Latest / UK Column Radio / Weekly UKC Banter Episode 12

Transcript

Weekly UKC Banter Episode 12 · UK Column Radio

0:38
I was chatting to a cartoonist trend of friend of mine this
0:41
week and and he was saying that it's not looking good in the UK.
0:46
Well, a whole host of things going on in the UK in this area.
0:52
We've got the Online Safety Act, we can talk more about that.
0:56
We've got the use of the Terrorism Act.
0:58
I'm quite sure Charles will have a lot to say about that.
1:01
And we have the absolute determination by the government
1:07
to paint everybody that's critical of government narrative
1:11
as being a right wing extremism extremist.
1:14
And but Jeremy, what I'm going to say to you straight away is
1:18
we have been telling people that this was what was going to
1:21
happen since 2016 when the original online harms white
1:25
paper came out 2017. And we've been talking about the
1:30
rise of right wing extremism narrative not and we've been
1:34
saying that that was not real from about the same time.
1:38
And so, you know, none of this should be a surprise to anybody
1:42
that's been following the column.
1:44
We've got people being stopped from speaking out in reality,
1:48
whenever you know, it doesn't matter how misguided the people
1:53
who posted on social media over the the stabbings in the school
1:59
last August, doesn't matter how misguided some of those comments
2:03
were, in my opinion. People went to prison for what
2:08
they posted on social media and some people died in prison for
2:13
what they posted on social media.
2:14
At the same time, the British government released murderers
2:17
and rapists from prison to make room for these people.
2:21
This was a direct attack by the British government on the people
2:25
of this country in order to make sure that there was a chilling
2:29
effect on any criticism of government policy.
2:33
Now, that's aside from the other things that we've been talking
2:35
about, that this is real, it's happening and and you know, I
2:41
will die on the hill of everybody's right to say what
2:44
they think. I may not agree with any of it.
2:48
So what? That is the point of dialogue.
2:50
You can't have a dialogue if you're shutting, shutting down
2:54
freedom of speech. It's as simple as that.
2:57
And this is real. It's happening absolutely every
3:00
single day of the week. People are being arrested for
3:04
speaking out on topics that the British government does not want
3:08
people speaking out on. So the, so the, the, the two key
3:12
acts that are being used here are first of all on the Online
3:15
Safety Act, which I can say something about.
3:18
And the second act is the Terrorism Act, which Charles can
3:22
absolutely say something about. Yeah, I mean, there's, there's
3:27
that side. I think there's also the, the
3:30
Public Order Act would sorry, the, the Public Order Act 1986.
3:34
We've now got the Public Order Act 2023 as well that I think
3:38
another point to bring in when we're talking about how free
3:42
speech and discussion around it has flared up over the last
3:44
couple of weeks. We are also seeing how the
3:49
groundwork that was prepared surrounding what was described
3:52
as hate speech is coming into its own.
3:56
Because for a large number of people, there is enormous
4:00
confusion about what free speech means in the 1st place.
4:04
And whether or not something that, as Mike suggests, refers
4:10
to controversial or sensitive topics like events in Southport
4:15
last year. Whether free speech is somehow
4:20
bashed over the head by what's been described sort of loosely
4:25
and deliberately loosely as as hate speech.
4:29
And whether there's a way in which people can be led to
4:33
believe that there are certain things that just cannot be said.
4:37
And that is in a sense how the government are convincing the
4:44
masses that wielding the various pieces of legislation that they
4:47
have at their disposal can be done in a legitimate sense,
4:51
because people are already predisposed against much of the
4:54
language that people are putting out and then subsequently being
4:59
pursued by means of the criminal justice system for posting in
5:04
the 1st place. So as with all these sorts of
5:06
campaigns, the, the scent that's laid in the in the lead up to
5:13
this is now paying dividends. And, and I'm sure there are,
5:18
there are many other ways in which that could be articulated,
5:21
but I think it really does have to be noted that there is
5:25
confusion about what it means and the and the public response
5:30
to certain things now is, is knee jerk.
5:34
You know, the sort of, you just can't say that.
5:37
Well, why? Or rather, why not?
5:42
What they said was that, well, what Well, the person who the
5:46
person who died, and I'm ashamed to say I can't remember off the
5:50
top of my head, his name, he was a grat, sorry.
5:53
Peter Lynch. Peter Lynch Thank you very much,
5:55
Charles Right, right. So, so he a grandfather who
6:00
decided to come out on the streets following Southport
6:05
stabbings and he was carrying a placard, which I can't remember
6:12
exactly what it said, but something along the lines of the
6:14
police are corrupt, something like this.
6:17
He he he was not violent in any way.
6:21
He was not carrying out any sort of he wasn't assaulting anybody,
6:27
he wasn't throwing stones, he wasn't trying to set fire to
6:29
anything. He was just carrying a placard
6:32
which some people found was not acceptable.
6:36
And by some people I mean the police because they arrested
6:38
them. But he, amongst a host of
6:41
others, were prosecuted and ended up in prison.
6:48
And it was the most disgraceful miscarriage of justice because
6:52
in the sense that the the prison sentences that were handed out
6:57
to the people. There were other people involved
6:59
in this who had posted comments on, on social media, which may
7:04
have been wrong, accusing the the person who committed the
7:08
stabbings of being, you know, the implication was he was an
7:11
immigrant that that was, had just come into the country and,
7:15
and this had stirred up all kinds of I'll feeling in the
7:19
community and so on. The point is that that nothing
7:24
terribly horrible happened as a result of people coming out and
7:29
demonstrating because this was the first sort of major public
7:36
expression of the of the issue, the issues arising from
7:40
immigration and so on. A whole host of people ended up
7:44
in prison for that with with really pretty unpleasant
7:48
duration prison sentences for for simply posting something to
7:51
social media or carrying a placard at a protest.
7:56
And this is really unjustifiable.
7:59
But but, you know, this is this is just the latest sort of
8:04
iteration of the chilling effect on freedom of speech over the
8:10
last. Well, I mean, it's taken, it's
8:12
taken the British government a long time to get the online
8:14
safety legislation going. But now that it's started to get
8:18
going, you know, we are seeing what what they what they're
8:22
effectively doing is forcing the platforms to become government
8:30
censors. That's on one hand, they're
8:35
doing it under the guise of child safety because that's how
8:38
they're trying to sell it to the public.
8:41
But and as a result, we're seeing more and more
8:46
international platforms leaving the UK in total so that the so
8:54
that they're not falling under this regime.
8:57
We're seeing narratives in the press starting to come along
9:01
that the use of VPNs is increasing exponentially because
9:05
of the age assurance requirements as part of the
9:09
Online Safety Act. And of course, this is something
9:14
that the British government has been wanting to shut down for a
9:18
long time. So now what's what we're going
9:20
to see, I guarantee, is that we're going to see the idea of
9:23
using encrypted Internet use, using VPNs demonised in the
9:32
media as being something that paedophiles do.
9:35
And that in order to protect children, we've got to ban VPN
9:39
news in the UKI mean, the Chinese don't even ban VPN news,
9:44
but I guarantee that's what's coming.
9:46
The British government has been working very, very hard to try
9:49
to ban end to end encryption in chat applications, whether that
9:54
be WhatsApp or whatever, they're also working or Signal.
9:59
They're also working very hard. As you may know, they, they took
10:02
Apple, they decided that Apple had to remove end to end
10:06
encryption from their cloud storage platform, which Apple
10:10
challenged and is still challenging.
10:14
And so you've taking all these things as a whole, We have
10:18
really a very draconian totalitarian regime building up.
10:23
And the thing about the Online Safety Act, for example, is that
10:25
it's, it's so multifaceted. There's so many aspects to it.
10:29
So we're only really beginning to see the implications of it as
10:34
it starts to be rolled out. So although that legislation
10:37
became received royal assent a couple of years ago, it's taken
10:42
Ofcom this amount of time to get to the point of starting to roll
10:46
out the actual framework. So we've we've seen the the age
10:51
assurance framework start to be rolled out now.
10:54
And as a result we're starting to see not only as is being
10:59
presented in the mainstream media, pornography websites
11:02
using it, but we're starting to see the likes of Blue Sky,
11:05
Twitter, Reddit, all the major platforms starting to use so
11:11
called digital ID age assurance services.
11:14
And The thing is, they're use it, They're all using different
11:17
age assurance services. So that means if you are using
11:20
Reddit and you are using Blue sky and you are using Twitter,
11:24
then some functionality is going to require you to to, to
11:29
formally identify yourself with with these third party
11:32
companies. And each one, each one of these
11:34
platforms is using a different third party company.
11:36
And that in itself is going to put people off from using those
11:41
particular functions on on those particular platforms, which is
11:45
going to therefore in itself have a chilling effect on the
11:49
transfer of information between individuals.
11:52
So for example, in Blue Sky, they're requiring that you
11:56
identify or prove your age through a digital ID system.
12:00
I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head, but that
12:05
would be in order to, to use the direct messaging functionality.
12:10
So you can't even make a direct message between two people
12:13
without first proving your identity.
12:16
And so it's going to be increasingly hard to use the
12:20
Internet anonymously. And that in itself is also going
12:23
to have a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
12:26
So each of these aspects has a direct, real effect on people's
12:30
willingness to speak out. Yeah.
12:33
I mean, when you spoke now about the, the, the gentleman who was
12:36
gaoled, that's a, that's obviously a micro, a micro
12:39
issue. But it's a very big issue
12:42
because he committed suicide in prison, right?
12:44
He should have been in prison in the 1st place and he died there.
12:47
So, so you know that that that's, it's, it's not it's, but
12:51
he's only one of, of a, you know, hundreds.
12:54
That's my point, yeah. So what?
12:57
Yeah. So what else?
12:58
What I was actually alluding to is the macro, the the, the
13:01
trajectory. What actually is the British
13:04
government trying to do? There well it's clear they they
13:08
are trying to suppress all opposition, all resistance and
13:14
they are but it's not just them it's it's a whole.
13:19
I mean we've we use the term censorship industrial complex or
13:23
or disinformation industrial complex is term disinformation
13:26
that's used to describe anything which is counter narrative.
13:31
The the intention is to shut that down absolutely.
13:35
And the intention is to, to bring us to a point where the
13:39
only trustworthy sources that anybody is able to listen to are
13:45
the BBC and other formal mainstream media organisations.
13:52
And that anything else is not only untrustworthy, but it, you
13:57
know, anybody using platforms to to express a view or an opinion
14:03
which disagrees with with the official narrative could go to
14:07
prison. Yes, absolutely.
14:09
This is going in the direction of being able to crush or
14:14
eliminate any form of dissent. But but as well as that or as
14:18
part of the same package. This is very much designed to
14:23
force people into accepting all the things that he's just been
14:27
talking about and that that digital control system is is
14:33
absolutely enmeshed with all of this, whether it be digital
14:37
identity, in order to verify that you are who you say you are
14:42
in terms of being able to access these services and this that and
14:45
the other. And that that should be seen as
14:48
as part of the same thing. Because of course, once people
14:51
are rather if they are controlled by such a system,
14:55
then the whole thing is so much easier to run and monitor.
15:00
So that's part of it. And I think also, as I say, that
15:05
I think people would do well to consider how the obverse
15:10
situation can be made or turned to people's advantage.
15:15
And I've, I know I've spoken about this before in a sort of
15:18
asymmetric warfare context. But of course, if you are a
15:23
dissenting voice and you are choosing to engage in activities
15:29
that don't have a digital signature, then people aren't
15:33
monitoring that in the same way. The the the sole focus now is on
15:38
Internet, digital enabled, digitally enabled
15:41
communications. And therefore there's very
15:43
little effort going into monitoring people who are doing
15:46
stuff in a traditional pencil and paper or face to face
15:51
fashion. That's worth mentioning for a
15:54
couple of reasons. First of all, because you can
15:56
step outside of the surveillance network.
16:00
And also secondly, because my perhaps rather crass analogy of
16:04
the way in which concepts or constructs such as intent and
16:11
recklessness and responsibility are being dealt with on on the
16:15
various points of law is so significant.
16:18
Because with particular regard to say, user to user content and
16:22
that being the responsibility of the platform that hosts it.
16:26
The real world analogy that I would put out there is that this
16:31
is like telling pub landlords that they must surveil and
16:36
monitor and deal with all conversations that take place
16:41
under their roof during opening hours.
16:43
Now that's patently ridiculous and no one would ever suggest
16:47
that. And yet in in an online sense,
16:50
this is exactly what's being done.
16:52
So the way in which this is being dealt with from a
16:56
legislative point of view is, and I know I don't mean this to
17:00
sound like a whinge, but it is objectively unfair and therefore
17:05
ridiculous in terms of the language that's being used.
17:08
What I would say is an examination of history is it is
17:11
always worth doing because it yields such interesting results.
17:15
And if you look at the definition of extremism as it
17:18
was updated in, I think May 2024 by Michael Gove, the wording is
17:24
not the same, but very, very close to the wording that was
17:28
used to eliminate or crush dissent by the Criminal Code of
17:34
the Soviet Socialist Republic in 1924.
17:38
And that is not a coincidence. So those things are important to
17:43
note and we'll come on to the to the intent and whatnot.
17:47
And the other thing I want to do just at this point is just to
17:50
give a perfect illustration of the way in which these things
17:56
are done in terms of their selling points to the public.
18:01
Now, I don't live in Plymouth and, and stay down here when I
18:05
do, which means I have rare access to a television set.
18:08
And I saw a programme which is on every day, I think it's
18:11
called Good Morning Britain and it's on ITV, our third channel.
18:16
And there's AI mean first of all, it's it's remarkable.
18:19
One of the presenters, A chap called Ed Balls, who was a
18:21
government, Labour government minister and he is married to
18:25
the current home Secretary, Yvette Cooper.
18:28
So straight away one would think there's a there's an enormous
18:32
issue there. Anyway, on the programme I've
18:35
just watched, there was a discussion around online
18:38
gambling. And online gambling as it stands
18:42
is the main reason that people choose to procure a digital
18:47
identity, it is to be able to gamble online.
18:50
So that's one rather remarkable detail, but statistically
18:53
absolutely true, far outstrips any other reason that people
18:56
apply for digital identity. Now they were talking on the
19:01
programme about online gambling being a problem.
19:05
People agree a lot of head nodding and this that and the
19:08
other and well yes, but you know, they're able to get round
19:11
it by using VPNs and this, that and the other.
19:13
And So what you do is you're predicted exactly the same way
19:16
in which the protection of children is being put out there
19:19
as the catch all for everything else.
19:22
But but that's what they're using for the online safety
19:24
thing to to eliminate people being able to use VPNs.
19:28
For example, one only needs site a problem like online gambling.
19:32
And you say, right, well, there's on that.
19:33
Let's get our sledgehammer. No more VPNs or whatever it is.
19:37
And and of course, I go back to the fact that this is being a
19:39
conversation that is being curated by Ed Balls, the husband
19:43
of the current home secretary. So it's very easy to see how
19:46
these things are sold to the public, both through the
19:50
mainstream media outlets and indeed parliament or government,
19:56
which frankly shouldn't be happening like that, as is
20:00
patently obvious. And yet I think he's been
20:02
presenting on that programme for some time now.
20:04
Remarkable. But yes, sorry to go back to
20:06
the, to the legislation on the, the terrorism side of it.
20:14
There are. Several ways in which this can
20:17
be manipulated but but in terms of free speech, that the part
20:21
that's been exploited in particular over the last two
20:24
years is anything that pertains to what's described as a
20:29
prescribed organisation. And that means an organisation
20:32
that's been prescribed by the Home Secretary within the UK.
20:35
Because obviously there are other countries that do do this,
20:37
but it's specific to the UK and an organisation prescribed is
20:42
one that is deemed to have fallen into a category where it
20:46
presents a threat that may be described as terrorist within
20:49
the UK. Now that is incredibly open to
20:53
abuse and has been abused many, many times over the years.
20:57
And one might say that the entire list really is something
21:02
of a fiction. Just to articulate what I mean
21:06
in terms of its potential absurdity, last year there was
21:12
an organisation prescribed with the name or the given name of
21:17
Teragram. Now no such organisation exists.
21:22
There is absolutely no evidence of that.
21:24
But what was perfectly obvious was that it was designed to
21:27
sound like Telegram, the social media app which was started by
21:34
Russian Pavel Durov and is widely reported by the BBC as
21:39
being a, a, an end to end encrypted site for conspiracy
21:44
theory. But basically the point was that
21:45
that the use of Telegram is absolutely synonymous with
21:49
people who are up to no good. They are probably right wing
21:51
extremists, which means they're probably terrorists.
21:53
And that's sort of how that's done.
21:55
And therefore, by creating an idea that there was a collective
21:59
out there called Teragram and that you were going to
22:02
prescribe, it meant that it was very obvious that if you were
22:06
considering straying away from the BBC and starting to look at
22:09
things like Telegram, you were definitely going down the wrong
22:12
track. So that's a, that's an aside on
22:16
the prescribed organisation thing.
22:18
But but this is where we get into the the most remarkable
22:22
cherry picking exercise because in sections 1, sections section
22:27
12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
22:32
Probably not time to go into the specifics of the ACT itself or
22:35
or from whence it came, which of course is fascinating, as is the
22:40
more recent iteration 2006 Act. But the point is that once an
22:45
organisation is prescribed, it then becomes a sanctionable
22:50
offence to support it. There are lots of different ways
22:54
in which the terminology is used, but basically to support
22:57
or act to the benefit of that organisation.
22:59
And that doesn't have to mean that you give it money or you
23:02
necessarily go along and actually chip in.
23:04
But that can be going back to the where we started with free
23:07
speech. That can simply be a declaration
23:12
of support for such and such an organisation or as has been the
23:17
case in the last two years, choosing words that are then
23:22
reverse engineered by police in order to hand to the Crime
23:26
Prosecution Service to suggest that there is within that
23:33
collection of words and inherent support of a prescribed
23:37
organisation. And the.
23:38
The example that we use a lot on the UK, well actually 2 examples
23:42
that we use a lot on on UK column and I've cited certainly
23:45
a lot on the news, is that when the administration in Syria
23:52
changed and Jelani became the president of Syria as a
23:57
terrorist by virtue of the fact that he was the leader of HTS,
24:01
widely acknowledged and written down in Home Office prescription
24:05
lists as a subset of Al Qaeda. He was therefore the head of a
24:12
terrorist, a prescribed organisation.
24:14
And yet when the BBC through Jeremy Bowen went to talk to him
24:19
and very much offer the idea that he should be supported in
24:24
what he was doing rather than a critique of who he was and where
24:29
he came from, nothing was done. By the same token, Alistair
24:35
Campbell, former in a member of the inner circle of of Tony
24:40
Blair and obviously, you know, long standing influencer within
24:44
the Labor Party and Rory Stewart, the former MP and
24:49
soldier and probably one or two other things.
24:52
He and Campbell went to Syria to meet Jelani to do a podcast for
24:57
their show called The Rest is Politics, which has a a large
25:01
audience. And they made absolutely no
25:03
secret of the fact that they were absolutely supporting this
25:07
man in his new or latest incarnation.
25:12
That is that by the letter of the law, the Terrorism Act 2000.
25:16
That that is there is no doubt that is in contravention of both
25:19
sections 1 and section 12 of the Terrorism Act.
25:23
And yet nothing was done. This was this was broadcast
25:26
absolutely all over the shop. But, but we see a, a long well,
25:31
an increasing list of people who have done acts that do not meet
25:38
that threshold being pulled to one side under the very much
25:43
nebulous schedules that are attached to the end of the
25:47
Terrorism Act 2000. And just to give a flavour of of
25:51
how that works, under Schedule 7, which applies at at ports,
25:57
you can be taken out of a queue whether you're coming or going
26:01
at, at an airport in the UK and you can be interrogated at all.
26:05
Well, the the phrase is detained and then examined.
26:08
You can have any of your communications kit examined and
26:11
you do not have a right to silence so that this is This is
26:17
a hardball approach to a problem that is in effect simply
26:24
confected by by deciding that your words mean something.
26:31
The, the, the gloves come off and people have absolutely no
26:35
recourse. And yes, as I say on on the
26:37
other side, the enormous inconsistency is that when it is
26:40
totally blatant, when there is absolutely support for or
26:44
actions that are to the benefit of a prescribed organisation
26:48
like HDSA subset of Al Qaeda, nothing is done because of the
26:52
people that are conducting that exercise.
26:55
And, and this absolutely goes to the heart of free speech.
26:57
And it also, I won't, I won't bang on, but this also links
27:00
directly to the provisions of the Public Order Act 1986 and
27:05
the question of intent and indeed how men's Rea and the and
27:10
the actors Reyes, which should be be side by side in terms of
27:15
commissioning of an offence are are not dealt with in a fair
27:19
fashion. How do you push back?
27:23
You keep talking, and with that, stop talking.
27:29
No, no, you do no. Well, I thought you were going
27:31
to go on and talk about well, because I mean, you know, we
27:32
again, we've had a couple of examples the the recent
27:34
prescription in this in this country has been Palestine
27:39
action, OK, people will say what they like about Palestine
27:44
action. The idea that it is, you know,
27:46
whether or not it's organic, whether it's this another, to be
27:49
perfectly honest that that is, is to a certain extent beside
27:52
the point because specifically the activities they've been
27:56
engaged in, which are, well, those that may have a criminal
28:01
sanction attached to them, are criminal damage.
28:03
Now, criminal damage exists in a couple of different ways as a
28:06
standalone offence, but you go to look at the Terrorism Act
28:10
2000 and in Section 1, serious criminal damage is amazingly A
28:17
qualifying characteristic for the definition of terrorism.
28:21
So it just goes to show how when this legislation is drawn up, it
28:24
is very, very obviously done. So in a way that means if you
28:27
want to throw the net over anybody for anything, you pretty
28:32
much can. And when you look at just off
28:36
oil Extinction Rebellion, all these little guys in their high
28:38
vis vests who've been running around the place causing
28:42
criminal damage on a much wider scale for a much longer period
28:44
of time. And yet having case after case
28:47
overturned because they're so well meaning.
28:50
And yet when it comes to Palestine action who are saying
28:53
that they're trying to prevent genocide, then there is
28:56
obviously an enormous inconsistency in the the the
28:59
particular act that tipped balance in so far as they were
29:04
then prescribed, was to pour red paint on 2 aircraft at Bryce
29:08
Norton and that is it. I, I think Jeremy, I'd like to
29:13
just briefly, if I can just talk a little bit about the
29:16
mainstream media and what's happened with it over the last
29:19
20 years. Because the mainstream media, I
29:25
suppose up until the Leveson inquiry was doing a relatively
29:30
good job relatively. It wasn't perfect by any means.
29:35
It was but but there was still some effort to hold politics to
29:41
account to some degree, to to a sufficient degree that certainly
29:49
the the wrongdoing of of certain journalists was used as a
29:53
mechanism for bringing in what was called the Leveson Inquiry,
29:57
which is headed up by Brian Leveson, a a judge.
30:04
And I suppose this was the first sort of major attempt by the
30:07
British government to get control of the narrative.
30:11
And similarly to, to what Charles has just been talking
30:14
about with Palestine action. And the fact that there there
30:18
already is, was, you know, if they wanted to prosecute people
30:21
for spray painting aircraft, that was the, the, the
30:24
legislation's already for, for that.
30:26
It's already there for that. They didn't need to create a new
30:30
legislation or use any, they didn't actually need to use
30:33
terrorism legislation for this. But, you know, one of the, the
30:38
things that was very striking about the Leveson Inquiry and,
30:42
and the freedom of the press, this is back in 2012 or 2013,
30:46
whenever it was, was that, you know, the legislation,
30:51
everything, all, the, all the wrongdoing that was done in, in
30:54
the phone hacking scandal, for example, was already illegal and
31:00
could have been prosecuted without the need for some kind
31:04
of big inquiry into how the press was going to be regulated
31:09
from that point forward. This was the first attempt to
31:12
sort of get, you know, and that failed And, and hopefully the UK
31:15
column had a fairly major part to play in, in, in how that
31:19
failed. And then, but nonetheless,
31:26
although the the inquiry failed and the the sort of regulatory
31:29
regime that they were intending to impose afterwards failed,
31:32
what was what didn't fail so much was that over the next
31:37
several years we start definitely started to see more
31:41
editorial compliance with government desires, let's put it
31:45
that way. And as a result, people started
31:51
in relatively small numbers, but enough sufficient people started
31:54
moving away from the mainstream press that it was starting to
31:58
have a financial implication on them.
32:00
At the same time, the rise of Internet advertising, or the
32:06
replacement of Internet advertising over traditional
32:11
print advertising was starting to have a financial effect on
32:17
the mainstream press as well. So the mainstream press from
32:19
2014 to let's say 2020, we're starting to be increasingly
32:26
under financial pressure, partly, as I say, because of
32:31
advertising, partly because the editorial policy seemed to be
32:34
becoming more compliant with government desires.
32:38
And then 20/17/2018 or so, the British government was getting
32:46
sufficiently worried about the, the financial viability of the
32:52
mainstream media that they ran a review into the how they would,
32:56
how they could underpin the mainstream press.
32:59
And that was called the Karen Cross review.
33:03
And then COVID hit an inverted commas.
33:07
And before we knew it, the press was getting bailed out by these
33:12
massive advertising budgets that the British government was
33:15
pursuing in order to convince people that they needed to wear
33:19
masks and, and stay in their homes.
33:22
And from that point forward, really that was the, the, the
33:25
death knell of any idea of a fourth estate that actually held
33:29
or was there to provide any accountability for what
33:32
government did, because effectively mainstream press was
33:37
bought and paid for by the state from from then on.
33:40
And that's still the case today. So we have the totally compliant
33:47
mainstream media that is in no way highlighting any of the
33:52
issues that we're talking about today.
33:55
They're not holding government to account in any way for, for
33:59
what they are doing to, to, to, to minimise dissent that that's
34:07
on one side. On the other side, you know, I'm
34:11
visiting my mum in Northern Ireland at the moment.
34:13
We were speaking to a bunch of the neighbours here last night
34:18
and none of them is watching the BBC anymore.
34:22
And these are just ordinary farming people.
34:27
They're not, they're not watching the BBC anymore.
34:29
They're they're barely watching GB News anymore.
34:33
They're certainly looking to alternative media for their or
34:38
social media for the information that they had that they're
34:40
getting. And I just thought that was a
34:42
really interesting sort of just just a little data point because
34:48
you know, although these are just, this is just a very small
34:51
farming community in this area spread out of over quite a right
34:55
wide area. It's it's indicative perhaps of
34:57
what's going on in the country. So, so it's, it's fascinating to
35:01
me that that as we start to see these more draconian efforts to
35:07
shut down freedom of speech, as as government attempts to force
35:11
people into the arms of mainstream press, a controlled
35:16
mainstream press, it, it simply doesn't work because there,
35:21
there is a clear recognition in people that that it is a
35:24
controlled mainstream press and they're just rejecting it.
35:27
The, the, the danger is that as this effort to, to shut down
35:33
freedom of speech gains momentum.
35:35
And as I say, we're really only at the beginning of this
35:37
process, as draconian as it is already, it's just the
35:41
beginning. And as that starts to to be
35:44
rolled out over the next two or three years, most people, if
35:48
they're not already aware of the UK column or 21st Century Wire
35:52
or or the the other alternative media outlets that are out
35:56
there, if they're not already aware of those, are going to
35:59
find it very difficult, if not impossible to find those voices.
36:04
That's our challenge. But you know that that that is
36:09
our challenge over the next two or three years is how we
36:12
overcome what we've already seen in terms of the censorship
36:16
regime and shadow banning and all the usual things that we
36:19
talk about and are aware of. We've got that plus these new
36:24
regimes that are being rolled out.
36:25
So, so that's that's going to be our main challenge over the next
36:28
period of time. And we're going to need the help
36:30
of the people that are ready supporting us to overcome those
36:35
very severe limitations that are being placed on us.
36:40
Earlier I asked how you push back and what your response was
36:44
Keep talking. But the problem with keep
36:46
talking is that you just shadow band like on X for example.
36:49
You can keep talking, but you have no reach.
36:53
And that was already acknowledged by the CEO.
36:57
I forget her name now. What Freedom.
37:00
What? Yeah, Linda, Linda Yacarino, she
37:03
said. There'll be freedom of speech,
37:06
but not freedom of reach and. That's a great, great example of
37:11
the chair. And I'm not blaming you for this
37:13
because we've no evidence that it's your fault, but we were
37:16
just Kenny. Kenny was it could be your
37:19
fault. Kenny was just pulling together
37:22
statistics on, on viewer slash listener numbers the other day
37:29
and he showed me the, the spreadsheet and, and SoundCloud,
37:34
which is the, where we host our, you know, our audio only content
37:40
and sort of audio rips of the news programme and so on, was
37:46
only showing 24 views for a news programme.
37:49
And I'm thinking, no, no, that's wrong because it's usually, it's
37:52
usually thousands, right? And, and so I went back through,
37:57
I went back through all the postings on SoundCloud and the
38:01
day you started germ warfare on the UK column was the day that
38:07
the numbers fell from thousands to none, right?
38:13
So, so coincidence. I don't know what to make of
38:19
that. I apologise if that was me, but
38:28
I mean, but look, so I mean, one of the one of the obvious
38:34
solutions here is other than to keep talking, which obviously is
38:39
it's a, it's a truism is the idea of the parallel structures.
38:45
No, no, no, no, because, because parallel structures are written
38:49
into the definition of extremism.
38:51
That is extremist. You may not create a parallel
38:54
structure, no, but that's what look Jeremy, that's what
38:56
alternative media is. It's a parallel structure.
38:59
We are to a certain degree attempting to the UK column at
39:05
least is attempting to be in, in, in its presentation style as
39:11
mainstream like as possible. What we're attempting to do is
39:14
to make ourselves as familiar a format to people as possible so
39:20
that it's as easy as possible to for them to move across from the
39:24
BBC or Channel 4 News to UK column news.
39:26
That would, that would be that, that would be, you know, our
39:31
attempt to sort of be as as familiar as possible to, to the
39:36
average person in the street. This is something that that
39:38
actually a lot of people don't quite understand, but it's
39:42
something that we that we feel that that is important to help
39:45
people get from that mainstream news, those mainstream news
39:51
sources into other mainstream news sources.
39:55
So, you know, you might describe us as a gateway drug that I'm
39:59
quite happy to, to describe us that way.
40:02
Because, because if we can help people make that transition and
40:05
say to people, look, there's other information out there.
40:09
Now we might not be presenting all of that other information,
40:13
but there are people out there presenting other information.
40:16
And and so we, what we hope is that we can encourage people
40:20
into a broader information base than they have at the moment.
40:28
And the way, you know, we just feel that the way, that one way
40:30
to do that is to, is to be as familiar as possible in terms of
40:34
the formats that we provide. But sorry, I've completely
40:40
forgotten what. Oh yes.
40:41
But, but look, I, I'm not quite, maybe quite so pessimistic as,
40:47
as you're suggesting we need to be on, on this because just just
40:50
one example, you know, as cynical as people are about
40:56
petitions and so on, and people are right to be cynical about
40:59
petitions. They, they, they are in and of
41:01
themselves utterly useless. But there is a petition running
41:06
at the moment, which is to repeal the Online Safety Act.
41:10
And I'm not sure what the current figure is, but it's
41:13
something around half a million people have signed that already
41:16
and it's got another couple of months to run now as, as a, as
41:23
a, if you take the, the, the range of petitions that are ever
41:27
posted to the government petitions website, that is a
41:30
spectacular response from people.
41:34
So there, there is a broad recognition of how dangerous
41:38
this legislation is and people are pushing back against it.
41:43
And so, you know, the, the, the issues around shadow banning
41:48
and, and the lack of freedom of reach, these are, I think, much
41:54
better understood in the general population than maybe we think.
41:59
And I think that, you know, the more government is determined to
42:06
try to put the squeeze on, on voices, the more ordinary people
42:11
are going to turn around and say, no, this isn't right.
42:13
And they they will at the end of the day, be be willing to to
42:17
share and to tell people about voices that are providing other
42:25
narratives. Yeah, I think yeah, no, I was
42:29
just going to add a sort of, you know, real world example of we,
42:33
we talk about things being barometers.
42:35
I would absolutely agree. I think petitions, whilst they
42:38
get cast into the bin by government, they are an
42:40
excellent barometer because they enable people on the outside to
42:44
look in and think, right, OK, I, I'm not the only one.
42:47
I do see the problem here. And, and, you know, we've got to
42:51
keep pushing on this. Whereas if there's nothing.
42:54
And this was, you know, we go back to the, the last five years
42:57
when everything was shut down in the name of whatever it was
43:01
public health and, and, and people were made to feel they
43:04
were on their own. But a petition, it has to be
43:07
viewed in the context within which, you know, we want to own
43:12
it, which is that, that, that's a, that is a marker and that's
43:15
how it should be considered. But what I was going to say was
43:19
that sometimes with the, you know, like the SoundCloud
43:22
example, it can be very difficult to try to look at
43:26
figures and think, right, well, what does any of this mean?
43:29
What are people doing? What are people thinking?
43:31
I was this week at the North Devon show, which is a big
43:35
agricultural event in North Devon.
43:38
It's a it's a one day. It's, I have to say it's a plug
43:41
for the events. Fantastic.
43:42
I mean, amazing array of, of beautiful livestock, lots of
43:47
really interesting events and and all the rest of it.
43:49
Now I have to admit a a bias specifically.
43:57
Well, one of the specific reasons I went was because
43:59
Jonathan Marshall was performing.
44:00
Now he's somebody I interviewed for UK column, whether it was
44:06
end of last year or, or early this year.
44:07
I think it was it was earlier on this year, which I really
44:10
recommend you listen to. It's the the title of the
44:12
interview was was thinking with your heart, and he's he is he
44:18
performs an incredible show with Falcons and a beautiful black
44:22
stallion. Anyway, the point is that
44:24
Jonathan, as well as having this incredible sort of love of
44:29
nature and and a beautiful way of expressing it in his show, he
44:32
talks about all the things that are issues are wrong in terms of
44:42
anti human, anti nature. And yesterday the show the I I'm
44:47
not sure how many. I mean, the Devon show is big.
44:48
It gets it gets a lot of people there, but around his arena,
44:52
which is relatively small, I think there are probably 1000
44:54
people at each. He performed twice each his
44:57
performances and when he started talking about the various issues
45:01
that are very much pushing the agenda of destroying the
45:06
landscape or, you know, prohibiting sort of food
45:09
security or indeed any of the sort of woke ideology that's
45:14
crept into policy, legislation, everything else, there was
45:18
spontaneous applause all the way around the arena.
45:21
And that was from OK, you could say not a complete cross section
45:26
of society because obviously there are, you know,
45:28
agricultural shows do pull perhaps one demographic more
45:32
than others, but that but but the the the point is that that
45:35
was a that was a face to face communication.
45:38
That was a large gathering of people who quite clearly did
45:41
hold the same views. They saw the same things.
45:45
And yet are we going to see that reflected in our statistics on
45:49
our social media posts or are you going to be able to identify
45:52
that online? Probably not.
45:53
But the point is when you go out there and you talk to people
45:55
about it and of course, he, Jonathan, has has this amazing
45:58
ability to perform to large audiences and put these things
46:02
out there and see what sort of response he gets.
46:04
And every time he does get that response.
46:07
And OK, that that's just one isolated example, but the, the
46:11
point is that when you do do that, it, it is quite
46:15
astonishing to see what happens. So I go back to my earlier point
46:18
about this, this idea that the push for the clamping down on
46:28
free speech or whatever it is, you know, shutting down dissent
46:30
is absolutely part of the same thing of of curating the entire
46:35
digital infrastructure in order that people cannot do that.
46:38
But of course, you just step to one side and you meet up with
46:41
people face to face and it's a totally different situation.
46:44
And so I think just because people are turning away from,
46:48
you know, as Mike says, turning away from mainstream and perhaps
46:54
using turning to social media, that can be more difficult to
46:59
keep track of. But it doesn't mean that people
47:01
aren't in actual fact either aware or indeed dissenting in
47:05
some way, or indeed resisting. So I think we need to, we always
47:09
need to have that in mind, despite what we're obviously
47:13
going to be told. By and.
47:16
The government. Yes, and the the other point of
47:19
it just well, I've made two points here for just to finish
47:21
the point on the petitions, Jeremy, you know, a lot of
47:26
people are rightly cynical about petitions.
47:28
What's the point? I think petitions are a great
47:31
marketing tool actually, because they, they are, they can be used
47:36
to, to introduce a topic to somebody.
47:37
Look, this petition's here. Here's the issues.
47:40
Let's talk about it. Maybe you'd like to sign it.
47:42
It's a, it's a great way to, to get a conversation going.
47:46
The, the way to, to answer your original question was what do we
47:49
do about it? The way to deal with this is to
47:52
talk to people and, and, and, you know, we choose to talk to
47:56
people in an online format, but we're also talking to people in
48:00
real physical events. Increasingly.
48:02
We're going to the Hope Sussex festival in a couple of weeks.
48:05
We're, we're going to, we're, we're having our own event in
48:07
October. But you know, just again, the,
48:12
the, the conversations that I was listening to last night,
48:15
people are talking to each other.
48:17
People are looking at what's going on in the world the to
48:21
some degree finding it scary, but they're talking amongst
48:25
themselves and they're coming to conclusions now, whatever the
48:28
source of information that's bringing them to those
48:30
conclusions increasingly not the mainstream, but, but they people
48:36
aren't stupid and they're, they are absolutely coming to the to
48:41
largely the right conclusions at the end of the day, which is
48:44
why, you know, as as Charles is talking about there, you know,
48:49
when these issues are, are discussed in a public forum, the
48:52
response is generally good because actually they've already
48:55
had conversations along these lines, whether it be in, in, you
49:00
know, in private homes or in pubs or whatever it happens to
49:04
be. So, you know, we just, we need
49:07
to be, we need to be talking to each other and we need to be
49:09
engaging with, with each other. What we don't need to be doing
49:13
is, is, you know, going in with, you know, size 10 boots and, and
49:21
kicking people in the head with information.
49:23
We need to be just having conversations and, and, and
49:27
first of all listening to what what the other side of the
49:30
conversation is, what they're thinking and then that then
49:34
approaching it that way, in my opinion.
49:38
I decided to join social network Nost Noster.
49:42
I don't know if you've pronounced it like that in OSTR
49:47
this week, because apparently it's a decentralised alternative
49:51
to to X and it's smooth and it's fast and it looks great and it
49:57
seems to have a lot of people using it, but it's just really a
50:02
bunch of nerds talking about Bitcoin.
50:05
Now, well, look, look, Bitcoin. Crypto currencies are not a
50:09
parallel solution. Crypto currencies are digital
50:14
currencies and you've got to, I think people have got to start
50:17
recognising this. If if anybody thinks that there
50:22
is going to be a, a digital currency out there which is
50:26
going to be able to be used anonymously and freely, they're
50:32
they're mistaken. We're going to have to provide
50:35
ourselves with local solutions to our local problems and using
50:39
these big digital networks is not the answer.
50:43
You know, the, some people are making lots of money by
50:46
investing in Bitcoin. That's that's something quite
50:50
different to what you're talking about.
50:54
You know, local issues are going to be solved locally and, and
50:59
there are no answers in that because, because we've already
51:01
seen what Trump has done. Trump has Trump has banned the
51:06
Federal Reserve from any further pursuit of central bank digital
51:09
currency, but he has replaced that with his stable coin idea.
51:15
So he is building a central bank digital currency that's outside
51:19
of the central banks in private hands.
51:21
And now, of course, we know that the Federal Reserve is, is, you
51:25
know, de facto a private bank, but it has the perception of
51:29
being, you know, publicly owned. It's not really private.
51:35
It's not really public either. Yes, exactly.
51:38
Right, so, so. But the point is.
51:40
The point is, you know, if anybody thought that that that
51:44
said that that Bitcoin or some form of cryptocurrency was going
51:48
to be the, the, the answer to, to CDC, This is already
51:52
demonstrated that they're not. I mean, gold isn't even the
51:55
answer either because first of all, you can't, you can't chop
51:59
up your gold coin and to buy your your next loaf of bread
52:02
anyway. But you know, if you think back
52:05
to the Second World War, what was almost the first thing that
52:09
Roosevelt did was to ban gold. So, you know, you know,
52:11
basically can't confiscate people's gold.
52:14
Gold is not is not a useful thing here either.
52:17
We've got to find local solutions to to these things,
52:21
whether you want to call them tokens or whatever.
52:23
But but they're the people have played with various local
52:28
currencies in the past and I suspect that's probably where
52:32
we're going to have to go because, you know, we're not
52:35
going to be buying if it gets to that point, you know, we're
52:40
we're not going to be buying things with any kind of freedom
52:46
using any of these digital solutions.
52:51
I I do. Know what?
52:53
Well, look at. Look at the look at the other
52:57
big, big sort of Nexus of, of attack.
52:59
I mean, the only thing people really need in life is shelter,
53:05
food and water. And in the United Kingdom, those
53:11
three things are under attack in the strongest possible sense
53:17
that the, I, I would say much of the, much of the protest and the
53:27
sort of sensationalised campaigns are, I think wilfully
53:33
to miss the point. There's been huge amounts of
53:38
attention on the inheritance tax for farmland.
53:45
I'm not, I, I should say very clearly because this this is a
53:49
persistent theme here is that I will prefix something by saying
53:53
that I'm not saying that I'm dismissing concerns around it.
53:58
So for anyone thinking I'm dismissing concerns around it, I
54:01
am not. But the point is that there are
54:04
bigger and much more fundamental issues at stake.
54:09
And also one only has to go back to 1991 when there was
54:13
inheritance tax in exactly the same way.
54:16
So I think for anyone to imagine that that this is sort of a new
54:20
idea is, is, is being misled the way in which it's being done is,
54:25
is dreadful and very cynical, especially when it's only
54:29
reckoned to yield £500 million in a year, which is what the NHS
54:35
would take only three days to sorry, not three days, one day.
54:40
The NHS would spend that in a day.
54:41
This sorry. But but to come on to the point,
54:47
if people are producing food and water, why they're going to want
54:51
Bitcoin in return. So if we're getting to that
54:55
stage, then we have to be thinking about things that are
55:00
not held by digital means, I would say.
55:06
And I think people are forgetting the the fundamentals.
55:11
This might be an analogy too far, but when one thinks of how
55:17
the Roman Empire it sort of it superimposed Christianity onto
55:25
existing belief systems and at that same time it was the
55:29
countryside dwellers who were demonised in the that.
55:33
That's in a way why the word Pagan has a derogatory sort of
55:38
connotation to it. Because as always, the people in
55:41
the countryside do actually hold the power because they are the
55:44
people that can, they have the means to create shelter, food
55:48
and water. And we mustn't forget how
55:51
terribly important that is. I, I will be dealing with it in
55:54
a, in a longer format, but I just had a letter back from the
55:59
ministry from, from Defra about exactly this issue.
56:02
Because I've challenged them on their relationship with three
56:08
documents that have been published recently concerning
56:11
what they're calling national security or resilience or
56:16
defence or any of these things. And all these three documents
56:19
are saying the same thing, which is that if there's a shock,
56:21
we're not prepared for it from a food point of view.
56:24
And OK, I don't believe that government has any business in
56:29
farming in the 1st place, but the fact is that they do.
56:32
And they are deliberately creating a situation where
56:37
people are not producing food that is in any way going to be
56:41
sufficient for a nation that needs to feed itself.
56:44
If the wheels come off, we are totally and utterly reliant upon
56:49
imports from elsewhere and the creation of fake food, which is
56:53
not conducive to managing a society that's under pressure.
56:59
So I think all the conversations around where to invest money are
57:05
to a certain extent academic because they only deal with a
57:08
system that is able to cope to a certain point.
57:11
And beyond that point, it won't matter because those things, the
57:14
way I see it, that those things simply won't exist.
57:18
And currency will have to be in some hard form.
57:23
And, you know, it doesn't matter whether it's gold or silver or
57:26
whatever it is, but it will be used to buy or to have access to
57:33
shelter, food and water. And I, I don't mean to sound
57:36
apocalyptic about this. And and that's not where I'm
57:39
really going with it. But the point is, I think
57:41
there's a, there's a huge amount of sort of over complication of
57:44
all of this just because we're in a system at the moment which
57:48
see feels like it has a, a strong degree of artifice to it.
57:51
Because, you know, again, Bitcoin, I mean, what's the
57:54
point? What is the point in having
57:56
Bitcoin? Because if you if, if it's
57:58
whatever it is 100 and something $1000 a a Bitcoin and you sell a
58:02
Bitcoin, well then you then you've got the money.
58:04
But. So, So what use is that if you,
58:07
if you don't believe that money's any good and equally if
58:09
your Bitcoin is worth 100 and something $1000, well say what
58:12
if you're not going to use it as money, you're only going to use
58:14
it as Bitcoin, doesn't matter what it's worth relative to
58:16
something else, does it? So the, the whole thing is, I
58:20
would say a little bit sort of short term is for the moment.
58:25
I mean, if you, if you want to invest in that, make some money
58:29
in terms of currency in your own country and then spend that and
58:32
acquire other things, fine. But just consider what it is
58:34
that you're going to acquire. Because if it doesn't, if it
58:36
doesn't actually physically exist, it's not really very much
58:39
point in it would would be my view.
58:40
I don't understand Bitcoin either.
58:42
Yeah, I I, I also don't quite get it.
58:45
I mean, I get it, but I don't get it.
58:47
Yeah, I mean, well, it's it's this, you know, this is the sort
58:50
of it's an interesting thing the the the whole nature of of well
58:55
in considering something either to be an asset or an investment
58:58
or an asset from which your your yielding return or, or whatever.
59:03
I mean there, there, there's, there are a lot of different
59:07
ways of looking at it, but but I would say that that if we are
59:13
projecting a future where there is going to be like we started
59:17
with, you know, there is going to be some sort of digital
59:19
control system which will by and large, if you're a dissenting
59:23
voice prohibit you from doing what you want to do, well, then
59:25
don't be part of it. Have the things that people do
59:29
fundamentally need. So if you're going to invest in
59:31
Bitcoin and, and make in effect millions of say, pounds or
59:36
dollars or Rand or whatever, well then go and buy something
59:39
useful with it, like land, like food, because that then becomes
59:43
your currency and that will never stop being useful.
59:47
But you know, maybe I'm oversimplifying, I don't know.
59:53
I don't know what to make of of crypto, Catherine Austin Fitz
59:58
tends to argue that it's a way in which to get people into the.
1:00:03
Sort of stable coin matrix and I think she's right, I mean as
1:00:10
you. I, I, I think German Bitcoin
1:00:14
created the, you know, the idea of a blockchain.
1:00:17
I I think Bitcoin was it, it was a way for central banks to pilot
1:00:26
certain technologies without openly piloting certain
1:00:30
technologies. That's yeah, digital ID but but,
1:00:33
but no, just a, a digital currency this and and and how
1:00:38
you, because if you look at at how well, not because of, but,
1:00:43
but if you look at how central banks are developing their,
1:00:48
their central bank digital currencies, it's not dissimilar.
1:00:51
They're, they're, they're using distributed blockchain like
1:00:56
database structures that this, this is, this is an architecture
1:01:02
that they're, that they're replicating to some degree.
1:01:05
So, so you know, when, when did, when did the original white
1:01:08
paper for Bitcoin come out 2008 or something?
1:01:11
So we've had, you know, that couple of decades of, of
1:01:16
development of, of blockchain technology that that was done
1:01:21
and lots of well meaning people were involved in helping develop
1:01:26
that. And that that's, that has
1:01:29
allowed the central banks to, to look at what worked, what
1:01:36
doesn't work, how it scales, how it doesn't scale and these kinds
1:01:39
of things. So, so in terms of a, a research
1:01:42
and development platform, it has been absolutely fantastic for,
1:01:47
for central bank digital currencies.
1:01:50
And that, that's, that's my view of what it, what it was in the
1:01:52
meantime, of course, it exists and it has enabled all kinds of,
1:01:58
of tech billionaires to be created because people that,
1:02:02
that mined Bitcoin in 2008 and 2009 are now billionaires.
1:02:07
That money is being used for so called philanthropic work, which
1:02:12
of course is, is pushing the agenda as well, the various
1:02:15
agendas as well. And, and, and of course it's,
1:02:19
it's also, you know, one of its major roles is, is undoubtedly
1:02:25
to be used as, as finance for all kinds of Black Ops right
1:02:30
around the world. So, so it, it's a gift that
1:02:33
keeps on giving in many, many ways.
1:02:35
And, and of course, lots of people are going to absolutely
1:02:39
reject what I've just said because they believe in Bitcoin
1:02:43
and other cryptocurrencies as being some kind of bastion of
1:02:48
freedom. I I I strongly recommend that
1:02:51
people reconsider that position. OK, I'm looking at the time on
1:02:57
that very uplifting note, Mike and Charles I, I really do hope
1:03:02
that the 24 people listening on SoundCloud are doing this
1:03:05
conversation.