Latest / UK Column Radio / UK Column News Podcast 3rd April 2024

Transcript

UK Column News Podcast 3rd April 2024 · UK Column Radio

0:08
Good afternoon. It's wednes third of April twenty twenty four, just after one
0:12
o'clock. Welcome to UK column News. I'm your host back Romson joined me
0:14
in the shoe today. That Charles Mallett. Welcome to the program. Charles,
0:18
and from Damascus, Vanessa, Billy and Vanessa. Damascus is where we're
0:23
going to start today. Yeah, two days ago a really shocking attack on
0:30
central Damascus. We can play the video. It's only about thirty seconds.
0:35
While I'm talking, bear in mind that this area so Israel basically targeted the
0:41
consulate section of the Iranian embassy compounds. You can see the Iranian embassy there
0:48
in that particular shot. But so not only wasn't an attack effectively on Iranian
0:54
territory inside Syria, it it violates the VA Convention against attacks on diplomatic and
1:04
embassy centers in sovereign territory. But this area just moving on as well.
1:15
This area, for people to understand, is a bit like Oxford Circus in
1:19
London. Medso Highway is the main highway really through the center of Damascus.
1:25
This was at about five o'clock in the afternoon, so it was two hours
1:29
before if the breaking of the past during Ramadan, so the place was packed
1:34
with people doing last minute shopping before they went home to prepare food. And
1:40
personally, I have a friend of mine whose two sisters were crossing the road
1:45
during the explosion. One is still in critical care as far as I understand,
1:49
in hospital. So a number of civilians were killed in the attack.
1:55
Brigadier General Mohammed Reisa Zahidi, who is probably the highest level IRGC Kutz Forces
2:05
commander killed since the assassination under the Trump administration of Castum Solomony back in twenty
2:13
twenty one. But they were also in total seven IRGC military personnel assassinated in
2:23
the attack. And the actual building that was completely destroyed is the residency.
2:29
It doubles up as the residency for the ambassador the general apparently we're serving as
2:35
a government official at the time of his assassination, so effectively this renders it
2:40
a terrorist ax by Israel. We then move on to the response from the
2:49
world community. The Non aligned ACCESS has condemned the attack as a terrorist attack.
2:57
Generally, the US scrambles to contain all out from Israel, strake on
3:02
Iranians and the aid workers. The aid workers will come onto later but what
3:07
they actually say inside the Time article is quite interesting. There's one expert,
3:12
so he basically says, in the same way that we hold the Iran account
3:15
for the actions of its proxies aka allies providing arms and financial support to its
3:23
allies in the region, they Iran hold the US responsible for Israeli actions because
3:30
the US arms and finances the Israeli military. So quite an interesting admission in
3:36
this article. Iran summoned the Swiss ambassador for a Binnike meeting on Tuesday,
3:40
asking them to pass on a message to Washington that the US must answer again.
3:46
This comes on the heels, of course, of the Crocus Concert terrorist
3:51
attack in Moscow, where Russia is also effectively holding the US responsible. The
3:58
US response has been ambivalent, to say the least. John Kirby, national
4:03
security spokesman, dismissed as nonsense the Iranian charges of US responsibility for Monday's bombing,
4:12
and he warned that Washington would respond to any retaliatory attacks. Of course,
4:16
if it is deemed a terrorist attack, which by all accounts it is,
4:21
then Iran has the right to respond. Instead, of course, what
4:28
is the US doing in the pipeline for Israel fifteen new F fifteen jets,
4:33
which amounts to about eighteen billion of supply in themselves, medium range AT missiles,
4:42
joint direct and attack munition kits which are to convert dumb bombs so called
4:46
dumb bombs into precision missiles, as I said in the pipeline for Israel that
4:54
is also still conducting its genocidal campaign in Palestine. Russiacord and agency meeting at
5:00
the UN Security Council after the attack, during which Nabentsia basically said, have
5:09
we got that side? No, We've got the White House, the new
5:13
clip first if you want. Oh, I'm so sorry, that's my fault.
5:16
So basically, very quickly, we have Matthew Miller as the United States
5:23
spokesperson mentioning the fact that, of course Israel is only defending itself as usual,
5:29
and that's why they're supplying all of these weapons. But let's just roll
5:32
that one quickly. Barb is self defensive. They need to have the ability
5:39
to defend themselves against a very well armed adversary. Like I said, iron
5:46
again, the framing that this is all self defense by Israel, or preemptive
5:50
self defense by Israel attacking an Iranian embassy on Syrian territory, which of course
5:57
comes in the midst of multiple other attacks by Israel, which I'll come onto
6:01
in a minute. So at the UN Security Council, Russia's UN envoy told
6:06
the Security Council briefing, we consider any attacks on diplomatic and consular premises,
6:15
the viability of which is guaranteed by the relevant Vienna Conventions of nineteen sixty one
6:21
and nineteen sixty three, to be categorically unacceptable. This is not the first
6:26
attack carried out by Israel in densely populated areas of Damascus, which generated high
6:31
risk of mass casualties of civilians. Such aggressive actions by Israel are designed to
6:40
further fuel the conflict. They are absolutely unacceptable and must stop. We urge
6:45
West Jerusalem to abandon the practice of provocative acts against Syria and other areas.
6:51
China also roundly condemned the attack President Raisi in Tehran. The Zionist must be
7:00
know that they will never achieve their sinister goals with such inhumane actions, and
7:04
day after day we will witness the strengthening of the front of resistance discussed and
7:10
hatred of the people towards the illegal nature of Israel. General consensus is that
7:18
Iran is not going to hastily respond, but that it will respond in kind
7:24
that could, in my opinion, mean attacks, particularly on the Jolan occupied
7:30
territories and potentially against an Israeli embassy somewhere in the world. Now, I
7:38
mentioned that it came in conjunction with other Israeli attacks, and in fact,
7:42
two days before this attack on the Iranian embassy, Israel actually violated Syrian airspace
7:49
that entered through Jordan over the illegal American military base at Alpana on the border
7:56
with Jordan, entered at low altitude the Syrian Badhya, the central desert area
8:01
to avoid radar detection, and five missiles at Eastern and West Aleppo in the
8:09
north of Syria. At the same time as Al Kaeda terrorists began a concerted
8:16
attack on Western Aleppo with drones and terrorist forces that was finally repelled. But
8:24
this was a clear collaboration between Israel and Al Kaeda, and that is definitely
8:28
what we're seeing at the moment. Every time there is an Israeli attack,
8:33
we're seeing an escalation in terrorist activity on all the front. Vanessa, you
8:41
know, there's been quite a at least there have been words said David Cameron.
8:46
It said some words Biden, I think, and others said some words
8:50
about this, But it strikes me that those even if we were in the
8:54
slightest way inclined to believe anything that comes out of their minds at any time.
8:58
But it strikes me that it's quite a coincidence that Israel is attacking Iran
9:03
in this way when we've known for what is it twenty years now that Iran
9:09
is on the target list of regime change nations. Yeah. Absolutely, And
9:16
there are claims in Israeli media that Zahidi was involved in the development of nuclear
9:22
aren'ts or nuclear capability in Iran, which, as far as I'm aware,
9:26
I've read through many of his autobiographies, I haven't seen any evidence of that
9:31
fact. But yes, I mean, you know, what they're trying to
9:33
do effectively is to expand the war beyond Gaza and West Bank, where they've
9:41
been speaking about invading Lebanon. But it also comes on the heels of the
9:45
revelations about the atrocities that were committed after the IOF basically evacuated the siege of
9:52
Al Shifa Hospital. So it could be a number of reasons that they carried
9:58
out this attack at this time. Yeah, okay, thank you Vanessa.
10:01
Okay, let's come back to the UK Charles and the question of food security.
10:09
Thanks Mike, Good afternoon, all. Yes, Fitzgurty was something that
10:11
we looked at last week and I wanted to start with a clarification because I
10:16
made a comparison between the UK and Russia in terms of the land it used
10:22
for arable farming, but I didn't state explicitly that it was an arable comparison.
10:28
So just a reminder that the slide on screen now shows six six point
10:33
one million hectares of what's called croppable area in the UK and eighty four point
10:39
five million in Russia, meaning that Russia uses nearly six and a half times
10:43
as much for the production of food via arable means. But obviously it wasn't
10:48
intended as a direct like like comparison, But the point of it was to
10:52
illustrate that Russia, that the butt of constant criticism, was in fact doing
10:58
something markedly different from the UK. However, since that report, the Agriculture
11:07
and Horticulture Development Board have rerun their early Bird survey, which seems to be
11:11
associated with the terrible weather that this has been experienced in the UK of the
11:16
last few months, the extreme wet But this is obviously combined with what I
11:20
was talking about last week, which is the reduction in land given to the
11:26
production of food, and the red arrow here shows that arable fallow has increased
11:31
by seventy nine percent. That's a seventy nine percent increase in the amount of
11:35
land that's being left and is not producing food. Now, it's not clear
11:39
whether or not that's been inspired, particularly by the environmental land management announcements that
11:46
Steve Barkley made back in January, but nonetheless it's a very interesting and somewhat
11:52
alarming correlation. I also spoke about solar farms and the land that's given over
11:58
to them, and this document, recently updated in February talks about the incredibly
12:05
inconsistencies in the planning for solar farms, which states that there are no hard
12:09
and fast rules about how suitable areas for renewable energy developments should be identified.
12:13
So we have a situation in which farmers are being prepaid subsidies simultaneously to produce
12:20
and not produce food. At the same time, the government's not even able
12:26
to calculate how much land is used for solar farms and how much of different
12:31
types of land are used. Now this is pertinent for several reasons, but
12:35
not least because of the sort of blanket coverage that the land management schemes give
12:41
to land that can go into one of these schemes, not really giving much
12:46
consideration to the type of land itself, but just on the scale of it.
12:52
The government calculate that approximately four acres is needed for each megawattov output.
12:58
The government has an intent to produce seventy gigawatts of solar power by the year
13:05
twenty thirty five, which would require just over one hundred and thirteen thousand hectares
13:11
now. The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England Preservation of Rural England CPRE
13:16
put a statement out in February twenty twenty two effectively criticizing the government's actions on
13:22
this, and they specifically make reference to the enormous space on the roofs of
13:28
commercial buildings, saying that the location of choice for solar developments has become valuable
13:35
farmland, ignoring the two hundred and fifty thousand hectares of south facing commercial roof
13:41
space now very Obviously they're rudimentary figures, but it's perfectly clear that if such
13:48
an approach were taken, if the government insists on putting solar farms up in
13:50
the first place, the problem could be dealt with almost immediately by using roof
13:56
space rather than any farmland at all. All I would encourage you to do
14:01
is to listen to Steve Gorham talking about this in an interview with Mike a
14:05
few months ago, the Race to Zero with Steve Gorham, which in which
14:07
he talks about the effectively the density by which energy is produced going through all
14:15
the various natures, and he makes it make a huge amount of sense.
14:18
I would encourage you to have listened to that at this time where we're constantly
14:22
being told this is absolutely necessary. But to further highlight the contradictions and the
14:26
way that land is used, I'm just going to show you written evidence by
14:31
Solar Energy UK. And now what they talk about is the government's intent to
14:35
reclassify the definition of best and most versatile BMV land to include Grade three B.
14:41
Now don't need to go into specific detail exactly, but effectively, what
14:45
the government's saying is that they want to deter developers from putting solar panels onto
14:52
land that is qualified as or classified as being the best for food production.
14:58
And we're in this absurd situation now there's effectively competition for sort of net zero
15:05
methods. So on the one hand you've got farmers wanting to take up government
15:09
schemes for reed beds and flower meadows and the like, and then on the
15:15
other side, the solar energy the solar energy industry wanting to do the same
15:22
thing and insist that they're going to reach the net zero target if you can
15:26
just put that slide back on screen and deliver tangential benefits such as reduced energy
15:31
bills and opportunities to increase biodiversity. Of course they don't exactly explain how that's
15:37
going to be possible. But just to finish off, we'll look at the
15:45
way in which all of this affects the taxpayer. Yesterday the government announced that
15:50
the British Industry Supercharger will give a huge boost UK businesses and effectively this is
15:56
subsidizing the cost of electricity for certain industry is now the critical bit of text
16:02
is highlighted here because it says that it will fully exempt eligible firms from certain
16:07
costs linked to renewable energy policies. So the taxpayer is being asked to foot
16:12
the bill not just for all the farming subsidies to both produce and not produce
16:18
food, but also for nature recovery, also for all of the renewable energy
16:22
technologies that are being introduced. And we see here that since twenty thirteen there's
16:26
been more than two point five billion pounds put into just this particular aspect of
16:34
the production of renewable energy. So this is going to be something that will
16:38
continue to follow up with the special regard to the use of land. Now,
16:42
the issue of what to do with our elderly people, I mean the
16:45
obviously the answer is obvi is we need to kill them as quickly as possible.
16:48
But that issue has been getting some headlines over the last couple of days
16:52
because of an article we'll talk about in the second written by Matthew Parris.
16:57
But I just wanted to start off with this from the BBC this morning.
17:02
China's aging population. A demographic crisis is unfolding for Shi Shinping, and of
17:07
course the narrative here is that there are so many old people in China that
17:12
they're going to have a major problem with what to do with them. At
17:15
the same time, we're getting headlines like this population typic point could arrive by
17:19
twenty thirty. And what this article from Science is saying is that they're highlighting
17:25
a study which is showing that global fertility levels have reached such that we cannot
17:30
replace our populations and so population is going to fall globally over the next period
17:36
of time. Now, this of course is increasingly a problem for the UK
17:41
as well, with an aging population, people being discouraged from having children.
17:45
The cost of having children is beyond what most people can bear so and the
17:51
government is not providing any support. So of course we have We're going to
17:56
be dealing with the issue of what to do with our elderly in the to
18:00
this in future, So not to miss an opportunity, Matthew Paris decided to
18:03
publish this article in The Times a few days ago. We can't afford a
18:07
taboo on assisted dying, so let's have a look and see what he was
18:11
saying. He said, I can't dispute the objectors belief that once assisted dying
18:15
becomes normalized, we'll become more apt to ask yourselves how much longer we can
18:22
justify the struggle, that's to struggle for life. So in other words,
18:25
you know, do we really want to continue to be a burden on the
18:29
young and so on? We're really useless eaters, We don't really contribute anything
18:33
to society, So maybe it's just best to pop off. He goes on,
18:37
if we just put that, so, is life still giving us more
18:41
pleasure than pain? How much is all its costing relatives in the health service?
18:45
How much of a burden are we placing on those who love us?
18:47
How much of a burden are we placing on ourselves? He said, if
18:51
assisted dying becomes common and why they accepted hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions will
18:56
consider choosing this road when the time comes, and in some cases ask themselves
19:00
whether it would be selfish not too and he went on, within a decade
19:04
or more, assistant suicide will be seen as a normal road for many to
19:08
take, to be considered socially responsible and even finally urged upon people. So
19:14
this is the narrative that Matthew Paris is pushing. But this isn't the first
19:17
time he's pushed this narrative in the Spectator. This is published on the thirty
19:22
first of March twenty twenty four. But actually this is the republication of an
19:26
article he published some time ago, a number of years ago. Euthansia is
19:29
coming, like it or not. If the law does not lead, it
19:32
will follow. The root reason is Darwinian, so he's implying the survival of
19:37
the fittest is the issue here. So the reason for assisted dying is Darwinian.
19:44
He said, Tribes that handicap themselves will not prosper. As medical science
19:48
advances, the cost of prolonging human life way past usefulness will impose an ever
19:52
heavier burden on the community for an ever longer proportion of its members' lives.
19:59
And in this art, he went on to say, we may not be
20:00
aware that our moral attitudes are being driven by the Darwinian struggle for survival,
20:04
but in part they will be. I don't need to shout from the rooftops.
20:08
Suicide can be a fine and noble thing or real against the ever growing
20:12
cost of medical care in the final prolonged phase of people's lives. My opinions
20:18
and my voice are incidental. This is a social impulse which will grow nourished
20:22
by forces larger than all of us. Now, of course there's quite a
20:30
lot going on in the world which is pushing us in the direction of supporting
20:33
assistant suicide for the elderly, not least the immigration narrative. But I just
20:38
wanted to briefly look at where this type of thinking comes from. And I'm
20:44
going to bring HG. Wells on screen at this point because he of course
20:49
known as writing War of the Worlds and many other science fiction books, but
20:52
he's also a eugenicist and a globalist of the one world government type. So
21:00
he wrote that the method must common cases still sorry, the method that must
21:07
in some cases still be called in is death, the merciful obliteration of weak
21:11
and silly and pointless things. He said, future humans will naturally regard the
21:15
modest side of the incurably melancholy or diseased or helpless persons as a high and
21:22
courageous act of duty rather than a crime. And it just strikes me that
21:26
the type of thinking that Matthew Paris is expressing in his articles is very similar
21:33
to the type of thinking that Wells expressed at the time. Now, Wells
21:37
was part of a cabal including the likes of Burton Russell and Julian Huxley and
21:41
people like this who were very much involved in creating the United Nations, for
21:47
example. But we just look at one particular book by Wells here, the
21:49
Open Conspiracy, and look at the types of things that he was talking in
21:55
that book. So he was calling for the end of the nation state forever,
21:57
to control human power, population, to eliminate the idea that man is
22:02
created in the image of God. And I hadn't, I had completely forgotten
22:07
this bit, but he was calling for that. He was making the point
22:10
that Russia is a crucial target for incorporation into the European system. And it's
22:15
just incredible when we look back at or when we look at where the types
22:18
of policies that we're seeing coming out at the moment, where did they originate?
22:22
And they originate here in this country. And so Vanessa, I don't
22:27
know if you've got any thoughts on that, but the whole issue of assisted
22:32
dying is a horrendous narrative that's being built. Yeah, well, if you
22:37
remember, I covered it fairly extensively for UK colin regarding what was coming through
22:45
in Canada. But it seems now that Canada is actually backpeddling and the UK
22:51
is picking up the baton to go forward with the policy. But it's I
22:56
mean, it's just yeah, I don't really have any words to describe it.
23:00
It's very very dark and sinister, yes, Alexander, and the chatbox
23:06
is saying and Fibian George Bernard Shaw absolutely pardon parcel of list. We shouldn't
23:11
forget that. It's g Wells was a finder of the Faibian Society, so
23:15
they the Fibian type of thinking is expressed and everything that he did. But
23:19
anyway, let's move on. If you like what the UK Column does,
23:22
you'd like to support us. All the options are on support dot UK column
23:26
dot org. We can't do what we do without your help, so if
23:29
you can possibly help us financially, that would be really appreciated. You can
23:33
pick something up at the UK Column shop, but please do find share anything
23:38
you find on the various platforms, especially the UK Column, dot org and
23:41
UK Column Extracts dot co dot uk. Now. Yesterday at one o'clock we
23:47
had an interview with Hillary Baltrop on her mother Lewis, who was killed in
23:53
the NHS system, and she was asking could she have done more? She
23:59
and her mother were UK column members. If you haven't seen that, please
24:03
do have a look at it. It's on the website and share it as
24:07
widely as possible. And Charles tomorrow, you are speaking to Sir Julian Rose.
24:11
That's right. Julian Rose will be a familiar name to UK column audiences.
24:15
And he spoke about his introduction to organic farming back in the nineteen seventies,
24:22
how there was no market for it, but still he made it work
24:23
through the proximity principle essentially growing food on a small scale to satisfy a local
24:29
market. And then he talks me through how corrupted that system has become up
24:33
until the present day, sort of leading off into things such as transhumanism and
24:38
the rest of it. So it's a very interesting insight into a long,
24:41
long career in organic farming at the business end of it. So that's at
24:45
one pm tomorrow, UK colun dot Org, slash Live and the usual places.
24:51
A reminder of the Standard of the Light Festival taking place in May in
24:56
cumbrias the details on screen at the moment and will be in the sh show
25:00
notes. And also for Science Beautiful Festival taking place in Dorset on June the
25:04
twenty seventh to the thirtieth. We will either all or some of us will
25:10
be at both of those events, so do join us, come along to
25:12
those if you possibly can. Now let's move on to NATO. And of
25:18
course some people suggest that NATO is quite nazy like in its being. I
25:25
couldn't possibly suggest such a thing. But of course this is the seventieth fifth
25:29
anniversary of NATO this year, and well, in order to celebrate that,
25:33
all the foreign ministers are getting together with Jen Stottenberg in Brussels yesterday, sorry,
25:38
today and tomorrow, and well, let's just have a look at a
25:41
couple of words from Jen Stoltenberg for ministers. We'll meet today and tomorrow to
25:51
mark natle's seventy fifth anniversary and to prepare for our summit in Washington in July.
26:00
NATO was founded on the single solemn promise, an attack on one ally
26:04
is an attack on all. From that foundation, we have built the most
26:10
powerful and successful alliance in history, and over the past seventy five years,
26:18
NATO's open door has helped to spread democracy and prosperity across Europe. As we
26:26
celebrate NATO's achievements, we do not rest upon them, Europe now faces war
26:33
on a scale we thought was resigned to history. We must ensure reliable and
26:40
predictable security assistance to Ukraine for a long haul, so that we rely less
26:48
on voluntary contributions and more on NATO commitments, less on short term offers,
26:56
and more on multiyear pledges. For ministers will discuss how NATO could assume more
27:03
responsibility for coordinating military equipment and training for Ukraine, anchoring this within a robust
27:11
NATO framework. So hopefully that didn't make involment too much. But Charles,
27:17
this is a quite an incredible situation. We're looking at a war, the
27:21
type of war that we haven't couldn't envisage, he says. And we've got
27:25
to stop this voluntary donations of the weapons to Ukraine and actually formalize it within
27:30
the NATO structures. This is taking us a massive step closer to direct conflict
27:34
with Russia. It is, and a particular note that he describes NATO's open
27:40
door, but apparently not the sort of door in the shape of Russia,
27:44
who of course asked to join NATO meat all that actually they couldn't after all.
27:48
So yes, very very strange speech. Yes, under this present regime,
27:52
of course, because we saw from HG. Wells just a few minutes
27:53
ago Russia is to be assimilated. But anyway, David Cameron, of course
27:59
is so let's bring them on screen, and he's saying, seventy five years
28:03
after its creation, we're celebrating a NATO that's never been stronger or more important,
28:08
especially following Sweden's succession last month. Allies need to step up and spend
28:14
more on defense in the face of continued Russian aggression and a more dangerous world.
28:18
Well, it's all a bit unfortunate because actually Moody's, the ratings agency,
28:23
has come out with a report basically making the point that if people do
28:30
start spending more in the types of ways that they are being described by Stoltenberg
28:33
and Camera in there, that the debt burden on nations is beyond what they
28:37
can bear. So I'm not quite sure how this is going to work on
28:42
the long term basis. They want to sustain the conflict in Ukraine for as
28:47
long as possible. Are they going to keep it at a low level,
28:52
just killing as many people as possible but not using very much armaments themselves,
28:57
or are they going to try to run but up either way, they can't
29:02
afford to do it, and we don't have the productive capability anyway. Vanessa,
29:07
I don't know if you've got thoughts on this, but the rhetoric that
29:10
comes out of these people. And I know by the way that mister Rudder
29:15
from the Netherlands is no longer tip to replace Yan Stolberg. It's now the
29:18
Estonian Prime minister. They can't actually find anybody that's going to be competent,
29:25
but they still keep making the threats. I don't know, I just find
29:30
it extraordinary. I mean, do they actually believe what they're saying? I
29:37
mean, does this democracy, peace and democracy and freedom nonsense still wash while
29:44
they're supporting Israel committing genocide and severely curtailing the freedom of not any Palestinians but
29:53
the entire region. It's just, I don't know. We just seem to
29:57
be living on two separate, complete realities and dimensions right now. Yeah,
30:06
incredible, incredible, Okay, let's come back to the UK then, at
30:11
Charles and policing. Policing. Indeed, I will take you back to the
30:17
aftermath of October last year and the interventions from the then Home Secretary of Suella
30:22
Bradman, which looked very much like they ran roughshod over the notion of operational
30:29
independence of police, with her taking what looked like a very one sided approach
30:33
to responses of protest demonstrations and the like all over the United Kingdom. Now,
30:42
just last week James cleverly finally got round to responding to the State of
30:48
Policing twenty twenty two report, the most significant detail of which was to refer
30:53
to new powers for His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary secifically granting HMIC the power to
31:02
direct forces, which is a significant new power. Such a power would need
31:07
a proper system of accountability to accompany it, and then he reminds the Inspectorate
31:11
that he already holds powers under Section forty of the Police Act nineteen ninety six
31:17
to intervene where a force or local policing body is failing. So whilst that
31:22
looks clear cut, it is in fact at the beginnings of lines being very
31:26
blurred. And I will go on to explain what I mean by that,
31:30
because if we look at the Inspectorate of Constabulary Fine Rescue Services website, which
31:36
has not been updated because it's not yet clear how these powers will actually take
31:40
effect. So they state at the moment that they're an inspectorate and not a
31:42
regulator, and that inspectorates have powers to secure information but no powers to give
31:48
orders for change. And they go on to remind us that it's for chief
31:52
constables, whose operational independence is a cornerstone of British policing, to effectively make
32:00
decisions about all matters operational as well as what they do with the recommendations.
32:07
Now, what's worth going back to is the original report from the Inspectorate,
32:14
which is, as I say, dated twenty twenty two, and specifically their
32:19
recommendations are that the Chief Inspector of Constabulary should be provided with a power to
32:22
give directions in relation to a police force in cases where an inspection identifies a
32:28
failing that poses a significant risk to public safety. So I'd like you to
32:32
bear that in mind, specifically the reference to public safety. We then see
32:38
how mission creep can affect itself in the second paragraph where we talk about limited
32:44
circumstances being the case in which further power should be provided to give direction to
32:51
the NPCC. Now I submitted a freedom of information request at the Home Office
32:54
to ask about meetings between police chiefs and the Home Secretary during the period of
33:00
COVID restrictions that year, and I was sent as part of the reply letter
33:06
which was about the COVID enforcement strategy, and you'll see that it's signed not
33:10
least by pretty Potel, the Home Secretary, but also by Martin Hewitt's own
33:15
effect. They had teamed up, and it looks very much like the purpose
33:17
of doing so was to attempt to get around the issue of operational independence.
33:24
In that letter they quite clearly state that this period will undoubtedly be challenging.
33:30
So with your input, we have jointly developed a COVID nineteen police enforcement strategy
33:36
to meet these challenges and target resources. Now that sounds to me very much
33:40
like the Home Office is giving operational direction to police. They go on to
33:46
say that they agree that police activity should be weighted towards those areas where infection
33:51
rates are most acute, and they talk about heightened visibility and patrols and priorities
33:55
placed on areas with highest rates of infection. That is, with our doubt,
34:00
meddling in the operational affairs of police constables. So we go further into
34:07
this by looking at the minutes of meetings from the Chief Constable's meetings back in
34:10
that period, and in January, before all this nonsense started, they talk
34:17
about policing having funding for uplift, but it won't be the solution to other
34:22
challenges such as public safety. But of course by June of twenty twenty they're
34:28
talking about the government being very closely engaged in policing and having a number of
34:34
demands that they want policing to deliver on again further interference. But of course,
34:38
because it fell under the banner of COVID, it would appear that anything
34:43
went. By July we see that it's actually a two way street, and
34:47
the chiefs discussed new legislation being implemented. This is about wearing face coverings,
34:52
and they requested more engagement with government to reinforce viewpoints on the right level of
34:59
interval. So the direction that this could go in is very alarming, and
35:06
particularly I take you back to what was said about public safety, because that's
35:10
really at the heart of this, and public safety obviously in this context is
35:15
meant to mean a sort of a health emergency, but of course it can
35:19
include censorship, it could include extremism, it could even now include the specter
35:23
of war. And so just to remind you of exactly how these things can
35:29
go wrong, we'll look at the again. Just go back to the House
35:32
of Commons Library briefing on enforcing COVID restrictions. And it's always worth noting that
35:40
lockdown restriction enforcement was an operational matter for the police. This means police leaders,
35:46
not national or local politicians, decided whether and how to deploy their officers
35:52
to lockdown enforcement. So it's very clear from that that the Home Secretary had
36:00
absolutely no business meddling in the affairs of the police chiefs. The police forces
36:07
any of those bodies to dictate exactly how they should deploy their resources, use
36:12
their funding, any of those sorts of things, and yet we've seen it
36:15
happen. So to go back to the possible change whereby the Inspector of Constabulary
36:22
is granted new powers to direct police forces with public safety in mind, it
36:27
sets a very alarming precedent And Mike, I don't know if you've got any
36:30
particular thoughts on it, perhaps regarding sort of censorship and extremism, but the
36:36
direction of travel does not seem to be the right one, no, And
36:38
you know the Inspector of Constabulary is there to assess the role that the police
36:46
are playing and are they fulfilling their obligations. Once we start getting politicians telling
36:53
them what they're supposed to be enforcing, that becomes extremely dangerous. And well,
36:58
we see this as being an the regulatory regime being built alongside offcom MHRA
37:04
and a whole bunch of other regulators that are not there in fact for public
37:09
safety. It's for the safety of the government as far as I can see.
37:14
But anyway, let's move back to the Middle East and Vanessa. Let's
37:17
look at the convoy is incident, if we can call it an incident,
37:24
yeah, sort of an interesting incident. This is a report in Almodine from
37:30
yesterday, so this happened at pretty much the same time as Israel carried out
37:35
the attack on the Iranian embassy in Damascus. The headline here Israel claims that
37:40
the World Central Kitchen, the WCK workers killed in error after bombing them three
37:47
times. And if we look at the kind of satellite imagery that Almiodine has
37:52
included in their article, you can see that actually it was three fairly one
37:57
assumes precision strikes on the coastal area, targeting the various cars of these aid
38:07
workers inside Garza. Now, in the Maadian article they point out the reaction
38:14
from the UK Foreign Ministry, which summoned the is Ready ambassador. However,
38:17
they didn't summon the Israeli ambassador to discuss the targeting of one hundred thousand plus
38:24
Palestinians in Gaza, gnaw of the bombing of the embassy and Damascus. However,
38:31
they summoned the ambassador to discuss this and to express the government's unequivocal condemnation
38:37
of the crime. France and Canada condemned the attack. Australia also summoned the
38:44
is raally ambassad Canbero the crime. All of these nations, by the way,
38:47
have been silent over the Israeli bombing in Damascus. The US meanwhile,
38:54
just stuck with offering its condolences. And let's have a quick look at the
39:00
statement by John Kirby. Your question presumes at this very early hour that it
39:07
was a deliberate strike, that they knew exactly what they were hitting, that
39:09
they were hitting aid workers, and did it on purpose, and there's no
39:13
evidence of that. I would also remind you, sir, that we continue
39:15
to look at incidents as they occur. The State Department has a process in
39:20
place, and to date, as you and I are speaking, they have
39:22
not found any incidents where the Israelis have violated international humanitarian law. Unless you
39:29
think we don't take it seriously, I can assure you that we do.
39:30
We look at this in real time. I have never violated the international humanitarian
39:36
law effort in the past five to six months. I'm telling you the State
39:38
Department has looked at incidents in the past and has yet to determine that any
39:43
of those incidents violate international humanitarian law. I mean, I don't really know
39:51
what to say. That the US denial of the atrocities committed by Israel is
39:58
becoming a quite obscene. Actually, now what's interesting, Let's have a look
40:02
at these World Central Kitchen so called aid workers. Now the three British.
40:08
I didn't manage to create a slide because I only found this out just before
40:13
I came on. Three of the British that were killed were former sas now
40:20
working for private security company called Solace Global. But at the same time,
40:25
Grayzone did an investigation a little while back on the twenty seventh of March into
40:31
the chef that is basically the CEO of the organization. So let's have a
40:37
look at what they say. People can obviously read the article for themselves.
40:40
There's a lot of detail in it. So after years of accusing Russia of
40:45
using food as a weapon in its conflict with Ukraine, State Department Culinary Ambassador
40:51
Jose Andres is working with the Israeli government the plant Sunrah as the main supplier
40:57
of aid to northern Gaza. The operation appears designed to as a stopgap measure
41:04
to provide minimal quantities of food to Gaza's famine stricken population until the US military
41:09
finishes. Building appear in the Mediterranean Sea, and a shadowy contractor run by
41:15
former US Marines and CIO officials is able to implement an a program called the
41:21
Blue Beach Plan. So his organization, the World Central Kitchen, has already
41:25
finished constructing its own jetty, which was made from rubble heaps in Gaza,
41:30
a decision that virtually guaranteed the building materials contain the remains of humans killed by
41:37
the Israeli bombing, So it has to raise questions over who these people really
41:43
were where they build well by Israel. Now one of the fallouts from this
41:52
event is that the ships that are bringing aid from Cypress to the US peer
42:00
in Gaza are turning back. One has already turned back with two hundred and
42:06
forty tons of undelivered aid. And then if we look at what the officials
42:09
are actually saying, Cychrus Foreign minister said on Tuesday that undelivered food and supplies
42:15
were being returned after aid groups suspended operations due to the brutal killing of members
42:21
of an international charity whose hands does this play into into Israel's that is deliberately
42:29
starving the one point two million Palestinians inside Gaza, shutting down UNRAH, closing
42:37
all entrances into Gaza, set up the peer. Now suddenly that's falling apart
42:44
because of the killing of the humanitarian aid workers. It seems very convenient for
42:49
me. Yes, yes, I don't really know what else to say.
42:53
And I mean, you know, John Kirby, I have to admit to
42:57
laughing. We shouldn't be laughing at this because actually it's despicable, but it's
43:04
so despicable it's really hard not to react in that way. It's like a
43:07
parody. I mean, it's just extraordinary. Yes, thanks Vanessa. Okay,
43:14
Charles sir, let's come up to do it with CBDC. Yes,
43:17
thank you, Mike. And in particular we'll start actually with the with the
43:22
forecast, the precious metals forecast by the London Bullion Market Association for this year
43:30
worth looking at because of particularly what's been happening with gold. But significantly they
43:37
cite the top three drivers for the gold price this year as being US monetary
43:42
policy, central bank activity, and geopolitical risks. And I think the question
43:46
that falls out of that is how separate are those three things. But the
43:53
World Gold Council has simultaneously twentieth March published or rather updated its document Gold as
44:00
a Strategic Asset the twenty twenty four addition, and this is where we see
44:06
the process of nudge that I was speaking about last year continue to affect itself.
44:09
We talked about the ESG credentials and contributions, and specifically they say that
44:15
gold has a potential role to play in reducing investor exposure to climate related risks.
44:20
In fact, gold's lack of downstream emissions has important implications, as gold
44:24
holdings can reduce the overall carbon intensity of the portfolio value. Anyway they go
44:30
on in this vein. Now, why would they be talking about this,
44:34
Well, it seems likely that the reason is to further nudge people into the
44:37
position of considering not so much physical gold, which has reached a record high
44:43
price shown on screen now nineteen seventy being on the left hand side of the
44:46
graph up to twenty twenty four, but the move away from physical gold to
44:51
digital gold, which you may remember I reported on late last year as being
44:54
something that might potentially back a central bank digit or currency. The other part
45:01
of that report was to do with the consultation into CBDC or particularly the digital
45:07
pound, run by the Bank of England and the Treasury. They have produced
45:12
a response, admittedly a couple of months ago, but I thought I would
45:15
share some of the results of it with you. In effect, I should
45:20
remind you that this is still, as the House of Lords put it,
45:23
a solution in search of a problem. In effect, they've been completely unable
45:28
to justify why a digital pound is necessary. In the last sentence here,
45:31
whichever way you choose to pay, you can always trust the value of the
45:35
money you're spending or receiving. A ten pound note in your hand will always
45:37
be worth ten pounds in your bank account, So in effect they're sort of
45:42
shooting themselves in the foot at the same time as trying to sell the thing.
45:45
But what I thought was of the fifty thousand plus responses, there was
45:50
a recurring theme from it, and I'll just read a few quotes. The
45:54
majority of responses commented on the broader society implications of introducing a retail CBDC,
45:59
such as the future of cash and the privacy and rights of users of a
46:04
digital pound. They go on again. Others raise concerns about important issues such
46:08
as the potential impact on privacy, access to cash, and freedom of choice.
46:13
So again the same thing coming up. But later on many respondents raise
46:15
concerns about the implication of such a digital pound for access to cash, users,
46:20
privacy and control of their money. So what this indicates really is that
46:23
of the fifty thousand respondents, which is a good total, I would say
46:28
by any account, it means that people's messages really couldn't have been effectively buried
46:34
by the Bank of England or the Treasury because they were so numerous. Anyway,
46:37
they go on and again to sort of open themselves up to the fundamental
46:42
failings. The Bank, as an operator of the core infrastructure, would not
46:45
have access to personal data private sects of Digital Pound Wallet providers Payment interface providers
46:51
pibs would anonymize personal data before transactions are processed and settled by the bank.
46:57
The Bank and HM Treasury would also not pursue govern mental Central Bank initiated programmable
47:01
functions. So they're working very hard here to allay concerns about privacy, about
47:07
technical failures and programming and all that sort of thing. But I would say
47:12
that they are failing because they're not actually addressing the fundamental issue of hand in
47:16
control of part of the process over to a third party over which they have
47:21
absolutely no control. They don't know where that data is going to go,
47:23
they don't know that those technical platforms are going to be up to whatever it
47:27
is they're going to manage them. And that is giving the Treasury and the
47:30
banking them the benefit of the doubt in the first place, and suggesting that
47:32
they will be able to do a better job of it at all. So
47:36
still in no way convincing whatsoever. But in conclusion, what they state is
47:42
that the decision as to whether to build a digital Pound will be made around
47:45
the middle of the decade at the earliest, as the design phase draws to
47:50
a close, that decision will draw on extensive engagement with stakeholders across all of
47:54
society. Well, I wonder how that's going to affect itself throughout the design
47:59
phase as part of the development of the Digital Plans Blueprint, the National Conversation
48:02
on the Future of Money, and the parliamentary scrutiny of the Bank and hm
48:07
Treasury's design work. So to summarize what they've said in this response, it
48:13
does, I would say, look very much like they have roaded back on
48:15
their initial bravado, which they sort of seem to lay the case out for
48:21
CBDC with. So it does suggest that at least at this point, the
48:27
responses that have been received from the fifty thousand or so that came in have
48:30
really stopped and made them think. And I think that's you know, that's
48:35
gone hand in hand with what the House of Lords have done with some committee
48:37
hearings in the Houses of Parliament. So you know, the tide has the
48:42
potential to at least be stemmed, if not change direction. However, what
48:46
I would issue as a note of caution is that they are again continuing to
48:52
suggest or at least set the ground lay the groundwork for there being some sort
48:59
of a seismic change. And having listened to what Mike is talking about earlier
49:02
with the effectively the potential bankruptcy of nations by continuing NATO activities, it would
49:09
be that sort of activity that would allow or would set the conditions for the
49:14
abolition of cash and the total restructuring of the financial system. So this is
49:17
definitely not going away. But what they are yet to find is a very
49:22
well articulated argument for justifying it. But this is something that they will continue
49:27
to pursue. Yes, indeed, Okay, let's move on to online safety.
49:32
And of course we have this situation of them wanting to banch, and
49:37
of course they don't really want to ban chat as such, they just want
49:39
to ban encrypted chat. So they want to be able to see what we're
49:43
all talking about. And if you remember last year when we were talking about
49:47
this, we mentioned the open letter from security and privacy researchers in relation to
49:52
the Online Safety Bill as it was at that time. It's not the Online
49:55
Safety Act, but they said at the time this was various organizations that provide
50:02
chat functionality including signal and WhatsApp and the telegram and people like this. In
50:07
this letter, we wish to highlight alarming misunderstandings and misconceptions around the Online Safety
50:13
Bill and it's interaction with privacy and security technologies that our daily online transactions and
50:19
communication rely on. And they were highlighting the dangers of what was being proposed
50:23
at the time. Now, of course, the organization who is responsible for
50:28
actually creating the regime that we will be living under the Online Safety Act as
50:34
OFFCOM, and they have this document here tech firms must clamp down on illegal
50:40
online materials, and of course they are saying that children are the key priority.
50:45
And at the very bottom of this document it says the proposal will only
50:50
apply to public communications where it's technically feasible for service to use this technology,
50:55
consistent and restrict with the restrictions in the Act. They do not apply to
50:59
private communications or end to end encrypted communications however, and encrypted services are still
51:06
subject to all the safety duties set out in the Act and will still need
51:09
to take steps to mitigate risks of child sexual abuse material on their service.
51:15
So CSAM being used as the excuse to pursue the agenda of making sure that
51:22
anybody can snoop on people's private communications as widely as possible. We see the
51:29
same thing happening in the European Union, so this is the constant of the
51:32
European Union and their document on this topic which is published in March. This
51:39
is basically talking about pretty much exactly the same types of things. So let's
51:45
bring a quote in the light of the more limited risk of their use for
51:50
the purposes of child sexual abuse and the need to preserve confidential information, including
51:54
classified information information covered by professional secrecy and trade secrets. Electronic communication services that
52:00
are not publicly available, such as those for national security purposes, should be
52:05
excluded from the scope of this regulation. So the EU absolutely using the child
52:09
sexual abuse narrative to justify the removal of or at least the ability to get
52:17
around and encryption so that they can snoop on people's communications. That will apply
52:25
if you're using WhatsApp or signal whatever. But if you're an intelligence agency or
52:30
a government department, or if you're a corporation that's using a communications technology which
52:36
isn't available to the public but is only available to your employees, that would
52:38
not be within scope of this, So excuse me. So I'm just going
52:44
to ask the question, you know, is it would it be appropriate in
52:47
the UK if we follow this suggestion? For example, this supplies in the
52:52
European Union as well. Of course, would it be appropriate to allow MPs
52:57
if we're all obliged to be clear and in the open with our communications.
53:01
Is there a lesser risk with MPs with respect to child sexual abuse material?
53:07
Or is there a lesser risk with intelligence agencies because this article in the classified
53:14
UK is all about Cancora in Northern Ireland where m I five for a number
53:17
of decades was quite happy for the abusive young boys to take place. Excuse
53:22
me, so you know I do apologize. Yeah, so this is declassified
53:36
talking about the cover up by m I five the British government seeking to prevent
53:42
a full inquiry into horrific boys abuse, sorry, abusive boys home in Belfast.
53:47
But of course that's promoting their intelligence agenda. Thank you for billing me
53:52
there, Charles. Well, anyway, the point is, if we're going
53:58
to have end to end encryption subverted in this way, it seems to me,
54:02
in order to protect children, governments and intelligence agencies are the first organizations
54:08
that should be transmitting their materials in the clear. Anyway, we can talk
54:13
a bit more about that in extra Vanessa. Let's come back to you and
54:17
the Observer here and what is going on with Israel and international law. Well,
54:24
I thought this was interesting that this story was leaked over the Easter weekend,
54:30
when potentially people's attention might not be fully on this kind of information.
54:36
So UK government lawyers say that Israel is breaking international law, claims Top Tory
54:43
in leaked recording. So the Charit Foreign Affairs Select Committee Alicia Karan said at
54:49
a toy fundraiser that legal advice would mean the UK has to see all arm
54:54
sales to Israel without delay. So let's actually see what she said. So
55:00
she was at an evening drinks reception hosted by the West Hampstead and Fortune Green
55:06
Conservatives in London. She said the Foreign Office has received official legal advice that
55:10
Israel has broken international humanitarian law. That the government has not announced it.
55:16
They have said, they have not said it. They haven't stopped armed experts.
55:22
They have done a very few small sanctions on Israeli settlers and everyone internationally
55:28
is agreed that settlers are illegal. We made that point, mke that this
55:31
was all kind of smoke and mirrors by various EU and by the British government.
55:37
She told the gathering that both she and Cameron believe strongly in Israel's right
55:43
to defend itself, but the right to self defense has a limit in law.
55:46
It's not limitless, and she went on to suggest that Israel's actions put
55:52
it and the UK's long term security at risk. Some of the ways in
55:55
which Israel is prosecuting this is making their long term security less certain. It
56:00
is making our the UK's long term security less certain. I'm amazed that our
56:06
national threat level has not gone up. So on the question of British government
56:10
transparency and accountability, this is just another nail in that proffin. Yes,
56:19
indeed it is now. I just want to end with this. So the
56:24
Daily Meal pushing this side and just Charles, I'm just staggered that this continues
56:30
to hint that we're heading back towards They're going to try this game again.
56:34
So the tweet here says it's a matter of when, not if. So
56:37
Daily Mail dot Com as seven bird flu experts of the h five and one
56:42
kiss in Texasses risks of a future pandemic. And this is what they said.
56:46
Now I'm not going to go into what they said in the article.
56:49
Everybody can imagine what they said in the article. But of course this comes.
56:52
This story is about the herd of cattle in Texas that has apparently been
56:58
cross contaminated with bird flu. And of course this means that we're all going
57:02
to die, and so we've got to first of all kill all our cattle
57:07
and second all being prepared for further lockdowns and vaccination regimes. I mean,
57:13
what more can we say? Yeah, exactly, And apparently animal welfare is
57:16
at the center of its specifically where it concerns birds. The idea that locking
57:22
them up inside would be a better alternative is extraordinary, And of course we
57:28
know it doesn't work because we tried it with humans and it went zastrously wrong.
57:31
But we don't need to worry because we've got the new gene editing legislation,
57:35
which means we can genetically engineer chickens that don't mind being indoors all the
57:39
time. Right, yeah, okay, okay, Now we've got a special
57:45
guest joining us for extra But tell us about this, I will. You
57:51
may remember if you were tuned into what's been going on in Gloucestershire that Matthew
57:57
Randolph has been sticking to Gloucester City Council, specifically to do with the way
58:04
in which they have tried to roll out five G masts since twenty twenty.
58:09
An article here from Gloucestershire Live about a meeting that he attended, as well
58:15
as some police and just a few points from Matthew, who, as Mike
58:21
says, will be joining us for extra So I really would encourage you to
58:24
stay on and listen to him. But particularly he has unearthed that the Freedom
58:30
Ination request showed that there were thirty prior approval applications for five G mass since
58:35
twenty twenty that had been approved, but there was no evidence of any meaningful
58:38
public consultation in accordance with planning law. And also the invalid ICNRP certificates of
58:45
safety submitted, which constitutes a breach of planning policy because it was made under
58:52
the name of a company called three UK Limited, which was dissolved in twenty
58:55
fifteen. So that's just a snapshot. Mathew will be going into much greater
59:00
t sentist exactly how he's achieved this, but he's really caused enormous changes at
59:07
the Council, and the other detail that's fallen out of this, which I
59:10
definitely should make you aware of lest it be a course of action that somebody
59:15
else might be considering. He has put himself forward as an independent Police and
59:21
Crime Commissioner and he's raised the five thousand pound some required. So I think
59:25
we're going to have a very interesting session in Extra. If you're unable to
59:29
join us an extra, then I can point you towards the indomitable Rachel Matthew's
59:34
recent interview with Matthew and Johnny Mack at Colchester Council watch on YouTube. He
59:40
gives a very good account of exactly how things have transpired and what further actions
59:45
he's going to be taken. So I hope we'll see you a bit later.
59:47
Okay, Well that said for today, thank you for joining us,
59:51
Thanks to Vanessa and the Charles for taking part, and we will be back,
59:54
as we say, for Extra in a couple of minutes time for UK
59:58
column member otherwise done, get the interview with Julian Rose at one pm tomorrow
1:00:02
and we'll be back on Friday at one pm as usual for the news.
1:00:06
See you then bye bye bye bye