Well, hello. And it's really wonderful to be back at this tremendous event. And I'd also like to say a big thank you to everybody that's in the marquee this morning. It's wonderful to see you. And I think we're going to have a very interesting little news slot today because there's clearly some interesting things happening in the world. But I should start off by saying good morning, today is the 29th of June. It is 1115. Welcome to UK column news. My name is Brian Gerrish.
I'm your host and I have with me Mike Robinson. I have Patrick Henningson, I have Charles Mallett and somewhere she's disappeared is Sandy Adams. So a big I think we're allowed a round of applause today for all the effort. Now I've got to be very careful because we've only got a 50 minute slot. We've always got a lot to talk about, so I have to be careful I don't chew up my slot with too much chat to you, but I think a little bit is necessary. You will notice I'm wearing a
tie. Now, this is out of great respect to all of you, but it's also a little bit of a joke that's been going on for a number of years because Ian Crane from Alternative View, who used to put on fantastic events, would always tell me off for wearing a tie because he said it was a sign of being held as a puppet by the establishment. And I said, yes, that's true. But on the other hand, if you want to win people over, sometimes it's happy to just reflect a little bit about how they are.
So I stayed wearing a tie because a big target for us is to get into the professions in order to convince people who are basically, they think they're doing good jobs, maybe as a doctor or maybe inside the police or maybe inside the legal circles. Can we win them over? And I believe that sometimes if you look right, people will talk to you. So I decided today standards matter and I'd, I'd put on a tie. So really it's, it's a bit of fun and it's out of respect to
you now. I the festival is utterly brilliant. It's been lovely to chat to everybody. We've had some really deep conversations. We've done some little recordings, we've heard some personal stories, we've heard sad things and we've heard happy things as usual. But our interaction with you guys has been really, really
exciting. The only thing I've been slightly disappointed at is that although I've been all around the camp, I have not found Marianna Spring and and I think it's pretty poor that once again, she's not given us the courtesy of turning up to have a proper debate about what's going on in the world. So I think before I just do my quick new slot, it would be appropriate to do a substantial Boo for the BBC. Shall we do that Boo? OK, right now I'm going to start off with a little picture.
And the caption, if you can't read it, is no better place than a church hall. And what's the significance of this picture? Well, earlier in the week I was able to go to a a public meeting. It was called Big Community and it was held in this little church hall. And the subject was about the future expansion of Plymouth. So more or less, well, for a lot of people out of the blue, what's what's come out is that there's going to be substantial changes to the way local
government works. But don't worry because your opinion counts. OK, So this is where it took place. There was limited space inside. And the Plymouth City Council team who were present said to me, well, this was the the only place we could get. And so the numbers that can take place in the big conversation are small. So if we take a look inside, I've blinked out faces because I didn't think it was fair to put
up some of the local people. But what's taking place is that they're sat at tables and at each table there are two facilitators from the local council. And what those facilitators were doing, using a sheet which said official sensitive, was guiding the conversation from those local people. And what Plymouth City Council wanted was the local people in this particular parish. But there are others to tell Plymouth City Council what they wanted out of life. What do they expect with bus
service? What were the health provisions like? What was schooling like? And then Plymouth City Council's taking this information to put it into their proposal to government that they are going to take over the peripheral parishes around Plymouth in order to increase the population of Plymouth as a city from about 260,000 to 300,000. Now I found this a very interesting exercise because what did all the what the local
people want to do? They wanted to talk to the council in order to find out what the council's plans were. What are you thinking as a council? Do you want to take over our rural areas? Do you want to concrete it over? And of course, they never got an answer because the facilitators always try to drag the conversation, the big conversation back to where the where the City Council wanted it to go. So this is real news because this only happened in the last
couple of days. But the reason this is so significant is it demonstrates the new control techniques which the government is using in order to give you a voice at local level, but to control what your voice says. So this was I, I was immersed in stuff I've been reading about and I decided that I should ask some questions. And I, the the chief executive was there, Tracy and I went to
speak to her separately. I didn't speak in front of the audience, but I said I don't think you've been very honest because you're not telling the people what your plans are. And of course, during the evening when I was able to speak to some more of the organisers, what rapidly came out is they're not thinking about 300,000, they're thinking about 350,000. They're thinking about 500,000 by 2070.
And when I hear a City Council talking about its need to expand on that scale, to me this is Soviet policy. This is how the five year and the greater plans in the Soviet Union were compiled. So although this event was labelled as devolution, what you're actually seeing is control coming down to the lowest level.
Now, I just put a positive in here because when I started to challenge and there were many of the people there who were starting to challenge the whole setup and the whole questioning, the City Council became very nervous. And in fact, the chief executive was clearly very stressed that I was there. And there may be reasons for
that, but tough, I live there. So a good message for all of you is if you ever think that you as an individual or a small community within a parish council, if you ever think you don't matter, you absolutely do matter. They are terrified of ordinary people standing up to be counted. And one of the key things you can say is no. So even though this is a massive plan, let's just bring it up on the screen.
This is the minister, Jim McMahon, who was minister of State, Housing, Communities and local government. He's one of the guys behind it. Even though they say this is about devolution, this is making people have more power at the local level, what it is actually doing is bringing control to the local level. So the government says strategic oversight of English local and regional government structures.
It talks about local government finance because all of the city councils and the big unitary authorities are bankrupt or close to it. And it's also talking about combined authorities with mayors. And if you follow this policy through, when Ben Rubin on the UK columns been doing some really fantastic stuff on this, he is describing the parallel of parallel system of government that is already set up. It's not being considered, it's
in place. And this is going to involve big communities manipulated, as I've shown you, making policy while actually supporting government policy instead of any form of representation through a parish council to a District Council to a County Council. All that is going and this new control mechanism is coming in. So the village hall is reality, which I've shown you, but these are the sorts of people driving the policy, local government reorganisation policy and
programme updates. So I'm going to encourage you all to get on the Internet, go to gov.uk and see and read what it's talking about because I'm going to suggest we need to stop this and very quickly because of the power that they are going to exert down to community level. So this is a bit more of the the background. I'm saying that devolution equals greater control. And I don't think I'm too far away. And and how is it sold to people? Well, it's a vision often comes
up, doesn't it? We have a vision for a simpler local government structures. So it's all sold on positives. We are introducing a new system of government. It's simpler, you can trust it. It's going to make cost savings. And this means that that money can be spent on looking after elderly people. It's all sold on Utopia in the future, but the mechanics of it is very, very deep.
So I'm probably there for time. And I know that was a very quick UK column slot, but I want to just really reinforce with you that if you're somebody who realises there's something really nasty building itself in this country, we're losing, we're losing freedoms, we're losing free speech.
We're we've got ID cards, we've got this control structure coming in. The thing they are most frightened of is people at local level just saying no. And parish councils often mocked because of the vicar of Dibley
and all that. Actually, parish councils, when they stick their heels in can make big waves and if we get enough local people doing it, this will start to shake because the big conversation had to come to the parish council level for them to get this legitimacy for them to do what they want to do, which is a Soviet style system of government. I'm going to end there. Who is going to come on? Mike, Thank you very much. And I'm not wearing a tie because for some people it doesn't help.
Yesterday was Armed Forces Day. Did everybody know that Armed Forces Day comes at the end of Armed Forces Week, which is. But anyway, John Healey there was very excited about it. I was interested in the language used in this tweet today the nation unites do feel united around the war agenda and so on. Are you you all? Yes. And this is going to make Britain secure at home and
abroad. And the reason I thought that language is significant is because if you've been watching the UK column for a while, you'll know that a number of years ago in one of the defence papers that the government published, I can't remember which one, they talked about the integrated operating concept. And this was very much presenting the idea that it's no longer home, is no longer perceived as a safe place. It is just as dangerous as being
abroad for the military. And this is because government is recognising that what they're doing is garnering a certain amount of opposition and, and they're they're increasingly concerned about the, the degree of opposition and how that might express itself in the in the future. So being secure at home and abroad is something that I think we should take a positive message from because government is feeling insecure at home and that is for good reason.
But oh sorry, that should have played. Why is it not playing well anyway, there was a video clip here which unfortunately doesn't look like it's going to play, but it was very impressive. It was very impressive because the this is was a piece of Ministry of Defence propaganda.
It was very impressive because at the end they showed the Red Arrows and the Red Arrows are still being presented as being some kind of great sort of what's the, what's the, the word, the, the representative of the British military and so on. This is the Red Arrows that can barely put 9 aircraft in the sky at the moment because because they're all end of, you know, off their shelf life, They're all end of service.
And, and they're having to, they're having to, to take parts from operational aircraft to try and keep the Red Arrows flying. And in fact, the Red Arrows are likely to be gone in the next couple of years. Now we saw headlines in the last few weeks about the potential of this Russian designed aircraft being used for the Red Arrows in the naughty distant future. I'll leave it there right now. Let's change topics a little bit because Ed Miliband was pushing this out what dates a couple of
days ago. Then we're determined to make the UK the sustainable finance capital of the world, right? The net zero, the net zero agenda is collapsing around our feet, but they're still determined to try to push this. Now the question in my mind was why? Why? Why is he announcing this now, plans for the UK to become sustainable finance capital capital of the world? There's the sort of main graphic there with lots of pound signs as if that gives it value.
This is what it's about. This is if you look in the top left hand, I realise it's small, but if you look at the top left hand corner there, that's the City of London Corporation logo and it it's the global city apparently. And this this report Scaling Transition Finance came out I
think in December last year. And it basically is recognising the fact that if you remember back to COP 26 and the Prince Charles was part of that, of course, now King, but the main man was Mark Carney, the carnage Carney, sorry, who of course is the current Canadian Prime Minister. And he promoted this sustainable finance initiative called G fans. The G stood for Glasgow because it was that's where COP 26 was since the start of the year, because Trump has something to do with this.
But this process began before that it it was already starting to collapse under its own own weight with with financial institutions leaving and really not interested in it whatsoever. So this is an act of desperation on behalf of the City of London and the British government to try to reinvigorate this idea of net zero finance because it really it's just a, a, a finance
game. It's, it's not really about, as everybody will be aware in this, in this room, it's not really about climate change and, and carbon dioxide and this kind of nonsense. It's, it's just about money. And so again, we should be taking positives out of this because their, their scheme isn't working, it's collapsing and they're trying to step in and, and fix the thing. And so I just wanted to bring that one forward as well, right.
Yesterday, Kate Shamrani in her talk, if you were listening, was talking about organ transplants and and the sort of the way that the organ transplant industry has been gone. So this is a bit of a darker segment, this bit. But I just wanted to to say to everybody, if you haven't read this article called No Time to Die by Doctor Mike Williams on the UK column website, do have a look at it. Because it, it basically is covering much of what Kate was
talking about yesterday. And the fact that really recommending that if you aren't comfortable with the situation with organ donations, it it, it would be good. And it's never too late to opt out of that. Now there is a website for this, an organ donation website registering your decision about whether to opt out.
Now. I just also wanted to make the point here that of course, if you remember back to the covidocracy, the Coronavirus Act, there was another opt out that's available to us, to us through the NHS is, is the ability to opt out of data sharing and so on. But under the Coronavirus Act, because it was supposedly emergency legislation, that opt out was effectively suspended.
So, so just if you feel like opting out of this, opt out of it. But just keep in mind that we may need to keep, be aware of what government is doing and make sure that we, we maintain that opt out and that, that there's no attempt at any point in the future to sort of, well, actually, we, we need this because the point, the point that Kate was making at her presentation yesterday was that much of the organs that are taken from people are being used
for scientific research in inverted commas. And they're not always being used for the benefit of others. So whether you're prepared to make that decision to, to, to donate organs on the basis of, of doing something which is good and for somebody else, that's not always the case. So just keep that in mind. I'm just sorry, Patrick's here. Let me just see, I think maybe. Oh, right. And then just finally, as you know, we've been fighting YouTube for quite some time, right?
And just for anybody that hasn't isn't aware, we got kicked off YouTube in 2021 for covering a story of a man who was injured by the coronavirus vaccines and was very seriously ill in hospital. And YouTube decided that was just a step too far. They kicked us off. They, the Daily Mail then covered the same story about four weeks later with no consequences whatsoever. And and then we've sort of been in this fight with YouTube ever
since. Now we are in the process of doing some work legally on this and we're not going to say any more about that at the moment, but I just wanted to to bring you up to date with where we are with YouTube because this is fascinating. I used the same account that our YouTube channel had been on to set up a, a, a new channel, which was just about serious. So it wasn't anything to do with with medical things and so on. And we had about four videos on that. It was taken down.
And this I just wanted to show you what they sent me because it says here, hi Mike. We've reviewed your content and found it severe or repeated violations of a community guidelines. It didn't specify which community guidelines were alleged to have broken in this case. Because of this, we have removed your channel from YouTube. We know this is probably very upsetting news. They're always worried that
you're upset by this, right? But it's our job to make sure that YouTube is a safe place for all. If we think the channel's severe, and you know, I'm not going to even bother with the rest of that. But if it's the next, if it's the next paragraph that really got me. Your existing YouTube channels, new channels you create or acquire, and channels in which you are repeatedly or prominently featured will be terminated if you circumvent a strike, restriction or previous
termination. So in other words, if another channel decides to feature the UK column, their channel will be shut down. This is this is quite, this is a step beyond what we've seen before. Now, this is quite ironic because YouTube has allegedly, they say, moved back on the restrictions.
And in fact, they they released a statement a few weeks ago saying that that particularly with regard to health information, that they were going to just not be quite as draconian as they have been in the past. It's nonsense. It's just going on as as hard. In fact, it's worse situation than it's ever been. So anyway, we are taking the fight to YouTube and that is something that we'll be speaking publicly about much more in the not too distant future. So keep an eye on that.
I think that is me. Yes, it is. So now let's over to Charles then. We are totally delighted that you are here, not just because you've come to see us and we can talk to you and look you in the eye, but also because this is one in the eye for the state who would far prefer that we weren't doing this and weren't talking to each other. And that goes for all of you lot at home as well. Now you've answered my first question, which was going to be about attendance at last year's
festival. I know the answer to that one. So my next question is going to be, are you a member of the commercial media here to report about this event? This is your chance to answer that question honestly and display some sense of integrity. Is anybody here falling into that category and going to put their hand up? They are being asked by UK column. OK, we'll have that as a no. And the reason I ask is because last year, rather tantalisingly, we can't see it, but I can have
a grand reveal in just a second. There was a piece in the Times immediately succeeding this event which described it as Glastonbury for conspiracy theorists. I'm not quite sure who comes out of that worse, but it it was written by some, some young. Oh, hang on. Oh, gosh, OK, there is a gremlin. That's a that is a terrific pity. But anyway, oh, I see some something totally different's
come so that's nice. But the the point of it was that somebody came here last year to write about this event in a very obviously defamatory. There we go, this man here. Now you may have seen him last year, but you might not have recognised him. We've had our in house artist draw up an impression of what we think he looked like last year.
As I say, we can't be totally sure, but the point is that he didn't have the backbone to just come and talk to people and tell them that he was a Times journalist. Instead, he he wanted to snipe from the sidelines. And this is inconsistent with some of the messaging that comes
out from the mainstream. And I take you back to a that you can't probably tell from the tone, but it is a, a very cleverly multicultural photograph of a couple who are having difficulty talking about what they're describing as theories and how we should all really be friends. And if that's the case, then why can't people come and talk openly about the things that they do actually want to talk about? And of course, it's a rhetorical question because I know the answer.
And that is in order to be able to create division and suggest that there are people out there who are deliberately trying to damage society. Now, Brian's already referred to the Soviet Union. I'm going to take you back 101 years to the Criminal Code of the then Soviet Union in 1924 and their efforts to crush dissent.
And the specific word used in the Criminal Code then was that the term counter revolutionary is applied to any act committed with the intention of overthrowing, undermining or weakening the authority of the workers and peasants. Government founded on the Constitution of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic. Well, where do we think Michael Gove went when he was redrawing the new definition of extremism in 2024, exactly 100 years
later? Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance that aims to undermine, overturn or replace the UK system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights. OK, it's not word for word, but that could be a transliteration issue from Russian. So we can't be entirely sure, but the point is that here we are again and in actual fact the there there is no concerted effort by any media or government organisation to bring
people together. They instead absolutely want to separate them. And yet here we have Dan Jarvis, the man who brought in the Foreign Interference Registration Scheme and is always banging the drum in his role as Minister for National Security, to suggest that we are
at threat. But of course now as has been brought out by both Brian and Mike, not from without, from within, and I spoke about this last week, the national Security strategy which has been produced alongside the SDR and it's effectively the civvy version of it. But in addition to all the things that it does mention, it is very clear to make it the case that the extremist ideologies are on the rise within this country.
And when we look at this plan for a whole nation approach to national security and entering into a state of war, part of that war is to be with these so called extremists who hold conspiracy theories. So this is very, very obvious. Now tomorrow in Parliament, or rather as the news goes out today, Monday, let's say, the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper will be laying before Parliament to draught prescription order
against Palestine action. And I just want to run quickly through the consistency of this on a point of law and whether or not Parliament or indeed the Home Office should be engaging in such a thing. This relates to action taken at Bryce Norton Airfield on the 20th of June where a couple of aircraft had paint put into their engines and and therefore that's been regarded by the Home Secretary as serious criminal
damage. Now we have to look at the Terrorism Act 2000 to understand how any of this is able to make sense and frequently it doesn't. And the reason for that is that the language is sufficiently vague for anybody to manipulate and wield it in a way that gives them the desired outcome.
So I would just remind you that Section 1, which defines terrorism, speaks about actions or threats that are designed to influence government brackets with an amendment from 2006 including international governmental organisations.
Interesting to change that language in 2006, but it goes on to say, notably, that this may include intimidating the public or a section of the public, something the government does on a daily basis, so that mustn't be forgotten in it, however, prescription happens under Section 3 of the Act and there therefore are a number of criteria that have to be
satisfied. And just to articulate the point about how legislation is corrupted, the clause that she's aiming to use here is serious criminal damage. Now you will have all seen many a video over the last five years of somebody wearing high viz handcuffs and a walkie talkie saying to somebody if you do that again I'll arrest you. So has the threshold been met or not? How many points of law can you see that, say, at the sixth time of serious criminal damage, the offence is complete?
That does not exist. So this is entirely a political decision and that could not be made more clear by the campaign that Palestine Action have been running over the last four years, which I think I will be able to display for you if I press once more. Maybe not. But anyway, I think in your mind's eye, yes, here we go. So, so this is the the front page of their website and I'm not going to dwell on exactly what it is they've done. It's not it's not really entirely central to what I'm
talking about. What I'm really talking about is the way in which the government is able to seize upon an action like this and do what it wants to do regardless of the circumstances that are in fact laid before them. Now the reason this is so relevant is that in the most recent edition of Soldier magazine, the laws of armed conflict are are called into question. And so if Palestine action can't call the laws of armed conflict into question and yet the British Army can, what the heck
is going on? And here we talk about AI breaking the law. This is with specific reference to what are called suicide drones, which are non manned vehicles that make their own minds up about who they kill. Now, there's a very, very obvious problem with that, which I'm sure I don't need to articulate for anybody here in this tent or at home, wherever they may be in the world.
The point is that this is a complete discrepancy and an inconsistency where the official state sanctioned body of the military is allowed to talk about this, but nobody else is, and that plainly is wrong. Specifically, we're talking about the Red Dragon capability produced by Aerovironment of the United States, which as I say, is an autonomous suicide drone
capability. It should be very, very clear to anybody hearing those words that that is not something that can possibly conform to international humanitarian law or the laws of armed conflict. Now, I will just wrap up when the slide changes, which might do some. Oh yeah, here we go. So, so, so just to right. OK, we've skipped on but but you know who these goons are?
Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart, formerly Secret Intelligence Service and an MP. But just to highlight how this legislation is so terribly badly and most obviously manipulated for political gain, we've talked about the prescription of
Palestine action. Now, if once a group is prescribed, to support that group in any way or act for the benefit of that group is to commit an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000. That's very, very clear and Section 12 says very plainly a person commits an offence if he arranges, manages or assists in arranging or managing a meeting which he knows is to support a prescribed organisation.
Now the photograph, which I will OK, which Mike is just going to put on screen now, is initially a sort of montage put out by Alastair Campbell, but the centrepiece is Al Jilani as he was Al Sharadi. Well, now let's say President of Syria talking to Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart for their podcast, which was very, very widely promoted to a large audience and quite clearly does promote A prescribed organisation, Al Qaeda when 1 looks at where Gilani has come
from and indeed has been described until very, very recently. So it's quite clearly a contravention of the act, of Section 12 of the ACT. So I just wanted to make the point that there is a direct thread that runs from a gathering at an event like this where you can be described as a conspiracy theorist, which in one small step turns you into an extremist, which turns you into a terrorist. And then you are subject to the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000.
If the Home Secretary decides that that fits the particular agenda and the particular route that she wants to go down. My question, I suppose to conclude by is we'll ask Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart interview Palestine Action once they've been prescribed. And if they do, what will happen? Thank you very much. How you guys doing? Good. I just to add to what Charles said, very important conversation. A prescribed terrorist organisation.
There is no objective definition for terrorism. The designation is a political designation because not all countries around the world are designating this group, that group, that group as terrorists. But whoever is against US or British or NATO foreign policy, it will be prescribed as a terrorist organisation. Or whoever is opposing Israel in the Middle East will be proscribed as a terrorist
organisation. Any National Liberation movement that opposes the US or its allies will be proscribed as a terrorist organisation. That's the rules of the game. So it's not a level playing field. Just want to put that up another another group that's been talked about that should be proscribed. Very dangerous group. You guys should be aware of this. A hip hop band from Northern Ireland called Kneecap.
They're talking, they said the righteous indignation about this band, the how dare they, how dare they shout Free Palestine at their concerts. And you know what? The BBC really stuck their foot in it. They decided they're not going to cover Kneecap's performance at Glastonbury. And what happens when you do that, when you censor an artist, it just blows up to galactic levels. And that's what happened. First it was Sharon Osbourne, then it's the BBC and Kneecap
just gets more and more popular. The gigs are getting sold out and the minute they're announced and getting cancelled and sold out and cancelled. And so you think about this, it's incredible. And other artists at Glastonbury this year stepped up when they heard that kneecap wasn't going to be allowed to be broadcast. They all did their own free Palestine or protest and support. And our politicians are horrified they have taken to
social media. We condemn this extremism and hateful calls for the ethnic cleansing of Israelis and etcetera. I mean, the irony of it is just dripping and, and a level that you can't possibly imagine. But here's the point, OK, here's the point. Why? They're horrified that the establishments horrified, the music industry's horrified. They've tried to cancel these these types of artists and they have been successful at doing that for the last couple of
decades. They're horrified that the artists are starting to do what artists were meant to do, which is to reflect what's going on in society, in the world, The corporate structure, the music industry in collusion with corporations, broadcasters, media, government, They've all been successful in turning the so called music industry into a basically a corporate conveyor belt of sort of low grade disposable commodity products or music they call it.
So now they're freaking out. They're freaking out because some artist is actually doing that, you know, and Nina Simone, Nina Simone, a great, great artist, great singer, a legend. She, she, she wrote the first protest song. It was called Mississippi. Goddamn. That was the first quote, viral protest song.
And a lot was going on in America at the time of the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War, lots of things post World War 2. You know, America was in serious tumultuous times back then socially and economically and and that that led that paved the way for Bob Dylan and all these other sort of artist, Crosby Stills and Nash, conscious arts, Buffalo Springfield, Woodstock, etcetera, etcetera. And she said that is the job of the artist.
I saw an old interview of hers. I posted it on my ex account said that's the job of artist. Artist must reflect what's happening at that moment in the world. That's what they're there for. But they've managed to crush
that. And then along comes these these kind of guys with hoodies and, you know, wearing, you know, knitted mask and whatnot and basically standing up for what what the International Courts of Justice and what the International Criminal Court and most UN member states are calling a genocide right now in Gaza. OK. They're all they're doing is these are people that are working class kids standing up. And guess what? The response is amazing.
The people are are responding to it because that's what the people, that's what the people feel. That's what the people believe. And the establishment doesn't know what to do. They're at their wits end. The whole facade is falling to pieces. And so I think, I think this is a real important moment right now. We're starting to see the disintegration of this control structure, of this thought structure. And I'll leave you, I'll leave
you with this. I was in the barbershop, old barbershop in Plymouth, I think it was on Thursday, just a few days ago. And you know, as you do, all the guys are waiting on the sofa. There's three chairs running. There's about 15 people in there and they always have Radio 1 blaring. You notice that always. And at the salon as well and radio one's blaring and you heard some music, it was some song or whatever. And then they do these PS as these sort of vapid, kind of
anodyne PS as in the middle. And he said what would it was a female voice, that really good RPBBC, female, middle aged, trusted voice. He said. What would it be like if conflict came to British shores? It's not something people think about much. Are you prepared? We'll be discussing this on Radio 1, whatever the show was this afternoon. What? When Britain, when war comes to British shores. And Are you ready for that? That's mainline BBC Radio. That's about as mainline as you
get, right? And I was just like, wow, wow, we have arrived. Oceana is at war with East Asia. Oceana has always been at war with East Asia, and I was just that moment like who who wants to invade Britain? It's is it the the French? Maybe I don't know. Is it too? What is it? The Dutch? Maybe, I don't know, but maybe the Vikings, maybe it's the scant, the Norwegians don't trust the Norwegians. We yeah, I'll wrap it up. So so that that's something I think, you know, this is very
real. This is very real. They're really going into hyperdrive on the psychological operations. Thank you for that. Yeah, we'll thank you. OK. I will yield my time to the next speaker. Thank you very much. Right. I just wanted to finish off before we do take a couple of questions. I just wanted to finish off with a bit of good news, and that was somebody sent me that.
Well, Richard sent me this yesterday, an email saying that he and some people had been out in Stroud yesterday and had in 3 1/4 hours distributed 400 light newspapers and that people were accepting them with happily accepting them. They weren't. OK. OK. I've just been told that was misinformation. In fact, they were in Cheltenham, right? So, so, so, so Richard is from Stroud, but he was in Cheltenham. OK. So let's just clarify that. Thank you. Thank you, Charles.
OK. So unlike others, we do correct our mistakes. OK. So we'll leave it there. Anybody got any questions? No questions. What a good job we've done. OK, lady there. Hello, yeah here we go. Not so much a question, just some information share for everybody. I've only just learnt this
recently. You can't if if you opt out for organ donation on the government websites, you also have to submit your driving licence back to the DVLA because you've got code 115 on your driving licence and it means you're automatically going to donate your organs anyway. So you have to send it back to the DVLA with a letter stating that you want to be removed from the organ donation system and they'll send you a new one. Thank you.
Can can I just respond to that one to say thank you for for telling us that a classic example of how devious the government is, right. But you've picked it up and this is where when the backlash starts from the ground up, can we now get pick a Figure 10 million people sending their driving licences back. If we can do this, the system shudders because they can't introduce the Soviet, as we're going to call it, unless each and everyone of you acquiesce to
that system. So brilliant research. Let's start the wave. I will be sending my driving licence back because apparently when I switch from, hate to mention this, from 69 to 70, I could only hold my driving licence for three years before having to reapply. So the government decides when you get to 69, what they're actually telling you is that you're no longer capable. That's what's happening. OK.
Another question. Yes. So all these people that are coming over the border with no border control, a lot of people in the UK don't really realise it. So as activists, I mean, is that what would you suggest we can do to highlight that that our country is being invaded, that the border control is not there? Is it? As it should be. Well, I'm going to disagree. The borders control is there as they want it to be. And it's it, right?
We go back to Peter Sutherland, who was the UN ambassador for mass migration. He's died a couple of years ago, a few years ago, but he was on public record as saying we need more mass migration to break down the homogeneity of the nation state, right? So the victims are everybody. The victims are the migrants who get uprooted in their own
country. And most of them do look for a better life and then the trafficking during their migration streams and then they come into this country and that creates all sorts of problems. I'll make a comment with Patrick as well. You may not know this, but if you are travelling from Holyhead to Dublin, you are required to bring a passport because often they'll have passport control at Dublin Port. If you're travelling from Dublin to Holyhead, there's no such thing right now.
The Common Travel Area is something that existed before the EU and whatnot between Britain and Ireland means that that we are supposed to have freedom of travel, freedom to work in in each other's jurisdictions and so on. But that only applies in One Direction. Apparently that's related to the EU, so just wanted to mention
that. And I want to just remind people on this immigration issue, the biggest immigration flows into Europe from sub Saharan Africa, via Libya, from Central Asia, via Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, via from Syria, via Lesbos in Greece. These are the biggest flows of migrants into Europe in the last I would say and Albania and Kosovo after that little war in the Balkans in 1999. All of those are NATO military interventions.
Those are all a direct result of the foreign policy of Britain and the European States and America. All of the migrant flows, all of them so and you know, you have Afghans in your community. Well, the people who are protesting, those are the same people are saying support our troops fighting the Taliban, 25 years of occupation in Afghanistan. You can't have it both ways, so you have to understand where that comes from.
If no one talks about the connection between foreign policy, NATO membership and migrant flows much, don't expect Nigel Farage to ever bring that up. But that's the real conversation, that's the adult conversation. They're having a childish conversation to manipulate people, to get people scared, to pit people against each other by race, religion. That's what's actually going on. So we have the power to to pressure your government, but you're you have to ask the right
questions. You have to ask the right questions. I've I've been successful in putting that point out to some European governments. OK, it's possible, but you have to work at it. If you're asking the wrong questions, you're not going to get the right answers. Thank you. OK. I'm fine. So can I, Can I just add to that? At the end of the day, the people who are in this country are here. We have to work together to deal with the people who created the problem in the 1st place.
This is critical and truth and exposure of what they're actually doing is a really powerful weapon. Talking about rubber boats does not talk about the issue because the bulk of the people are coming in through approved legislation and that was deliberate. So don't focus on the strangers, focus on the people who created the problem in the 1st place because we need to stick together. OK.
Thank you very much. Well, ladies and gentlemen, it's so great to have people like this because that can speak actual common sense, so. Let's give it up the UK. Column.