Latest / UK Column Radio / UK Column News — 14th October 2026

Transcript

UK Column News — 14th October 2026 · UK Column Radio

0:16
Speaker 1: Good afternoon.
0:16
Speaker 2: It's Wednesday, the 14th of October, 2026, just after one o'clock.
0:20
Speaker 2: Welcome to UK Global News. I'm your host, Mike Robinson.
0:22
Speaker 2: Joining me by video link today are Charles Mallett and
0:25
Speaker 2: Vanessa Bealey. Later in the programme, we'll have the latest
0:28
Speaker 2: news from Gaza and Lebanon. We'll be covering the claim
0:30
Speaker 2: need to upgrade... national security, and we'll also be reporting
0:34
Speaker 2: on the continuing medical establishment attacks on outspoken doctors. But
0:39
Speaker 2: we'll begin today with the determination that Iran runs red
0:43
Speaker 2: diesel fraud schemes in the UK now, Charles.
0:48
Speaker 3: I don't think we can really draw the line there, Mike,
0:50
Speaker 3: because there are an enormous amount of things that could
0:53
Speaker 3: be appended to Iran. But what we're going to start with,
0:55
Speaker 3: and before I do actually start, I will say that
0:57
Speaker 3: if you've been wondering why UK column has been following
1:01
Speaker 3: the very theatrical story concerning RAF Fairford quite so closely,
1:04
Speaker 3: then I think this report will make it clear. So
1:07
Speaker 3: we're going to start with a joint statement that was
1:09
Speaker 3: released on Monday by the foreign ministers of a host
1:12
Speaker 3: of Commonwealth and European countries, as well as the UK
1:17
Speaker 3: and the United States.
1:18
Speaker 1: We can just stick that on screen.
1:21
Speaker 3: And we see in the subtext that there is a
1:25
Speaker 3: connection being made immediately. And I think it's not quite
1:29
Speaker 3: visible yet. But in effect, underneath the main text, it
1:33
Speaker 3: says there's a joint statement from the foreign ministers regarding
1:36
Speaker 3: RAF Fairford and Iran state threat. So the critical part
1:40
Speaker 3: there is that absolutely immediately these things are being connected.
1:46
Speaker 3: in a way that previously they hadn't, and as if
1:48
Speaker 3: by magic, it appears. So you see that underlined now.
1:51
Speaker 3: And then we go into some of the text of
1:53
Speaker 3: the statement itself. The foreign ministers condemn in the strongest
1:56
Speaker 3: terms Iran's use of violent attacks, including lethal plotting, arson, sabotage,
2:03
Speaker 3: cyber attack and other hybrid activities. So rather euphemistic language,
2:07
Speaker 3: nothing direct about Fairford. But we then go on to
2:10
Speaker 3: see that they recognise the United Kingdom's attribution of Iran's
2:15
Speaker 3: involvement in the incident at RAF Fairford on the 27th
2:19
Speaker 3: of September, and that the UK has also concluded this
2:24
Speaker 3: event demonstrates the IRGC's continued willingness to project hostile activity
2:30
Speaker 3: beyond its borders through covert networks and proxy actors. So
2:37
Speaker 3: it's really quite considerable. Of course, it doesn't end there
2:40
Speaker 3: because the Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, made a statement to
2:44
Speaker 3: the House of Commons on Monday, really following his time
2:49
Speaker 3: at the United Nations General Assembly saying, And of course,
2:52
Speaker 3: the theme of his statement was that of an uncertain world.
2:55
Speaker 3: So he started inevitably with support for Ukraine and the
2:58
Speaker 3: need for, interestingly, a national centre for information defence, about
3:02
Speaker 3: which we will hear more.
3:03
Speaker 1: In due course.
3:05
Speaker 3: He also said that he'd spoken to Donald Trump about
3:07
Speaker 3: the situation in the Middle East, the support for Saudi Arabia, who,
3:11
Speaker 3: of course, we are now also standing with. He moved
3:14
Speaker 3: on to talk about the European Commission, his discussions with
3:17
Speaker 3: Ursula von der Leyen, in advance of the summit with
3:20
Speaker 3: the EU in November. And it very much looks like
3:24
Speaker 3: now that the basis for rejoining the European Union is
3:28
Speaker 3: to be sold on the pretext of solving the migration
3:32
Speaker 3: problem and that people will get better prices for food
3:35
Speaker 3: as logistical difficulties causing food wastage and high prices will
3:39
Speaker 3: be done away with. Again, somewhat inevitably, he finished up
3:43
Speaker 3: by confirming that artificial intelligence will take centre stage at
3:46
Speaker 3: the British presidency of G20 next year. Certainly seems like
3:51
Speaker 3: an ill-judged and predictable statement in equal measure. And, of course,
3:56
Speaker 3: he spoke about RAF Fairford. So we'll just listen to
3:58
Speaker 3: what he had to say on that score.
4:02
Speaker 4: Since UNGA, Mr Speaker, we have been in close contact
4:04
Speaker 4: with the US about protective security at our shared bases.
4:09
Speaker 4: I want to thank our police and military personnel for
4:12
Speaker 4: their swift response to the incidents at RAF Fairford and
4:16
Speaker 4: RAF Molesworth. My Right Honourable Friend the Home Secretary will
4:20
Speaker 4: update the House regarding the incident at RAF Fairford, but
4:24
Speaker 4: I can confirm our assessment that it is highly likely
4:28
Speaker 4: to have been coordinated in Iran, almost certainly directed by
4:34
Speaker 4: Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard. We will not tolerate these threats
4:39
Speaker 4: on our soil. We will crack down on Iran's use
4:42
Speaker 4: of criminal networks, using our full range of powers to
4:45
Speaker 4: target them and their funding streams. And we will bring
4:49
Speaker 4: further sanctions to restrict the capacity of Iran and the
4:53
Speaker 4: IRGC to do us harm.
4:58
Speaker 3: It's also a bit unfortunate for him that he had
4:59
Speaker 3: to refer to RAF Molesworth because the troublemakers there are
5:04
Speaker 3: at least we are told Latvian and therefore presumably meant
5:08
Speaker 3: to be potential victims of so-called Russian aggression. However, he
5:11
Speaker 3: comes to the statement highly likely to have been coordinated
5:14
Speaker 3: in Russia.
5:15
Speaker 1: Iran, well, what?
5:16
Speaker 3: What was coordinated and what is this threat that he's
5:19
Speaker 3: talking about? The parking of three empty vans in a
5:23
Speaker 3: rural village seems to be all he's come up with.
5:26
Speaker 3: And this is 25 years after we were told that
5:28
Speaker 3: a man in a cave was supposed to have demolished
5:31
Speaker 3: a considerable part of New York and killing people. thousands
5:34
Speaker 3: of people in the process. But according to this government,
5:36
Speaker 3: the Iranians today can really only manage a bit of
5:38
Speaker 3: late-night van driving. Now, at the diplomatic level, this does,
5:42
Speaker 3: of course, create the basis for the joint statement, but
5:45
Speaker 3: it doesn't end there. The Home Secretary addressed the House later,
5:49
Speaker 3: and her statement was on national security. She began by
5:53
Speaker 3: evoking the murder of Anne Widdicombe and mixed this with
5:56
Speaker 3: the rise of extremism and terrorism and the threat to
5:59
Speaker 3: who she calls the champions of democracy, meaning parliamentarians. But inevitably,
6:05
Speaker 3: she too spoke about Fairford.
6:08
Speaker 5: The threat posed to our Jewish community shows us how
6:11
Speaker 5: the lines are increasingly blurring between extremism and state threats.
6:16
Speaker 5: We know the Iranian state is targeting our Jewish community.
6:20
Speaker 5: Earlier this year, the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right,
6:24
Speaker 5: or the IMCR, claimed responsibility for the arson attacks in
6:27
Speaker 5: North London. We know that members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary
6:31
Speaker 5: Guard Corps, the IRGC, were behind that group and most
6:35
Speaker 5: certainly directed its other attacks across Europe. This speaks to
6:40
Speaker 5: a wider trend. States like Iran are using proxies to
6:44
Speaker 5: conduct hostile activity here in Britain. They pay criminals or
6:48
Speaker 5: exploit naive volunteers attacking our country and its citizens while
6:53
Speaker 5: maintaining an air of plausible deniability. It is a brazen threat.
6:58
Speaker 5: but it is one that we are alert to and
7:01
Speaker 5: will not tolerate. And that is why this summer we
7:04
Speaker 5: fast-tracked the National Security State Threats Act through Parliament. This
7:09
Speaker 5: created stronger powers and tougher punishment to deal with state-backed
7:12
Speaker 5: threats to domestic security. And under these new powers, we
7:16
Speaker 5: have designated both the IMCR and the IRGC. This brings
7:22
Speaker 5: us to the recent events at RAF Fairford. As the
7:25
Speaker 5: Prime Minister has said, our assessment is that it is
7:28
Speaker 5: highly likely to have been coordinated by a known individual
7:32
Speaker 5: based in Iran and almost certainly directed by Iran's IRGC.
7:37
Speaker 5: The Foreign Secretary has today summoned the Iranian ambassador. He
7:41
Speaker 5: will condemn Iran's continued attempts to undermine our safety.
7:48
Speaker 3: So she's taken it to the next logical step, which
7:52
Speaker 3: is to connect the rise of anti-Semitism with whatever exactly
7:56
Speaker 3: is supposed to have happened at RAF Fairford. But there's
8:00
Speaker 3: certainly a theme. to be developed here. The Foreign Secretary,
8:03
Speaker 3: as she mentioned, was not to be left out. And
8:05
Speaker 3: he has submitted a statement. Now, he's restrained. He doesn't
8:08
Speaker 3: make any direct reference to Fairford. But he does say
8:10
Speaker 3: Iran's continued attempts to undermine the security of the United
8:14
Speaker 3: Kingdom is unacceptable. And he then goes on to flex
8:18
Speaker 3: his muscles by saying that Britain will not tolerate threats
8:21
Speaker 3: on our soil. And he's instructed his department to summon
8:25
Speaker 3: the ambassador. So quite a convoluted mechanism there. But he
8:28
Speaker 3: also ends by talking about imposing travel bans. And it's
8:31
Speaker 3: just interesting that he does refer, of course, to the
8:33
Speaker 3: Immigration Act 1971, which should be the piece of legislation
8:37
Speaker 3: keeping illegal migrants out of this country, which is very,
8:41
Speaker 3: very rarely actually made use of.
8:44
Speaker 1: But that was Miliband.
8:46
Speaker 3: And of course, We come to the Iranian embassy because
8:49
Speaker 3: they did respond to this. They certainly weren't going to
8:53
Speaker 3: let this go. I'm just going to quickly skip past
8:55
Speaker 3: their initial response. But they did put out a message
8:59
Speaker 3: yesterday in direct response to Miliband saying that the British
9:02
Speaker 3: government cannot evade its political and legal responsibility for its
9:06
Speaker 3: claims by hiding behind ambiguous language without providing solid evidence
9:11
Speaker 3: and substantiated evidence.
9:12
Speaker 1: Reasons.
9:13
Speaker 3: And of course, they are quite right to say so.
9:15
Speaker 3: And they highlight the phrases highly likely and almost certainly,
9:18
Speaker 3: which create the impression that attributing the alleged incident to
9:21
Speaker 3: Iran is credible. And it's an obvious attempt to escape
9:24
Speaker 3: accountability for making baseless accusations. Now, I think it would
9:29
Speaker 3: be difficult to disagree. And they go on to talk
9:32
Speaker 3: about Britain having a track record of fabricating such claims.
9:35
Speaker 3: So we go back to the original point, which is
9:38
Speaker 3: what exactly are we able to hang any of this on? Well,
9:41
Speaker 3: the latest from counterterrorism policing is that seven men in
9:45
Speaker 3: their 20s have been arrested And they're all on police bail. Now,
9:48
Speaker 3: they cannot be bailed if there really was absolutely a
9:52
Speaker 3: realistic idea that there was a threat or that there
9:55
Speaker 3: was the suggestion they could, in fact, be linked to
9:57
Speaker 3: acts of terrorism.
9:58
Speaker 1: So there is a serious.
9:59
Speaker 3: sense of desperation here.
10:01
Speaker 1: And all I would do is just end.
10:03
Speaker 3: By talking about the part the BBC has played in this,
10:07
Speaker 3: but also that the BBC itself 10 years ago talked
10:10
Speaker 3: about how liars create the illusion of truth, which is
10:12
Speaker 3: exactly what we see happening here. Repetition makes a fact
10:15
Speaker 3: seem more true regardless of whether it is or not.
10:18
Speaker 3: Understanding this effect can help you avoiding for propaganda.
10:22
Speaker 1: Oh, the irony.
10:23
Speaker 3: BBC Future crossed out this is absolutely happening in.
10:26
Speaker 1: The present day.
10:27
Speaker 3: And I think we shouldn't forget the BBC quoted Joseph Goebbels,
10:31
Speaker 3: repeating a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. Sorry,
10:34
Speaker 3: repeat a lie often enough. Now, I think we're pushed
10:38
Speaker 3: for time. Mike, I don't know if you've got any
10:39
Speaker 3: sort of closing comment there. But I think what we
10:41
Speaker 3: see is that the RAF Fairford story has been used
10:45
Speaker 3: as a means of justifying a narrative and an agenda, which,
10:48
Speaker 3: of course, is extending control and the commitment of huge
10:50
Speaker 3: amounts of money, to say the least.
10:54
Speaker 2: Well, yes, indeed. And we're just going to talk about
10:56
Speaker 2: how that same gag is being played with Russia as
10:59
Speaker 2: well in a second. But I'll just make the point, Charles,
11:02
Speaker 2: that the IMCR, whatever it's called this week, Islamic Movement
11:06
Speaker 2: of Companions of the Right, is a completely fake organization.
11:11
Speaker 2: We've highlighted this on many occasions, and yet she insists
11:15
Speaker 2: on repeating its existence in the House of Commons. Now,
11:19
Speaker 2: I would be very interested to see whether there's any
11:23
Speaker 2: sanction for that, because, of course, you're not supposed to
11:25
Speaker 2: mislead the House. But anyway, that's for the future. But
11:29
Speaker 2: let's just move on then to the issue of Ukraine
11:32
Speaker 2: and Russia because Ukrainian drones hit three data centers belonging
11:36
Speaker 2: to Yandex. Yandex is often called Russia's Google because it
11:41
Speaker 2: provides search services amongst many other things. These attacks took
11:45
Speaker 2: place between the 8th and the 11th of October. The
11:48
Speaker 2: company confirmed that its Sezavo site was shut down, that
11:51
Speaker 2: its Kaluga facility was partly disabled, and that the operations
11:56
Speaker 2: in Vladimir were fully suspended. So this affected payment systems,
12:01
Speaker 2: it affected taxis, mappings, cloud services across Russia and several
12:06
Speaker 2: neighboring countries. Now, within hours of the Vladimir strike, a
12:10
Speaker 2: screenshot from Cloudflare radar spread online. It showed bot classified
12:15
Speaker 2: traffic from Yandex's network falling to 0.4% of its recent peak.
12:20
Speaker 2: And what happened next was a barrage of so-called news
12:24
Speaker 2: reports spread. for the likes of Tom's Hardware, the pollster
12:27
Speaker 2: Frank Luntz, and UK trade title Computing, which we'll see
12:32
Speaker 2: in a second, which all presented it as evidence that
12:36
Speaker 2: Russian disinformation bots had been knocked out by these drone strikes.
12:41
Speaker 2: And in fact, on the 12th of October, Zelensky got
12:44
Speaker 2: involved in it because he told the Warsaw Security Forum
12:49
Speaker 2: that social media had become a little easier to breathe
12:52
Speaker 2: because of the refure bots. Computing even suggested it was
12:57
Speaker 2: a great day for democracy. But some of the headlines,
13:00
Speaker 2: if we put this one back on screen, claim that
13:02
Speaker 2: social media traffic in support of AFD in Germany, and
13:07
Speaker 2: in fact, in the UK, that social media traffic in
13:11
Speaker 2: support of reform had collapsed as a result of the
13:15
Speaker 2: Russian bot traffic having also collapsed. But the truth of
13:19
Speaker 2: the matter is, that the traffic in question, the internet
13:23
Speaker 2: traffic in question, came overwhelmingly from Yandex Bot. And this
13:27
Speaker 2: is the crawler that Yandex uses to index websites for
13:30
Speaker 2: its search engine. Cloudflare classifies Yandex Bot as a verified
13:34
Speaker 2: search bot. And figures pulled from Cloudflare's own data by
13:40
Speaker 2: security researchers show that Yandex Bot accounted for 99.8% of
13:45
Speaker 2: the bot requests from Russia, both before and during the strikes.
13:50
Speaker 2: And when the data centers went dark, the crawler stopped.
13:53
Speaker 2: And it was that data which appeared in the CloudFlare graph.
13:59
Speaker 2: Bot traffic, in fact, across Russia as a whole, only
14:02
Speaker 2: reduced by about 4%. So this didn't affect any of
14:06
Speaker 2: the other types of bot traffic that come from Russia
14:09
Speaker 2: at all. And so what is going on here? Well, basically,
14:16
Speaker 2: there was various... Charts shared on X, it got taken
14:22
Speaker 2: up by mainstream media and so on. And this is
14:26
Speaker 2: where the claims came from. But let's just remind ourselves,
14:28
Speaker 2: we go back several years, we were talking about this
14:31
Speaker 2: on Monday's program as well, to the way that the
14:33
Speaker 2: Integrity Initiative was organized as a network of influencers, journalists,
14:44
Speaker 2: and various other think tankers.
14:45
Speaker 6: And so on.
14:48
Speaker 2: If you think back to how that was organized and
14:50
Speaker 2: then bring that forward to the modern world and how
14:54
Speaker 2: that could be organized in the AI-driven world that we have,
14:57
Speaker 2: I think that's what we're seeing here. Charles, I don't
14:59
Speaker 2: know what your thoughts are on this, but it just
15:01
Speaker 2: seems to be blatant misrepresentation. And the question is whether
15:06
Speaker 2: all these mainstream outlets that jumped on this narrative that
15:09
Speaker 2: this was Russian-influenced bot accounts that were knocked out by
15:14
Speaker 2: the Ukrainian drones, do you think that that was... coordinated
15:19
Speaker 2: in the integrity initiative style or was it just accidental?
15:25
Speaker 3: Well, I think it's very hard to make a judgment
15:27
Speaker 3: on exactly that issue, whether or not something's deliberate or accidental.
15:31
Speaker 3: What I would say is it's very much doing the
15:33
Speaker 3: job of a lot of this propaganda exercise, which, first
15:38
Speaker 3: of all, to try to convince people that that's a
15:40
Speaker 3: victory for Ukraine. It further reinforces the point that Russia
15:44
Speaker 3: is absolutely up to no good all the time. And
15:47
Speaker 3: it is another example of look over there because it's
15:50
Speaker 3: only happening over there and we would never be doing
15:52
Speaker 3: anything like this ourselves at all.
15:55
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
15:55
Speaker 2: But another big part of it, of course, is the
15:58
Speaker 2: idea that Russia is interfering in Western democracies as if
16:01
Speaker 2: the West has any democracies anymore. Vanessa, if you've got
16:04
Speaker 2: any comment on that, please do. But in any case,
16:09
Speaker 2: you've got news from us from Gaza.
16:12
Speaker 7: I have, yeah. We should probably discuss the entire nudge
16:16
Speaker 7: unit influence on global communications in extra detail. But yes,
16:22
Speaker 7: I wanted to bring us back to Gaza this week,
16:25
Speaker 7: as of course it's dropped off the radar to a
16:28
Speaker 7: large degree. And this was a paper up at the
16:33
Speaker 7: Institute for National Security Studies, a Tel Aviv think tank,
16:39
Speaker 7: a traffic light model for implementing the Board of Peace
16:43
Speaker 7: framework in the Gaza Strip. So bringing us back to
16:46
Speaker 7: this concept that was allegedly invented by Trump and his
16:50
Speaker 7: Board of Peace. policy recommendations for Israel. So let's have
16:54
Speaker 7: a look at the actual map. Now, bear in mind
17:00
Speaker 7: that Gaza is a population of around 2.2 million, which
17:05
Speaker 7: has now been pushed into 38% of 365 square kilometers.
17:07
Speaker 7: So they're effectively now subsisting in 139 square kilometers, which
17:18
Speaker 7: for me is just extraordinary. Of course, the population is
17:21
Speaker 7: probably closer to 1.7 million after the estimated 500,000, 25%
17:26
Speaker 7: of the population has been obliterated throughout the genocide. But anyway,
17:34
Speaker 7: the red zone, according to the INSS, approximately 38% of
17:39
Speaker 7: the Gaza Strip and home to roughly 1.8 million Gaza
17:42
Speaker 7: residents under the control of Hamas. The green zone, approximately
17:48
Speaker 7: 53% of the Gaza Strip extending from its border to
17:51
Speaker 7: the yellow line, which marked the extent of Israeli control
17:55
Speaker 7: on the day the 20-point plan was adopted and is
17:58
Speaker 7: under the control of the IOF. The orange zone, approximately
18:03
Speaker 7: 12% of the Gaza Strip and also keeps expanding, compromising
18:09
Speaker 7: territory captured by the IOF beyond the yellow line between
18:12
Speaker 7: the ceasefire and the present. So effectively, Israel has been expanding.
18:18
Speaker 7: And if we actually look at this video, this was
18:23
Speaker 7: in the last 24 hours, what happens is that Israel
18:27
Speaker 7: keeps pushing forward those yellow blocks, which are effectively the
18:32
Speaker 7: yellow buffer zone. The blocks were moved about 300 meters
18:36
Speaker 7: westward in the neighborhoods of Al-Tufar and Al-Shuja'iyah, Before the
18:40
Speaker 7: troops withdrew, families woke up Thursday to suddenly find themselves
18:45
Speaker 7: on the wrong side of the yellow line, with the
18:48
Speaker 7: Israeli military shelling the new area that would be part
18:53
Speaker 7: of the extension. And this, of course, causes panic and displacement.
18:58
Speaker 7: And I also just wanted to show this video what
19:01
Speaker 7: happens once that yellow line has been pushed forward. This happens.
19:07
Speaker 7: Total obliteration and detonation of any remaining residential areas in
19:15
Speaker 7: the new area. And this is aerial footage once again,
19:20
Speaker 7: just showing the wholesale destruction in Gaza. I mean, just
19:26
Speaker 7: across the board. I mean, when I think back to 2012,
19:29
Speaker 7: when I was there, this was a bustling urban area.
19:34
Speaker 7: which is now, of course, completely flattened. But let's come
19:38
Speaker 7: back to the Trump peace plan. And this was back in,
19:41
Speaker 7: I think, December 2025. This was reported in Al Jazeera.
19:46
Speaker 7: It has all the points there. One of the points,
19:49
Speaker 7: Israel won't... occupy Gaza, which of course is palpably untrue.
19:53
Speaker 7: And it points out that the blue area is the
19:57
Speaker 7: current control, is currently under the control of the Israeli military.
20:02
Speaker 7: The yellow should denote initial withdrawal of the Israeli forces.
20:07
Speaker 7: Then you have the second withdrawal, which is the red line,
20:12
Speaker 7: eventually back to the third withdrawal, which is that buffer zone,
20:17
Speaker 7: which is a very much thinner sliver of land that
20:21
Speaker 7: we're currently seeing. Now, taking from the think tank policy documents,
20:30
Speaker 7: we can see that in reality, again, they call it
20:33
Speaker 7: the traffic light model. So Red, which is the area
20:38
Speaker 7: currently under Hamas control, total disarmament. Zionist withdrawal from the
20:45
Speaker 7: Green Zone is dependent on light weapons surrender. So once
20:49
Speaker 7: the heavy weapons are surrendered, they also then want the
20:52
Speaker 7: light weapons. There will be Egyptian intel involvement potentially to
20:56
Speaker 7: take control of the weapons. and police that have been
21:02
Speaker 7: trained in Egypt will be brought in as the new
21:05
Speaker 7: security force. The verification mechanism will be run by Turkey
21:10
Speaker 7: and Qatar, but Israel doesn't entirely trust them, and so
21:14
Speaker 7: therefore they also want another entity involved which is trusted
21:18
Speaker 7: by Israel. So in other words, to cut that down,
21:21
Speaker 7: basically there will be no resistance in that area. It
21:24
Speaker 7: will be fully under the control of Israel, and the
21:26
Speaker 7: verification mechanism will also be controlled by Israel. The orange
21:32
Speaker 7: area will be phased with rule back to the original
21:35
Speaker 7: yellow line. Are you confused? I think everybody should be
21:39
Speaker 7: by now. And that will remain under IOF occupation. Housing
21:45
Speaker 7: for residents that have passed security clearance, demilitarization in exchange
21:51
Speaker 7: for reconstruction. What does that actually mean? So if, for example,
21:55
Speaker 7: Hamas gives up 5,000 weapons, they might release 30% of
21:59
Speaker 7: the area for reconstruction based on the security clearance of
22:04
Speaker 7: the people to live in that reconstructed area. Entry from
22:08
Speaker 7: the red zone into the orange zone will be controlled
22:11
Speaker 7: by checkpoints. And then finally, the green zone will remain
22:15
Speaker 7: under Israeli control territory in exchange for verified demilitarization and
22:19
Speaker 7: any fabricated violation will equal increased land seizures.
22:25
Speaker 8: So.
22:27
Speaker 7: Just let me know if you see any relevance at
22:29
Speaker 7: all to the Trump peace plan and Israeli full withdrawal.
22:34
Speaker 7: And then on top of that, the Israelis now have
22:37
Speaker 7: classified tents. Most of the people in the red zone
22:41
Speaker 7: that we talked about are living in makeshift tents with
22:46
Speaker 7: winter coming in, if we can have the image and
22:48
Speaker 7: then the text. And tents have been classified with tarpaulins, timber, cement, tools, rope,
22:55
Speaker 7: duct tape and other materials to build tents or repair
22:59
Speaker 7: shelters as dual use items and are allowing only 15
23:03
Speaker 7: trucks a week carrying such items to enter the Gaza Strip.
23:07
Speaker 7: So yet again, another deprivation for Palestinians that are already
23:11
Speaker 7: living through food deprivation, energy, water deprivation and walking through
23:17
Speaker 7: pollution as soon as it rains, of course. And then finally,
23:21
Speaker 7: I just wanted to bring up, this was a recent
23:24
Speaker 7: talk with Belizel Smotrich, the Israeli embezzlement minister, rather than
23:30
Speaker 7: finance minister. And let's just hear what he says about
23:33
Speaker 7: the solution for Gaza.
23:35
Speaker 9: Yeah.
23:36
Speaker 5: And the same thing with Hawara.
24:02
Speaker 7: So basically the message is still we should wipe out
24:05
Speaker 7: all of Gaza. And then this for me was rather
24:09
Speaker 7: more horrifying. There was a debate, or really it wasn't
24:13
Speaker 7: a debate. It was a platform for a number of
24:16
Speaker 7: Zionist parties united against the Palestinian state. And this was
24:21
Speaker 7: a Jerusalem News Syndicate program, basically in English, So let's
24:28
Speaker 7: have a listen to what all of the political parties
24:33
Speaker 7: said in response to should there be a Palestinian state.
24:37
Speaker 2: Any kind of Palestinian state.
24:39
Speaker 7: It's a hell no.
24:41
Speaker 1: Okay, we got more than I had.
24:42
Speaker 6: Support any kind of establishment of a Palestinian state?
24:45
Speaker 4: Of course no.
24:46
Speaker 1: Clearly not, and we'll fight it tooth and nail in
24:48
Speaker 1: every which way we can.
24:49
Speaker 2: It's wrong, it's stupid, it's against God, it's against our history,
24:52
Speaker 2: and it's dangerous.
24:54
Speaker 4: No.
24:54
Speaker 6: The only reason there is no Palestinian state is not
24:58
Speaker 6: because any right-wing party ever prevented it, or any leader
25:01
Speaker 6: prevented it, or anyone wanted it. It doesn't exist because
25:06
Speaker 6: the Arabs have never wanted a state for themselves if
25:10
Speaker 6: it has to live to a Jewish state.
25:11
Speaker 1: No, and we do all that we can and we
25:14
Speaker 1: succeed in preventing it. No, no, no. No, definitely not.
25:18
Speaker 2: But unfortunately, Netanyahu is leading us to a Palestinian state
25:22
Speaker 2: right now.
25:23
Speaker 5: Against Palestinian state in any form, no other government.
25:27
Speaker 4: In the history of the state of Israel.
25:29
Speaker 5: Has done more to avoid a Palestinian state.
25:33
Speaker 3: Than this government with 103 new villages all across Judea
25:39
Speaker 3: and Samaria and 160 farms.
25:43
Speaker 5: A total revolution in Judea and Samaria.
25:49
Speaker 7: So when people say that if Netanyahu goes, perhaps things
25:52
Speaker 7: will change for the better, I think that proves they won't.
25:56
Speaker 8: Indeed.
25:57
Speaker 2: Thank you for that, Vanessa. Okay, let's move on then.
26:01
Speaker 2: If you like what the UK column does, we do
26:03
Speaker 2: need your ongoing support. Details on the website. If you
26:07
Speaker 2: have a look, you can make a donation or join
26:09
Speaker 2: as a member. Various levels of membership there. If you
26:13
Speaker 2: can't support us financially, please do share this programme and
26:17
Speaker 2: any other programmes or articles that you see that you like.
26:21
Speaker 2: But you can pick up, of course, a physical copy
26:23
Speaker 2: magazine uh the column issue three is available on the
26:26
Speaker 2: shop now uh do pick it up if you haven't
26:28
Speaker 2: got one already uh so on sunday at 7 p.m
26:32
Speaker 2: we've got a thousand words and uh this is matt
26:35
Speaker 2: glamour uh with jake fern on sunday 7 p.m join
26:39
Speaker 2: us for that now charles uh let's come back to
26:43
Speaker 2: you then and uh um so sorry one second charles
26:49
Speaker 2: come back to you and um Bring us up to
26:52
Speaker 2: date with what's been going on with doctors and the
26:55
Speaker 2: kind of pressure that they've been coming under from the
26:56
Speaker 2: medical establishment for any criticism of that medical establishment.
27:03
Speaker 1: Yes, thanks, Mike.
27:04
Speaker 3: I think it would be easy to consider that the
27:06
Speaker 3: pressures that medics were under specifically from 2020, to push
27:11
Speaker 3: the government and media narrative has largely subsided. Of course,
27:14
Speaker 3: that's not actually the case. And I'm going to concentrate
27:16
Speaker 3: on one specific example. But just before I do, I'd
27:19
Speaker 3: point to Dr. Dean Patterson, who's shown here from ITV
27:23
Speaker 3: News back in March, a Guernsey-based medic who was sacked
27:28
Speaker 3: after his stance on what he said to patients with
27:32
Speaker 3: regard to the continued presentation of COVID booster jabs. Now,
27:38
Speaker 3: somebody who has a very direct experience in all of
27:41
Speaker 3: this is Dr. Sam Bailey, who was practicing in New
27:44
Speaker 3: Zealand and has been, in effect, in the grip of
27:49
Speaker 3: the Medical Council of New Zealand for six long years.
27:52
Speaker 3: And this is her describing in an interview that I've
27:56
Speaker 3: just recorded with her exactly what it was that triggered
28:00
Speaker 3: that process.
28:04
Speaker 9: They said that they had grounds because I was spreading misinformation.
28:08
Speaker 9: So it was contrary to the New Zealand government's advice.
28:13
Speaker 9: And at that time, the vaccines hadn't come about, so
28:16
Speaker 9: they were talking about them, but they weren't out yet.
28:22
Speaker 9: And there was obviously a huge drive. They didn't want
28:26
Speaker 9: anyone speaking against it at all, especially doctors.
28:33
Speaker 3: So that was her direct experience. And there's been a
28:36
Speaker 3: six-year campaign waged against her. And she's finally got to
28:40
Speaker 3: the point where she is appealing for help, which will
28:43
Speaker 3: become clear a little bit later on. But I recorded
28:46
Speaker 3: an interview with her about the initial parts of this process,
28:49
Speaker 3: which is up on the UK column website from spring
28:52
Speaker 3: last year, Facing the Tyrants, in which she explains the background.
28:57
Speaker 3: She has now a bill for 250,000 New Zealand dollars
29:00
Speaker 3: from the Medical Council of New Zealand or face bankruptcy.
29:06
Speaker 3: And a question she'd had put to her was, well,
29:09
Speaker 3: why not just take the bankruptcy because then the debt
29:11
Speaker 3: gets scratched and that's not actually the way it works.
29:13
Speaker 3: So this is her just qualifying the position that she's in.
29:19
Speaker 9: I've had quite a few people ask me, why don't
29:21
Speaker 9: you just go into the state of bankruptcy and let
29:23
Speaker 9: it happen and let the money, you know, the debts
29:27
Speaker 9: be discharged. And unfortunately, it's not that simple. Basically, once
29:31
Speaker 9: you come into bankruptcy, they will seize assets and they
29:36
Speaker 9: go through everything. So it's not the official asset need.
29:40
Speaker 9: has a lot of power the greatest thing I fear
29:44
Speaker 9: with that process is that the medical council will win
29:48
Speaker 9: because they can then control whether my work so publishing
29:54
Speaker 9: online videos even though this is not This is not
29:59
Speaker 9: the practice of medicine or anything else, but they can
30:02
Speaker 9: decide that. So I do not want to be put
30:08
Speaker 9: into that state. So basically the medical council will get
30:10
Speaker 9: their money, but I will be personally heavily punished. And
30:15
Speaker 9: the truth of it is that I have fought them
30:18
Speaker 9: for six years. This has been a battle of litigation
30:22
Speaker 9: for six years. And to me it's strange because my
30:25
Speaker 9: youngest son, who's five, It's longer than his entire life.
30:30
Speaker 9: And you feel, well, how can I steal the thunder
30:34
Speaker 9: from the medical council? What is it that they want
30:36
Speaker 9: to do? They want to financially punish me. But I'm
30:42
Speaker 9: asking for help because this takes it away from them.
30:46
Speaker 9: It basically says, here's the public who I have stood
30:50
Speaker 9: up for. I've spoken the truth for. They are standing
30:55
Speaker 9: in the place for me. And I think that optically
31:01
Speaker 9: it's terrible for the medical council.
31:06
Speaker 3: And I think a point about the closing point there
31:08
Speaker 3: about the Medical Council is well made because, of course,
31:10
Speaker 3: she is no longer on the register. And yet they
31:13
Speaker 3: are still able to reach that far into her life,
31:16
Speaker 3: of course, with the full backing of the New Zealand state.
31:19
Speaker 3: This might be happening in New Zealand, but absolutely the
31:22
Speaker 3: same thing is able to happen in the United Kingdom.
31:25
Speaker 3: So what I would like to do is just show
31:27
Speaker 3: the page that she set up. entitled, Can You Help Dr.
31:31
Speaker 1: Sam?
31:31
Speaker 3: As I say, her fine is for 250,000 New Zealand dollars,
31:33
Speaker 3: which quotes to about 105, just over 105,000 pounds or 140,000
31:34
Speaker 3: US dollars, obviously a considerable amount of money quite a
31:43
Speaker 3: huge chunk of which has already been stumped up by
31:47
Speaker 3: the public, which is an amazing response to what she
31:50
Speaker 3: has put out. And as I said at the start,
31:53
Speaker 3: I recorded an interview with her just yesterday, and that's
31:56
Speaker 3: going to be going out tomorrow at one o'clock. So
32:00
Speaker 3: if you do feel that you would have interest in
32:04
Speaker 3: Looking at her case and then considering whether or not
32:06
Speaker 3: you would like to support, because the other thing she's
32:08
Speaker 3: asking for is that people take the medical council to task.
32:12
Speaker 3: And for her, this is not the end of it,
32:15
Speaker 3: but this is a means of being able to carry
32:17
Speaker 3: on with the rest of her life without the constant
32:20
Speaker 3: spectre of bankruptcy and all that goes with it. So
32:23
Speaker 3: I really would commend the interview to you and see
32:28
Speaker 3: what you think and obviously do share far and wide
32:31
Speaker 3: if it strikes a chord. Mike, I don't know if
32:32
Speaker 3: you've got any comment on, not necessarily Sam's particular plight,
32:36
Speaker 3: but the fact that this is still going on after
32:38
Speaker 3: six years.
32:40
Speaker 2: Well, they will not let go of these situations. And
32:45
Speaker 2: all I would say to everybody is, This is a
32:49
Speaker 2: freedom of speech issue, and it doesn't really matter, in
32:52
Speaker 2: my opinion, whether anybody agrees with the specific points that
32:57
Speaker 2: Sam Bailey has made over the years. The fact of
33:00
Speaker 2: the matter is we should be standing with her in
33:03
Speaker 2: her right to make those comments and for us to
33:07
Speaker 2: actually have a proper discussion about the issues. And Charles,
33:11
Speaker 2: you know, that is just something which is not happening.
33:17
Speaker 1: It is not happening at all.
33:18
Speaker 3: Of course, this is not confined just to those in
33:21
Speaker 3: the medical profession who've stuck their neck out. This is
33:23
Speaker 3: across the board. I hope that people are seeing this
33:26
Speaker 3: in the news that we're presenting because this covers so
33:29
Speaker 3: many of the particular disciplines or areas of news that
33:33
Speaker 3: we deal with. They all tend to point back to
33:36
Speaker 3: the same thing, the same mechanism and the sheer vindictiveness.
33:40
Speaker 1: That is at the heart of all of these things. Yes, absolutely.
33:45
Speaker 2: Now, just a very brief update then on Lola Sillam.
33:50
Speaker 2: We've covered this on Monday's program. This is a former
33:52
Speaker 2: girlfriend of Michael Gove and the former Oxford University lecturer
33:56
Speaker 2: now charged with possession of child sexual abuse material. And
34:01
Speaker 2: it appears that if there was a super injunction in place,
34:03
Speaker 2: as we suggested there might have been on Monday, it
34:05
Speaker 2: has now been lifted. The original story appeared in the
34:08
Speaker 2: Telegraph and the Daily Mail over the weekend. Both organizations
34:11
Speaker 2: subsequently took the story down, but not before Yahoo and
34:14
Speaker 2: AOL had syndicated it, and by Monday, it was only
34:17
Speaker 2: the AOL story, the AOL syndication of the Telegraph story
34:21
Speaker 2: that you saw just a second ago, which was still
34:24
Speaker 2: available in the UK. Except, as we pointed out, it
34:27
Speaker 2: was all over social media, and not just the story itself,
34:30
Speaker 2: but the fact of the apparent attempted cover-up. Now, it
34:34
Speaker 2: looks like the super injunction, as I say, has been removed,
34:37
Speaker 2: and there has been some subsequent reportings. The BBC coverage
34:41
Speaker 2: was very limited, as was most of the other coverage.
34:44
Speaker 2: So I would still categorize it as a cover-up. The
34:47
Speaker 2: BBC report made no mention of the connection of Lola
34:50
Speaker 2: Salem to Michael Gove, for example. One or two of
34:53
Speaker 2: the other republished reports do, but it's still very much
34:57
Speaker 2: being downplayed. Okay, now I just want to move on
35:02
Speaker 2: then to the courts, because the Burnham's government has published
35:05
Speaker 2: two new press releases promising faster justice. This is one
35:09
Speaker 2: of them, remote hearings to unlock capacity and speed up
35:12
Speaker 2: justice for victims. And the other one is trials across
35:15
Speaker 2: the country accelerated for fast and fair justice. Both press
35:20
Speaker 2: releases are very determined to claim that the removal of
35:22
Speaker 2: juries is not happening. They do mention this in each
35:26
Speaker 2: of them and that this change is included in amendments
35:29
Speaker 2: to the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which returns to Parliament
35:32
Speaker 2: this week. And again, this is simply false. It's a
35:35
Speaker 2: sleight of hand that Penn and Teller would have been
35:37
Speaker 2: proud of. because what has been dropped is the so-called
35:43
Speaker 2: bench division, under which a judge sitting alone would have
35:46
Speaker 2: tried cases likely to attract three years or less in prison.
35:53
Speaker 2: So those have been dropped. But a defendant's right to
35:56
Speaker 2: choose a jury trial for either-way offenses, so-called either-way offenses,
36:00
Speaker 2: such as theft, burglary, and many assaults, that has still
36:03
Speaker 2: been removed. It's still in the bill. Magistrates, not defendants,
36:08
Speaker 2: are going to decide where those cases are heard. The
36:11
Speaker 2: bill also lets the Lord Chancellor raise magistrates' maximum sentencing
36:15
Speaker 2: powers to two years by statutory instrument. It keeps judge-only
36:19
Speaker 2: trials for complex fraud against the advice of the government's
36:23
Speaker 2: own fraud reviewer, and it also limits the automatic right
36:26
Speaker 2: of appeal from magistrates. The Criminal Bar Association estimates that
36:32
Speaker 2: the surviving measures will divert about 25,000 cases a year
36:37
Speaker 2: from the Crown Court. Sorry, I'll bring that correct one
36:40
Speaker 2: back up on screen. And that's covered in the Law Gazette,
36:42
Speaker 2: for example. And that includes 5,500 cases that would have
36:47
Speaker 2: otherwise have gone before a jury, before this legislation. So
36:50
Speaker 2: the suggestion that the removal of jury trials has been
36:53
Speaker 2: dropped is a complete fraud. And the upshot of all
36:57
Speaker 2: this is that they claim juries will remain in almost
37:00
Speaker 2: all Crown Court cases. But what they're doing is simply
37:04
Speaker 2: moving cases to venues where juries aren't a thing so
37:07
Speaker 2: that cases never reach the Crown Court in the first place.
37:09
Speaker 2: And so they're not removing juries from Crown Courts, but
37:13
Speaker 2: they're removing your access to juries should you find yourself
37:16
Speaker 2: in that position. And the question is, will any of
37:18
Speaker 2: this work? Well, the government's own figures that I gave
37:22
Speaker 2: a quick preview of there a second ago absolutely show
37:26
Speaker 2: that the answer is no. So this is modelling, and
37:28
Speaker 2: I appreciate it's modelling, but nonetheless, this is what they're claiming.
37:31
Speaker 2: And these were published earlier this month, showing that the
37:35
Speaker 2: Crown Court backlog, which is currently 80,829 cases, rises in
37:38
Speaker 2: every scenario that they imagine here to between 91,000 and 104,000
37:41
Speaker 2: by 2028. And it falls only if officials also assume
37:42
Speaker 2: large efficiency gains, and those efficiency gains are not explained.
37:57
Speaker 2: Are we talking about the use of AI here, for example?
38:00
Speaker 2: What are these magical efficiency gains going to be? And
38:03
Speaker 2: then concerns also surround the methods being promoted. So the
38:06
Speaker 2: Ministry of Justice gave no breakdown of how many fast track,
38:11
Speaker 2: concluded fast track cases were guilty pleas, for example. Charles,
38:15
Speaker 2: what are your thoughts?
38:19
Speaker 3: Well, this looks very much like Ken Livingstone's alleged fiddling
38:23
Speaker 3: with the traffic lights before introducing the congestion charge. And
38:26
Speaker 3: there's a very good paper by the Institute for Government.
38:29
Speaker 3: You may take a view on what their agenda necessarily is,
38:32
Speaker 3: but it takes apart the entire campaign to do away
38:36
Speaker 3: with or amend or make any of the sorts of
38:38
Speaker 3: changes with regard to jury trials that you're talking about
38:41
Speaker 3: in effect.
38:42
Speaker 1: The system has been.
38:43
Speaker 3: Deliberately slowed down in order to make juries look bad
38:46
Speaker 3: and the other practical difficulty which is absolutely enormous and
38:50
Speaker 3: is never mentioned is that there is a massive deficit
38:53
Speaker 3: of magistrates so that the idea that this plan in
38:56
Speaker 3: any way can be delivered is complete pie in the
38:58
Speaker 3: sky and of course then the final reminder that magistrates
39:02
Speaker 3: have no background in law and have two days training,
39:06
Speaker 3: and then only another couple of days training over the
39:08
Speaker 3: next few years. The whole thing, I mean, you would
39:11
Speaker 3: say it was ludicrous if it weren't so serious. I mean,
39:14
Speaker 3: it is dreadful outcomes for anyone that has the misfortune
39:18
Speaker 3: to enter into the criminal justice system.
39:21
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
39:21
Speaker 2: Okay, Charles, back to you then, and let's discuss national security.
39:27
Speaker 3: We will, and I appreciate this might seem a bit heavy,
39:30
Speaker 3: bearing in mind we've already been through the Fairford shenanigans.
39:33
Speaker 3: But of course, no national security festival of propaganda is
39:37
Speaker 3: complete without a contribution from the Security Service. And yesterday,
39:40
Speaker 3: Ken McCallum, the chief of MI5, gave his annual threat update. Now,
39:46
Speaker 3: Of course, it has nothing to do with threats and
39:49
Speaker 3: everything to do with fear, misdirection, compliance, censorship, and crucially,
39:54
Speaker 3: the increased involvement of the private sector in national security,
39:59
Speaker 3: which we'll come on to. But this is how McCullum
40:01
Speaker 3: started his speech.
40:04
Speaker 8: Five years into my career, 9-11 struck, ending almost 3,000
40:09
Speaker 8: lives and devastating many more. A seismic shock that changed
40:12
Speaker 8: the world and changed MI5. demanding radical transformations we took
40:17
Speaker 8: on a radically different form of threat. We're there again.
40:22
Speaker 8: Since I started in this role in 2020, there has
40:25
Speaker 8: been another generational shift. We have again entered a new
40:29
Speaker 8: era of national security requiring a new response. So today,
40:34
Speaker 8: I want to talk directly to the British public. When
40:38
Speaker 8: you hear national security, don't just think of Ukraine, subsea cables,
40:42
Speaker 8: armed drones or cyber weapons. Think also of the place
40:46
Speaker 8: where you live, where you work. Think of a flicker
40:50
Speaker 8: in the power grid supplying your home. Think of your
40:53
Speaker 8: local synagogue or mosque having to install enhanced security. Think
40:59
Speaker 8: of a toxic or manipulative post on social media. Think, perhaps,
41:03
Speaker 8: of what online algorithms are feeding your teenagers in their bedrooms.
41:08
Speaker 8: We all have a stake in our national security. And
41:12
Speaker 8: because we all have a stake, we have some adaptance
41:14
Speaker 8: to it.
41:18
Speaker 1: So there we go.
41:19
Speaker 3: 25 years on, he's invoked 9-11. He's talking about a
41:22
Speaker 3: new era of national security requiring a new response. But
41:26
Speaker 3: also critically, we all have a stake and we all
41:29
Speaker 3: have some adapting to do. And this is the kind
41:32
Speaker 3: of communication that we see across the board. He went
41:34
Speaker 3: on to cover all the usual bases. Russia is the
41:37
Speaker 3: most dangerous foe out there, Iran a close second, but
41:40
Speaker 3: they're both, between them, responsible for absolutely everything that goes wrong.
41:44
Speaker 3: He did manage to avoid mentioning Fairford. There was no need, really.
41:49
Speaker 3: And the theme was resilience, which, of course, it turns out,
41:54
Speaker 3: is your job. The Russian embassy response to this was
41:58
Speaker 3: attributing every cyber incident, drone mishap and criminal case in
42:02
Speaker 3: Europe to Moscow is convenient, particularly when no evidence is offered. And,
42:07
Speaker 3: of course, no evidence is absolutely the thread that runs
42:10
Speaker 3: through this programme on the national security front anyway, if
42:13
Speaker 3: we go back to the considerations around Fairford. But I'm
42:16
Speaker 3: now going to take you to the end of his
42:17
Speaker 3: speech and considering again the onus being forced onto the individual.
42:24
Speaker 8: That concludes this year's overview, which I share not to
42:28
Speaker 8: provoke anxiety, but to encourage preparedness. To keep ourselves safe,
42:34
Speaker 8: we need our nation, our people, our businesses, our communities.
42:40
Speaker 8: To be clear-eyed about the more contested world we now
42:42
Speaker 8: live in, but also confident in our ability to resist
42:45
Speaker 8: the pressures our adversaries try to put us under. You
42:50
Speaker 8: should expect to hear more from government in the coming
42:52
Speaker 8: months on how we can all be more resilient. For now,
42:55
Speaker 8: my advice is this. If you work in critical infrastructure,
43:00
Speaker 8: or you're a defence supplier, large or small, follow our counter-sabotage,
43:04
Speaker 8: hostile reconnaissance and counter-drone guidance. If you're a researcher in
43:09
Speaker 8: one of the UK's universities, know the value of your
43:11
Speaker 8: pioneering work and use our trusted research advice to safeguard it.
43:16
Speaker 8: If you're a tech startup, expect to be spied on
43:19
Speaker 8: by foreign actors and source your cybersecurity. If you're a
43:24
Speaker 8: parent and you're worried your teenager is being taken down
43:27
Speaker 8: some dark paths on the internet, have a word with
43:30
Speaker 8: a teacher, healthcare professional, or someone you trust in your community.
43:35
Speaker 8: You can also raise your concern in confidence with the
43:37
Speaker 8: police's Act Early helpline. If you spot something odd, that
43:42
Speaker 8: you think might relate to a national security threat, contact
43:45
Speaker 8: the anti-terrorist hotline or Crimestoppers. If you're none of the
43:49
Speaker 8: above but a consumer of news, think about what you're
43:53
Speaker 8: willing to believe, from whom, and why. My message to
43:58
Speaker 8: the British public is this. You have a stake in
44:02
Speaker 8: our national resilience. You too have a vital role to play.
44:07
Speaker 8: It might be quiet. It might be life-saving. It all counts.
44:12
Speaker 8: Our adversaries are trying to mess with us, undermine us,
44:16
Speaker 8: divide us. We can choose not to let them.
44:23
Speaker 3: Now, I'm not sure that advertising agencies have swooped to
44:27
Speaker 3: invite him to help businesses sell their products, although that
44:30
Speaker 3: is in actual fact exactly what he is doing. And
44:33
Speaker 3: we look no further than PPN 025, which was published
44:37
Speaker 3: earlier in the summer because it's a critical update on
44:40
Speaker 3: the guidance with regard to public procurement. The government's National
44:44
Speaker 3: Security Strategy 2025 is clear that we are entering a
44:48
Speaker 3: new era of radical uncertainty and that a major cultural
44:52
Speaker 3: shift is needed for the UK to respond effectively to
44:57
Speaker 3: ensure public procurement plays its part. The government's taking action
45:00
Speaker 3: to recalibrate its approach so that the UK's huge purchasing
45:04
Speaker 3: power is more effectively deployed to protect our national security.
45:09
Speaker 3: There it is, writ large, that is exactly what McCullum's
45:12
Speaker 3: talking about. We then look at the cybersecurity analysis from
45:16
Speaker 3: this year published back in May, and they confirm that
45:19
Speaker 3: against this backdrop, against similar rhetoric to do with the
45:22
Speaker 3: radical uncertainty that McCullum talks about, The Cybersecurity and Resilience Bill,
45:27
Speaker 3: which of course has not yet passed, aims to deliver
45:29
Speaker 3: a step change in the UK's national security, so almost
45:33
Speaker 3: identical language, making digital services more secure in the face
45:38
Speaker 3: of cybercriminal and state actors.
45:41
Speaker 1: And here we go.
45:42
Speaker 3: Public procurement of cybersecurity products has strengthened further with 967
45:47
Speaker 3: contracts to the value of 1.5 billion. And this represents
45:51
Speaker 3: a 62% increase in contract value compared to 2004. So obviously,
45:55
Speaker 3: we are a year out of date. But this has
45:57
Speaker 3: gone up sixfold since 2019. And for just an idea
46:03
Speaker 3: or an example of what this actually means, we look
46:05
Speaker 3: at Amazon Web Services, a very obvious example for national
46:09
Speaker 3: security and defence. Our cloud capabilities enhance departmental mission effectiveness,
46:13
Speaker 3: improve collaboration, not obviously specified between whom, and allow the
46:18
Speaker 3: government to tackle extant and emerging national security threats. So
46:22
Speaker 3: everybody is in line to get a piece of the pie,
46:25
Speaker 3: especially if they are in the private sector.
46:27
Speaker 1: And then we consider defence.
46:29
Speaker 3: There's Luke Pollard, who earlier this year, in response to
46:32
Speaker 3: a question, said later this year, 2026, the Ministry of
46:34
Speaker 3: Defence finance and investment strategy, setting out how the government
46:40
Speaker 3: will work with investors to mobilise private capital in support
46:44
Speaker 3: of defence capability, resilience and growth. Now, Mike, I don't
46:50
Speaker 3: know if you've got a quick comment on how much
46:53
Speaker 3: disclosure there will be in what it is that Pollard
46:56
Speaker 3: says he's going to be putting out later this year.
46:59
Speaker 2: No, but we can talk about that next. But what
47:00
Speaker 2: I will just mention, it was noted in the chat
47:02
Speaker 2: box as well, that, of course, he mentioned the dangers
47:05
Speaker 2: to synagogues and mosques, but not to churches. And, of course,
47:08
Speaker 2: the other thing is I do wonder how he was
47:10
Speaker 2: able to simply, perhaps with forked tongue, I don't know,
47:15
Speaker 2: say that he was not speaking to provoke anxiety while
47:19
Speaker 2: all the time provoking anxiety. So quite incredible how these
47:24
Speaker 2: people can make these kinds of comments with a straight face.
47:27
Speaker 2: We'll talk about that in extra no doubt. Vanessa, let's
47:29
Speaker 2: come back to you then and Lebanon.
47:33
Speaker 4: Yes.
47:35
Speaker 7: Lebanon also very often not reported in the media, despite
47:41
Speaker 7: the fact that Israel is continuing effectively its ethnic cleansing
47:46
Speaker 7: programs in the South. And this has even been reported
47:49
Speaker 7: in the New York Times. Israel's destruction of southern Lebanon
47:54
Speaker 7: intensified after the so-called ceasefire, which was back in, I think,
48:00
Speaker 7: April of this year. So more than 49 villages have
48:05
Speaker 7: been fully destroyed. And as they say, much of this
48:10
Speaker 7: stretch of Israeli-occupied Lebanon is now a wasteland, a vast
48:15
Speaker 7: expanse of mostly destroyed villages. And within the article itself,
48:21
Speaker 7: I just want to show one example of the before
48:24
Speaker 7: and after. This is Beit Yachun. So this was before
48:28
Speaker 7: the ceasefire on April the 16th. Villages like this, after
48:36
Speaker 7: the ceasefire was declared and Israel entrenched its occupation in
48:40
Speaker 7: the south, Israeli forces flattened the entire village. And again,
48:46
Speaker 7: just to show an aerial view of areas in Lebanon. Actually,
48:51
Speaker 7: this was one year ago. I couldn't actually find a
48:54
Speaker 7: very recent one. But you can imagine that now these
48:58
Speaker 7: areas are even more demolished than they were previously. And
49:03
Speaker 7: of course, farmland, environmental, ecological areas have also been destroyed.
49:09
Speaker 7: largely through mass detonation. And then this is reporting from
49:16
Speaker 7: Rokhaya Shramstein, who people may have realized is now writing
49:21
Speaker 7: regularly for UK Column. She's based in the South. Her
49:25
Speaker 7: reports are extremely moving. She's interviewing the families of martyrs
49:30
Speaker 7: and peoples whose homes have been fully destroyed. And here
49:34
Speaker 7: she writes, The death of Lebanese engineer Hussein Ramadan comes
49:39
Speaker 7: during the annual autumn olive harvest in southern Lebanon. The
49:43
Speaker 7: period marks a vital economic season and ancestral tradition for
49:47
Speaker 7: our local farming communities. Israeli forces have systematically and deliberately
49:52
Speaker 7: targeted indigenous agricultural lands with white phosphorus shelling, artillery shelling, airstrikes,
49:59
Speaker 7: cluster munitions and unexploded ordnance. in order to create hazardous
50:04
Speaker 7: conditions that prevent residents from not only returning to their land,
50:09
Speaker 7: but harvesting their crops. And also in the last 48 hours,
50:14
Speaker 7: another resident of the south was killed during the olive harvest,
50:20
Speaker 7: if we can just bring that up, with the... Thank you. Basically,
50:28
Speaker 7: Israel killed Ali Abdel Hassan Sweden, who was a first
50:32
Speaker 7: warrant officer in the Lebanese army, by shelling him with
50:36
Speaker 7: artillery while he was inspecting his land during the olive
50:39
Speaker 7: harvest in an area of southern Lebanon. So civilians are
50:45
Speaker 7: being targeted on a very regular basis. And the olive
50:50
Speaker 7: trees themselves are actually, as they have been across Palestine,
50:55
Speaker 7: in the occupied territories, they're being uprooted and stolen. And
50:59
Speaker 7: in fact, 600 centenarian olive trees were uprooted by Israel
51:05
Speaker 7: in South Lebanon. And a 37-year-old French Lebanese citizen has
51:11
Speaker 7: denounced the uprooting of trees, some of which he says
51:14
Speaker 7: were half a millennium old on lands cultivated by his
51:17
Speaker 7: family for 250 years in the south, his native village.
51:23
Speaker 7: And according to his complaint, filed as a civil party
51:26
Speaker 7: for theft, destruction and deterioration of property constituting war crimes
51:32
Speaker 7: or offences, have been verified by the media outlets that
51:37
Speaker 7: are following the case. So, again, wherever Israel goes, we're
51:42
Speaker 7: seeing the same destruction, the same ecological devastation through white
51:47
Speaker 7: phosphorus detonation of ecological and environmental issues. areas particularly farmland
51:54
Speaker 7: of course agricultural land um and natural habitat for many
52:00
Speaker 7: species in the south so again i i don't know
52:03
Speaker 7: what else to call it other than ecocide and genocide.
52:09
Speaker 2: Yes uh thanks for that vanessa charles i wonder before
52:13
Speaker 2: we move on you've got any thoughts.
52:17
Speaker 3: Well, I think probably the same one when Vanessa made
52:20
Speaker 3: remarks on a similar line, which is that the absolute,
52:23
Speaker 3: you know, I mean, obviously she deals very well with
52:26
Speaker 3: the human element, but the destruction of the landscape, which
52:30
Speaker 3: is met with complete and utter silence by the sort
52:33
Speaker 3: of hijacked environmental lobby that has now become the climate
52:37
Speaker 3: change lobby and the inconsistency between is just so enormous because,
52:41
Speaker 3: of course, in ignoring that, it means that the human
52:44
Speaker 3: devastation and cost can also be ignored. So just the
52:48
Speaker 3: amount of hypocrisy as well as absolutely sort of grim
52:56
Speaker 3: conduct of the way in which these things are done,
53:00
Speaker 3: it's just, you know, it's terrible to behold, really.
53:04
Speaker 1: Absolutely is.
53:05
Speaker 2: Yes, thank you for that. Okay, let's come on to
53:08
Speaker 2: the idea of an integrated force then. So first of all,
53:11
Speaker 2: this is the website of DSEI UK. It's a biannual
53:16
Speaker 2: death fest held at the Excel Center in London. It
53:18
Speaker 2: draws around 65,000 visitors and 1,700 exhibiting companies. Describes itself
53:24
Speaker 2: as a pivotal event for the global defense industry as
53:27
Speaker 2: the flagship defense event for the UK. DSEI UK promotes
53:31
Speaker 2: the UK's defense ethos, agenda, and leadership while encouraging the
53:35
Speaker 2: opportunity and cooperation with our global allies. And Charles, looking
53:39
Speaker 2: at the video header of the DSEO website, just put
53:42
Speaker 2: it back on screen there if we can. This looks
53:44
Speaker 2: to be like a bunch of children playing with toys.
53:46
Speaker 2: And the tragedy is these toys kill people increasingly automatically.
53:50
Speaker 1: Do you think that's unfair? I don't, no.
53:56
Speaker 3: I mean, I think that is exactly how it is done.
53:59
Speaker 3: I mean, it is very clever. There is sort of
54:02
Speaker 3: an excitement about the technical sophistication or the capability. And
54:06
Speaker 3: of course, when your first contact with any of this
54:09
Speaker 3: sort of kit is in that kind of environment, in
54:12
Speaker 3: other words, it is in, I can't think of the
54:16
Speaker 3: word now, but a synthetic environment where there isn't actually
54:19
Speaker 3: destruction being wrought as a consequence of whatever it is
54:23
Speaker 3: that you're in effect playing with, then immediately that sort
54:26
Speaker 3: of hurdle, at least in people's minds, is jumped and
54:31
Speaker 3: you're fixated on what the thing can do with regard
54:34
Speaker 3: to its bettering, whatever it was that was there before,
54:38
Speaker 3: rather than thinking about the destruction, which will in fact
54:42
Speaker 3: result from it being deployed in the field.
54:45
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
54:46
Speaker 2: So the theme for DSEI 2027 is the integrated force,
54:50
Speaker 2: as mentioned. And speaking at the launch of DSEI UK
54:54
Speaker 2: 2027 was Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal
54:57
Speaker 2: Sir Richard Knighton. And he told BFBS Forces News, fundamentally,
55:03
Speaker 2: this is a race. And the question is, what did
55:07
Speaker 2: he mean by that? Because he was speaking about his
55:10
Speaker 2: assertion that the UK and its allies are in a
55:12
Speaker 2: race to be ready for conflict. So let's just have
55:15
Speaker 2: a listen to what he said.
55:18
Speaker 4: Before I do, let me first welcome the new member.
55:23
Speaker 2: Sorry, that is the wrong clip. So let's see. Probably
55:29
Speaker 2: my fault, so I must apologize. We'll get that sorted
55:34
Speaker 2: out for extra anyway. But anyway, he was joined by
55:38
Speaker 2: National Armaments Director Rupert Pierce, who set a pretty short deadline.
55:43
Speaker 2: He said, we have until the end of 2030 at
55:45
Speaker 2: best to deter and be ready to fight. So the
55:50
Speaker 2: question is, what is the integrated force? Well, the concept
55:53
Speaker 2: comes from the Strategic Defense Review published in June 2025,
55:57
Speaker 2: which The review, as we've mentioned many times, written by
56:01
Speaker 2: Lord Robertson, Dr. Fiona Hill and General Sir Richard Barrons.
56:05
Speaker 2: And the aim is to move the Army, Royal Navy
56:08
Speaker 2: and RAF from working jointly as separate services that cooperate
56:11
Speaker 2: into a single networked force. In that force, troops, crewed platforms, drones,
56:18
Speaker 2: AI and data are linked across land, sea, airspace and cyber.
56:22
Speaker 2: And the document argues that counting soldiers and platforms is
56:26
Speaker 2: no longer a meaningful task. measure of military power, so
56:29
Speaker 2: we don't need to worry about how many soldiers we got.
56:32
Speaker 2: It's much bigger than that, apparently. It says combat effect
56:35
Speaker 2: now comes from networks of crewed and uncrewed systems acting
56:39
Speaker 2: at machine speed. And the state's purpose is readiness for
56:43
Speaker 2: high-intensity war against the peer adversary, with Russia named as
56:47
Speaker 2: the immediate threat under a NATO-first posture. And they also
56:51
Speaker 2: talk about the Army's 20-40-40 model. So for the Army,
56:53
Speaker 2: this They're talking about a tenfold increase in lethality by
57:00
Speaker 2: 2035 using roughly the same number of soldiers. But they
57:04
Speaker 2: talk about recce strike, which is linking sensors directly to
57:08
Speaker 2: weapons so targets can be found and destroyed quickly. In
57:10
Speaker 2: other words, replace soldiers with AI. And that's why they're
57:14
Speaker 2: suggesting that they can maintain the same level of personnel
57:19
Speaker 2: by but increase the effectiveness 10 times. And then there's 20-40-40,
57:24
Speaker 2: which is where a force is made up of about
57:26
Speaker 2: 20% crewed armor, helicopters, and infantry, 40% reusable drones and
57:31
Speaker 2: robotic vehicles, and 40% single-use loitering munitions, one-way attack drones
57:37
Speaker 2: and shells. And of course, this is apparently, they would claim,
57:41
Speaker 2: based on what they've learned from the Ukraine conflict. Now,
57:46
Speaker 2: Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Roly Walker, told
57:50
Speaker 2: Russi's land warfare conference in June that the army must
57:52
Speaker 2: pivot hard to the 2040-40 model. And he suggested 10,000,
57:58
Speaker 2: putting 10,000 small drones, or that, sorry, that there are 10,000
58:01
Speaker 2: small drones already in soldiers' hands. Now, of course, we
58:06
Speaker 2: know that the defense investment plan didn't go anywhere near
58:09
Speaker 2: far enough to actually achieve any of this stuff. And
58:12
Speaker 2: that was why the previous Secretary of State for Defense,
58:17
Speaker 2: who's now the current Secretary Chancellor of the Exchequer resigned.
58:21
Speaker 2: And of course, that resulted in Starmer's resignation as well.
58:26
Speaker 2: John Healey wasn't the only one that resigned. Al Carnes
58:28
Speaker 2: resigned at the same time. And when the plan was published, 4.7
58:34
Speaker 2: billion pounds of the final package still had the money
58:37
Speaker 2: for that, still had to be found. And of course, that's,
58:39
Speaker 2: I believe, what the Global Defense Bank is all about.
58:43
Speaker 2: But Charles, you have some experience in this area. What
58:47
Speaker 2: are your thoughts about this integrated force and the 20-40-40 plan?
58:55
Speaker 3: Well, you can dress it up in whatever language you like.
58:57
Speaker 3: And Rowley-Walsh has continued insistence on increased lethality without really
59:02
Speaker 3: providing any evidence to suggest that he is capable of
59:06
Speaker 3: achieving that with the particular tools that he's supposed to
59:09
Speaker 3: have at his disposal.
59:10
Speaker 1: Or will have, because of course all this is future.
59:13
Speaker 3: So first of all, it's actually the suggestion of increasing
59:16
Speaker 3: the number of communications nodes, which makes a much greater
59:20
Speaker 3: complexity than what exists at the moment. So yes, Of course,
59:23
Speaker 3: there are difficulties between running things when one service is
59:28
Speaker 3: conducting an operation alongside another, just as there is when
59:31
Speaker 3: one company within a particular regiment is working with another one.
59:34
Speaker 1: That will always exist.
59:35
Speaker 3: But I think the most telling part from the Strategic
59:38
Speaker 3: Defence Review for me is is, and I quote, digital
59:41
Speaker 3: enablement is at its core. This is at the core
59:44
Speaker 3: of the integrated force, a common digital foundation of data,
59:47
Speaker 3: artificial intelligence, synthetic environments and networks connects people and platforms
59:51
Speaker 3: across all domains, and with allies and partners. This gives
59:56
Speaker 3: the integrated force agility, speed of maneuver, and effective targeting
59:59
Speaker 3: to outmatch opponents. Now, I know that's quite a lot
1:00:01
Speaker 3: of what you've already reported, but it just looks exactly
1:00:05
Speaker 3: like another example of we'll just give it to AI
1:00:08
Speaker 3: because we don't really understand what AI does. We don't
1:00:11
Speaker 3: know how to achieve it any other way, but we're
1:00:13
Speaker 3: going to put our money on that and just hope
1:00:15
Speaker 3: for the best.
1:00:17
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
1:00:18
Speaker 2: Well, we'll discuss that more in News Extra in a
1:00:21
Speaker 2: few minutes' time. So if you are a UK Call member,
1:00:23
Speaker 2: stay on the live stream for Extra. If you're not
1:00:26
Speaker 2: a member, maybe you'd like to join us. But anyway,
1:00:28
Speaker 2: we've got to leave it there for today. Thanks, everyone
1:00:30
Speaker 2: that has joined us for the news today, and we'll
1:00:32
Speaker 2: see you next time.
1:00:33
Speaker 1: Thanks.
1:00:34
Speaker 7: Bye-bye.