Latest / UK Column Radio / UK Column News — 28th October 2026

Transcript

UK Column News — 28th October 2026 · UK Column Radio

0:16
Speaker 1: Good afternoon. It's Wednesday, the 20th of October, 2026, just
0:19
Speaker 1: after one o'clock. Welcome to UK Call News. I'm your host,
0:21
Speaker 1: Mike Robinson. Joining me by video link today are Charles
0:23
Speaker 1: Mallett and Vanessa Bailey. Later in the programme, we'll be
0:26
Speaker 1: reporting on the latest fake news about the RAF Fairford
0:30
Speaker 1: incident and the setting up of yet another attempt to
0:34
Speaker 1: silence survivors of child sexual abuse in England and Wales.
0:38
Speaker 1: I will be asking where our food is coming from
0:40
Speaker 1: and does what we're getting actually fall under the definition
0:43
Speaker 1: of food in any case. But we're going to begin today,
0:46
Speaker 1: of course, with the budget, because John Healy is delivering
0:50
Speaker 1: his first budget as Chancellor right now. So we can't
0:54
Speaker 1: tell you exactly what's going on, but we can at
0:56
Speaker 1: least set the scene. Yesterday announced he'd be cutting tariffs
0:59
Speaker 1: on certain foods, including marmalade and gherkins. one member of
1:03
Speaker 1: the UK column staff decided that this image represented Healy
1:06
Speaker 1: in a jam and a pickle. But thank you, Gemma,
1:08
Speaker 1: for that. But the real question is, will these contents
1:12
Speaker 1: or will the contents of these jars be real marmalade
1:15
Speaker 1: and gherkins? Vanessa is going to have the answer to
1:18
Speaker 1: that maybe later in the program. But to get a
1:21
Speaker 1: feel for what Healy has got planned, I should make
1:26
Speaker 1: the point that I've removed the nauseating music from this
1:30
Speaker 1: edit of what he said, but let's just have a
1:31
Speaker 1: listen to what he said.
1:34
Speaker 2: Breathing space for today and fresh hope for the future.
1:38
Speaker 2: That's what today's budget will deliver. The world's a highly
1:42
Speaker 2: uncertain place. Conflicts abroad are pushing up energy prices and
1:45
Speaker 2: the cost of living here at home, piling pressure on
1:48
Speaker 2: the families and businesses and on our public finances. But
1:51
Speaker 2: Britain's economy is showing real signs of resilience. Investments up,
1:55
Speaker 2: productivity's growing, and we had the joint fastest growth in
1:58
Speaker 2: the G7 in the first half of this year. We
2:01
Speaker 2: can't stop these shocks that hit Britain, but we can
2:03
Speaker 2: make Britain more resilient when they do. So this budget
2:06
Speaker 2: is designed to give households breathing space from some of
2:09
Speaker 2: the everyday costs, provide targeted support for businesses and self-employed people,
2:13
Speaker 2: and to start the long-term action needed to get energy
2:16
Speaker 2: costs down for good. But breathing space today must go
2:19
Speaker 2: hand in hand with building for the future. So we'll
2:22
Speaker 2: shift power out of Whitehall so that leaders locally can
2:25
Speaker 2: drive growth in every postcode. And in an uncertain world,
2:29
Speaker 2: we'll strengthen national security and our defences, as well as our.
2:33
Speaker 3: Support for Ukraine.
2:36
Speaker 1: So no surprises there, perhaps. But as you just heard,
2:39
Speaker 1: he says the budget is going to make Britain more
2:41
Speaker 1: resilient to global shocks, ease everyday costs. He described it
2:46
Speaker 1: as offering breathing space for today and fresh hope for
2:49
Speaker 1: the future. As you just heard, devolution features prominently mayors
2:54
Speaker 1: in England likely to be allowed to keep and spend
2:56
Speaker 1: a share of income tax and business rates raised in
3:00
Speaker 1: their areas. And this is going to be supported by
3:03
Speaker 1: one and a half billion pounds of borrowing, which has
3:07
Speaker 1: already been announced. He ruled out raising income tax, employee
3:12
Speaker 1: national insurance, or VAT. And he insisted that the budget
3:16
Speaker 1: will meet the government's fiscal rules, whatever that means. And
3:20
Speaker 1: that leaves little room for maneuver, of course, because the
3:24
Speaker 1: higher bond prices linked, well, at least on the face
3:27
Speaker 1: of it, linked to the Iran war, have pushed up
3:30
Speaker 1: debt interest costs. So anyway, we'll see later on exactly
3:35
Speaker 1: what he has planned. But we should make the point
3:39
Speaker 1: that borrowing in the first five months of this year
3:42
Speaker 1: is already well above official forecasts. So he's rumored to
3:49
Speaker 1: be or reported to be considering lifting the surcharge in
3:51
Speaker 1: bank profits from 3% back up to 8%. So that's
3:55
Speaker 1: a banker's tax, which would bring in about £ 2 billion
3:59
Speaker 1: a year. And then he's talking about tighter VAT enforcement
4:03
Speaker 1: on online marketplaces. So don't be selling anything on eBay anymore.
4:08
Speaker 1: beyond what you might have lying at the bottom of
4:11
Speaker 1: the drawer, because that's absolutely going to be being watched
4:15
Speaker 1: very closely. And also extending national insurance to landlords. And
4:20
Speaker 1: that idea is also being floated. So we'll see whether
4:23
Speaker 1: that happens. And of course, we don't know whether the
4:27
Speaker 1: six-month VAT cut in electricity bills is going to be
4:30
Speaker 1: extended beyond next March. So that's really that. But of course,
4:36
Speaker 1: In the meantime, the question is, where are they going
4:38
Speaker 1: to get the money if they aren't going to raise taxes? And, well,
4:43
Speaker 1: the news broke yesterday that one way that they intend
4:46
Speaker 1: to do that is for HMRC to become even more
4:49
Speaker 1: vicious than it already is. They've reportedly sent hundreds of
4:52
Speaker 1: letters to relatively wealthy people asking them to reveal what
4:56
Speaker 1: they own. Now, we're not talking about the top 0.1%
5:01
Speaker 1: of people here. We're talking about people with a household
5:04
Speaker 1: income over £ 200, 000. And some might say, well, just right.
5:08
Speaker 1: But consider that this is not based on what they
5:10
Speaker 1: earn or the taxes they paid. It's based on what
5:12
Speaker 1: they own. So if we just put that back on screen,
5:14
Speaker 1: HMRC has established a department called the wealthy team, which
5:20
Speaker 1: is to say it covers anyone with incomes of £ 200, 000
5:22
Speaker 1: or more or assets equal or above £ 2 million in
5:27
Speaker 1: any of the last three years. And that comes to
5:29
Speaker 1: around 850,000 people. The letter is asking for a meeting
5:35
Speaker 1: to discuss sources of wealth, future intentions, any trusts, any companies,
5:40
Speaker 1: any family arrangements, and even significant life events that families
5:46
Speaker 1: can expect in the coming years. And this is being
5:49
Speaker 1: presented as voluntary, but there is a threat, an implied
5:52
Speaker 1: threat anyway. We may still need to carry out compliance
5:55
Speaker 1: checks on your tax returns. However, speaking with you first
5:58
Speaker 1: may help avoid this. So in other words... They're bullying
6:01
Speaker 1: people into engaging with them. Now, until now, HMRC is
6:06
Speaker 1: usually only asked about income and earnings. And so this
6:10
Speaker 1: letter is being described as a sea change. People are
6:13
Speaker 1: asking if HMRC has a right to know what someone
6:15
Speaker 1: owns and not simply whether they've paid the right amount
6:20
Speaker 1: of tax. And the suspicion is that this is preparation
6:23
Speaker 1: for an exit tax. So in other words, if you
6:25
Speaker 1: decide you don't want to stick around for the forthcoming
6:28
Speaker 1: Ukrainian-style forced conscription, don't think for one second you're getting
6:32
Speaker 1: out of the country with assets intact. And as I say,
6:35
Speaker 1: this is not billionaires who are being targeted here. Charles,
6:38
Speaker 1: very briefly, any thoughts on this?
6:43
Speaker 4: Well, I think on the wider point about what Healy's
6:47
Speaker 4: announcing and the way in which he's couching it, it
6:50
Speaker 4: seems now very clear why he's been moved from defence
6:53
Speaker 4: to treasury, because, of course, he's pinning absolutely everything on
6:56
Speaker 4: the supposed shock of to the system from without. Ironic, therefore,
7:02
Speaker 4: I know it was put forward in a way as
7:03
Speaker 4: a joke, but that he's suggesting that he will create
7:06
Speaker 4: benefits with regard to marmalade and gherkins. Of course, what
7:09
Speaker 4: he's talking about is imported marmalade and gherkins. So he
7:12
Speaker 4: doesn't even seem to grasp the concept of sustainability, self-sustainability
7:17
Speaker 4: or food security. And in so far as the tax
7:21
Speaker 4: affairs are concerned. It's just yet another instance of the
7:24
Speaker 4: state saying explicitly that it does not trust the people
7:29
Speaker 4: whose affairs it should be not just, well, not really
7:33
Speaker 4: managing in the first place, but, you know, acting on
7:35
Speaker 4: behalf of.
7:37
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
7:38
Speaker 1: Thanks for that. Now, Vanessa, let's welcome you to the programme.
7:41
Speaker 1: And of course, Israel has just held an election. How's
7:46
Speaker 1: that gone for Netanyahu?
7:51
Speaker 3: Well, if you follow any of the pro-Netanyahu feeds, he's
7:55
Speaker 3: already won. And I just wanted to bring this up
7:58
Speaker 3: on screen. This is from Channel 14, Tamir Morag. The
8:03
Speaker 3: ballot you put in the ballot box today is no
8:06
Speaker 3: less important than the bomb that Air Force planes will
8:09
Speaker 3: drop on Tehran. So that gives you some indication of
8:12
Speaker 3: the mood of this election. Of course, Channel 14 is
8:15
Speaker 3: known to be Netanyahu's mouthpiece. So basically, this was this morning.
8:22
Speaker 3: I took this from X. Now, of course, there has
8:26
Speaker 3: been an increase. I think now we're up to 85%
8:29
Speaker 3: of the votes are counted. And Netanyahu's bloc stands at 54.
8:34
Speaker 3: Eisenhower's bloc stands at, let me just look, 49. And
8:40
Speaker 3: the Arab bloc has achieved 17 projected. And so we
8:52
Speaker 3: haven't got very long to go. The official results will
8:55
Speaker 3: be announced on, I think it's the 4th of November.
9:01
Speaker 3: But basically, what is interesting is that the Arab seats
9:06
Speaker 3: is the win is the highest in history. And that's
9:09
Speaker 3: despite Netanyahu doing his best through his various proxies. to
9:13
Speaker 3: actually prevent what are effectively so-called Israeli citizens that live
9:18
Speaker 3: in the 48 districts. So they received Israeli citizenship after
9:25
Speaker 3: the Nakba of 1948, and yet they were being bullied
9:29
Speaker 3: and prevented from voting. And let's hear what Netanyahu has
9:33
Speaker 3: to say, putting pressure on basically his own bloc and
9:39
Speaker 3: Eisenkot's bloc to prevent any coalition with the Arab bloc.
9:45
Speaker 5: And I will repeat that we must establish a national
9:51
Speaker 5: right-wing strong government. That is what we must do. It
9:55
Speaker 5: is simply forbidden that we should endanger Israel. and establish
10:00
Speaker 5: a government that leans on Arab parties that are anti-Zionist.
10:10
Speaker 3: But are still citizens of Israel, and as I said,
10:14
Speaker 3: make up 21% of the population. Of course, this is
10:17
Speaker 3: largely also about Netanyahu putting pressure on Eisenkot if the
10:22
Speaker 3: results are very close, that he doesn't ally himself with
10:26
Speaker 3: the Arab bloc to take the 61 seats that are
10:29
Speaker 3: necessary for a clear win in the 120-seat Knesset. And
10:35
Speaker 3: as I mentioned, Arab voter turnout was being deliberately attacked,
10:43
Speaker 3: if we can just have that up on screen. government
10:48
Speaker 3: incitement at the highest levels, Ben-Gavir's police at Arab voting stations,
10:52
Speaker 3: election workers deliberately obstructing Arabs from voting, Hebrew-only ballots at
10:58
Speaker 3: Arab voting stations, and Likud activists were sent to film
11:03
Speaker 3: and intimidate Arab voters. Now, it's slightly interesting that the
11:06
Speaker 3: Likud party was calling that there were irregularities, of course,
11:13
Speaker 3: over the ballot stations. and also claiming that information given
11:19
Speaker 3: at the ballot stations was being leaked externally. They also
11:24
Speaker 3: tried to call for an extension of the voting period.
11:28
Speaker 3: That was refused by the committee. And Netanyahu was actually
11:32
Speaker 3: filmed basically virtually knocking on people's doors and telling them
11:37
Speaker 3: to go and vote. So there was definitely a sense of,
11:40
Speaker 3: let's say, panic from Netanyahu. However, last night he did
11:45
Speaker 3: come up on stage rather as victorious rather than anything else,
11:50
Speaker 3: as we can see here. And the rhetoric across social
11:55
Speaker 3: media from his supporters is very bullish. Now, what does
11:59
Speaker 3: it mean if we end up, in a sense, with
12:03
Speaker 3: a hung vote, if he doesn't achieve more than the
12:05
Speaker 3: 61 or more than seats in the Knesset? it doesn't
12:12
Speaker 3: look like Gadi Eisenkort is going to achieve much more
12:15
Speaker 3: than the 50 seats. Then basically what happens, we have
12:20
Speaker 3: a 90-day period during which Netanyahu remains as caretaker prime minister.
12:26
Speaker 3: And potentially, I think back in 2019, 2020, we had
12:32
Speaker 3: extra elections for some period of time before Netanyahu finally
12:38
Speaker 3: achieved the majority that he needed. neither party, in my opinion,
12:43
Speaker 3: are going to try and ally with the Arab bloc
12:46
Speaker 3: for the reasons that I've explained. Although the Democrat leader,
12:53
Speaker 3: Yair Golan, is actually pushing Eisenkot to do that, to
12:56
Speaker 3: effectively get rid of Netanyahu. He is marginally less warmongering
13:02
Speaker 3: than Eisenkot or Netanyahu. Between the policies of Eisenkot and Netanyahu,
13:08
Speaker 3: there's very little difference. So Depending on what happens eventually,
13:12
Speaker 3: in my opinion, it's going to eventually end up in
13:14
Speaker 3: the hands of Netanyahu again. He will either produce a
13:18
Speaker 3: false flag, he will generate the needs to go back
13:21
Speaker 3: to war to keep himself in power. But you're not
13:24
Speaker 3: going to see a change in strategy. You are only
13:27
Speaker 3: going to see a change in tactics, potentially.
13:29
Speaker 6: And....
13:32
Speaker 1: While he's caretaker manager, but he still has corruption charges
13:36
Speaker 1: against him, what's the situation with potential for prosecution?
13:42
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's conflicting reports across social media. Some are saying
13:46
Speaker 3: he will face prosecution if he isn't the de facto
13:49
Speaker 3: prime minister. In my opinion, he'll manage to find a way,
13:52
Speaker 3: as he has done for the last X number of years,
13:55
Speaker 3: to wriggle out of it, probably through war.
13:59
Speaker 6: Yes.
14:00
Speaker 1: Thank you for that, Vanessa. Yeah, indeed. Charles, let's come
14:05
Speaker 1: to you then and bring us up to date with
14:07
Speaker 1: the RAF Fairford nonsense.
14:12
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mike. Yes, and proper good afternoon all. The
14:16
Speaker 4: moment I think we had all been waiting for has
14:18
Speaker 4: now arrived, or at least the moment we were expecting,
14:21
Speaker 4: which is that the Crime and Prosecution Service has announced
14:24
Speaker 4: that two men have been charged with what are described
14:28
Speaker 4: as National Security Act offences following the euphemistically termed RAF
14:33
Speaker 4: Fairford incident. Now, apart from the proximity to RAF Fairford,
14:38
Speaker 4: the only incident that's in fact been evidenced is one
14:42
Speaker 4: which took place in the village of Welford, well outside
14:45
Speaker 4: of the airfield itself. Now, just as a side note,
14:49
Speaker 4: it should be pointed out that the linked departure of
14:52
Speaker 4: the B-1B Lancer bombers does in fact tally with local chatter.
14:56
Speaker 4: Residents of Fairford had already been under the impression that
15:00
Speaker 4: they would be leaving around the end of September. So
15:03
Speaker 4: I think it's important just to put that out, even
15:05
Speaker 4: if it is hearsay. Now, from the counter-terrorism policing themselves,
15:11
Speaker 4: obviously they're delighted, despite the apparent or at least apparently
15:16
Speaker 4: evident political pressure that's been applied. They've said that two
15:19
Speaker 4: men have been charged under the National Security Act. And
15:22
Speaker 4: of course, they've had to say that this is following
15:24
Speaker 4: an extensive investigation. It certainly is because it's used so
15:28
Speaker 4: far three pieces of legislation to try to pin these
15:31
Speaker 4: men down. The Explosives Act 1875, the Terrorism Act 2006,
15:35
Speaker 4: and now the music has stopped on the National Security
15:39
Speaker 4: Act 2023 for the time being, at least. Now, even
15:43
Speaker 4: the mainstream media has had trouble keeping the official version
15:46
Speaker 4: of events afloat. And this is how Assistant Commissioner Lawrence
15:51
Speaker 4: Taylor of Counterterrorism Police explained the very many inconsistencies.
15:59
Speaker 7: Now, for the public, this incident was defined by images
16:02
Speaker 7: of three vans being stopped and searched by armed police
16:06
Speaker 7: officers and the arrest of five men at the scene.
16:10
Speaker 7: The subsequent release of those five men on police bail
16:13
Speaker 7: sparked significant questions and speculation about the investigation and why
16:18
Speaker 7: that was the case. We know that decisions made during
16:22
Speaker 7: our investigations can sometimes appear illogical to those on the outside.
16:26
Speaker 7: But I want to make it very clear that there
16:28
Speaker 7: will always be a good reason or rationale behind them.
16:32
Speaker 7: We will always ensure that should we identify any ongoing threat,
16:36
Speaker 7: we will manage that as part of the investigation. And
16:40
Speaker 7: like our adversaries, our tactics vary and may not always
16:45
Speaker 7: be obvious to everyone. In this case, this decision making
16:50
Speaker 7: has led to swifter progress, better evidence and ultimately us
16:55
Speaker 7: securing the charges that I have announced today. In sensitive
16:59
Speaker 7: investigations like this, it can take time to convert intelligence
17:03
Speaker 7: into evidence and this is what scores of my officers
17:06
Speaker 7: and staff have been doing over the last few weeks.
17:10
Speaker 7: Their work has involved reviewing extensive CCTV footage, as well
17:14
Speaker 7: as the contents of dozens of digital devices seized as
17:18
Speaker 7: part of the investigation.
17:22
Speaker 4: Converting intelligence into evidence is one way of putting it,
17:26
Speaker 4: but it's very clear from what he says that there's
17:28
Speaker 4: been a very heavy reliance on digital signature. He spoke
17:32
Speaker 4: about CCTV and the examination of devices. Now, that seems
17:36
Speaker 4: to put paid to any suggestion that the men concerned
17:40
Speaker 4: were under any kind of meaningful surveillance or indeed that
17:44
Speaker 4: there was any of the sort of monitoring that MI5
17:46
Speaker 4: is constantly reminding us is necessary and in fact happening.
17:51
Speaker 4: And with dates going back as far as the 22nd
17:53
Speaker 4: of August now being referenced, it looks very much like
17:55
Speaker 4: the facts are being made to fit. Now, with regard
17:58
Speaker 4: to the act itself, how much lassitude do police have?
18:03
Speaker 4: And I would contend that the answer is a lot,
18:05
Speaker 4: because if we look at the section used against the
18:10
Speaker 4: men here for the charges, entering a prohibited place for
18:13
Speaker 4: a purpose prejudicial, the person commits the offence if the
18:17
Speaker 4: person accesses enters, inspects, passes over or under, approaches, or
18:24
Speaker 4: is in the vicinity of a prohibited place. Now, there
18:28
Speaker 4: seems to be a lot of room for manoeuvre there.
18:31
Speaker 4: And indeed, I might ask the question, as somebody who's
18:33
Speaker 4: visited and filmed through the fence at RAF Fairford on
18:36
Speaker 4: a number of occasions, and having been stopped by MOD police,
18:39
Speaker 4: why was it not considered possible that I was acting
18:42
Speaker 4: on behalf of a foreign power? Now, on the subject
18:46
Speaker 4: of acting... we have Politics UK referring to the appearance
18:52
Speaker 4: of one of the suspects or one of those charged,
18:55
Speaker 4: Mohamed Abdul Karim, who is seen in a wheelchair and
19:00
Speaker 4: this is him leaving the court. Now, of course, it's
19:04
Speaker 4: not to suggest that just because he is wheelchair bound
19:06
Speaker 4: that he is therefore not capable of enjoining in any
19:10
Speaker 4: of the activities described, but it is also pertinent, or
19:14
Speaker 4: at least it shows the shortcomings of X in that
19:18
Speaker 4: UK politics had appended the suggestion that he was alleged
19:23
Speaker 4: to have loaded heavy objects into the back of the
19:25
Speaker 4: infamous white vans. Of course, that's not actually specified in
19:28
Speaker 4: the charge. So one does have to be very careful, clearly,
19:31
Speaker 4: with what is or is not the case when put
19:34
Speaker 4: out there. Now, counterterrorism police have made continued references to Iran, as,
19:40
Speaker 4: of course, have many other And this appears to be
19:44
Speaker 4: for a very particular reason. We'll now listen to what
19:47
Speaker 4: Lawrence Taylor encourages the public to do based on this investigation.
19:54
Speaker 7: And while some of the circumstances remain unclear, we are
19:58
Speaker 7: confident that this activity was conducted on behalf of a
20:02
Speaker 7: foreign intelligence service. Now I've spoken before about the nature
20:06
Speaker 7: of national security investigations and the increasing use of proxies
20:10
Speaker 7: by those who wish to destabilise our nation. Our investigations
20:16
Speaker 7: involving proxies take time to establish what those individuals knew
20:20
Speaker 7: about the ambition behind the tasking. Sometimes individuals can have
20:25
Speaker 7: no knowledge at all or even partial knowledge of what
20:29
Speaker 7: they're being asked to do on behalf of foreign states.
20:32
Speaker 7: Sometimes they have full knowledge. This is not a theoretical threat.
20:37
Speaker 7: This is something we're responding to every day at Counter
20:39
Speaker 7: Terrorism Policing, particularly in the case of Iran.
20:44
Speaker 2: We've seen a.
20:44
Speaker 7: Range of incidents in recent months that we believe have
20:47
Speaker 7: been directed by the Iranian state. And as the Director
20:50
Speaker 7: General of MI5 said recently, we're working together to intervene,
20:54
Speaker 7: identify and respond to that threat. The public can help
20:58
Speaker 7: us with this. And as always, I would urge you
21:00
Speaker 7: to report anything that you're worried about. These reports can
21:04
Speaker 7: and do make a very big difference.
21:09
Speaker 4: There we are, sowing the seed in the mind of
21:11
Speaker 4: the public that anything seen as suspicious may be pinned
21:14
Speaker 4: on Iran, even if the people concerned have absolutely no
21:16
Speaker 4: idea that they are apparently acting on behalf of Iran.
21:20
Speaker 4: And we'll just have a quick reminder of what it
21:21
Speaker 4: was that Lord Wood said in the House of Lords
21:24
Speaker 4: the other day and how he termed the incident at Fairford.
21:31
Speaker 8: Well, I thank the noble Lord for those questions. And
21:35
Speaker 8: he's right on Fairford to say that we are now
21:41
Speaker 8: highly confident, it's highly likely, that this was an attack
21:45
Speaker 8: coordinated in Iran and was certainly directed by the IRGC.
21:50
Speaker 8: And he's also right that Iran's responsible not just for
21:53
Speaker 8: direct attacks on the UK in the region, but also
21:58
Speaker 8: on dissidents and citizens here in the UK.
22:05
Speaker 4: So it's now become an attack. And a lot of
22:08
Speaker 4: this is very reminiscent of the events surrounding the Iraq
22:10
Speaker 4: war over 20 years ago. And I'll just look back
22:13
Speaker 4: to an article Guardian put out entitled Britain took part
22:17
Speaker 4: in mock Iran invasion. And remarkably, this is going back
22:20
Speaker 4: some years. The planner said the game was based on
22:22
Speaker 4: a fictitious Middle East country, rather remarkably called Corona. The
22:26
Speaker 4: borders corresponded exactly with Iran's and the characteristics of the
22:29
Speaker 4: enemy were Iranian. And that was back in 2004, Hotspur.
22:33
Speaker 4: It was called a war game. And then otherwise, just
22:37
Speaker 4: going back to the Foreign Affairs Committee, hearing from Alastair Campbell,
22:41
Speaker 4: in 2003 and how easily this is in effect done
22:46
Speaker 4: because he is quoted as saying in relation to the
22:49
Speaker 4: briefing paper that was issued in February 2003 I obviously
22:52
Speaker 4: regret the fact that a mistake was made within the
22:55
Speaker 4: drafting process and so it goes on. The point is
22:59
Speaker 4: that this sort of speculation and supposition may lead into
23:03
Speaker 4: very very serious areas and I think we are seeing
23:06
Speaker 4: the front end of that at least determined to unfold.
23:10
Speaker 4: And the response to the public will dictate where exactly
23:12
Speaker 4: it does go, I think.
23:14
Speaker 1: Absolutely. A total comedy show. We'll talk more about this
23:18
Speaker 1: in Extra, amongst other things, I have no doubt. Now,
23:21
Speaker 1: if you like what the UK Column does, we do
23:23
Speaker 1: need your ongoing support. Do have a look at the
23:26
Speaker 1: UK Column website. And the details are there. You can
23:30
Speaker 1: make a donation, you can join as a member. And
23:33
Speaker 1: if you do join as a member, of course you
23:35
Speaker 1: get access to UK column news extra and other members
23:38
Speaker 1: only content. If you can't support us financially, please do
23:43
Speaker 1: share this program, anything else on the website that you
23:45
Speaker 1: see that you think people, other people need to see
23:48
Speaker 1: as well. That helps us greatly. The magazine, of course,
23:52
Speaker 1: the column quarterly magazine is available on the shop. Issue
23:56
Speaker 1: three is available. Annual subscription's available. Please do pick one
24:00
Speaker 1: up if you haven't got one yet. Now tonight, Jerem
24:02
Speaker 1: is going to be asking, what does it mean to
24:04
Speaker 1: be human? That's at 7 p.m. Join us for that.
24:07
Speaker 1: And at 9, Carl is asking, did October the 7th
24:10
Speaker 1: trigger the collapse of the Western order? And tomorrow, we
24:15
Speaker 1: will have global destabilization. This is part two of an
24:20
Speaker 1: interview series that Brian has done with DeepD. And that
24:24
Speaker 1: is at 1 p.m. Join us for that.
24:26
Speaker 3: Okay.
24:29
Speaker 1: Let's move on, Charles, and let's look at energy, because,
24:32
Speaker 1: of course, Ailey's saying that he's going to deal forever
24:35
Speaker 1: with high energy costs. And one way that he's going
24:38
Speaker 1: to do that is to roll out green energy. That
24:41
Speaker 1: must be all for the good, right?
24:46
Speaker 8: Well, exactly.
24:46
Speaker 4: Going back to why it is that energy costs might
24:49
Speaker 4: be high or might be prone to rising. The announcement
24:52
Speaker 4: yesterday by the planning inspectors, I think, gives us something
24:56
Speaker 4: of an insight into where this is going, or at
24:58
Speaker 4: least into how the system works because of how that
25:00
Speaker 4: system is set up. Just yesterday, they announced that the
25:03
Speaker 4: Frodsham solar development consent decision has been announced. And of course,
25:08
Speaker 4: it's gone in favour of the development. This is up
25:11
Speaker 4: in Cheshire, and this is heralded by, I'm not actually
25:15
Speaker 4: sure whether you pronounce it Cubico or Cubico or some
25:19
Speaker 4: variant on that. But sustainable investments, I mean, I think
25:21
Speaker 4: the clue is in the title there. That seems to
25:23
Speaker 4: be less to do with the production of energy than
25:26
Speaker 4: indeed the return of money from it. But nonetheless, they
25:29
Speaker 4: seem excited to present what they're calling Frodsham Solar. And
25:33
Speaker 4: they state that it will export up to 100 megawatts
25:37
Speaker 4: of power to the grid from a solar array. Now,
25:41
Speaker 4: the significant detail there is the battery storage that accompanies it.
25:46
Speaker 4: And that's why I say that the system that the
25:49
Speaker 4: planning inspectorate has with regard to the development consent order,
25:52
Speaker 4: which of course now has been granted, is in effect
25:56
Speaker 4: the fly in the ointment or certainly something that the
25:59
Speaker 4: public is not really allowed to pay attention to. And
26:03
Speaker 4: the reason for this is because of the way in
26:05
Speaker 4: which the national policy statement is set out, and this
26:08
Speaker 4: of course goes back to the beginning of this year,
26:10
Speaker 4: the policy statement for renewable energy infrastructure allows for the
26:15
Speaker 4: battery storage to be termed associated infrastructure. We see that
26:18
Speaker 4: paragraph 210.8 may also be proposed and may be treated
26:23
Speaker 4: on a case by case basis as associated development, such
26:27
Speaker 4: as energy storage. That means if you go over the
26:29
Speaker 4: critical threshold requiring the consideration of the planning inspectorate, if
26:34
Speaker 4: you attach a battery storage capability to it then in
26:39
Speaker 4: effect that will go through on the nod. Now in
26:42
Speaker 4: order to explain why or at least suggest why this
26:45
Speaker 4: is an issue we look at the site plan provided
26:48
Speaker 4: for the Frodsham development which admittedly is probably slightly too
26:52
Speaker 4: small for you to get an idea of it but
26:54
Speaker 4: I've just circled there two areas which would appear to
26:59
Speaker 4: be in complete contradiction to one another. One of them
27:02
Speaker 4: is the battery energy storage system, BESS, for storing energy,
27:07
Speaker 4: or at least so we're told. Of course, there is
27:10
Speaker 4: very much the suggestion this is for arbitrage energy, arbitrage
27:13
Speaker 4: purposes only, and in fact, rather cynical in the first instance.
27:17
Speaker 4: But right next door to it, supporting bird life, over
27:20
Speaker 4: 80 hectares of new and enhanced habitat have been designed
27:23
Speaker 4: to support wetland birds and skylarks. So whether they like
27:26
Speaker 4: it or not, that's where they're apparently going to live.
27:30
Speaker 4: But I think we have to go to the Environment Agency, really,
27:32
Speaker 4: to see what it is that underpins all of this.
27:34
Speaker 4: And they put out just last year their environmental implications
27:38
Speaker 4: of energy storage technologies, because, of course, they really can't
27:41
Speaker 4: ignore it anymore. And I've termed this greenwashing, how it works.
27:46
Speaker 4: I think you'll see why as we go through some
27:47
Speaker 4: of it. First of all, the claim, of course, from
27:50
Speaker 4: the government through their industrial strategy is that we are
27:53
Speaker 4: going to be producing the lithium that is going to
27:56
Speaker 4: be used in all these sorts of projects. In fact,
27:58
Speaker 4: the Environment Agency are saying the mining of lithium is
28:01
Speaker 4: unlikely for the foreseeable future. So that's a nail in
28:05
Speaker 4: that coffin. And they're, however, going to look at the
28:09
Speaker 4: upside by saying, consequently, the environmental damages caused by the
28:12
Speaker 4: mining of lithium, such as land degradation, water contamination and
28:17
Speaker 4: air pollution, can be considered offshored because we're getting the
28:21
Speaker 4: lithium somewhere else. So none of that matters anymore. Now,
28:25
Speaker 4: to the issue at hand, which is the best, the
28:28
Speaker 4: battery energy storage systems, rather incredibly, that is not currently
28:32
Speaker 4: regulated by the environmental permitting regulations, although apparently DEFRA has
28:36
Speaker 4: plans to introduce the technology. Now, that has not been
28:39
Speaker 4: done as of yet. the time of reporting this. And
28:42
Speaker 4: don't forget, this Environment Agency report goes back to the
28:45
Speaker 4: beginning of last year, 2025. And if you thought this
28:48
Speaker 4: might have been a one-off, no, not so. Likewise, the
28:52
Speaker 4: storage technology is not regulated by the Coma regulations either.
28:58
Speaker 4: So in effect, all of this, using the Frodsham project
29:03
Speaker 4: as an example, just goes to show how the entire
29:08
Speaker 4: net zero project Project, scam, call it what you will,
29:12
Speaker 4: is really laid bare by the apparent suggestion this is
29:15
Speaker 4: going to be for the benefit of the environment, whilst
29:18
Speaker 4: at the same time demonstrating very, very clearly how that
29:24
Speaker 4: is extremely unlikely to be the case, given that there
29:26
Speaker 4: are so many completely valid environmental concerns. about the lithium
29:31
Speaker 4: battery storage facilities. Mike, I don't know if you've got
29:35
Speaker 4: time for a quick comment on the way this looks
29:38
Speaker 4: and how difficult it's become to hide these kind of inconsistencies.
29:43
Speaker 1: Well, for me, the biggest inconsistency you mentioned there was
29:47
Speaker 1: the issue of lithium. And so, you know, there is
29:51
Speaker 1: clearly a tacit acknowledgement by the Environment Agency that the
29:55
Speaker 1: mining of lithium for these battery storage facilities systems is
30:01
Speaker 1: absolutely detrimental to the environment in many, many ways. But
30:05
Speaker 1: as you say, don't worry about it because we've offshored
30:07
Speaker 1: that problem and it'll be some African country that will
30:10
Speaker 1: have to deal with that and that's okay then.
30:12
Speaker 4: It seems to be exactly the way in which they're
30:17
Speaker 4: looking at it. And again, that ties in very much
30:19
Speaker 4: with the idea that just creating a habitat for birds
30:23
Speaker 4: absolutely directly next door to something that every single fire
30:25
Speaker 4: service in the land has conceded that if there is
30:28
Speaker 4: a fire there, there is nothing they can do about it.
30:31
Speaker 4: And the environmental and ecological fallout will be absolutely considerable,
30:34
Speaker 4: does seem to be cynical in the extreme. So these
30:38
Speaker 4: are the sorts of things that I think, you know,
30:40
Speaker 4: in a local context, I would hope very much that
30:42
Speaker 4: people are concentrating on and are able to make inroads
30:45
Speaker 4: into certainly opposing or getting a much greater degree of
30:49
Speaker 4: detail on.
30:50
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely. And the other thing I'll just mention, of course,
30:53
Speaker 1: is precautionary principle, because it's The government's quite happy to
30:56
Speaker 1: roll the precautionary principle out whenever it's something that they
30:59
Speaker 1: don't want the general public to do, but when they
31:01
Speaker 1: want corporations to be able to do things, whether it's
31:05
Speaker 1: 5G or battery storage or whatever it happens to be,
31:08
Speaker 1: or in fact, what we're just about to talk about,
31:11
Speaker 1: then there's no problem, no requirement for precautionary principle there whatsoever.
31:15
Speaker 1: So Vanessa, let me welcome you back to the program
31:18
Speaker 1: and let's talk about the production of food.
31:23
Speaker 3: Well, I wouldn't call it food. Anyway, let's roll the
31:27
Speaker 3: first video so people get an idea of what I'm
31:29
Speaker 3: going to be talking about.
31:31
Speaker 9: Soon, the entire world will start eating meat printed by
31:35
Speaker 9: a printer, and we won't even be able to tell
31:37
Speaker 9: if it's real meat or not. This isn't a plot
31:39
Speaker 9: from Black Mirror. It's our reality unfolding. Here's why printed
31:43
Speaker 9: meat resembles real meat so closely. The 3D printers use
31:46
Speaker 9: special bio inks to create it. These bio-inks are actually
31:50
Speaker 9: made from stem cells extracted from different animals depending on
31:53
Speaker 9: the desired type of meat, beef, pork, poultry or even fish.
31:57
Speaker 9: In a laboratory, these cells then multiply, interact and differentiate
32:01
Speaker 9: into the fat and muscle cells that make up bio-ink.
32:04
Speaker 9: These bio-inks are then intricately layered by specialized 3D printers
32:09
Speaker 9: to construct meat products that closely mimic the texture, taste
32:13
Speaker 9: and nutritional composition of traditional meats. This is identical to
32:17
Speaker 9: real beef, and when it is ready and served, even
32:20
Speaker 9: the smell is the same. Scientists claim that by using
32:23
Speaker 9: this technology, the environmental impact associated with conventional livestock farming
32:28
Speaker 9: will be greatly reduced. So would you eat printed meat?
32:35
Speaker 3: Would you eat printed meat? Well, let's have a look
32:38
Speaker 3: at what Benjamin Netanyahu thinks of the facilities, production facilities
32:45
Speaker 3: of 3D meat in Israel, in Tel Aviv, I think
32:48
Speaker 3: it is. A company called Stakeholder, S-T-A-K, of course, giving
32:55
Speaker 3: him a tour of the factory.
32:59
Speaker 6: Fast food.
33:00
Speaker 1: Before.
33:21
Speaker 3: I'm sure everyone is fascinated at this point. But I
33:49
Speaker 3: was quite surprised to find out that this was reported
33:52
Speaker 3: back in 2023 in Time magazine, how Israel became the
33:58
Speaker 3: global center for alternative meat tech. Now, I have to
34:01
Speaker 3: say China is quickly catching up in the interest of
34:05
Speaker 3: inverted commas sustainability. And this was from, what was it?
34:10
Speaker 3: It was a food tech conference in Tel Aviv in 2023.
34:15
Speaker 3: And Time reported, it was a scene even a vegan
34:18
Speaker 3: would enjoy. The cheese was produced from microalgae. The roast beef,
34:23
Speaker 3: as succulent and savory as the real thing, was made
34:25
Speaker 3: from fermented plant proteins. The kebabs, burgers, and pulled beef
34:31
Speaker 3: were plant-based from redefined meat. The chicken and steak served
34:34
Speaker 3: off-site by Super Meat and ALF Farms, respectively, were cultivated
34:39
Speaker 3: from biopseed stem cells in bioreactors. About the only animal-based
34:45
Speaker 3: product to be found at the venue was a lonely
34:48
Speaker 3: quart of cow's milk tucked behind a phalanx of a
34:50
Speaker 3: plant-based alternatives at the coffee stand. Then within that article,
34:57
Speaker 3: they bring up a report by the Good Food Institute,
35:01
Speaker 3: which I would argue whether it is good food or not.
35:05
Speaker 3: And in that, they talk about the fact that Europe
35:07
Speaker 3: needs to diversify the ways it produces food with public
35:11
Speaker 3: investment in the research and infrastructure needed to scale production.
35:15
Speaker 3: Cultivated meat could help to satisfy demand for meat while
35:18
Speaker 3: reducing pressure on existing systems, which includes cutting the climate
35:23
Speaker 3: impact of meat by up to, I love this up to,
35:27
Speaker 3: because that basically means it could be at 3%, by
35:30
Speaker 3: up to 92%, reduce air pollution by up to 94%.
35:36
Speaker 3: And this is the worrying part for me. Use up
35:39
Speaker 3: to 90% less land. Well, what does that release the
35:42
Speaker 3: land for? Of course, data centers and so on. And
35:47
Speaker 3: then moving on, Israel also became the first country to
35:52
Speaker 3: approve the sale of lab cultured meat. Israel's chief, Rabonait,
35:57
Speaker 3: gave the company It's approval. Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi David Lau
36:02
Speaker 3: ruled that Aleph's cultured meat is kosher and pariv because
36:06
Speaker 3: the meat is grown from stem cells taken from a
36:08
Speaker 3: fertilized egg rather than cells extracted from muscle tissue. Makes
36:14
Speaker 3: all the difference. And then it's not only meat. This
36:17
Speaker 3: is very recently. I think this is a couple of
36:20
Speaker 3: months ago. Mondelez and Celeste Bio, another Israel-based company, unveiled
36:26
Speaker 3: the world's first cell-based chocolate. So what are they talking about?
36:30
Speaker 3: Mondelez International has developed nearly a dozen. Could we just
36:35
Speaker 3: have the next slide, please? Has developed nearly a dozen
36:39
Speaker 3: milk chocolate bars with cell-based cocoa butter from Israeli startup
36:43
Speaker 3: Celeste Bio, in which the Cadbury owner has been an
36:46
Speaker 3: investor since 2022. Gives you a clue what chocolate not
36:50
Speaker 3: to eat. They develop the fat using real cocoa cells
36:53
Speaker 3: grown in suspension in a bioreactor. The process takes one
36:57
Speaker 3: to two beans to produce the same amount of cacao
37:01
Speaker 3: butter that traditionally requires four tons of cacao and 10,000
37:06
Speaker 3: square meters of land. So again, we see the fraying
37:09
Speaker 3: up of land. And then coming on to stakeholder foods
37:14
Speaker 3: launches Perfecta at retail outlets across Europe. Northeastern America, plant-based
37:21
Speaker 3: marbled steak, plant-based filet mignon, plant-based chicken breast, plant-based salmon patties,
37:28
Speaker 3: and whitefish patties. And then you might be asking whether
37:33
Speaker 3: the UK is involved in this as of yet. Well,
37:37
Speaker 3: the Israeli startup gets EU backing to help bring lab-grown
37:41
Speaker 3: meat cuts to the table. But also at the Plant-Based
37:46
Speaker 3: World Expo in London in November 2024, there were six
37:50
Speaker 3: commercial letters of intent signed. And it has established, or
37:55
Speaker 3: the various companies have established collaboration centers in Europe alongside
38:00
Speaker 3: the Israeli-based facilities. Now, I recommend this article, obviously, is
38:05
Speaker 3: going to be in the show notes. This is from
38:07
Speaker 3: the Children's Health Defense League. and from Dr. Joseph Mercola,
38:13
Speaker 3: if we can have that up, thanks. And so it's
38:17
Speaker 3: a very lengthy article going into the fact that nobody
38:21
Speaker 3: is really regulating it. There are various bodies supposedly regulating.
38:25
Speaker 3: There's very little coordination between them. And of course, there
38:30
Speaker 3: is no generational history of the effects of eating these products.
38:37
Speaker 3: And what he says is whenever possible, focus on foods
38:41
Speaker 3: that remain close to their natural form. Many alternative meat
38:45
Speaker 3: products are ultra processed foods that contain industrial additives, refined
38:49
Speaker 3: ingredients and seed oils such as soybean, corn, sunflower and
38:52
Speaker 3: canola oil. They are rich in linoleic acid, which accumulates
38:58
Speaker 3: in your tissues and disrupts efficient cellular energy production. The
39:03
Speaker 3: health concerns surrounding these products extend beyond the manufacturing process
39:07
Speaker 3: itself and include the additives, processing byproducts and ingredient combinations
39:13
Speaker 3: commonly used to create them. So I had a quick
39:16
Speaker 3: look at just one of those products, which is methyl cellulose,
39:21
Speaker 3: or you would probably know it better if you ever
39:23
Speaker 3: look at the E numbers in your food, is E461.
39:28
Speaker 3: It's a technology often refrigerated. to as fused paste layering,
39:33
Speaker 3: which uses high capacity machines capable of up to 420
39:37
Speaker 3: kilos per hour to deposit layers of plant proteins such
39:41
Speaker 3: as soy flour and fats like grapeseed or coconut oil
39:45
Speaker 3: bound together by the methyl cellulose gel. While it is
39:50
Speaker 3: a standard binder in many processed foods and plant-based meats,
39:54
Speaker 3: its use in high volume in the 3D meats is
39:58
Speaker 3: what is the problem. It sparked debate regarding transparency in
40:01
Speaker 3: the nature of these ingredients masquerading as premium cuts. And
40:05
Speaker 3: other binders like transglutaminase meat glue are used in some
40:11
Speaker 3: meat analogs, but methylcellulose, which is actually a laxative, by
40:15
Speaker 3: the way, It's specifically highlighted in the context of the
40:20
Speaker 3: new wave of 3D printed meat. I'm sure everyone can't
40:24
Speaker 3: wait for it to arrive in the UK.
40:28
Speaker 1: Looking forward to it, but we'll talk about that in
40:30
Speaker 1: extra talks. I'd be very interested in your thoughts on this,
40:34
Speaker 1: because obviously food and farming is something which is close
40:38
Speaker 1: to your heart.
40:42
Speaker 4: Very much so. It's just another instance of complete deception,
40:45
Speaker 4: isn't it? I mean, it follows quite closely, I think,
40:47
Speaker 4: what I've just been talking about with the idea that
40:50
Speaker 4: battery storage systems in some way sort of good for
40:52
Speaker 4: the environment. This is in a way the same thing.
40:54
Speaker 4: I'm really glad that Vanessa cited Mercola talking about ultra
40:58
Speaker 4: processed food, because I think what what mustn't happen is
41:01
Speaker 4: that the synthesizing of lab grown food becomes a distraction.
41:05
Speaker 4: And therefore people are not considering the sorts of products
41:08
Speaker 4: that are already available because of course they are extremely harmful.
41:12
Speaker 4: And I think there's a good discussion to be had
41:14
Speaker 4: an extra about whole foods.
41:16
Speaker 3: Absolutely. Absolutely. Okay.
41:18
Speaker 1: Now let's move on then to a tricky topic because
41:21
Speaker 1: Burnham government has announced yet another mechanism for survivors of
41:25
Speaker 1: child sexual abuse in England and Wales to have their
41:28
Speaker 1: testimony funneled into a big black hole. Now they've announced
41:32
Speaker 1: a new victims commissioner panel. backed by £ 1 million in
41:36
Speaker 1: Home Office funding, which they say will give adult survivors
41:39
Speaker 1: of child sexual abuse and exploitation more say in decisions
41:43
Speaker 1: that affect them. They're not clarifying what that actually means.
41:48
Speaker 1: The panel is going to be operated by the Independent
41:51
Speaker 1: Victims Commissioner for England and Wales. We'll talk about independence
41:55
Speaker 1: in a second as well. And They say it will
41:58
Speaker 1: provide a safe, supportive forum for victims and survivors to
42:01
Speaker 1: share their experiences, insights, and recommendations directly with government, helping
42:06
Speaker 1: to bring better outcomes for all victims and survivors of
42:09
Speaker 1: these terrible crimes. And I'm going to say really, because
42:13
Speaker 1: survivors have already given testimony to ICSA, the so-called Independent
42:17
Speaker 1: Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, as well as to the
42:20
Speaker 1: Truth Project and the Grooming Gangs panel. and the recommendations
42:24
Speaker 1: from all of those have pretty much gone unimplemented. The
42:28
Speaker 1: press release from gov.uk is devoid of detail. It's mostly
42:31
Speaker 1: a series of quotes from the usual suspects like RIP Crisis, NAPAC, NSPCC,
42:37
Speaker 1: Mankind UK, the Marie Collins Foundation, CSA Centre and Restitute,
42:42
Speaker 1: none of which has very much of a reputation in
42:45
Speaker 1: the eyes of the survivors that we've worked with over
42:47
Speaker 1: the years. They've all failed in getting the lid off
42:50
Speaker 1: this issue properly. And of course, The positive quotes about
42:54
Speaker 1: this new panel from these organizations reflect their involvement with
42:57
Speaker 1: the panel. Nothing in the documents released so far indicates
43:02
Speaker 1: anything that commits any government minister to publish the advice
43:06
Speaker 1: that the panel gives. They don't have to reply to it.
43:09
Speaker 1: They don't have to explain why they won't act on it.
43:12
Speaker 1: And the commissioner's wording is that the views will be, quotes,
43:16
Speaker 1: communicated openly to government. And that's probably as far as
43:20
Speaker 1: it will go. Now, as for independence, the panel is
43:24
Speaker 1: hosted independently by the Victim's Commissioner, but the money and
43:28
Speaker 1: the decision on whether it continues after 2029 are both
43:33
Speaker 1: within the remit of the Home Office, because that's where
43:35
Speaker 1: the money's coming from. And I'm going to imagine that
43:39
Speaker 1: the panel will only receive continued funding if it does
43:42
Speaker 1: the right thing in inverted commas. And that right thing
43:45
Speaker 1: is probably primarily to make sure the lid stays on
43:48
Speaker 1: the Epstein class No testimony from anyone abused by anyone
43:53
Speaker 1: close to the government, civil service or the deep state.
43:57
Speaker 1: And I'll just mention the CSA Center website in particular
44:01
Speaker 1: here because it's worth a visit. It's funded by the
44:04
Speaker 1: Home Office, as is the panel, hosted by Barnardo's and
44:08
Speaker 1: very much a common purpose theme to that website throughout.
44:12
Speaker 1: They describe themselves as the center of expertise on child
44:15
Speaker 1: sexual abuse. Charles, I'm going to say we should make
44:19
Speaker 1: of that. people should make of that what they will,
44:21
Speaker 1: but this just smells of yet another effort to shut
44:28
Speaker 1: down any serious discussion of this issue.
44:34
Speaker 4: I think it absolutely does. And I completely agree with
44:36
Speaker 4: you about the colour scheme, the common purpose colour scheme,
44:39
Speaker 4: but it looks like it is doing exactly what you described,
44:43
Speaker 4: which is to put it out there as though to
44:45
Speaker 4: demonstrate that something is being done. And of course, with
44:48
Speaker 4: a mechanism by which it can be tightly sealed off,
44:52
Speaker 4: compartmentalised and just put away. Of course, then with the
44:55
Speaker 4: rubber stamp saying, yeah, we did it, we dealt with it.
44:58
Speaker 4: You know, what more do you want? And I think
45:01
Speaker 4: that it is absolutely being set up to fail. I
45:03
Speaker 4: think it's entirely consistent, though, with anything that we hear
45:07
Speaker 4: about that comes out of the Home Office, particularly with
45:10
Speaker 4: regard to, say, specific crimes. There is never really anything
45:14
Speaker 4: other than soundbites. And knife crime would be an easy
45:18
Speaker 4: one to think about. Yvette Cooper's consistent claims to halve
45:23
Speaker 4: knife crime rather than to try to actually get rid
45:27
Speaker 4: of it. And we saw the same thing with violence
45:30
Speaker 4: against women and girls, a great catchphrase, but absolutely no
45:36
Speaker 4: substance to it. But I think when it comes to
45:39
Speaker 4: the abuse of children, it is absolutely taken to another
45:43
Speaker 4: level in terms of the way in which it is
45:45
Speaker 4: continually pushed to the side and never actually dealt with
45:49
Speaker 4: head on. And of course, it's also worth noting that
45:51
Speaker 4: in terms of the investigation of this at the policing
45:55
Speaker 4: side of it, typically those departments are hampered by a
46:00
Speaker 4: massive lack of manpower and a lack of funding.
46:04
Speaker 1: Indeed. Now, let's come back to you then. And well,
46:08
Speaker 1: in fact, we're back to another energy discussion.
46:15
Speaker 3: We are.
46:15
Speaker 4: I mean, and I think this is quite right because
46:17
Speaker 4: we just heard again at the start of the programme,
46:19
Speaker 4: John Healy trying every which way to to sell the
46:24
Speaker 4: public the idea that energy costs are rising because of
46:30
Speaker 4: the Russians or maybe the Iranians now, but anything except
46:34
Speaker 4: for what is going on in the United Kingdom. And
46:36
Speaker 4: of course, Great British Energy, which you may remember as
46:39
Speaker 4: having started up with a somewhat unlikely remit a couple
46:43
Speaker 4: of years ago, has travelled to the north because, of course,
46:48
Speaker 4: the assumption is that a huge amount of power can
46:49
Speaker 4: be harnessed from the wind whilst the evidence points quite
46:53
Speaker 4: strongly to the contrary. But this is Great British Energy
46:56
Speaker 4: to visit Shetland. And what they said of their proposed
47:00
Speaker 4: visit was it's an opportunity to better understand constraints, including
47:05
Speaker 4: grid connectivity and energy affordability. while identifying opportunities for collaboration.
47:11
Speaker 4: And it's really the collaboration point that I want to
47:13
Speaker 4: focus on here. The timing, of course, was unfortunate because
47:17
Speaker 4: it coincided directly with the Shetland Times happening to report
47:21
Speaker 4: on a large project already in existence in Shetland, the
47:25
Speaker 4: Viking Wind Farm, as having recorded constraint payments at their
47:29
Speaker 4: highest level since its early days back in August 2024.
47:33
Speaker 4: as the national energy systems operator, spent a record £ 505
47:36
Speaker 4: million in constraint costs. across the UK. That's just over
47:42
Speaker 4: the course of a month. And we see absolutely laid
47:47
Speaker 4: bare that there is no doubt that the way the
47:49
Speaker 4: system is set up is absolutely to benefit the corporations
47:53
Speaker 4: at the expense of the consumer. Now, Amazon, again, is
47:57
Speaker 4: one of these because going back to Shetland, Amazon recently
48:01
Speaker 4: announced they've added Mossy Hill Wind Farm to their portfolio
48:04
Speaker 4: of over 50 carbon-free energy projects. Now, what's this all about?
48:08
Speaker 4: They say that they are now the UK's largest corporate
48:12
Speaker 4: purchaser of carbon-free energy, and have been for five consecutive years.
48:16
Speaker 4: Their portfolio now represents more than one gigawatt of capacity,
48:20
Speaker 4: and they say enough to power the equivalent of more
48:22
Speaker 4: than 1.3 million people. households annually, well, that's the sort
48:27
Speaker 4: of claim that can never really be entirely nailed down.
48:30
Speaker 4: But what they're referring to here is the Power Purchase Agreement, PPA,
48:34
Speaker 4: which is effectively a mechanism by which a corporation may
48:37
Speaker 4: fix the price of energy over a set period far
48:39
Speaker 4: longer than the individual consumer may be able to do.
48:43
Speaker 4: And in the process, enhance their so-called environmental credentials, because,
48:48
Speaker 4: of course, the energy pricing, the energy fix or the
48:52
Speaker 4: commitment is to a so-called renewable project, which is exactly
48:56
Speaker 4: why the announcement about Mossy Hill. Now, it's very likely,
49:00
Speaker 4: in fact, it's almost impossible that Amazon themselves will be
49:02
Speaker 4: able to use the energy that they have purchased. which
49:06
Speaker 4: there are two sort of obvious points to come from
49:08
Speaker 4: that first of all we've already seen that the curtailment
49:11
Speaker 4: costs associated with renewable projects wind in particular are absolutely
49:15
Speaker 4: considerable and they get passed on to the consumer not
49:18
Speaker 4: just that but of course the businesses and homes that
49:21
Speaker 4: are supplied by the renewable projects, if Amazon has already
49:25
Speaker 4: apparently purchased that energy, means that they cannot, in effect,
49:29
Speaker 4: take any credit for the supposed decarbonisation that they might
49:33
Speaker 4: be undergoing. Now, for Amazon, where does this come from?
49:36
Speaker 4: Their carbon reduction plan that they worked up back in 2019.
49:40
Speaker 4: And they said, under the heading of emissions reduction targets,
49:45
Speaker 4: we've set an ambitious goal to match 100% of the
49:48
Speaker 4: electricity we use with renewable energy. And of course, they've
49:51
Speaker 4: exceeded this in 2023, seven years early with 100% match.
49:55
Speaker 4: And it's exactly like the idea that lithium may be
49:58
Speaker 4: dug up somewhere else and to hell with the environmental consequences,
50:02
Speaker 4: because this is not at all suggesting that first of all,
50:05
Speaker 4: the energy necessarily even needs to be created. The fact
50:08
Speaker 4: is Amazon have made a commitment to They've enabled themselves
50:11
Speaker 4: to use electricity at a lower price and it's perfectly
50:15
Speaker 4: possible that nobody else would benefit. And on that very line,
50:18
Speaker 4: we see how this works, because when we look at
50:20
Speaker 4: the call to evidence for the corporate power purchase agreements,
50:24
Speaker 4: we see it set out that from 2026, the NCCS,
50:26
Speaker 4: which is the Network Charging Authority, compensation scheme plans to
50:31
Speaker 4: increase the level of discount on electricity network charges from
50:35
Speaker 4: 60% to 90% for around 550 of the most energy
50:40
Speaker 4: intensive firms. So again, a situation that is entirely set
50:44
Speaker 4: up to benefit the corporations. I have to admit, I'm
50:47
Speaker 4: not certain whether Amazon is actually one of the 550
50:49
Speaker 4: that is listed. But the point still stands that the
50:54
Speaker 4: government is doing absolutely everything it can, as well as
50:57
Speaker 4: shrouding the truth in effectively in smoke, as John Healy
51:03
Speaker 4: will do. I would just sort of finish off by
51:06
Speaker 4: saying that it's in effect, it shouldn't necessarily be regarded
51:09
Speaker 4: as all bad. If you go to the Renewable Energy
51:11
Speaker 4: Planning Database on the Department for Energy Security and Net
51:14
Speaker 4: Zero's website, you will see what looks like a situation
51:19
Speaker 4: that is out of control. But on the right hand
51:21
Speaker 4: side of the screen now, I'm showing the dots that
51:23
Speaker 4: represent the energy renewable energy projects that have in effect
51:27
Speaker 4: been killed off either the planning has not been granted
51:29
Speaker 4: for applications have been withdrawn or that they've been decommissioned
51:33
Speaker 4: so whilst it's very obvious there is still a strong
51:36
Speaker 4: push i think as i would encourage in the first
51:39
Speaker 4: report that people take a look at that database in
51:42
Speaker 4: order to acquaint yourself with what is going on in
51:44
Speaker 4: your local area because that is of course the way
51:47
Speaker 4: in which these things are best fought at the local level.
51:51
Speaker 1: Yeah, and Charles, just very briefly, two questions here. The
51:54
Speaker 1: first is just, you need to just remind everybody what
51:56
Speaker 1: this constraints business is. But the idea of green energy
52:01
Speaker 1: is such a nonsense for Amazon to say, we are
52:03
Speaker 1: taking 100% green energy. Well, they're not. They've got a
52:07
Speaker 1: connection to the grid and energy from all generation goes
52:11
Speaker 1: into the grid. So they've no guarantee. There is no
52:14
Speaker 1: direct connection between a wind farm to Amazon's infrastructure. Therefore,
52:18
Speaker 1: they cannot make that claim. As a truthful claim, it
52:22
Speaker 1: is just PR.
52:25
Speaker 4: It absolutely is. And I'm awaiting a Freedom of Information
52:28
Speaker 4: conference response from the Department of Energy Security and Net
52:32
Speaker 4: Zero on the plug-in solar, which I reported on a
52:36
Speaker 4: few months ago, as to where exactly that energy goes
52:39
Speaker 4: and who ends up paying for it. But on the
52:40
Speaker 4: constraint cost, the curtailment cost, this is why that story
52:44
Speaker 4: started in Shetland, because, of course, the assumption is that
52:47
Speaker 4: in the north, there is a lot of wind power.
52:49
Speaker 4: That may be the case. But because the network is
52:51
Speaker 4: not set up to handle the thermal load, It means
52:54
Speaker 4: that these projects are switched off and the operators and
52:58
Speaker 4: owners are paid compensation for the switching off. And of course,
53:03
Speaker 4: some other technology has to be switched on, most likely gas.
53:07
Speaker 4: So none of it makes any sense at all. And
53:10
Speaker 4: you're paying for it.
53:12
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
53:12
Speaker 1: Thank you for that. Now, for the first time, RAF
53:15
Speaker 1: Typhoon fighters have taken part in a French nuclear air
53:19
Speaker 1: exercise flying alongside French Rafale. Aircraft in a Show of
53:24
Speaker 1: Allied Strength is how they call it. Now, the name
53:27
Speaker 1: of this is fantastic. It's Exercise Rummy. And that might
53:31
Speaker 1: seem more appropriate for a naval exercise, but apparently this
53:34
Speaker 1: is an Air Force exercise. And this marks a major
53:37
Speaker 1: step forward, according to the press release, in UK-France defence
53:41
Speaker 1: cooperation under the Northwood Declaration. Now, just to remind you,
53:45
Speaker 1: this partnership is fantastic. vital to protecting the UK and
53:50
Speaker 1: deterring threats in an increasingly complex security environment, they said.
53:55
Speaker 1: But the Northwood declaration was signed by Keir Starmer and
53:59
Speaker 1: Emmanuel Macron on the 10th of July, 2025 at Northwood's
54:04
Speaker 1: military headquarters, which is Northwest London. The declaration says that
54:09
Speaker 1: British and French nuclear arsenals remain independent, but can be coordinated.
54:15
Speaker 1: And it sets up a UK-France nuclear steering group led
54:18
Speaker 1: by the Elysee and the cabinet office to align nuclear
54:22
Speaker 1: policy capabilities and operations. Now it is on top of
54:27
Speaker 1: the bills on the 2010 Lancaster House treaties, which were
54:31
Speaker 1: signed by David Cameron and Nicholas Sarkozy, and which the
54:34
Speaker 1: UK column has been covering since 2010. And the nuclear
54:38
Speaker 1: strand of that treaty created shared warhead research facilities But
54:44
Speaker 1: on the day that the Northwood agreement was signed, Starmer
54:47
Speaker 1: and Macron agreed to a Lancaster House 2.0, which was
54:51
Speaker 1: a declaration modernizing those treaties. And that's the Cameron Treaty
54:56
Speaker 1: and the Cameron-Sarkozy Treaty. And the Joint Expeditionary Force became
55:00
Speaker 1: the Combined Joint Force and new joint missile programs to
55:05
Speaker 1: replace Storm Shadow. These types of things were all agreed.
55:08
Speaker 1: And then yesterday, Defense Secretary Wes Streeting was in Poland
55:12
Speaker 1: to sign yet another Money sink for taxpayers. Let's just
55:16
Speaker 1: hear what he had to say about his visit there.
55:19
Speaker 6: This is what defending every inch of NATO territory looks like.
55:24
Speaker 6: We're working with our allies to strengthen our defences across
55:28
Speaker 6: NATO's eastern frontier. Today's Warsaw defence plan means Britain and
55:33
Speaker 6: Poland will develop new missiles to defend our skies, new
55:36
Speaker 6: technology to stop hostile drones and protect our people, and
55:40
Speaker 6: expanded capacity to produce the ammunition our forces need. Our
55:45
Speaker 6: troops will train together so they're ready to act together.
55:49
Speaker 6: Over the last two days in Warsaw and Paris, Britain
55:53
Speaker 6: and our European allies have underlined our unwavering commitment to
55:57
Speaker 6: Ukraine and to the collective defence of our continent and
56:00
Speaker 6: our freedom. A stronger Europe and a stronger NATO means
56:04
Speaker 6: a safer Britain.
56:07
Speaker 1: There you go then. Well, the agreement sets out the
56:09
Speaker 1: first phase of defence cooperation under the new UK-Poland Security
56:13
Speaker 1: and Defence Partnership. And they're talking about strengthening joint work
56:19
Speaker 1: on defence between the two countries in a number of
56:23
Speaker 1: key areas, collaboration on manufacturing and development of the next
56:26
Speaker 1: generation of air defence missiles, co-development of drone and counter-drone
56:31
Speaker 1: technologies as Russia steps up its campaign of drone incursions
56:35
Speaker 1: across the UK and Europe. I mean, the language just
56:39
Speaker 1: is ridiculous. Boosting cooperation on cybersecurity and resilience to help
56:43
Speaker 1: both countries defend defense and civilian sites from hostile threats.
56:50
Speaker 1: Sharing lessons and experience from developing frigate capabilities, the British
56:54
Speaker 1: Type 31 and Polish equivalent, which are built from a
56:58
Speaker 1: common design. and then increasing defensive maritime activity in the
57:02
Speaker 1: Baltic Sea through exercises of regional coordination, helping British and
57:05
Speaker 1: Polish forces protect vital lines of communication in the sea.
57:09
Speaker 1: And they said that the UK and Poland will also
57:11
Speaker 1: work together to further strengthen cooperation between their defense industries
57:15
Speaker 1: through closer defense procurement coordination, building on major deals such
57:19
Speaker 1: as Poland's procurement of the narrowed air defense system from
57:23
Speaker 1: MBDA UK. So that's where we're at with that. But look,
57:28
Speaker 1: in the meantime, we have the likes of Sir Richard
57:32
Speaker 1: Dearlove here talking. He's former head of MI6, of course,
57:37
Speaker 1: talking on Global News Today in Riyadh a few days ago.
57:40
Speaker 1: He called the rivalry between, sorry, the issue between Iran,
57:47
Speaker 1: Sunni and Shia, let's put it that way, the most
57:49
Speaker 1: profound issue in the long term in the region. He
57:53
Speaker 1: said he'd always believed it would come to a head
57:55
Speaker 1: and that Quotes were getting pretty close to that point.
57:59
Speaker 1: He predicted in this interview that Saudi Arabia would assert
58:01
Speaker 1: its position over time, but warned that there was an
58:04
Speaker 1: awful lot of violence still to come before the conflict ends.
58:08
Speaker 1: And he described Iran's Shia theocracy as the great disruptor
58:11
Speaker 1: of Middle East peace. He accused the Revolutionary Guard of
58:15
Speaker 1: spreading violence wherever it can, including against a man. And
58:20
Speaker 1: he said that with Houthi missiles and drones now hitting
58:22
Speaker 1: Saudi targets, He, well, he used that as the excuse
58:26
Speaker 1: to stoke any possible tensions by saying Saudi Arabia must
58:31
Speaker 1: itself want to see the end of the Iranian regime.
58:34
Speaker 1: And he said that the road ahead would be costly
58:36
Speaker 1: for Iran's neighbors, but that they would benefit in the end.
58:40
Speaker 1: And he also said, by the way, that Trump is
58:42
Speaker 1: most likely to move on Iran immediately after the midterms.
58:45
Speaker 1: And that might fit with what Vanessa was talking about
58:48
Speaker 1: earlier on with respect to Netanyahu and the election result
58:53
Speaker 1: in Israel. But we have to remember who this man is.
58:58
Speaker 1: Former head of MI6, a career spy, absolutely determined to
59:02
Speaker 1: stoke war where possible. He was responsible for giving Tony
59:06
Speaker 1: Blair the fake basis for the Iraq war in 2003.
59:08
Speaker 1: He was president. pushing Russiagate and Skripal narratives and more
59:13
Speaker 1: recently the Lab League scam. And now he tries to
59:16
Speaker 1: stoke tensions even further in the Middle East. Vanessa, I
59:20
Speaker 1: don't know if you've got very briefly any comments on that.
59:25
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I just find it extraordinary he's pushing
59:28
Speaker 3: the sectarian line of Sunni against Shia. And of course,
59:31
Speaker 3: that is exactly what Britain, MI6, has been trying to
59:36
Speaker 3: achieve and succeeding to a large degree now, sadly, in
59:41
Speaker 3: this region. Sectarianism didn't exist before Britain began its interferences
59:47
Speaker 3: in Libya, Iraq, Yemen, and And Syria, of course, the
59:52
Speaker 3: last two to basically fall. I just find it disgusting.
59:59
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
59:59
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
1:00:00
Speaker 1: We'll talk more about that in Extra as well. But look,
1:00:02
Speaker 1: we've got to leave it there for today. Thank you,
1:00:04
Speaker 1: Vanessa and Charles. Thanks to everybody that's watched. If you're
1:00:07
Speaker 1: a UK Call member, stay on the live stream for
1:00:10
Speaker 1: News Extra in a couple of minutes. If you're not
1:00:11
Speaker 1: a member, well, do consider joining and joining us for
1:00:16
Speaker 1: Extra each time we do a news program. But in
1:00:18
Speaker 1: the meantime, thanks everyone for watching and we'll see you
1:00:21
Speaker 1: on Friday at 1pm as usual. See you then.
1:00:23
Speaker 3: Bye-bye.