Well, there we are. I think we should be live, which is good. Welcome everybody. So a particular welcome to Art. Well, our guest and Oh well, thank you for being patient and and waiting to join and join us for extra. It's really great to have you here and I know we're going to have a very interesting discussion. You've had a bit of a chance to meet our other presenters, so a bit of chat going on with Alex and Mark as well. So that was good.
Now what do I want to say? I think I'll just bring on the subject to Richard D Hall again, which I ended the news on. But I do think this is, this is absolutely critical. I'm very interested or I will be interested to know whether the BBC was actually funding, effectively putting in funding to make this court case happen. I don't know whether they were or not, but I'm a suspicious person and I wonder whether
that's the case. But yeah, I do believe that this will be a precedence case and if it has a bad result for Richard D Hall, we can all expect a lot of pressure. Do you do you agree with that, Alex? I do, because this is quite an outrageous application. It's an application for summary judgement this afternoon by the claimants and they are saying that Richard de Hall's analysis and opinions in broadcasting were tantamount to harassment.
But they're not content and we know that What we feel that they have been put up to it by the BBC and the Mariana Spring contingent, as we've reported in the past. But however, be that as it may, even if it's genuinely aggrieved, people who have were were not put up to it by anyone else, it takes quite some chutzpah to apply to a court that Mister D Mr. Richard D Hall must not be allowed in any future trial to bring his evidence to bear because he's
already upset them. OK, we can understand that from their perspective, that is tantamount to harassment. No way, Jose. But they go on to say that there is no merit in his research and because there would be very likely no court judgement in his future in his favour in future if his material were brought into a public hearing. Therefore he must not be allowed to bring it into the current
proceedings against him. Because apparently a public inquiry has already done a stitch up and said that that Mister Hall's version is wrong. Therefore this evidence must never see the light of day in a court. So it's it's takes inspiration from several sectors. It has a a whiff of the social services wicked mantra, risk of future emotional abuse about it. It has overtones of this is not good for Das Falk. It's not in the greater good or
public interest. And it also has overtones of the new, which I think Sir Keir Starmer is responsible for the lower threshold for the Attorney General for England and Wales taking over private prosecutions. They are still allowed in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and they're the Attorney general. Since Starmer's time, 2009, the last time we had a Labour government has lowered the threshold for what's called the
nolle prosequi. You know, the attorney general throwing the case out to the threshold of the Attorney General's office doesn't think that a court would convict. It used to be that there's no merit at all. Now it's we don't think that the court would would convict. And of course everyone knows that the judge is direct juries these days. So it's the worst of several worlds of the British legal scene all being wrapped up into do not allow this man to speak. He's already been decided as a
person of no value. Yeah. All right. Thank you for that, Alex. Well, we will cover more on it. Let's turn to Artwell and the floor is yours, really. Just introduce yourself a little bit for the UK column. Viewers and listeners art well and tell us about what you're seeing with these low traffic
neighbourhoods. You're describing them as roadblocks in Oxford, but tell us about yourself and what you've been up to. OK, well, I've been auk column listener for quite a while and I've attended a few of the conferences in the past and with the help of the UK column because it really is the only broadcast out of England that addresses what I call local issues. There's a lot from the United States as you all know.
I think it's important that is it is here that that we support it and that it's because it's the only one looking at the minutiae of local government, local issues here in England. And on that topic right now in Oxford, Oxford City Council and Oxford County Council is controlled by the Labour, Lib Dems and Greens. And we have seen an absolute avalanche of green policies that take the form of what I call East Oxford's roadblock policies, what they have done.
They've cut off all the roads leading off to the main thoroughfare, so you have to just stay on the main thoroughfare UK column. It has caused congestion, chaos, confusion, delays, ambulances and firemen and so forth. It's absolutely awful. But despite this, the County Council who run this, they're still going full blazing, ignoring totally what the local people think.
And I want to just say this now that last week I was sent something from the Daily Telegraph which was saying that and this is, I find this quite frightening. It was saying that apparently the Daily Caliph says that 100 councils have made anti democratic pledges to to A to beat the government's own net 0 targets. And this organization is called the UK 100 which is bankrolled according to the paper by green billionaires without consulting
voters. And it goes on to say that if you are wondering why so many local councils seem hell bent on damaging anti motorist policies, this may explain it. And I feel in Oxford this is exactly what we've got. The article then goes on to say if you want to find out if your council has these consultants who come from these UK 100, put your e-mail in. So I put my I'm sorry, put my your post code in. So I did.
And of course, without any surprise to any of you gentlemen, Oxford City Council has signed up to this UK 100 bankrolled by green billionaires and it explains why we can't seem to get any traction. I really want to say, and I really want to encourage with all my heart UK column viewers, it's local elections in about 3 months time. Please consider standing as an independent because it's the only direct way that you have of trying to make an impact.
And here in Oxford, let me just give you a quick example. Here in Oxford we are controlled by Liberal Democrats, Green and Labour, which means if you are opposed to the East Oxford roadblock policy, come the local elections, you have nobody to vote for. I mean, this is just unacceptable that we have almost slipping into a tyranny. UK column viewers in Oxford where you literally feel you have no one else to vote for if you are out of step, you oppose the East Oxford roadblock policies.
What do you guys gentlemen say to that? Well, the first thing I say to you well is that the the parties, there is no difference between them. The colours are different, but there's no difference in the policies. They are all working to Agenda 20-30. This is very clear now and I think in a way it's it's enabled people to see through what they're doing because they all use the same language.
They've got the same policies. They've got the same objectives and if you challenge them you get the same response which is that you're treated like a piece of dirt. And I I I wanted to say to you that the Oxford Mail article that I I just put up the picture of you and the headline Former MP wannabe is a victim of Oxford Council's IT mix up so. They could have just written pleb, couldn't they? To express their feelings. Yes, but well, they could, Alex.
But Artwell stood as a parliamentary candidate and that requires respect. I've I've done it myself. It was a huge amount of work to go out and leaflet, to speak to people, to take the abuse from some individuals, but a huge amount of work in order to try and participate in the democratic system. And when Artwell does it in Oxford, his local paper, Let's talk about the journalist Albert Tate. I'm not sure what Albert has ever done in his life, but he calls Artwell a He's a.
Journalist a wannabe. Absolutely. But what? What an insult that is, Artwell. Just explain what why that article was written, what you have been trying to do, and what you discovered was happening to your communications with the local council. OK, as part of EU KS columns influence on me, I've been speaking at 4 council meetings, which I hope everybody knows
happens 4 * a year. It's our only opportunity to hold our elected councillors and executive officers to account and I always try to make use of it anyway. They seem as a little bit of a as a nuisance, shall I say. And I discovered that I would put my address in turn up to speak and they would say, oh Mr. Artwell, we didn't receive your address, you can't speak now. This happened at 3 occasions. And I and the third occasion I really got rather angry,
demanded an an investigation. And it turned out that Oxford City Council when I sent my address in, they were sending it to an unmanned BOP somewhere in cyberspace so that they can then claim with plausible deniability not to have received my address and therefore disenfranchising me with credibility, which they've done for nine months as a result of my complaints. I they apologise and and and so forth. And then I took it to the paper and asked the paper to publish.
After a lot of persuasion, they finally persuaded to to publish the piece which which Mr. Gerrish has quite kindly put up there, in which the reporter described me as a wannabe. But that is the background to the story, the report on the fact that they disenfranchised me. For nine months I couldn't speak. And it's only because, and and only because of my persistence that I've managed to get it overthrown and and and highlight the awful practices that are going on within the local
council. Well, would it be fair to say that because you've been challenging the council over quite a few years that that they decided to put you in the naughty box and simply try and ignore your communications because you've you've been a you've been a big letter writer, haven't you? For the for the local press. I gentlemen, I have 6 ring ring binders full of my published
letters in the local paper. Some of them are really attacking Labour and what they have done in Oxford and let's just say that they don't like it, they don't like it, 1 little bit, but I really have. You come up with a sorry, you don't go ahead and finish your thought art Will. I really want to encourage listeners like because I'm
really passionate about this. I want to encourage people to really think about standing in local election, because I only think now that that's our only redemption, so our only remedy to the tyranny. And I don't use that word lightly. I really believe we are descending into a political tyranny when our constitutional monarchy is being subverted, as the A Telegraph wrote last week by green billionaires who have their own agendas beyond what even Parliament is pushing through.
And that that message really needs to resonate and get out there. Just wondering if Mark has come across cases like this in the US. Yes, maybe not quite as egregious. Maybe the naughty boxers are not as frequent, but absolutely, there is this autopilot mentality among a local Councilman. Even here in little old Donna, TX, where the potholes keep getting bigger, you can't get a
return e-mail from the mayor. The most basic, fundamental things are not taken care of. Meanwhile, the city bought this expensive fleet of police cars, code enforcement vehicles, but animal control vehicles, even though there's no animal control and just a massive amount of spending on vehicles, police cars, fire fire department and all these other vehicles, huge utility vehicles. Meanwhile the roads underneath them, the local streets are crumbling and you can't get a
word in edgewise. And when the City Council meets, it's on Tuesdays at 5:30 when everyone still working. This is just one example of of thousands. But then we found out a few years ago that even small towns were working with the Wilson Institute. The Woodrow Wilson Institute, a globalist institution which has been working to kind of globalize the small towns in Texas and and around the country.
And the Wilson Institute, which used to have a chairman, Jane Harman, a former congresswoman from California who was instrumental in creating the post 911 Patriot Act. She she LED that Wilson Institute for a long time. And then that organization has brought speakers to South Texas, including a big city. McAllen and all the local mayors would show up for the for their little dose of globalism. This was just a few years back, maybe 2019.
Yeah, thanks for that Mark. Sorry, just to come back to Artwell. Several people are reacting to you already in the chat box and saying we need more people like this because you are active, you are, you've got a good sense of humour, You're smiling as you tell the story of getting out there and and challenging the council. But I understand that there are other people now standing up in in the Oxford area. Can you tell us a bit about what
what they're doing? Yes, I am delighted to say that we have something called Oxford Organization of of Oxford organisations of independence run by a lady called Doctor Gwinnett. And she what she is doing is that she's asking people to stand in all the wards in Oxford and she's asking them to to stand on on their own principles so that they can make their own decisions.
But it will be an alternative place for the local people to vote, especially people who are opposed to the Oxford's roadblock policies and anti car policies and so forth. So I mean, I'm really pleased I've gone along, I've joined, I've let them know that I want to join it and so forth, because I think it's a good thing. We need to be able to unite our our powers together so we act as a bit more of a as a group because it's really lonely being on your own sometimes.
So this has come forward at a wonderful time and it's very much needed and I'm hoping that the people of Oxford will really take this to heart and vote for their independence, especially people who are looking to oppose. What I see is our loss of our traditional freedoms and we are losing them in Oxford. I could go into detail, they want to bring in 15 minute cities. I mean these things are really getting on advanced. They want to stop you from going from one part of Oxford to
another in a private car. Honestly, it feels as if UK column listeners, we're going back to feudalism where I'm going to need a little bit of paper from the local Manor, the local to go from one part of Oxford to the other. That is where they want us to go and on top of that they want you
to travel by horse and cart. I'm not joking when I say that they literally want you back in the horse and cart, because although they like electric at the moment, I just think it's only a matter of time before they turn their backs even on their so-called electric vehicles. I think you're. Right, there are, yeah. Shall I throw in some historical memory? You might be surprised at the angle this comes from?
But before I emigrated I was a member of the Orange Lodge, which covers Oxford, and I came to know there. And it's the point I'm making here is that if you don't defend those who most people live down on, you won't get freedom of speech and and assembly for anyone else.
I was told by the older gentleman there that the last time that lodge, which had Oxford in its name, had marched through Oxford because of course they wanted to pay their respects at the Martyrs Memorial in Oxford City was 40 years ago, this year, 1984. There was a bit of a kerfuffle that year, bit like the German antifa stuff going on now. And somebody high up in Oxford police then told the lodge, that's the last time you ever March in this city. We will see to it. Don't ask who we was.
It was the gentleman who make up their minds on these things. And after that anything that was that was the same year the Public Order Act. What nearly the same year the Public Order Act was bought in 181986. But it was in the mid 80s when this legislation started wafting
through. So the the decision was already being made in the cities that regard themselves as a cut above the rest and more progressive 40 years ago and under the brand of Thatcherism and liberal Toryism, that if you are undesirable in your expressions, in your opinions, in your associations,
we don't want the likes of you. And you know where this ends up is people losing their in the Soviet Union, their Hopiska as they were called, their their residence permit to live in Leningrad or Moscow. A lot of people who were Christians, dissidents of some kind were told at the City Council office when they went to renew their pass to live in their St. no, no, no, you you have in the last five years or whatever the period was, you have expressed yourselves or
associated with people in ways that this Soviet city finds undesirable. So off you go, back to the boondocks. Yeah. And and if I can add into that one, Alex, this is a little story I I'm sure the audience, it's true. But back in the days of Tony Blair as Prime Minister, he came down to Plymouth to to meet up with the great and the good, mainly centred around Plymouth City Council and 1:00 in the afternoon there was a meeting and an individual that I had
pretty good relationships with. Was in that meeting and I think it was about 4:45, I got a call from this individual to say, Brian, I just got to tell you what I've heard is incredible. And what this person said to me is that Tony Blair had been in this meeting where the then chief executive of Plymouth City Council was talking about how the city will be divided up into
areas. But the person said to me the thing was, the language they were using in talking about zones and sectors, it sounded almost military. And then they said, to my astonishment, they were talking about which class of people would be allowed to live in which area of the city. And there was a bit of
discussion. And then the chief executive said to Tony Blair, well, the only thing is we're getting quite a lot of pushback from people they they are challenging us. And Tony Blair looked at the then chief executive and said, you have been given special powers and you should use them. And what Tony Blair was referring to was to the. I think they'd come in a little while before, but these were, as was the ACT to do with powers to
local authorities. I can't think of the exact name of it. I think it was called the Localism Act, wasn't it? Which in a nutshell told it reversed English law and U.S. law on this point that it was. Although although a council's a public body and hence can do nothing except what it's given specific entitlement to do by the law, that was reversed to put into law the sentence that a local council can do anything that a natural person can do.
Which makes it a mockery of the idea of public law. Yeah. So, so the person who was relaying this to me was, was actually disturbed by what they had heard in the meeting. They found it very spooky and very frightening that that Tony Blair and others were talking about this draconian control within a city. Mark you you've got something here I think.
Well. Thinking about the mentality of Oxford and Tony Blair and all the powers that be with regards to the primer on AI that the World Economic Forum discussed at an annual at its annual Dabos confab January 17th that I mentioned in the regular news. So this is the mentality basically making cities into these military garrisons, at least in the term in terms of their structure, with sectors and all that, and having free speech be non existent.
And so this is where AI would come in with surveillance to surveil or to surveil whom on behalf of whom becomes the question. And you're talking about a class system, a rigid class system, some might even call it a caste system. And you're talking about getting permission to go from one place to another and possibly going back to horse and buggy in some instances and things like that. This is the milieu or this is the context in which they're talking about. Well, we need AI to be
inclusive. This was another comment at the World Economic Forum primer. And AI inclusive, everything we're hearing is the exact opposite. This is all about exclusion except all for the cream of the crop of the elite. That's, that's the, that's the sum and substance of what we're hearing from our guests and from other UK column investigations. Yeah. I'm fascinated that several people in the chat well chat box
well, I'm not surprised. They're being very complimentary about what you've already said to us art well and then some. Somebody's just posted this should have been on the main UK column news and somebody else said, yes, this man should be talking to UK column news. Well, we'll let the audience into a little secret that we are indeed planning to do this, but to enable Artwell to sort of come in gently in a relaxed environment with the UK column team, we suggested that he
joined Extra Time today. So, Oh well, I'll just give you that little bit of feedback that I can see on screen here that a lot of people paying attention to you. Thank you. You can't tell you how marvellous it is to have such wonderful people saying great things about one. I want to say something because something happened over the weekend that I'm rather
disturbed about. I am disturbed that a jury of nine men and three women found a young man guilty of downloading templates which essentially were about patriotic stickers up in in Leeds Crown Court. That's that's Sam. Molly. Yes, worse than that, they said that telling, even though what he said was accurate and truthful. I can't believe, men and women, that truth is no longer a defence in the English judicial system. Have I? I'm scattered by it. I mean, we've seen it for a
while. It started in Scotland and the pressure started coming through the Carnegie Foundation and others. And the idea there was that the court had a very important duty here in the interests of global citizenship, to make the findings of fact on what was in the alleged offenders mind. So Mens Rea would no longer have to be proved on an evidentiary and oppositional adversarial basis, which is the cornerstone of English law in the US.
Wherever you look, no, from now on the court, in no uncertain terms, starting in Scots law but spreading, would say you're clearly guilty because and here's as you say, here's the the, the, the, shall we say the the litmus test of it. The only question here is, was he a naughty boy in his mind? Because the jury found, as you said, that the stuff was lawful. Oswald Mosley's books are not unlawful. The stickers do not express unlawful or inciting sentiments.
And yet, the judge said, you're going to have to find him guilty because he's a bad boy, and like a bunch of English sheep, they rolled over and did so. Mark, sorry. Well, a brief footnote. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was investigated by the Greece Committee of the US Congress in the 1950s. Nineteen 53, I believe, as the Korean War was ending and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was accused with plenty of evidence, of exacerbating and setting the
stage for war. And that became very clear in the public record. So you know the whole Carnegie thing and Andrew Carnegie, the steel magnate would then donate these libraries all over the United States to soften the blow. See, we're not really so bad, just like John D Rockefeller handing senior the oil magnate handing out Dimes to children who was a super billionaire even then in 1913 dollars. So these charitable robber barons are always trying to Polish their image after all
their perfidy. And I can't promise it. I understand that Charles Mallet may on Wednesday be able to feature the Sam Melia case, he said. He's looking into it for me. I can't, of course promise on his behalf what will fit into the news because we research things went well if we do them. But I think it certainly merits a lot of discussion. Yeah, brilliant. Oh well. Yeah, I was just going to say that I use old fashioned terminology like constitutional
monarchy. We live under a constitutional monarchy. I consider myself His Majesty's African heritage subject. I I want to say to people that we've got to remember these old wonderful terms because the youngsters don't know them and I think that the authorities are using are driving people away from the terms. And that is why we got Mr. Hall facing terrible time in a court case. We've got the what happened up in Leeds to these young people here now, which just goes
against the grain. The I like what I like to call Anglo Saxons people's long struggle to give us accountable local governance, A judicial system that has that gloss that used same I used to do law, the gloss of fairness of equity about it. All those have been washed away and they've been washed away because in my view, we we've gone away from the old terms. We need to go back to them because we're losing our OK, You agree?
That drive, Yeah, that that drive by the Carnegie Foundation was actually called Global citizenship, deliberately supplanting the idea of being a subject or AUS citizen in the case of the US and replacing it with something of, you know, allegiance to, as we saw with the EU parliamentary resolution, the idea that there's no truth, there's no history, and it's all supranational and one group is at each other's throats.
You know, they would be quite surprised to see in this news extra a black man standing up for Sam Melia. But it doesn't surprise us, of course, because we know our audience. Yeah, well, so I just just, as we have always said, you know, in the camps it isn't going to matter what colour somebody is or what their religion is. If you're in the camps, you're going to be looking for somebody who's capable of being your friend and looking after you.
So I am actually encouraged by the way that we're actually seeing divisions fall away because people are now starting to sense that something very nasty is installing itself in the country. So I I think we've already got an opportunity to bring people together. The other thing I just want to say, and I am clock watching now, is that in local politics the thing which people forget is that the local councillors and even the local authority officers invariably live locally.
And therefore when you start to put them under pressure, they feel uncomfortable pretty quickly. Because of course if you accuse them of of things which are correct, what you're saying are true, That starts to spread amongst their local friends and contacts in their local community and boy, they get nervous pretty quickly.
So if you change local authority figures, they of course then are capable of changing the power base in the in the in the political party's national, sorry, in the national political party's local power base, you deal with the councillors. You're already starting to deal with the national political parties. That's how I see it. May we close with a very brief clip from an American town hall meeting up in Burlington, Vt. It gives away rather more than
the young lady intended. I think we got, we got that ready to roll. I hope Stephanie, if you can manage that. And how appalled I am that people are bringing up the Holocaust. Do not use other genocides to describe this one. I have been. Oops. Interesting. We need to explain it in case
people haven't got it, but it's. It's to do with a resolution being taken at local level on the disproportion that's as many people find it, use of violence against the people of Gaza, whether or not Israel has a right of self defence, which is now something the ICJ didn't want to rule on expressly. But she said by her incautious word wording that she was accepting that this was a genocide going on in the Gaza Strip. And then she covered her mouth
as she realized what she'd done. Yeah, OK. If I. May. Go on quickly. Yeah, that would be Foreign Affairs article that I referenced early in the main show about a next global war that just came out in that CFR journal. It used that same language that this is a war in the Middle East. Again, trying to say that there may be a next global war. Of course there'll be rumors of wars to propagandize us.
That's the ongoing war. Our own nations are working against us, So that's far worse than wars between nations, because that's theoretical. Our own nations oppressing us is is real and every day, as we've described in so many ways. But that article completely misrepresented in Foreign Affairs, this whole thing calling it a war in the Middle East. It is not. It is a completely disproportionate and genocidal procedure and operation by the Israeli army.
Meanwhile, we're going after the Houthis for interfering with shipping International Maritime shipping and not getting Israel to stop its genocidal behaviour. The contradiction there and the the hypocrisy is just too thick to navigate. OK, Mark, thank you for that. Oh well, have you got any closing thoughts on any of those subjects? I just want to say that we live in a constitutional monarchy, not a not a democracy and I think people keep me getting those things mixed up all the time.
I totally agree with the last sentiment about England. I'm very ashamed viewers, that we are bombing one of the poorest countries in the world for interfering with shipping whilst ignoring and I'm concentrating on the 7000 young children that I see being pulled out of buildings and so forth and I it's so horrible I can barely watch it sometimes. The the disparity in what we're doing now with our foreign policy with Lord Cameron needs to be really looked at closely.
I'm sure UK Column will do that anyway, but I agree with the sentiment that's been expressed. OK. Right. Thank. Thank you very much for that. Well, I'm going to say to you all, we're out of time, but I I would just like to say to the audience that that many of you are asking us to do more. There's been some comments today where people are talking about UK column putting on things in evenings.
My response to that is we are very, very keen to expand the UK column, but we need your help to do that because to expand our capacity invariably means that we need more people and that means that we have to have more finance coming in. So if you really value us and you want to see us expand, then we have to say to you, please help us to gain new members because this is the most important income source of income for us. And we know that you've been good to us over a great many years.
But I'll also say to you, we sense that we are the moment under great pressure. There is a backlash against media such as the UK column. There are many people who are poking very sharp sticks at us. They don't like what we're doing. They don't like the effect we're having. So we'll say if we want to push all that to one side and expand the UK column, then we need help from our viewers and listeners to bring in those additional
members. And I'm not shy of saying this because it's only by getting stronger that we will be able to do more and also help people who are embroiled in battles with the establishment themselves, such as Richard D Hall, for example. But there are many other people. OK, we've got to end it there. So I'm going to say, oh, well, thank you very much for joining us. It's been really great to have you on and we will look forward to getting you on to the UK column news for some comment.
I'll be talking to you about that. Mark, thanks for coming in from the States and enjoy your coffee and bagel which I'm sure is coming up. And Alex, not sure what you're up to now, but thanks for your time. We'll end there. Herring sounds. Sorry. Soust herrings and yeneva was the killer dish I remember from my time in Holland. We'll end there. Thanks for joining me. Bye. Bye.