Latest / UK Column Radio / UK Column News — 15th April 2026

Transcript

UK Column News — 15th April 2026 · UK Column Radio

0:08
Speaker 1: Good afternoon. It's Wednesday, the fifteenth of April twenty twenty sixth,
0:11
Speaker 1: just after one o'clock. Welcome to UK called News. I'm
0:13
Speaker 1: your host Mike Robinson. Joining me by video link today
0:15
Speaker 1: are Charles Mallett and Vanessa Billy. Later in the program,
0:19
Speaker 1: Finess is going to have an update on Lebanon. I'm
0:21
Speaker 1: going to be reporting on a data breach by Israeli
0:24
Speaker 1: company Fiver, and Charles is going to have war on
0:27
Speaker 1: food security. But we're going to start off again following
0:29
Speaker 1: on from Monday's program. The London Defense Conference, as Brian
0:35
Speaker 1: mentioned on Monday, it's just taken place. Attendance was by
0:38
Speaker 1: invitation only now, just as reminders described as a geopolitical
0:43
Speaker 1: gathering for friendly countries, drawing together leaders, policymakers, military industry,
0:48
Speaker 1: academia and selected media, selected media where the big questions
0:53
Speaker 1: on defense and security are addressed. So brand did show
0:58
Speaker 1: a little bit of video introductory video with our illustrious
1:04
Speaker 1: UK lead on Monday. But what happened happened by that
1:09
Speaker 1: stage was the closing remarks and those were by our Carnes,
1:13
Speaker 1: the Minister for Armed Forces. He delivered his closing speech
1:18
Speaker 1: at that meeting. So that's video five. Let's watch that.
1:25
Speaker 2: The world has changed. We're seeing that play out in
1:28
Speaker 2: real time every hour of every day. Because if we
1:32
Speaker 2: think resilience is something we can switch on in a crisis,
1:35
Speaker 2: you we are collectively wrong. Drone and uncrewed systems now
1:40
Speaker 2: dominate the battlefield. More than ninety percent of all casualties
1:45
Speaker 2: are linked to drone warfare. Eighty five percent of those
1:48
Speaker 2: systems are made in Ukraine. But what does that mean
1:51
Speaker 2: for every other factor on the battlefield? Our industry, our
1:54
Speaker 2: innovation loops, our supply chains. They all need to see
1:58
Speaker 2: the new reality and adapt. Now, you can spend billions
2:01
Speaker 2: in defense, but if the country underneath is not strong,
2:04
Speaker 2: it will not hold. Our job in this government is
2:06
Speaker 2: to build both and a country that is secure and
2:09
Speaker 2: a country that is strong enough to sustain the security.
2:13
Speaker 2: That is what readiness and resilience really mean. And if
2:15
Speaker 2: we get this wrong, if we fail, we increase the
2:18
Speaker 2: chances of war. Let's be absolutely clear, we increase the
2:21
Speaker 2: chances of conflict by not being ready, and we will
2:25
Speaker 2: if we don't get it right, find ourselves on the
2:27
Speaker 2: wrong side of history.
2:31
Speaker 1: So we've got to reduce the chances of war by
2:35
Speaker 1: preparing for war. That's clearly the message. But look, the
2:38
Speaker 1: key point of his speech was a focus on Russia.
2:41
Speaker 1: Russia is the target because Britain hits Russia and Britain
2:44
Speaker 1: hits Iran, and Iran is an ally of Russia. So
2:46
Speaker 1: we've got to hit Russia. The key. The cult chain
2:49
Speaker 1: is compressed, he said. Front lines are no longer fixed,
2:53
Speaker 1: drones dominate, accounting for over ninety percent of casualties, the
2:58
Speaker 1: first time artillery has been passed since World War One.
3:01
Speaker 3: He said.
3:02
Speaker 1: He said that Russia is producing around seven million drones
3:05
Speaker 1: a year and launching approximately seven thousand attacks a day
3:09
Speaker 1: on the front lines, plus fifty five thousand drone and
3:13
Speaker 1: missile strikes in twenty twenty three alone one drone He
3:16
Speaker 1: said it quits in lethality to twenty two artillery rounds,
3:20
Speaker 1: with profound implications for logistics and supply chains. And he
3:24
Speaker 1: said that the UK will apply four billion pounds investment
3:28
Speaker 1: into uncrewed systems and an integrated targeting network, and he
3:32
Speaker 1: made clear Britain's reorientation to EU defense. He said that
3:36
Speaker 1: NATO remains the primary framework, with alliances extend to the
3:42
Speaker 1: JF the Joint Expeditionary Force and beyond, and he claimed that, Charles,
3:47
Speaker 1: you'll enjoy this one. He claimed that recruitment is up
3:49
Speaker 1: and that outflow is down, and he attributed that to
3:54
Speaker 1: prioritizing pay, housing and family support. So I'd like to
3:57
Speaker 1: get your your thoughts on that in a second, if
4:00
Speaker 1: we just bring the graphic that we were trying to
4:03
Speaker 1: show there on screen. His core warning was that if
4:06
Speaker 1: Russia looks across a nittle border and sees a force
4:09
Speaker 1: that has not adapted to Ukraine's lessons, it will see opportunity,
4:13
Speaker 1: not the terrance. And he was suggesting that fear to
4:17
Speaker 1: act increases the chances of conflict. So, Charles, I don't
4:23
Speaker 1: know what your thoughts are on what he was saying,
4:25
Speaker 1: but recruitment, I'm sort of hearing signs from younger people
4:31
Speaker 1: at the moment of considering joining the military because actually
4:34
Speaker 1: there are no other jobs to be had at the moment.
4:36
Speaker 1: But do you believe his narrative on recruitment.
4:42
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, statistically he might be able to reinforce it,
4:44
Speaker 4: but it would be extraordinarily unlikely that the overall trend
4:48
Speaker 4: had been reversed completely, So there might be a minor
4:52
Speaker 4: plus on the recruitment side. I would say his claim
4:55
Speaker 4: that he is alone in thinking that resilience isn't so
5:00
Speaker 4: that the rest of the government architecture thinks can just
5:02
Speaker 4: be switched on, I think he's deluded there. I think
5:05
Speaker 4: that's exactly the way that the government has behaved for
5:08
Speaker 4: a very long period of time. It's also interesting to
5:10
Speaker 4: hear him concede that Russia is a worthy, well more
5:14
Speaker 4: than worthy adversary. So actually a lot of what he's
5:17
Speaker 4: saying does contradict what has come out of government for
5:20
Speaker 4: the last couple of years in some senses on recruitment
5:24
Speaker 4: and the suggestion that welfare improvements have made a difference
5:29
Speaker 4: to this. It's as though he's trying to sell the
5:31
Speaker 4: idea the appointment of the Armed Forces Commissioner, which has
5:33
Speaker 4: happened only in the last couple of weeks, has already
5:35
Speaker 4: had a dramatic effect. Clearly that's not actually possible, and
5:39
Speaker 4: as we've reported on many times before, we've got the
5:41
Speaker 4: awful unpicking of the mess that Capita has made of
5:44
Speaker 4: recruitment and being disentangled in order to hand over to
5:47
Speaker 4: CIRCO with no guarantee that the situation will change.
5:50
Speaker 1: Indeed, now it should be an all surprise and we
5:53
Speaker 1: don't have a ground I didn't want to put the
5:54
Speaker 1: BBC on screen here again, so we don't have a
5:56
Speaker 1: graphic for this. But bbcvers reporting this morning that the
5:59
Speaker 1: UK providing one hundred and twenty thousand drones to Ukraine,
6:03
Speaker 1: in what the Ministry of Defense has said is the
6:06
Speaker 1: largest delivery of its kind. So that's all fitting together
6:10
Speaker 1: with the narrative that he was presenting at the London
6:12
Speaker 1: Defense Conference. But Charles, where does that take us? What
6:16
Speaker 1: is the situation with the UK's involvement in the Middle
6:20
Speaker 1: East at the moment?
6:22
Speaker 4: I think, as you've just alluded to, it is all
6:24
Speaker 4: about the framing of the narrative, and so I'll just
6:25
Speaker 4: point to a tweet from the Prime Minister in which
6:28
Speaker 4: he sets out the case for getting global shipping moving.
6:33
Speaker 4: But really it's all about words and not actions. The
6:36
Speaker 4: UK has convened more than forty nations who share our
6:39
Speaker 4: aim to restore freedom of navigation, so a lot of
6:43
Speaker 4: chatter but no real action. Of course, this follows the
6:46
Speaker 4: conference that we spoke about last week, hosted by pjhq
6:50
Speaker 4: As to the Ministry of defense. Another update came out
6:53
Speaker 4: just a couple of days ago with what activity is
6:55
Speaker 4: being conducted in the Middle East, of course in the
6:59
Speaker 4: defensive sense, as part of collective self defense. Two points
7:03
Speaker 4: worth pulling out of it. UK military planners have deployed
7:06
Speaker 4: to US Central Command. Obviously, the inference to be drawn
7:10
Speaker 4: there is the United Kingdom still regards to the United
7:12
Speaker 4: States as being in charge. And the other one is
7:15
Speaker 4: that additional uk A defense support to Gulf nations is
7:18
Speaker 4: now active. So at the same time saying they're not
7:20
Speaker 4: being drawn further into the war are quite clearly demonstrating
7:24
Speaker 4: that that is in real time actually happening.
7:27
Speaker 5: Now.
7:27
Speaker 4: As to the Strait itself, this is very important with
7:30
Speaker 4: regard to the framing of what is going on. There's
7:33
Speaker 4: been minimal traffic. I looked at Marine Traffic website last
7:37
Speaker 4: night and I'm just showing the path of a vessel
7:40
Speaker 4: that moved one of only two oil related vessels that
7:43
Speaker 4: moved through the Strait last night. This is this journey
7:47
Speaker 4: completed or at least god as far as it did
7:48
Speaker 4: on the tracking at about half past five this morning.
7:51
Speaker 4: So there is very little traffic. And now this plays
7:53
Speaker 4: absolutely into the hands of the International Energy Agency, who
7:57
Speaker 4: have had up for some time their energy crisis policy
8:00
Speaker 4: response track. I just draw your attention to the smaller
8:03
Speaker 4: text below, which says this is how they're responding to
8:06
Speaker 4: the largest supplied disruption in history. Will come back to that,
8:10
Speaker 4: but below is basically a table of how all the
8:13
Speaker 4: countries have responded, first of all in terms of emergency policy,
8:17
Speaker 4: and then below that the support measures. Now, of course
8:20
Speaker 4: this is all the process of nudging people into thinking
8:24
Speaker 4: that they must respond in effect because their governments haven't.
8:29
Speaker 4: So I would just go on to point out that
8:31
Speaker 4: this language is extremely disingenuous, and the red arrow here
8:35
Speaker 4: from the overall crude ole chart going back to nineteen
8:38
Speaker 4: forty six six shows that the nineteen seventy three oil
8:42
Speaker 4: crisis was, in fact, in both in terms of price
8:45
Speaker 4: and shocked to the actual supply system, was much more
8:48
Speaker 4: significant than what is happening now. But of course that
8:51
Speaker 4: is not what we're allowed to believe. And Mike, you're
8:54
Speaker 4: just going to sort of continue that theme.
8:56
Speaker 1: In effect, well in a sense, because of course a
8:59
Speaker 1: lot of them now been about how we've got to
9:01
Speaker 1: get away from hydrocarbons, and of course British policy up
9:05
Speaker 1: to this point has been solar and wind, but in
9:09
Speaker 1: fact the Great British Energy Nuclear has signed its contract
9:14
Speaker 1: with Rolls Royce. This is to produce small modular reactors.
9:20
Speaker 1: So this formally brings about technology design activities that are
9:24
Speaker 1: going to enable the delivery of the first small modular
9:27
Speaker 1: reactors as part of the Starmer what they're describing as
9:32
Speaker 1: their clean energy mission. Now the claiming that this first
9:35
Speaker 1: SMR project is going to be providing around three thousand
9:39
Speaker 1: jobs at the height of its construction activities and thousands
9:43
Speaker 1: more across the supply chain. The Rolls Royce Small Modular
9:47
Speaker 1: Reactor was selected as a preferred technology partner last year
9:51
Speaker 1: in the middle of last year, and two point six
9:53
Speaker 1: billion pounds was allocated in the twenty twenty five spending
9:57
Speaker 1: review to enable the contract. MARS represent a new generation
10:02
Speaker 1: of nuclear are They are standardized, they're modular, they're factory built,
10:07
Speaker 1: and they're saying that this reduces delivery risk, shorteness, construction
10:12
Speaker 1: time timelines and minimizes local environmental disruption. And they're also
10:17
Speaker 1: saying that it's going to the first one is going
10:19
Speaker 1: to generate one point four gigawatts of energy, which is
10:22
Speaker 1: enough for three million homes and that they will that
10:27
Speaker 1: that will be running for around sixty years.
10:28
Speaker 5: Now.
10:29
Speaker 1: Safety is going to be an issue for many people,
10:31
Speaker 1: and there are a number of points here. So the
10:33
Speaker 1: design is based on proven technology in the sense because
10:37
Speaker 1: nuclear submarines use small modular reactors. In a sense they
10:42
Speaker 1: also normally rely on passive safety systems, so they use
10:45
Speaker 1: natural circulation for cooling and so on, so that allows
10:48
Speaker 1: them to shut down safely without any kind of power
10:52
Speaker 1: requirement themselves or human intervention. And some SMR designs could
10:59
Speaker 1: well have s robust continment structures compared to traditional reactors.
11:03
Speaker 1: So there are safety concerns among some and some argue
11:07
Speaker 1: that having multiple Charles is probably the point that you
11:10
Speaker 1: can comment on. Having multiple smaller reactors around the country
11:14
Speaker 1: increases the overall risk, particularly if you're moving into war footing.
11:21
Speaker 4: Well one would think it would, and yet this is
11:23
Speaker 4: one of them was one of the very many points.
11:24
Speaker 4: It doesn't seem to have been made to make sense
11:27
Speaker 4: by the British establishment in that we are quite obviously
11:30
Speaker 4: presenting ourselves as a threat, albeit an indirect one to Iran,
11:35
Speaker 4: which has made a very big point of targeting those
11:38
Speaker 4: that do present an aggressive, aggressive stance towards it, towards her,
11:44
Speaker 4: and this would be this would be one such I mean,
11:47
Speaker 4: I think it would absolutely fall under that category. But
11:50
Speaker 4: what I'd like to return to is the disingenuous language
11:54
Speaker 4: that's been used just talking about a moment ago. And
11:56
Speaker 4: we look at the armed forces, particularly the Royal Navy
12:00
Speaker 4: A couple of weeks ago announced that Rolfie's auxiliary Lime
12:03
Speaker 4: Bay is now going to act as a mind hunting mothership.
12:07
Speaker 4: Now you may remember that in the first instance, this
12:10
Speaker 4: is not how it's described at all, but nonetheless, in
12:13
Speaker 4: an exhibition of double speak, the First Sea Lord Gwyn Jenkins,
12:17
Speaker 4: has said RFA Lin Bay is a perfect example of
12:19
Speaker 4: how we are building a hybrid navy, one where crude
12:22
Speaker 4: ships and cutting edge uncrewed systems work together seamlessly to
12:25
Speaker 4: keep our people safe and our sea secure. Now, the
12:27
Speaker 4: last clause is extremely debatable, but the hybrid navy point
12:31
Speaker 4: is actually more case of they didn't have anything else
12:33
Speaker 4: and she was relatively nearby. So who's effectively been rerolled
12:37
Speaker 4: to what end? We can't be quite sure, But the
12:41
Speaker 4: question to be asked is, going back to the initial
12:45
Speaker 4: messaging about this, we look at the BBC article a
12:48
Speaker 4: month or so ago about the deployment the beleaguered deployment
12:51
Speaker 4: deployment of HMS Dragon, and it is the BBC guilty
12:56
Speaker 4: of wilful disinformation here. The MD would not be drawn
12:59
Speaker 4: on what primary purpose of Lime Bay would be, but
13:03
Speaker 4: its facilities as a support ship make it well suited
13:06
Speaker 4: for humanitarian and disaster relief missions. And they went on
13:09
Speaker 4: to say that as a bay class landing ship and
13:12
Speaker 4: not a warship, its primary function is to deliver troops,
13:15
Speaker 4: vehicle stores and ammunition. Now it's almost as though, in
13:19
Speaker 4: wanting to uphold this stance of adopting a defensive posture,
13:25
Speaker 4: that the BBC was in effect complicit in throwing the
13:28
Speaker 4: British public off the scent with regard to a possible
13:32
Speaker 4: role for Line Bay. And of course Worth pointing out
13:34
Speaker 4: that HMS Brocklesby a mind Hunter had deployed some weeks ago,
13:38
Speaker 4: so clearly there is actually a very real effect of
13:42
Speaker 4: being drawn further into the war, and also this idea
13:45
Speaker 4: of collective self defense. The Miniature Defense have also recently
13:48
Speaker 4: allowed sorry announced that they have funded as startup to
13:54
Speaker 4: supply interceptor missiles to UK military and golf partners. Now
13:58
Speaker 4: that is only happening of the situation that they are
14:02
Speaker 4: actively involved in and enabling by many means. The text
14:08
Speaker 4: says that John Healy, the Defense Secretary, announced that the
14:11
Speaker 4: intention to buy cutting edge interceptor miss asked to counter
14:14
Speaker 4: Iranian Shied style attack drones for the UK arm Forces
14:17
Speaker 4: and golf partners. And exactly as I say, this would
14:20
Speaker 4: not be happening were the United Kingdom not being drawn
14:23
Speaker 4: into what is described as the wider war. Now, just
14:26
Speaker 4: to put out the point on hypocrisy, in Berlin today
14:31
Speaker 4: there is going on a conference on Sudan, and I
14:34
Speaker 4: think it's very poignant or pertinent to read what the
14:38
Speaker 4: Sudanese Echo has to say, particularly about Sudan, absolutely reflect
14:43
Speaker 4: rejecting this as a blatant violation of human rights and
14:46
Speaker 4: in effect not actually supporting the Sudanese people at all.
14:50
Speaker 4: But interestingly, on that tweet they have put RSF is
14:54
Speaker 4: a terrorist organization. If we could just have that back
14:56
Speaker 4: on screen and UA kills Sudanese people, you a sponsors terrorism,
15:01
Speaker 4: making the point that we are now actively spending money
15:03
Speaker 4: on air defense systems to protect the United Arab Emirates,
15:06
Speaker 4: which is at the same time funding the RSF about
15:10
Speaker 4: which we are helping in a conference in Berlin. It
15:13
Speaker 4: does not make any sense, and yet this is absolutely
15:16
Speaker 4: part of the not being driven drawn into the wider
15:20
Speaker 4: war narrative.
15:22
Speaker 1: Thank you, Charles. Now let's come back to Plymouth then
15:24
Speaker 1: and well. City College Plymouth has been named as one
15:28
Speaker 1: of the government's new defense industry training centers Defense and
15:32
Speaker 1: the word defense in the article is in inverse e
15:35
Speaker 1: commas So I thought that was quite interesting. So it's
15:37
Speaker 1: going to receive ten million pounds, and the article says,
15:41
Speaker 1: after being described as a rigorous national bidding process. City
15:46
Speaker 1: College Plymouth has been named as one of only five
15:49
Speaker 1: further education colleges to be awarded Defense Technical Excellence College status.
15:55
Speaker 1: The college was recognized for providing high quality technical education
15:59
Speaker 1: allied to national defense priorities and its critical role in
16:02
Speaker 1: supporting a UK's defense industrial strategy through the development of
16:06
Speaker 1: a highly skilled workforce. Well, one area where City College
16:11
Speaker 1: Plymouth doesn't want to see a highly skilled workforce is
16:14
Speaker 1: with the UK column because we began partnering with them,
16:20
Speaker 1: I guess about a year ago to find an apprentice
16:23
Speaker 1: to come and work with us within our production capability,
16:27
Speaker 1: and they were very helpful with us for some time
16:30
Speaker 1: until clearly they eventually ended up doing some due diligence
16:34
Speaker 1: and somewhat more senior than the people that we were
16:36
Speaker 1: directly in facing with, pulled the rug from under it.
16:42
Speaker 1: City College Plymouth absolutely refused to work with us since then,
16:47
Speaker 1: and in fact accused us of being a right wing
16:51
Speaker 1: organization that was likely to radicalize anybody that was coming
16:55
Speaker 1: on an apprenticeship with us. Now we put in a
17:00
Speaker 1: subject access request to find out what they've been discussing
17:03
Speaker 1: about us internally, which they have refused to respond to
17:08
Speaker 1: or to give us the information that we've asked for,
17:10
Speaker 1: and the Information Commissioner has decided not to proceed with
17:14
Speaker 1: that particular investigation. Surprise, surprise. So Charles, my question is
17:19
Speaker 1: who is more likely to be radicalizing young trainees. Is
17:23
Speaker 1: it going to be the UK column who are providing
17:26
Speaker 1: and who provided are providing an opportunity for younger people
17:29
Speaker 1: to get involved in media production, or is it the
17:32
Speaker 1: people that are coming into City College Plymouth to be
17:35
Speaker 1: trained in how to make bombs and bullets for killing
17:39
Speaker 1: people abroad? Which is the more egregious radicalization? Do you think.
17:45
Speaker 4: Well, I think it's the latter. But you see, given
17:47
Speaker 4: what we've just been talking about, this will not be
17:49
Speaker 4: a view that the public are permitted to hold because
17:53
Speaker 4: of the messaging coming out of government and the mainstream media,
17:56
Speaker 4: which is in effect that even though we are adopting
17:59
Speaker 4: a defensive that somehow this is a just war. And
18:02
Speaker 4: what has happened in that relationship that you describe, going
18:05
Speaker 4: back to last year when we set out to look
18:09
Speaker 4: for an apprentice, has been absolutely shameful, and I think
18:11
Speaker 4: it's also a sign of the times that what actually
18:13
Speaker 4: happened was just a complete break in communication, so nothing
18:17
Speaker 4: was responded to. Multiple emails, telephone calls and all the
18:20
Speaker 4: rest of it just went completely unanswered. I think this
18:23
Speaker 4: is real indictment because they didn't even have the nerve
18:28
Speaker 4: to tell us why it was that that had happened
18:31
Speaker 4: until much much later in the process. Also, the other
18:33
Speaker 4: thing which is really significant is it is a system
18:37
Speaker 4: which is absolutely established in order it may be manipulated
18:40
Speaker 4: for the desired outcome, because of course, in complaining to
18:44
Speaker 4: the Information Commissioner, it is then up to them. Whilst
18:47
Speaker 4: in the first instance it's up to us to decide
18:49
Speaker 4: whether or not this has caused us harm. In the
18:53
Speaker 4: final say, it's for them to determine whether or not
18:57
Speaker 4: we've been caused harm. Now that cannot probably be right.
19:01
Speaker 4: How on earth would they know? And yet that's where
19:03
Speaker 4: we find ourselves.
19:05
Speaker 1: Indeed, So anyway, there we go, City College Plymouth getting
19:09
Speaker 1: a ten million pound bond for the war machine. Vanessa,
19:13
Speaker 1: let me welcome you to the program now, and let's
19:17
Speaker 1: bring us up to date with what's going on in Lebanon.
19:21
Speaker 3: Well, it's an extremely complex situation, but I'll try and
19:25
Speaker 3: condense it down as much as they possibly can. So yesterday,
19:30
Speaker 3: while of course Iran is negotiating for a full seasefire
19:34
Speaker 3: across the region with regards to Israeli aggression in the
19:39
Speaker 3: talks that failed so far, in Aslamabad, factions within the
19:44
Speaker 3: Lebanese government that are effectively opposed to Hesbola who were
19:49
Speaker 3: brought into situ by Saudi Arabia and Washington. We're meeting
19:56
Speaker 3: in Washington with members of Israeli diplomatic core. And if
20:02
Speaker 3: we just play this video and I'll mention who the
20:06
Speaker 3: people are. Marco Rubio Center attended the meeting, which demonstrates
20:12
Speaker 3: how important this is to the United States from their
20:16
Speaker 3: perspective and from Israel's perspective, to resolve the situation with
20:21
Speaker 3: the resistance in Lebanon. There was also the US Ambassador
20:25
Speaker 3: to Lebanon, Michel Isa, the Israeli Ambassador to the US,
20:30
Speaker 3: Jachael Leita, Lebanese Ambassador to the United States Nada her mother,
20:38
Speaker 3: all of whom, of course, including the Israeli ambassador, are
20:41
Speaker 3: opposed to the existence of Hezblah inside Lebanon, and rather worryingly,
20:49
Speaker 3: yesterday on some Lebanese media we saw images like this
20:54
Speaker 3: with the Israeli flag next to the Lebanese flag, so
20:58
Speaker 3: very clearly this is a push by factions within the
21:01
Speaker 3: Lebanese government to effectively eliminate resistance within Lebanon and of
21:06
Speaker 3: course jotsify Israeli aggression, such as last Wednesday, which has
21:10
Speaker 3: now been renamed Black Wednesday, when I talked about one
21:15
Speaker 3: hundred and fifty strikes made by Israel against heavily populated
21:21
Speaker 3: civilian areas in the southern suburbs, of three hundred and
21:25
Speaker 3: fifty now dead more than one thy two hundred injured. Anyway,
21:31
Speaker 3: this was the Israeli Ambassador to the United States after
21:35
Speaker 3: the meeting, making this rather worrying statement.
21:41
Speaker 5: I was honored to sit around negotiating table with his
21:45
Speaker 5: Excellency Micheal Lisa, la Stay's ambassador to Lebanon. There to
21:51
Speaker 5: Excellency Nada Amadi, the Lebany's ambassador to Washington. We discovered
21:58
Speaker 5: today they were on the same side of the equation.
22:02
Speaker 5: That's the most positive thing we could have come away
22:04
Speaker 5: with it. We are both united liberating Lebanon from an
22:11
Speaker 5: occupation power dominated by Iran called Kizbala. Lebanon is under
22:18
Speaker 5: their occupation and we are suffering from there constant barrages
22:27
Speaker 5: of missiles and terror attacks trying to cross our border.
22:35
Speaker 3: So we returned to the familiar victimhood for the Israelis,
22:39
Speaker 3: though well, of course they're still bombing the south of Lebanon.
22:42
Speaker 3: But this is effectively declaring war, in my opinion, on
22:46
Speaker 3: what is effectively fifty percent of the Lebanese population being
22:51
Speaker 3: the SA Muslim communities. Of course, there was outrage in
22:56
Speaker 3: Lebanon both last night and today. This is Khalil Nasralla,
23:01
Speaker 3: a very well known journalist in Lebanon, who basically said,
23:05
Speaker 3: if we can have this up on screen, the statement
23:08
Speaker 3: requires an urgent and clear Lebanese response, because what the
23:12
Speaker 3: Israeli ambassador is saying implies continuing the war in coordination
23:18
Speaker 3: with the official Lebanese state. So, as I said, complex
23:22
Speaker 3: and quite extraordinary scenarios here. Then another journalist, also very
23:27
Speaker 3: well known here in Lebanon, Hassan Elike, He actually said,
23:31
Speaker 3: I'm a Lebanese citizen, and Joseph Aln the president does
23:36
Speaker 3: not represent me. He reached Babda Palace through foreign intervention,
23:42
Speaker 3: as did Noah Salam. As I said, they were brought
23:45
Speaker 3: to power by effectively Saudi Arabia in the Zionist bloc.
23:49
Speaker 3: The decision to negotiate directly with the enemy is a
23:53
Speaker 3: result of complying with a foreign agenda. It does not
23:57
Speaker 3: reflect the will of Lebanon or the these people. It
24:01
Speaker 3: is a pure disgrace. Then, in the last few hours
24:07
Speaker 3: there has actually been a legal response from a member,
24:11
Speaker 3: a labor member of the parliament, and in this legal
24:15
Speaker 3: study he warns that criminalizing self defense in Lebanon strips
24:21
Speaker 3: the government itself of legitimacy. And this is from the
24:26
Speaker 3: text of that study. In one of its sharpest critiques,
24:30
Speaker 3: the research accuses Salaam's government of criminalizing a fundamental right
24:35
Speaker 3: at the height of ongoing aggression. The most egregious violation,
24:39
Speaker 3: it states, occurs when the authority not only fails to
24:43
Speaker 3: fulfill its mandate, but also strips the people of their
24:47
Speaker 3: right to defend themselves and criminalizes this right during an
24:51
Speaker 3: actual aggression. Such actions, it argues, strike at the very
24:56
Speaker 3: foundation of the authority's existence. There have also been other
25:02
Speaker 3: statements from members of parliament, including the Speaker of Parliament Nabibari,
25:07
Speaker 3: who's very much opposed to this action by members of
25:14
Speaker 3: the Lebanese government and their discourse effectively with the enemy,
25:20
Speaker 3: which is Israel. And then, rather worryingly, this is another
25:24
Speaker 3: report that came out in Lebanese media Aljadid. It's been
25:29
Speaker 3: in this screenshot translated into English. Harsh conditions dividing Lebanon
25:35
Speaker 3: into three regional cities. Now this plan has come in
25:39
Speaker 3: from Rondoma, the Minister of Strategic Relations in Israel. What
25:46
Speaker 3: does it actually mean? So if we bring the map
25:49
Speaker 3: on screen and I'll talk through this. They're talking about
25:52
Speaker 3: the three sections. It was a little bit difficult to
25:54
Speaker 3: show it on the map, but the red ear at
25:56
Speaker 3: the bottom represents an eight kilometer buffers zone all along
26:02
Speaker 3: the border where the red striping is, so that is
26:06
Speaker 3: effectively a buffer zone fully under the control of Israel,
26:10
Speaker 3: and of course they've been on a daily basis detonating
26:14
Speaker 3: homes and villages in that area. The red stripe section
26:19
Speaker 3: represents a zone two. So further in from the eight
26:23
Speaker 3: kilometer zone up to the Latani River that you can
26:26
Speaker 3: see very clearly there, that will mean full displacement of
26:31
Speaker 3: all people from that area and control by Israel, and
26:36
Speaker 3: Israel will be responsible for both forcing evacuation and as
26:41
Speaker 3: they say, destroying Hesbala in that area. So what does
26:45
Speaker 3: that actually mean. That means that communities, sorry can they
26:49
Speaker 3: have them at Back on for a second. That means
26:52
Speaker 3: that communities in the south that are then going to
26:55
Speaker 3: be displaced as the red arrow shows north of the
26:58
Speaker 3: Latani River into areas that traditionally are let's say opposed
27:03
Speaker 3: to Hesbela, and then basically Dermo is saying the Lebanese
27:09
Speaker 3: Arab forces will then be responsible for guess what, disarming
27:14
Speaker 3: Hezbollah in those areas. So what does this effectively mean.
27:18
Speaker 3: It means that Israel then intends to advance further beyond
27:22
Speaker 3: the Latani River. On the pretext that there are now
27:25
Speaker 3: Hesbala elements north of the Latani River. So this is
27:29
Speaker 3: very clear to everyone here what the intention is is
27:32
Speaker 3: effectively to pretty much control all of Lebanon in the
27:36
Speaker 3: near future. And then if we look at what's actually
27:40
Speaker 3: been happening, bearing in mind there is supposed to be
27:43
Speaker 3: some kind of ceasefire in Lebanon. This video, i'll talk
27:47
Speaker 3: it through. This is in Al Hush. This was yesterday.
27:51
Speaker 3: Al Hush is an area very close to tire or Saw,
27:55
Speaker 3: one of the older cities in Lubanon, going back to
27:59
Speaker 3: prehistoric times. Phoenician Roman ruins are there and Israel has
28:04
Speaker 3: been heavily bombing this area and destroying many of the
28:09
Speaker 3: historical elements within that city itself. It's a coastal city.
28:14
Speaker 3: It's one of the most beautiful in Lubanon actually, and
28:18
Speaker 3: people will remember my reports on my visit to a
28:22
Speaker 3: town in the west Bekas so more. This was again
28:27
Speaker 3: bombed yesterday. It's been bombed on an almost daily basis.
28:31
Speaker 3: But this was a home of a woman and her
28:34
Speaker 3: three children. All of them were killed, and one of
28:36
Speaker 3: the children whose name was made public is Ayahamoud on
28:42
Speaker 3: the right. So again the wanton targeting of civilians in
28:46
Speaker 3: all of these areas, while of course claiming that they
28:49
Speaker 3: are strongholds, I also have to make the point that
28:53
Speaker 3: the likes of the BBC and CNN and Western media
28:56
Speaker 3: effectively are reinforcing that narrative that even Tire, which is
29:01
Speaker 3: being heavily targeted is a hes Bala stronghold. It isn't.
29:05
Speaker 3: It has elements or share, it has Palestinian refugee camps,
29:10
Speaker 3: it's a conglomeration of many of the factions within Lebanon itself.
29:16
Speaker 3: Just a reminder. People can read about my trip to
29:19
Speaker 3: Somore in the last couple of weeks at UK column.
29:24
Speaker 3: And then finally I want to look at this because
29:30
Speaker 3: part of what they're doing, of course, is the financial
29:33
Speaker 3: incentivization to the members of the Lebanese government who are
29:37
Speaker 3: now involved in effectively full felling both Israeli and American
29:43
Speaker 3: agendas in Lebanon, in other words, criminalizing hes Blar and
29:46
Speaker 3: turning the state against hes Blar. And guess what the IMF,
29:51
Speaker 3: the International Monetary Fund and Lebanon whole talks on up
29:55
Speaker 3: to one billion in rapid financing. So what does this
29:59
Speaker 3: actually mean. We've seen this time and time and time again,
30:02
Speaker 3: whenever there is any form of destabilization, as there is
30:06
Speaker 3: currently in Lebanon or there was formerly in Syria, we
30:09
Speaker 3: see immediately this step towards debt enslavement. Not that Lebanon
30:14
Speaker 3: is financially in a very good state, having suffered under
30:18
Speaker 3: various Ponzi schemes for the last five decades, but extraordinary times.
30:26
Speaker 3: I don't know where it's all heading. There are talks
30:28
Speaker 3: now among various members of Parliament who are protesting the
30:35
Speaker 3: direct negotiations with what they call the enemy, and it
30:40
Speaker 3: remains to be seen history as shown before that there
30:42
Speaker 3: have been pushbacks against these kind of moves by members
30:46
Speaker 3: of the government. We don't quite know what's going to happen.
30:50
Speaker 1: NEXTNESSA, thank you very much for that. Lots to talk
30:56
Speaker 1: about an extra on this and we will be discussing
30:59
Speaker 1: this time.
31:00
Speaker 3: Bit litter.
31:01
Speaker 1: Now let's just move on to the ad break. Now,
31:04
Speaker 1: if you like what the UK Column does, you want
31:06
Speaker 1: to support us, then of course you can. One way
31:09
Speaker 1: is to grab a copy of the column or a
31:11
Speaker 1: new magazine. It is a pretty heavy wed thing and
31:15
Speaker 1: in terms of its size and physical wed it's worth
31:19
Speaker 1: the effort. So if you haven't got one, please consider
31:22
Speaker 1: doing that. It's available on the UK Column website of course,
31:27
Speaker 1: and also if you'd like to join as a member,
31:29
Speaker 1: you can do that as well, so that would be
31:33
Speaker 1: absolutely fantastic if you can, thanks to everyone that has.
31:37
Speaker 1: If you can't support us financially, then please do share
31:39
Speaker 1: this program or any of the other content that we
31:42
Speaker 1: produce that you like, because that helps us defeat the
31:45
Speaker 1: censorship agenda. The twentieth anniversary event is taking place on
31:52
Speaker 1: the eighteenth of the twentieth of September this year in
31:55
Speaker 1: Plymouth on location. Join us for that if you possibly can.
32:00
Speaker 1: We have sold over half the tickets so far already,
32:03
Speaker 1: so but Charles, we have one announcement of a speaker
32:08
Speaker 1: at this.
32:10
Speaker 4: We absolutely do yes. For those who've listened to his interview,
32:13
Speaker 4: they will know that Jonathan Marshall was an absolute favorite
32:16
Speaker 4: of the UK Column audience when I spoke to him
32:18
Speaker 4: last year. He has performed with his incredible black Stallion
32:21
Speaker 4: and falcons for many, many years, absolutely thrilling audiences, and
32:25
Speaker 4: I'm very pleased to say that he is booked for
32:29
Speaker 4: the event and will be with us for the whole weekend.
32:34
Speaker 4: He will be performing with his Falcons and he's extremely
32:38
Speaker 4: excited about it. He's very supportive of not just what
32:41
Speaker 4: we do, but also of the event itself. So we
32:44
Speaker 4: imagine he will be a massive draw. And I'm really
32:46
Speaker 4: pleased to pass that news on because he is also
32:50
Speaker 4: very excited about it as well and sends his best
32:53
Speaker 4: wishes to the audience.
32:55
Speaker 1: Thank you for that, Charles, You've got a quick preview
32:57
Speaker 1: of jerem. Tonight, Jim Lee is speaking to German for
33:01
Speaker 1: part two of the discussion on geoengineering and chemtrails and
33:05
Speaker 1: so on. That's at seven pm. Joined for that. The
33:08
Speaker 1: first edition was quite controversial among with people. I'm sure
33:13
Speaker 1: this one is going to be equally So at nine
33:16
Speaker 1: pm tonight, Carl is speaking about Taiwan opposition and speaking
33:22
Speaker 1: to the Taiwanese opposition leader. And so that is on
33:27
Speaker 1: tonight at nine pm. Now tomorrow at one pm, Brian
33:32
Speaker 1: is speaking to Commishwood on the child on child sexual grooming.
33:37
Speaker 1: We do have a short video trailer for this, let's
33:40
Speaker 1: just have a look.
33:42
Speaker 3: So this is making the children more accessible to ped.
33:47
Speaker 6: Fails absolutely so if you look at the queer theorists,
33:50
Speaker 6: they believe the children at equal to adult and every
33:53
Speaker 6: which way, every single way they believe children are equal
33:57
Speaker 6: to add as a un includes sexual really.
34:04
Speaker 1: So join us at one pm for that. Okay, let's
34:08
Speaker 1: move on then and to the issue of data privacy. Now.
34:12
Speaker 1: Fiver is the is really based freelancer website. So it's
34:16
Speaker 1: a place that freelancers go, they register what they're able
34:19
Speaker 1: to do, and people meet up with them there and
34:23
Speaker 1: commission them to take on various types of work. This
34:26
Speaker 1: has been the subject of a fairly major DITTA breach
34:29
Speaker 1: just at the moment. It turns out that they have
34:31
Speaker 1: applied no security that files shared between freelancers and their clients,
34:38
Speaker 1: including personal tax returns, And here's just one example of
34:42
Speaker 1: what was available on Google this morning. Even worse, as
34:46
Speaker 1: I say, those personal tax returns were searchable through Google.
34:49
Speaker 1: So it wasn't just a security lapse for Google the
34:53
Speaker 1: index of files. They must have been linked on a
34:55
Speaker 1: web page somewhere. So, by the way, if we just
34:58
Speaker 1: put that back on screen for a second, there were
35:00
Speaker 1: actions on that were relations that I made. That document
35:04
Speaker 1: was absolutely fully available on Google this morning. Now it
35:07
Speaker 1: has to be said that following the disclosure of this
35:12
Speaker 1: data leak, finally is Fiver is finally starting to plug
35:15
Speaker 1: the whole and the documents aren't disappearing from the internet slowly.
35:19
Speaker 1: But nonetheless, this sort of brings up a topic which
35:26
Speaker 1: has been an open issue for many many people and
35:30
Speaker 1: others have been reporting it. Here is a the MCA
35:34
Speaker 1: takedown request for copyright because the full text of a
35:37
Speaker 1: book that's for sale on Amazon was public available through
35:42
Speaker 1: the same security breach. So both fiver and Google were
35:45
Speaker 1: aware of this for quite some time and apparently did
35:48
Speaker 1: nothing about it. Ironically, five or Zone is really did
35:52
Speaker 1: a protection accreditation is also available via the same Google
35:55
Speaker 1: indexing and yes, okay, this is a public document so
35:58
Speaker 1: it probably should be available. But the point is what
36:01
Speaker 1: kind of audit has five Security process been through to
36:05
Speaker 1: receive this accreditation in the first place. And this is
36:09
Speaker 1: just a very small example of why having personal information
36:12
Speaker 1: on the Internet is a very bad idea. So let
36:15
Speaker 1: me remind everyone that the Stormer regime has a consultation
36:19
Speaker 1: ongoing on their plans to impvent a digital identity system
36:22
Speaker 1: here in the UK, and that we've only three weeks
36:25
Speaker 1: or so left now to get our responses in and further,
36:29
Speaker 1: the more technically minded than the other news is. The
36:33
Speaker 1: Office for Digital Identities and Attributes has published a pre
36:37
Speaker 1: release of the UK Digital Verification Services Trust Framework Version one,
36:43
Speaker 1: which doesn't carry any kind of legal standing at this
36:46
Speaker 1: point in time, but it sets out the standards against
36:49
Speaker 1: which providers are going to be certified eventually. This is
36:53
Speaker 1: so that digital verification service providers can prepare. Now, the
36:57
Speaker 1: question is what's the point of the consult take if
37:00
Speaker 1: they're plowing ahead regardless. The only point that I can
37:04
Speaker 1: see is that the consultation could be a point of
37:07
Speaker 1: resistance for people, and so I would absolutely urge people
37:11
Speaker 1: to make sure that you get your responses in and
37:13
Speaker 1: make it very clear to this government the digital ID
37:16
Speaker 1: is not something that is going to be appreciated in
37:20
Speaker 1: this country now. On the twenty sixth of March, the
37:24
Speaker 1: European Parliament voted three hundred and eleven to two hundred
37:27
Speaker 1: and twenty eight to reject extending the temporary E Privacy
37:33
Speaker 1: derogation that that had been in place since twenty twenty one,
37:39
Speaker 1: and this had given Google, met On, Microsoft and TikTok
37:43
Speaker 1: on a legal basis to voluntarily scan private messages for
37:48
Speaker 1: child sexual abuse material. Now, this derogation expired on the
37:52
Speaker 1: third of April this year, meaning that platforms operating in
37:55
Speaker 1: the EU can no longer or at least they no
37:57
Speaker 1: longer have a legal basis for message scandaling under that
38:02
Speaker 1: interim framework, and to this point there has been no
38:06
Speaker 1: agreement within the EU to extend that. However, the permanent
38:10
Speaker 1: replacement will bring it on screen is the Child Sexual
38:13
Speaker 1: Abuse Regulation known to critics as chat Control two point zero,
38:19
Speaker 1: and that is being negotiated at the moment, and they're
38:22
Speaker 1: expecting that the deal is going to be done on
38:24
Speaker 1: this by July twenty twenty six. So unlike the expired measure,
38:31
Speaker 1: that particular measure, as it's currently drafted with mandate scanning,
38:36
Speaker 1: including scanning scanning of end to end encrypted communications, and
38:41
Speaker 1: of course that's something that we'll be talking about on
38:43
Speaker 1: this program for the last few years. But in the meantime,
38:47
Speaker 1: the Online Safety Act Priority Offenses Amendment Regulations twenty twenty
38:52
Speaker 1: five have been brought into force well pretty much since
38:56
Speaker 1: January nine, and this does mandate in the UK that
38:59
Speaker 1: did platforms begin to deploy automated scanning system to detect,
39:03
Speaker 1: detect and block cyber flashing and content encouraging serious self
39:09
Speaker 1: harm before it gets to users, and this of course
39:12
Speaker 1: covers messaging apps, forums and search engines and obliges platforms
39:18
Speaker 1: to use AI driven content to detect the type of
39:21
Speaker 1: content that's to be banned at scale. So you know
39:25
Speaker 1: what we're talking about here. This is scanning information before
39:29
Speaker 1: it gets uploaded to platforms so that it doesn't even
39:32
Speaker 1: get to the to the moderation regime that any particular
39:36
Speaker 1: platform might have in place. The EU still fighting over
39:40
Speaker 1: that it is now required in this country, and so
39:44
Speaker 1: the censorship regime rolls on a pace under the guise
39:48
Speaker 1: of protecting children. Of course, but I think we've we've
39:51
Speaker 1: covered enough of why that is a fake narrative on
39:55
Speaker 1: this program over the last few years, Charles, let's move
40:00
Speaker 1: on change topics here and move on to food security.
40:05
Speaker 4: Well, yes, and indeed fake narratives. Just before I do,
40:08
Speaker 4: I was remiss in not mentioning that the interview with
40:12
Speaker 4: Jonathan Marshall is in the show notes back to fake
40:15
Speaker 4: narratives the last months or a slew of documents ostensibly
40:20
Speaker 4: propagating the same line about food security and national security overlapping. Now,
40:25
Speaker 4: this is something we've concentrated on for a long period
40:28
Speaker 4: of time, but we're going to look at a few
40:29
Speaker 4: of those documents now. First of all, the Land Use
40:31
Speaker 4: Framework for England, which was published in late Mark late March. Now,
40:36
Speaker 4: essentially it's predicated on the notion that climate change is
40:41
Speaker 4: destroying the ecological composition of the United Kingdom rather than
40:45
Speaker 4: industrialized farming, and indeed the planning of infrastructure projects. Emma
40:51
Speaker 4: Reynolds herself gave her statement as the Environments, actually gave
40:54
Speaker 4: her statement to the House of Commons, and she covered
40:57
Speaker 4: four points using language the difficult to decipher, unlocking development
41:02
Speaker 4: and accelerating growth. Essentially she means deregulating the types of
41:07
Speaker 4: areas where decisions should really be gone through in very
41:10
Speaker 4: minute detail, and yet they won't be. The Planning and
41:12
Speaker 4: Infrastructure Act twenty twenty five being a very good example
41:15
Speaker 4: of that, which of course gives enormous powers, specifically with
41:19
Speaker 4: regard to compulsory purchase, and is supposed to speed up
41:23
Speaker 4: the progress the process. She talks about supporting farmers and
41:27
Speaker 4: food security. Now there's a great conflation between food security
41:31
Speaker 4: and self sufficiency, with confusion being the result, and will
41:36
Speaker 4: go on to look at exactly what that does mean.
41:38
Speaker 4: But in terms of supporting farmers. Again, I make the
41:42
Speaker 4: point that the annual farming budget is around five billion pounds,
41:46
Speaker 4: which the National Health Service would use up in just
41:48
Speaker 4: ten days, So I think that gives an indication as
41:51
Speaker 4: to how the government does actually regard those that do
41:54
Speaker 4: hold land. Also worth pointing out that now eleven percent
41:57
Speaker 4: of England's land mass is taken up by urban areas.
42:00
Speaker 4: Of course this should shine the spotlight on planning policy,
42:05
Speaker 4: but somehow doesn't. Now they talked about protecting the environment
42:09
Speaker 4: and adapting to climate change, and as I say again,
42:12
Speaker 4: this is just manipulation of the language in order to
42:15
Speaker 4: make it sound like they have ideas for how to
42:18
Speaker 4: produce food at the same times introducing all their nature
42:20
Speaker 4: recovery schemes, but in actual fact that's not what they do.
42:24
Speaker 4: And the last one extraordinarily complicated. But makeland digital. Now
42:28
Speaker 4: this really it ties back to the first point about deregulation,
42:32
Speaker 4: but also the idea that all these decision making processes
42:35
Speaker 4: can be handed to artificial intelligence, which could well and
42:39
Speaker 4: is likely to spell disaster. Of course, disaster that is
42:42
Speaker 4: then nobody's fault because it was done by AI. Now,
42:45
Speaker 4: the reason I talk about the other documents is because
42:48
Speaker 4: they do all tie in. We had the National Security
42:51
Speaker 4: Strategy for the most recent the fourth Report from twenty
42:55
Speaker 4: twenty four to twenty six, and within that it's worth
42:59
Speaker 4: pulling out the reinforcement of this particular point. Russia presents
43:03
Speaker 4: the single greatest source of threats to the UK security,
43:06
Speaker 4: with China and Iran also presenting strategic challenges. We've got
43:10
Speaker 4: to get that in. Then, interestingly, they welcome the greater
43:14
Speaker 4: use of armed forces reserves in protecting critical national infrastructure.
43:18
Speaker 4: So this idea that food security is national security, but
43:21
Speaker 4: necessary detail on these plans is lacking. Indeed, it is
43:25
Speaker 4: because if we go to the Critical National Infrastructure document
43:29
Speaker 4: we see that in actual fact, whilst the provision of
43:34
Speaker 4: food is essential, the food sector has no individual assets
43:37
Speaker 4: which are designated as critical national infrastructure. So the whole thing,
43:41
Speaker 4: in effect, in the way that it's presented by the
43:44
Speaker 4: environment sectory downwards, is actually a scam. The sector has
43:47
Speaker 4: significant level of resilience. Again back to al Cons's point
43:51
Speaker 4: about this belief that things can just be switched on,
43:55
Speaker 4: and of course the idea that there is a global
43:57
Speaker 4: sourcing of food. It is as though they're not looking
44:00
Speaker 4: at what's going on in the world at all, have
44:02
Speaker 4: been shut off from the news. They say that there
44:04
Speaker 4: are supply chain alternatives and commercial competition, so basically everything
44:09
Speaker 4: is all right, when quite patently it isn't. But all
44:11
Speaker 4: these documents are there really to present the twin specters
44:16
Speaker 4: of war and climate change in order that greater control,
44:20
Speaker 4: manipulation of the narrative and indeed system failure can be generated.
44:25
Speaker 4: And of course what can you do about it? Create
44:27
Speaker 4: and foster local markets. Now, finally, I just end on
44:32
Speaker 4: a petition which has got only a very small number
44:35
Speaker 4: of signatures, but I would hope to be able to
44:36
Speaker 4: boost that. We always have something of a debate on petitions,
44:40
Speaker 4: but I would say it's a demonstration of public will
44:42
Speaker 4: and intent and also presents an audit trail of what
44:45
Speaker 4: is or is not ignored by the government. Back to
44:48
Speaker 4: Mike's point about consultations, so there'll be a link to
44:50
Speaker 4: that in the show notes. And it's basically to prevent
44:53
Speaker 4: the government from being able to designate farmland for planning
44:58
Speaker 4: and infrastructure projects.
45:01
Speaker 1: Thank you, Charles Vanessa. Let's come back to you now
45:04
Speaker 1: and bring us up to date on Iran.
45:09
Speaker 3: Yeah, so I just wanted to highlight one element of
45:12
Speaker 3: what happened in Islamabad, and I'll start with this section
45:17
Speaker 3: of an interview. The link, of course to the full
45:21
Speaker 3: interview will be in the show. Notes were said Mohammed Mirandi,
45:26
Speaker 3: a professor at Tehran University, and this is what he
45:30
Speaker 3: had to say. He was actually at the negotiations in Pakistan,
45:36
Speaker 3: so let's hear what he said.
45:39
Speaker 7: Has been said. And I don't know that Devans actually
45:41
Speaker 7: also spoke to nettin Yahoo, which I think the runnings
45:46
Speaker 7: found to be odd. But in addition to that, there
45:51
Speaker 7: was also a certain shift in the pattern. During the day.
45:57
Speaker 7: There were negotiations, obviously, and progress was made, and there
46:01
Speaker 7: were arguments and differences, but there were in general there
46:04
Speaker 7: was progress. But then near the end of the day
46:08
Speaker 7: it suddenly the Americans suddenly seemed to shift their negotiating
46:14
Speaker 7: tactics or their position, and it went downhill. And then
46:18
Speaker 7: suddenly all was expected that the negotiations work would continue
46:25
Speaker 7: the next day, and we stood over. We stayed overnight.
46:30
Speaker 7: The United States, I mean, the US delegation suddenly decided
46:35
Speaker 7: to leave.
46:39
Speaker 3: Of course, this has been confirmed by Nataniahu that he
46:42
Speaker 3: was in constant contact with fans and the American delegation,
46:47
Speaker 3: but also more recently today on Iranian Channel three, an
46:52
Speaker 3: analyst said that the US gave written commitment to Iran's
46:55
Speaker 3: conditions but later renaged. Presumably that was also after the
47:00
Speaker 3: phone call with Israel, So of course it raises the
47:03
Speaker 3: question who's in control. But I also wanted to draw
47:06
Speaker 3: attention to the possible attempted assassination of the delegation. So
47:13
Speaker 3: this was published in the Washington Post on the day
47:17
Speaker 3: that the kind of peace talks were declared on April
47:21
Speaker 3: the eighth, Mark a Tyson. Iran thinks it has leverage.
47:26
Speaker 3: Here's how Trump can prove it wrong. So what does
47:29
Speaker 3: he actually say. He lays out various points, but I
47:32
Speaker 3: want to highlight both of these. So he says, to
47:36
Speaker 3: secure Iran's enriched uranium by establishing a virtual perimeter around it.
47:41
Speaker 3: Declare any sites harboring what Trump calls nuclear dust to
47:46
Speaker 3: be no go zones for the Iranian regime, a circle
47:50
Speaker 3: of death that will be monitored twenty four to seven,
47:54
Speaker 3: enforced the perimeter by killing any Iranians who enter that circle.
47:58
Speaker 3: Bear in mind this is a view to peace negotiations.
48:03
Speaker 3: Fourth carry out a final barrage of leadership strikes, eliminating
48:08
Speaker 3: the Iranian officials who had been spared for the purpose
48:10
Speaker 3: of negotiations. Iran's leaders must be made to understand that
48:15
Speaker 3: their lives literally depend on reaching a negotiated settlement to
48:19
Speaker 3: Trump's liking. If they refuse to do so, they will
48:23
Speaker 3: be killed. Now, Washington Post has been under severe attack
48:28
Speaker 3: for this statement. It has basically used the well, this
48:33
Speaker 3: is an opinion piece, so it's nothing to do with us,
48:36
Speaker 3: to disassociate themselves from what is a pretty criminal statement there.
48:42
Speaker 3: But actually, what did happen? According to Mirandi, he reported
48:46
Speaker 3: to Almyer Dean that they received direct threats and serious
48:50
Speaker 3: information that an attack was possible. This apparently came in
48:54
Speaker 3: from a friendly country that said Israel was intending to
48:58
Speaker 3: bring down the plane carrying the whole delegation and that
49:02
Speaker 3: this is how serious the information was. The plane on
49:05
Speaker 3: the way back to Iran actually re rooted to Mashad
49:10
Speaker 3: instead of to Tehran, and the delegation took trains and
49:14
Speaker 3: cars from Mashad to Tehran to avoid any risk. And
49:19
Speaker 3: it's interesting to point out that the Handala hack operation,
49:24
Speaker 3: which is a group of cyber intelligence operatives have recently
49:29
Speaker 3: today released drone aerial footage of top secret Mossads headquarters,
49:35
Speaker 3: the homes of Israeli Air Force pilots, their route to
49:40
Speaker 3: work or their travel routes, and of Shinbat. So perhaps
49:43
Speaker 3: this is in retaliation for what appears to have been
49:48
Speaker 3: a potential assassination of some of the top leadership of
49:51
Speaker 3: Iran at a time of course when they should have
49:54
Speaker 3: been negotiating. But this is not unusual. This is one
49:57
Speaker 3: of the primary tactics, particularly of the Trump administration.
50:04
Speaker 1: Charles Let's stay with international affairs, and Spain of course
50:08
Speaker 1: has been taking a stand at Israel and Iran. But
50:12
Speaker 1: what's the situation with China.
50:16
Speaker 4: Well, the Spanish President Pedro Sanchez here seen visiting a
50:22
Speaker 4: car plant in China, of course, has been outspoken, as
50:26
Speaker 4: you say, about the actions of the Israelis and indeed
50:29
Speaker 4: the American administration. And in fact this speaks very much
50:33
Speaker 4: to the point of view put forward by the Washington
50:36
Speaker 4: Post piece that Vanessa has just shown. Now, as for
50:39
Speaker 4: the Chinese, the government have put out a publication on
50:44
Speaker 4: their website g urging to enhance China Spain Corporation for
50:50
Speaker 4: more fruitful results and it was noted and that the
50:53
Speaker 4: language is sort of thinly veil criticism of the United States,
50:56
Speaker 4: but noted that despite a shifting and turbulent into national landscape,
51:01
Speaker 4: China and Spain have maintained a steady relationship forging ties
51:05
Speaker 4: with strategic determination, and that important and that an important
51:09
Speaker 4: lesson learned is the significance of making correct decisions based
51:13
Speaker 4: on common interests. As I say, a thinly veiled criticism
51:18
Speaker 4: of what they see going on in the Middle East.
51:20
Speaker 4: Sanchez of course backs this up on the Spanish government website.
51:23
Speaker 4: China and Europe have prospered together in the past, and
51:25
Speaker 4: there's no reason why they should not do so again. Now,
51:30
Speaker 4: Sanchez previously had put on Twitter a more stark criticism
51:36
Speaker 4: really prefix by saying that ceasefires are always good news,
51:40
Speaker 4: but saying that's really only if they go on to
51:43
Speaker 4: ad justin lasting piece. But this momentary relief cannot make
51:47
Speaker 4: us forget the chaos, the destruction and the lives lost,
51:50
Speaker 4: referring there to the will there or won't there be
51:52
Speaker 4: a cease fire? And then I've put it in bold,
51:55
Speaker 4: the government of Spain will not applaud those who set
51:58
Speaker 4: the world on fire, just because they show up with
52:00
Speaker 4: a bucket, and of course this is specifically the repetitive
52:05
Speaker 4: behavior of Donald Trump. Are either in this instance in
52:09
Speaker 4: demanding that that be both a ceasefire and opening of
52:13
Speaker 4: the Strait of Homers at the same time as then
52:15
Speaker 4: closing it and trying to dictate terms the entire time. Now,
52:21
Speaker 4: this message has been echoed by the Chinese Foreign Ministry,
52:24
Speaker 4: and we'll just listen to their spokesman on this very topic.
52:31
Speaker 8: While the relevant parties have already reached a temporary ceasefire arrangement,
52:36
Speaker 8: the US side has stepped up its military deployment and
52:39
Speaker 8: taken targeted blockade actions. It will only intensify the conflict,
52:44
Speaker 8: increased tension, disrupt the already fragile ceasefire situation, and further
52:49
Speaker 8: impact the safety of straight traffic. This is dangerous and
52:53
Speaker 8: irresponsible behavior. China believes that only by achieving a comprehensive
52:57
Speaker 8: ceasefire and stopping the war can and the situation in
53:00
Speaker 8: the Strait be fundamentally eased. China urges all parties to
53:04
Speaker 8: abide strictly by the ceasefire arrangements, focus on the general
53:08
Speaker 8: direction of dialogue and negotiations, promote regional relaxation through practical
53:13
Speaker 8: actions and restore normal traffic in the strait as soon
53:17
Speaker 8: as possible. Jinzaef Haija Pumjin Duntan.
53:24
Speaker 4: So the Chinese, having started with rather muted criticism, are
53:27
Speaker 4: becoming a bit more outspoken on the issue, and exactly
53:31
Speaker 4: like the statement from the Chinese government articulated there, they're
53:35
Speaker 4: creating at least the impression of giving stability, where America
53:39
Speaker 4: is not able to present the same. And I just
53:43
Speaker 4: refer back to a post on truth Social by Donald
53:46
Speaker 4: Trump from a week or so ago. NATO wasn't there
53:50
Speaker 4: when we needed them, and they won't be there if
53:52
Speaker 4: we need them again. Remember Greenland, that big, poorly run
53:56
Speaker 4: piece of ice. So the word frequent used is unhinged.
54:01
Speaker 4: I think what this does also present is absolutely the
54:04
Speaker 4: destruction of the idea that any of this has anything
54:07
Speaker 4: to do with whether or not Iran holds or could
54:10
Speaker 4: hold nuclear weapons, of course, something that was destroyed by
54:14
Speaker 4: the interrogation of the head of the Director of National Intelligence,
54:19
Speaker 4: tells A Gabbard reported on by Patrick a couple of
54:22
Speaker 4: weeks ago, and that in actual fact, the undertone, at
54:26
Speaker 4: least as far as the United States is concerned, here
54:28
Speaker 4: it is really concerning the economy, and it therefore should
54:33
Speaker 4: be no coincidence that the International Monetary Fund has just
54:36
Speaker 4: put out its World Economic Outlook growth projections, which I'm
54:40
Speaker 4: not going to go through in minute detail, except to
54:42
Speaker 4: say that the United Kingdom in terms of advanced economies
54:45
Speaker 4: is rated as or projected to grow at only zero
54:48
Speaker 4: point eighty percent during this year one point three percent
54:51
Speaker 4: next year. But basically across the board, the advanced economy
54:54
Speaker 4: is averaging about one point eight percent, in contrast with
54:58
Speaker 4: the emerging market and developing economies, which range between those
55:02
Speaker 4: lower percentages, but also going up to four and a
55:05
Speaker 4: half percent for China, six and a half percent for India,
55:08
Speaker 4: and even in Sub Saharan Africa four and a half percent.
55:11
Speaker 4: So essentially, America's position on the world stage as an
55:13
Speaker 4: economic power increasingly threatened. And this is something that Warwick
55:16
Speaker 4: Pahl has been talking about on his regular sessions with
55:20
Speaker 4: Karl z R. On the Silk and Steel Podcast for
55:23
Speaker 4: many weeks. I'm just going to go back a few
55:24
Speaker 4: weeks to listen to exactly what he said in explaining
55:27
Speaker 4: what is unfolding that.
55:30
Speaker 9: Look. I think that that is the heart of the
55:32
Speaker 9: issue and that really goes to the question of why
55:34
Speaker 9: the Empire is really struggling, and that is that it
55:38
Speaker 9: is no longer able to present to the world a dependable, credible,
55:43
Speaker 9: reliable counterparty as a counterparty nation state, and it shows
55:50
Speaker 9: itself to be not only capricious, willing to make decisions
55:55
Speaker 9: on the fly, but often make decisions based on the
55:59
Speaker 9: whims and the state of mind or the moods of
56:04
Speaker 9: the occupant of the White House. And it makes it very,
56:08
Speaker 9: very hard for anyone else in the world to develop
56:13
Speaker 9: a meaningful, sustained posture towards the US. What the United
56:18
Speaker 9: States has done in the last twelve months and arguably
56:22
Speaker 9: really for the last ten years, has overturned the predictability
56:29
Speaker 9: of its own behavior within the system at large. And
56:32
Speaker 9: the minute it does that, it actually says to everybody else,
56:36
Speaker 9: steer a wide berth. You'll remember that after the liberation
56:40
Speaker 9: tariffs were announced, people like Lutnik and Scott Bessant were
56:47
Speaker 9: running around the world more or less trying to create
56:51
Speaker 9: this sense that there were countries lining up ready to
56:54
Speaker 9: do the deal. And of course what they were trying
56:56
Speaker 9: to do was to create a sense of urgency. You know,
56:59
Speaker 9: this idea that first in, best stressed fear of missing out.
57:04
Speaker 9: The lesson we're now learning is that being first in
57:07
Speaker 9: does not mean best stressed, and in fact, quite the reverse.
57:12
Speaker 9: Taking your time, sitting back and being patient and letting
57:16
Speaker 9: the mess that is contemporary American governance unfold is probably
57:21
Speaker 9: your best strategy. The most likely de risking move that
57:26
Speaker 9: we're going to see over the next three to four
57:28
Speaker 9: years is actually countries finding ways of disentangling themselves from
57:33
Speaker 9: the United States. They're doing it ways in ways that
57:36
Speaker 9: will protect themselves from an unpredictable, unreliable, capricious, vanity driven,
57:45
Speaker 9: narcissistic administration. And that's where we're at.
57:52
Speaker 4: So we're seeing that the disentangling process is absolutely well underwear.
57:55
Speaker 4: And if you haven't yet engaged with Cole's Silver and
57:58
Speaker 4: Steel podcast, I really would recommend that you do. Say,
58:00
Speaker 4: and I'm just going to close with sharing a statement
58:02
Speaker 4: from the Foreign Ministry from Monday, words really that the
58:07
Speaker 4: United States, Israel, and the United Kingdom, among others, would
58:10
Speaker 4: do well to reflect upon because it concerned sovereignty, and
58:13
Speaker 4: it was about the idea that Venezuela could just have
58:15
Speaker 4: her oil taken Venezuela is a sovereign state and has
58:18
Speaker 4: full permanent sovereignty over all its natural resources and economic activities.
58:22
Speaker 4: It has the right to choose its own partners of corporation.
58:26
Speaker 4: Other countries have no right to dictate to it. Of course,
58:29
Speaker 4: you could take out Venezuela and put in any other
58:32
Speaker 4: country that the United States, Israel, and the United Kingdom
58:35
Speaker 4: seek to meddle with.
58:37
Speaker 1: Thank you for that, Charles, and I look, Charles, We're
58:40
Speaker 1: just going to end with this article here in the
58:43
Speaker 1: New Zealand Herald on the death of Shin Warn and
58:47
Speaker 1: the fact that his son has spoken on this. What
58:49
Speaker 1: was he saying?
58:51
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, it's very significant and first of all, I
58:52
Speaker 4: should just say if you haven't heard of Shane Warn,
58:55
Speaker 4: he is probably the most prolific and best known Australian
58:58
Speaker 4: sportsman of his generation of them near her died apparently
59:01
Speaker 4: of a hot attack in Thailand in twenty twenty two,
59:03
Speaker 4: and his son Jackson, who has a incredible sort of
59:07
Speaker 4: media profile of his own, has spoken out on a
59:11
Speaker 4: podcast and suggested that the COVID jab was actually responsible
59:15
Speaker 4: for his father's death. It's been reported in the New
59:17
Speaker 4: Zealand Herald, so clearly this news is absolutely significant that
59:21
Speaker 4: he said it. We're just going to listen to his
59:23
Speaker 4: chat with Sam Banford on the podcast.
59:27
Speaker 9: Do that want to hear this? Do you think that
59:29
Speaker 9: the COVID shot killed your dad?
59:32
Speaker 10: I definitely think it was involved. And I don't even
59:34
Speaker 10: think it's saying that it's controversial anymore, like with the
59:37
Speaker 10: amount of data that's come out, like even if Dad
59:41
Speaker 10: had underlying health issues, I think this brought it straight
59:45
Speaker 10: to the surface. And that's one thing that I've always
59:48
Speaker 10: been like, that's one thing I've always struggled with because
59:51
Speaker 10: my first impression, as soon as I hung up the phone,
59:53
Speaker 10: I instantly blamed the government. I instantly blamed COVID and
59:58
Speaker 10: the vaccine and doing things like the statement momorial where
1:00:00
Speaker 10: that's funded by VIC govern it's the MCG and there
1:00:03
Speaker 10: has to be certain due diligence and people's in the
1:00:05
Speaker 10: crowds have to get photos and do all that stuff.
1:00:08
Speaker 10: I felt really uncomfortable, and at the state memorial I
1:00:12
Speaker 10: nearly actually said I blame the governments, I blame COVID,
1:00:15
Speaker 10: but I didn't, and it's probably smart. I didn't know
1:00:18
Speaker 10: would probably be in a very different position if I did.
1:00:21
Speaker 10: But that was how I felt, And so even the
1:00:24
Speaker 10: last three or four years when it's come up in
1:00:26
Speaker 10: conversations like I have not changed my tune. Obviously, at
1:00:30
Speaker 10: the end of the day, we'll never ever know. The
1:00:32
Speaker 10: autopsy's there and people can go online and look at it,
1:00:34
Speaker 10: and I know what's happened to him. But Dad, at
1:00:37
Speaker 10: the time, he was healthy, he was happy. He actually
1:00:40
Speaker 10: looked the best he looked in a while. Yes, he
1:00:43
Speaker 10: smoked and he drank, but how many more people in
1:00:45
Speaker 10: the eighties and nineties still smoke and drink a lot
1:00:48
Speaker 10: more than Dad. Yes, a lot of people were dying
1:00:50
Speaker 10: of heart attacks before, but I know, and this is
1:00:53
Speaker 10: how I feel. It might not be true, but Dad
1:00:57
Speaker 10: was okay, and I think he might've got three or four.
1:01:01
Speaker 10: I know he didn't want to get them. He was
1:01:02
Speaker 10: forced to get the most, Yeah, I think, and he
1:01:06
Speaker 10: was forced to get them like everybody else, Like dead,
1:01:09
Speaker 10: wasn't the only person I know.
1:01:14
Speaker 1: That's pretty clear Charles what he was. And the question
1:01:18
Speaker 1: is why he didn't feel that he was able to
1:01:21
Speaker 1: say anything about this previously.
1:01:24
Speaker 4: Well exactly this is it. Although I think he has
1:01:26
Speaker 4: been very sensible to hold his nerve as it were,
1:01:31
Speaker 4: until now, but I think his experiences will speak to
1:01:36
Speaker 4: many many people who've had very similar experiences and have
1:01:41
Speaker 4: had those elements of doubt. And of course he made
1:01:44
Speaker 4: the point that the post morton does show a heart attack.
1:01:47
Speaker 4: But this absolutely sort of underpins everything about that entire period,
1:01:52
Speaker 4: is that there was always a sort of stated reason
1:01:54
Speaker 4: for something happened happening other than the probable actual cause
1:01:59
Speaker 4: of either death or some sort of affliction. So the
1:02:05
Speaker 4: fact that Warren's profile was so high, that he was
1:02:07
Speaker 4: so highly regarded, and that this is now out there,
1:02:10
Speaker 4: one really would hope that there will be significant waves
1:02:14
Speaker 4: created by this.
1:02:16
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean we're over time here, Charles Well. I
1:02:18
Speaker 1: just want to get your thoughts on this, because, of course, yes,
1:02:21
Speaker 1: when it came to the jabs, any other possible excuse
1:02:25
Speaker 1: for the person's death was put on the death certificate.
1:02:28
Speaker 1: But for COVID itself, it didn't matter what underlying health
1:02:32
Speaker 1: conditions were or even whether people had died in a
1:02:35
Speaker 1: road accident. If they tested positive for COVID, COVID was
1:02:38
Speaker 1: put on the death certificate. So there was a definite
1:02:41
Speaker 1: double standard by the authorities on this.
1:02:45
Speaker 4: Absolutely there was, I mean there were double standards across
1:02:47
Speaker 4: the board, and of course not just that. The other
1:02:48
Speaker 4: very important point to make is that is that people
1:02:51
Speaker 4: were not considered to have been vaccinated until after a
1:02:55
Speaker 4: certain period of time following the injection that they'd had.
1:02:58
Speaker 4: So again, further and it of the statistics or indeed
1:03:01
Speaker 4: an ability to deny that the injection itself could possibly
1:03:05
Speaker 4: have had an effect it were it death or an
1:03:08
Speaker 4: adverse health outcome. It's absolutely shocking. And I think the
1:03:12
Speaker 4: fact that this has been said at a time where
1:03:15
Speaker 4: the environment around all of this is much calmer than
1:03:18
Speaker 4: it was hopefully takes the sort of knee jerk emotions
1:03:22
Speaker 4: and responses to it out and therefore people can actually
1:03:25
Speaker 4: consider it on its own merit. So one would hope
1:03:28
Speaker 4: that it will do much more damage delivered like this
1:03:30
Speaker 4: than it would have done a couple of years ago.
1:03:33
Speaker 1: Yes, okay, thank you for that, Charles. We've got to
1:03:35
Speaker 1: leave it there for today. Thanks to Charles and Vanessa
1:03:38
Speaker 1: for being with us today, and thank everybody that has
1:03:43
Speaker 1: been watching. If you're a UK come member, stick a
1:03:45
Speaker 1: round on the live stream. We'll be back in a
1:03:47
Speaker 1: couple of minutes for UK Colm News Extra. Otherwise we'll
1:03:51
Speaker 1: see you on Friday as usual one pm. Don't forget
1:03:55
Speaker 1: the interviews tonight and tomorrow at lunchtime. That's a very
1:03:58
Speaker 1: important one. Tomorrow, do watch it if you possibly can.
1:04:01
Speaker 1: We'll see you at one pm on Friday. See you
1:04:03
Speaker 1: then go back
1:04:12
Speaker 4: Mhm.