have an anti-war position.
46:34
Speaker 1: You've got to keep your mouth shut or else you're
46:37
Speaker 1: simply a spokesperson for the Russians. Now, of course, that
46:41
Speaker 1: puts everybody in a very difficult position because if the
46:46
Speaker 1: government of the day decides to actually put the country
46:48
Speaker 1: on a war footing, then anybody countering their particular narrative
46:53
Speaker 1: will be immediately charged with being a national security threat,
46:59
Speaker 1: and that will be then put into the gulag.
47:02
Speaker 5: As it were.
47:02
Speaker 1: Now, let's move on to this one then, because this
47:08
Speaker 1: gets even better. Western intelligence agencies, I believe mainly British
47:12
Speaker 1: intelligence agencies, are warning chief executives and other senior employees
47:16
Speaker 1: at defense companies that are being targeted by Kremlin operatives.
47:20
Speaker 1: shades of Skripal here or something. I don't know what
47:23
Speaker 1: is coming down the pipe, but certainly this is the
47:26
Speaker 1: narrative that's being given. So according to officials from five
47:30
Speaker 1: European intelligence agencies, including the British, who spoke with the
47:33
Speaker 1: Financial Times, European defense company bosses that Russia is stepping
47:40
Speaker 1: up efforts to assassinate them. And this is prompting companies
47:44
Speaker 1: to increase personal security around top executives. Ben, What are
47:49
Speaker 1: your thoughts on that story?
47:52
Speaker 2: I think it's very easy to pick this one apart. Strategically,
47:56
Speaker 2: why would Russia bother doing that? It's a nonsense, frankly.
48:01
Speaker 2: It achieves no strategic aim. It doesn't stop production of
48:03
Speaker 2: these weapons. It doesn't stop them from being put into
48:06
Speaker 2: the hands of Ukrainians. So from a perspective of does
48:10
Speaker 2: this work on the ground?
48:12
Speaker 3: No, it doesn't.
48:12
Speaker 2: So there's probably no truth to this. What it does
48:16
Speaker 2: do is allow them to sit there and provide defence,
48:20
Speaker 2: shall we say, and for the defence industry to allow
48:24
Speaker 2: them to pump their share prices. And obviously they want
48:27
Speaker 2: to sit there and say these corporations, these industries are
48:30
Speaker 2: vital to the Ukrainian war effort and as such they're
48:33
Speaker 2: vital to our national wellbeing and our national security.
48:37
Speaker 3: So we have to.
48:38
Speaker 2: Provide state resources to these defence companies so that they
48:42
Speaker 2: can basically increase their profits. That is certainly what this
48:46
Speaker 2: looks like. It looks very much like PR for defence
48:49
Speaker 2: industries and nothing more.
48:51
Speaker 3: Indeed.
48:52
Speaker 1: Thank you for that. Charles, let's move across the United
48:56
Speaker 1: States and the issue of whether we're going to see
48:59
Speaker 1: a live streamed execution.
49:04
Speaker 3: Yes, quite.
49:04
Speaker 4: This was mentioned on Friday's news by Basil Valentine. It
49:08
Speaker 4: concerns the declaration by Pete Hegseth, the United States Secretary
49:13
Speaker 4: for War, that Nidal Hassan, who murdered 13 people in
49:19
Speaker 4: 2009 at Fort Hood, is to be executed by firing squad.
49:23
Speaker 4: Not just that, but it will be live stream. Now,
49:25
Speaker 4: it's drawn condemnation and plenty of other responses, but the
49:30
Speaker 4: United Nations in particular has weighed in and says that
49:35
Speaker 4: this proposal by Hegseth would breach a prohibition of torture.
49:41
Speaker 4: And I think we can just see that on screen there.
49:44
Speaker 4: So we'll come back to the idea that it contravenes
49:50
Speaker 4: prohibition of torture or indeed the sort of the legal position. Now,
49:56
Speaker 4: my apologies if I've misrepresented you as a UK column
50:01
Speaker 4: viewer or listener, but I did write to the about this,
50:07
Speaker 4: because Hegseth seems to be very concerned with leading by example.
50:12
Speaker 4: And so I got in touch with the Department of War.
50:14
Speaker 4: And I asked with regard to the proposed execution itself,
50:18
Speaker 4: the question the UK column audience would like to put
50:20
Speaker 4: to the Secretary of War is why will he not
50:23
Speaker 4: conduct it himself? And I did go on to say,
50:27
Speaker 4: or at least request a statement from the press office,
50:31
Speaker 4: which deals with the moral and psychological elements of the
50:34
Speaker 4: Directive to soldiers who, on behalf of the politician, must
50:38
Speaker 4: shoot an unarmed human to death in cold blood. Now,
50:43
Speaker 4: to their credit, the Pentagon did actually respond, which is
50:48
Speaker 4: much more than can be said for some of the
50:50
Speaker 4: British government departments. The text is a bit small, but
50:55
Speaker 4: I've got the email up on screen now, which says, Charles,
50:58
Speaker 4: we have nothing provide, that is how it was written,
51:01
Speaker 4: we have nothing provide at this time beyond the following
51:05
Speaker 4: statement you can attribute to a War Department official on background.
51:10
Speaker 4: The Secretary is correct. It will be live streamed. Details
51:14
Speaker 4: will follow. And then in the spirit of the age,
51:17
Speaker 4: because it is 2026, we also refer.
51:20
Speaker 3: Sorry, they didn't say the spirit of the age. That's me.
51:23
Speaker 4: We also refer you to the Secretary of War's post,
51:26
Speaker 4: which inevitably was on Twitter. And this was because CBS
51:30
Speaker 4: News had put up a post saying Fort Hood shooters
51:33
Speaker 4: execution will be live streamed. And then they gave a
51:34
Speaker 4: little bit of background saying they plan to live stream
51:37
Speaker 4: the execution of Nidal Hassan, who, of course, we mustn't
51:41
Speaker 4: forget is an Islamic terrorist. The army major who was
51:45
Speaker 4: convicted of killing 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009.
51:48
Speaker 4: And he's due to face firing squad. On December the 3rd,
51:51
Speaker 4: the Pentagon official said, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, I don't
51:55
Speaker 4: know why he's being called Defence Secretary, that's old news,
51:58
Speaker 4: said earlier Thursday, the Pentagon planned to make the execution public.
52:02
Speaker 4: Hassan's case could mark the military's first execution of an
52:05
Speaker 4: American service member since 1961.
52:07
Speaker 2: And....
52:09
Speaker 4: As formal as it gets by way of confirming this,
52:12
Speaker 4: Hegseth has simply retweeted that tweet, or quoted it rather,
52:16
Speaker 4: and just appended the word correct. Now, when we go
52:19
Speaker 4: back to the suggestion by the United Nations that there's
52:24
Speaker 4: an issue concerning lawfulness, the justification that Hegsworth is believed
52:28
Speaker 4: to be using goes back to the Supreme Court judgment
52:31
Speaker 4: from 1878, which is Wilkerson versus the state of Utah,
52:36
Speaker 4: a murder that happened after a disagreement over a game
52:38
Speaker 4: of cribbage. And the challenge to the idea that there
52:42
Speaker 4: would be death by firing squad. But the judge at
52:45
Speaker 4: the time ruled that cruel and unusual punishments are forbidden
52:48
Speaker 4: by the Constitution, but the punishment of shooting as a
52:52
Speaker 4: mode of executing the death penalty for the crime of
52:55
Speaker 4: murder in the first degree is not included in that
52:57
Speaker 4: category within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. And he
53:00
Speaker 4: further went on to say soldiers convicted of desertion or
53:04
Speaker 4: other capital military offences were are, in the great majority
53:07
Speaker 4: of cases, sentenced to be shot. And the ceremony for
53:11
Speaker 4: such occasions is given in gratefulness by the writers upon
53:15
Speaker 4: the subject of courts martial. So that was, or that
53:20
Speaker 4: is believed to be, the legal side of it. How
53:23
Speaker 4: that will stack up against what the United Nations has
53:26
Speaker 4: to say is not yet clear. What strikes a rather
53:29
Speaker 4: jarring or discordant note, or a perhaps not, considering the
53:33
Speaker 4: apparent faith of.
53:36
Speaker 3: Of Hassan is the fact.
53:38
Speaker 4: That only a couple of weeks ago, Hegseth had set
53:41
Speaker 4: up the establishment of the Office of Religious Affairs. And
53:45
Speaker 4: if you can't read the text on the screen, I
53:48
Speaker 4: will just read it out, which says, effective immediately to
53:50
Speaker 4: strengthen the moral, ethical, and spiritual readiness of our warfighters.
53:55
Speaker 4: I'm establishing the Office of Religious Affairs and the position
53:58
Speaker 4: of the director for Office of Religious Affairs. Now, Knowing
54:05
Speaker 4: something of Hegs's background and knowing, I think, the crusade
54:10
Speaker 4: that is being publicised at the moment, it is fairly
54:13
Speaker 4: obvious what the direction of travel is, although they do
54:17
Speaker 4: include this statement, which is nothing in this memorandum shall
54:22
Speaker 4: be construed to compel religious participation or to diminish the
54:27
Speaker 4: free exercise of rights of any service member, civilian employee
54:30
Speaker 4: or family member of any faith or no faith. This
54:35
Speaker 4: looks very much like not a coincidence, setting alongside the
54:41
Speaker 4: apparent Christian credentials of not just Hegseth, but the Trump.
54:45
Speaker 4: administration and the Islamic background or supposed Islamic faith and
54:50
Speaker 4: indeed the label of Islamic terrorist of Nidal Hassan. Now,
54:53
Speaker 4: there seems to be a slight grey area as to
54:56
Speaker 4: what Donald Trump, who ultimately holds authority for the firing
55:00
Speaker 4: squad execution and indeed the live streaming, what he had
55:03
Speaker 4: to say. But this is a short bit of video
55:05
Speaker 4: footage of him having had that question put to him.
55:09
Speaker 6: Do you want the execution of the Fort Hood shooter
55:12
Speaker 6: to be live streamed?
55:13
Speaker 9: And are you worried that the video would be used
55:15
Speaker 9: as propaganda to radicalize- Determination.
55:17
Speaker 7: About that, but he will be killed.
55:21
Speaker 3: He will be through firing squad.
55:23
Speaker 7: He killed 13, 14 people, badly wounded 20 some odd people,
55:30
Speaker 7: and he's totally nuts. So I really don't care how
55:32
Speaker 7: he goes, as long as he goes. And I think
55:35
Speaker 7: that the death penalty is a very worthy way of
55:38
Speaker 7: going for him. Did you personally authorize or approve the execution,
55:43
Speaker 7: the live stream execution of the poor hoon?
55:46
Speaker 6: Did I approve?
55:46
Speaker 3: Did you approve?
55:47
Speaker 6: Absolutely.
55:52
Speaker 4: Well, you heard it. He's totally nuts. So that's fine. Mike,
55:58
Speaker 4: all the world's a stage. Any comments on either the
56:02
Speaker 4: lawfulness or the necessity or the fact that soldiers are
56:05
Speaker 4: going to be directed to do this, it seems?
56:08
Speaker 1: I mean, what can I say? I hate to use
56:14
Speaker 1: the hardback to the old cliche of nazi germany but
56:18
Speaker 1: that's how it looks to me it is quite incredible
56:21
Speaker 1: that they are seriously uh proposing that people should be
56:25
Speaker 1: watching this now um it's quite interesting because uh trump
56:31
Speaker 1: it seems in his usual style is giving multiple uh
56:36
Speaker 1: viewpoints because i also heard him saying that it would
56:38
Speaker 1: be his decision at the end of the day and
56:40
Speaker 1: that he wasn't quite committing to it so I'm not
56:43
Speaker 1: sure what the timing of those various things was, but
56:46
Speaker 1: of course, we know that he changes his mind every
56:50
Speaker 1: 30 seconds. I think no matter what anybody thinks about
56:55
Speaker 1: the individual concerned, it is a very dangerous track to
56:58
Speaker 1: be heading down to start live streaming executions in this way.
57:04
Speaker 2: Yeah.
57:05
Speaker 3: Well, absolutely.
57:06
Speaker 4: And the email I sent to the Pentagon, I did
57:10
Speaker 4: make reference to the increased instability into the United States administration,
57:16
Speaker 4: the negative consequences for world order, especially in behavior and ethics.
57:19
Speaker 4: I'd just like to go to Ben on that point,
57:22
Speaker 4: if we have time, just for comments on what this
57:24
Speaker 4: says about society in, frankly, not just the United States,
57:29
Speaker 4: because there will be a lot of people sort of
57:30
Speaker 4: cheering for this elsewhere in the world.
57:36
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think there is a real problem with celebrating
57:40
Speaker 2: intentional death of any kind. And it is very clear
57:43
Speaker 2: that the death penalty here is being used to make
57:46
Speaker 2: a political point. Your comparisons in terms of the Nazi movement,
57:53
Speaker 2: and I think there's one that's specific here, which is
57:56
Speaker 2: the Rexis movement of Belgium back in the Second World
58:00
Speaker 2: War period, was very much driven by a religious fervor,
58:05
Speaker 2: a sort of an absolutely twisted version of Christian views
58:10
Speaker 2: and Christian values being used to apply death penalties and
58:14
Speaker 2: threats against others, any kind of person that is considered
58:18
Speaker 2: to be another. And I think this is absolutely the
58:21
Speaker 2: case here. This chap is of a Muslim, West Asian background.
58:27
Speaker 2: He was a psychologist, so therefore considered a liberal. And
58:31
Speaker 2: his crime to step out against the state and the
58:34
Speaker 2: state's war crimes and to inflict death as a result
58:39
Speaker 2: of it.
58:39
Speaker 1: They're not excusing what he did.
58:41
Speaker 2: Nor justifying it, but it certainly appears that they're using
58:44
Speaker 2: his death and his execution as a political rallying flag.
58:50
Speaker 2: I think that is, as you say, a very, very
58:53
Speaker 2: dangerous road to go down.
58:55
Speaker 3: RAOUL PAL.
58:56
Speaker 7: Yes.
58:56
Speaker 1: Thank you. Charles, your final comment?
59:02
Speaker 4: No, no, I think we can deal with that more
59:04
Speaker 4: fully in Extra. I think there are just so many
59:07
Speaker 4: elements to it. But no, I completely agree with Ben.
59:10
Speaker 4: I'd like to hear more from him in Extra.
59:12
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay.
59:13
Speaker 1: Well, look, I just want to end very, very briefly
59:15
Speaker 1: on this, because last week I was reporting on the
59:17
Speaker 1: hack on a company which had access to Denmark's Central
59:20
Speaker 1: Person Register, and that that resulted in the theft of
59:24
Speaker 1: personal information of 8.8 million people.
59:27
Speaker 3: The Central.
59:28
Speaker 1: Person register is Denmark's national population register, set up in 1968,
59:33
Speaker 1: and holds all kinds of data on people, including name, address,
59:37
Speaker 1: date of birth, and so on, if you remember. Well,
59:39
Speaker 1: there's been an update to this from the Copenhagen Post,
59:44
Speaker 1: basically telling us all that, in fact, the reason the
59:47
Speaker 1: hack was possible, or quite so easy, was that an
59:49
Speaker 1: administrator on the system was using the password 123456, And
59:55
Speaker 1: on top of that, there were no protections in place
59:57
Speaker 1: for monitoring or to see how anybody was, the speed
1:00:05
Speaker 1: that anybody was downloading information, or in fact, the fact
1:00:08
Speaker 1: that they were downloading the entire data set. So that
1:00:13
Speaker 1: is basically that. It is quite incredible. And these are
1:00:16
Speaker 1: the types of people that we are relying on to
1:00:20
Speaker 1: keep our data safe as we move towards this ever
1:00:23
Speaker 1: more digital world. talk a bit more about that in
1:00:26
Speaker 1: extra as well but let's leave it there for today
1:00:29
Speaker 1: thank you very much ben and charles and everybody that's
1:00:31
Speaker 1: been watching if you're uk call members stick around on
1:00:34
Speaker 1: the live stream and we'll be back in a couple
1:00:36
Speaker 1: of minutes for extra we'll see you then bye