Well, hello and welcome back to another UK column interview. And you know what, Happy New Year, because this is my first interview of the New Year and it's Happy New Year to to all of you and to my two guests, Sandy Adams and Roger Meacock. And this is Part 2 of what We Believe at UK column will be a very valuable resource for every farmer and indeed every member of the public, all of us really, who want healthy food and local
food. And this is going to be an exclusive record actually of the future of farming, how we got here, the future of animals and also our food. And it's taken hours of research. Both Roger and Sandy have literally taken hours, hours to do this. And we believe it's going to stand the test of time because we could be living in another era of book burning and digital burning. So make sure you download these two interviews because it's going to be history in the making.
And land is valuable. So. So is agriculture valuable? And at the moment, we're seeing wildfires in the USA, which is claiming a lot of land. We're seeing floods in the United Kingdom, which claims a lot of land. We're ceiling seeing solar farms springing up. We're seeing wind farms springing up, but we're not seeing a lot of farming going on. And farmers, are you being told
the truth? In Part 1, Sandy Adams, who you know has, he's an expert by experience and has got nearly two decades of researching into the United Nations Sustainable Goals agenda. And Roger Meacock, a consultant veterinary surgeon, brought you a presentation to bring you up to date how we got here. We don't expect you and farmers, your busy people, to do all of this research yourself, which is why we tried to condense it into these two episodes. Possibly we might have to go into three.
Let's see how we go. But we're going to be looking into sustainable goals. We're going to be looking into everything that's coming up in the future, including super farms and for farmers. Please listen, we know you're busy to the public, all of you that are listening now, please support your local farms, farmers, we will support you. We're right behind kind you. We need your food. We need your beautiful food. We really do. And to small businesses, it'll be you.
Next, we're going to move on to what is happening now in 2025, the sustainable goals. And Sandy and Roger have got another short presentation. And then we're going to be talking about Bovia Arla. We're going to be talking about what farmers should expect, what vets should expect. So we're going to have a discussion. So please stay with us. But for now, let's say hello and happy New Year. First to Roger, thank you so much for joining us again. Say hello to everybody.
Hi, everybody. Great to be back Debbie, and looking forward to to what we're about to do. Fantastic. And Sandy, Happy New Year and welcome back for Part 2. Happy New Year, everyone. I hope you had a good one. Yeah, thank you. Yes, it's it's really great to be back and to to do another, another episode of this. Thank you so much. Well, it's going to be a hugely valuable resource, I know moving
forward. And I with that, I'm not going to waste any more time because we've got an awful lot to get through. So Sandy, over to you, sustainable goals. How did we get here? And we're here now. So what have we got to look forward to? The sustainable goals really they, they were, they were brought about in in 2015 because as we know, the, the UN had tried with the 8 Millennium goals. They had failed to, to be, to be sort of brought to, brought to a conclusion.
By 2000 they were called the 8 Millennium Goals. And so by, by, by 2015, they were getting a bit edgy, need to need to accelerate the agenda. And so they put together a huge conference in Rome with the Pope. President Obama flew over to launch the 17 goals of Agenda 2030 and they then called it Agenda 2030.
So it was Agenda 21. It became Agenda 2030 on in September 2015 when they launched the 17 goals at at the Vatican, basically in Rome. And President Obama, he made his keynote speech to the United Nations General Assembly on the future of the world and to unveil Agenda 2030. They launched the 17 goals. And all of this was really a big push to accelerate the seventeen goals. And I mean, we could, we could just go into them if you like, a
little bit. 17 goals. Which one specifically are we looking at with regards to farming and land and smart cities and how they go land grab from us? I think life on land is, is a big one. And life on land is really about revolutionising the way land works. And a lot of it is, is being a, you know, you have to, if you have land, it has to be sustainable land. And that's what they talk about
in, in, in life on land. Life on land is all about not indulging in any, anything that they, that the UN feel is unsustainable. And so they've, they've got many, many NGOs set up, even financial instruments set up now in order for you to be able to, to, to achieve these goals.
And some of them are almost unachievable because the the 17 goals really want that, that this particular goal life on land is really about controlling the land and not allowing the people that own the land to control it, if that makes any sense. It does make perfect sense. In fact it makes it it sort of the sustainable goals, and this is what I've been saying all along, is that are unsustainable. And I I noticed that goal 2 is 0 hunger, so that dovetails in quite well.
I mean, I don't know perhaps which one of you wants to take that Sandy or Roger, but zero hunger, How will that be impacted by loss of land and farming? Or is that a stupid question? Well, it's, it's not a stupid question because you know, it's a big ask to say, you know, sort of 0 hunger, you know it, you know that the world has always struggled with distribution and, and some countries having less than others. And their idea is to make everything equitable, which is a very worthy idea.
This is what the UN always sort of appeared to look as though they're doing is making everything everything equal. But The thing is that with, with 0 zero Hunger, their, their answer to that is, is GMO products, you know, sort of a lot of almost like, I mean, the, the, the 17 goals are really all about, particularly the, the, the zero hunger one is all about creating mass, literally mass food that can be created on a,
on a mass scale. And we don't need that because each country should be producing and should be encouraged to produce their own food. But what they want is a global food supply and creating that food supply. They, they want to bring in things like robotics, AI, if you like. They want to control what goes into the food and also creating artificial food, which is really
bad. They want to phase out meat and dairy as we know, and, and replace it with these meat, these fake meat products that you know, and soya and all, you know, and now they're even looking at algae and crickets so that, you know, they can phase out meat and dairy and replace them with other forms of protein, which in my view are not, they're not healthy. I think everybody here would agree with that. They're not healthy and that it's Franken foods and we don't want it.
Well, I know that we're going to come on to talk about Bovia in a bit because Roger's done a very serious video to put out a warning on Bovia, so stay tuned for that. So life on land is a sustainable Goal 15, and you've also, of course, got sustainable Goal 14, which is life below water on fish farms. We mustn't forget fishing. We mustn't forget what's going on as well below the water, so sustainable goals playing into a huge amount of this. So what else Sandy? Take us on from there.
There's also, you know, 0 poverty. How do you achieve that goal? Well, they bring everybody down to the same level. They make everybody equally poor with things like the, the Ubi that they're trying to bring in universal basic income. So in, in their view, it's all about equity and levelling up. In fact, levelling up is, is talked about in our town councils. It's talked about on a global basis as well that everything
has to be equal. And this also goes back to our common future, which was the, the Bible of, of, of, of bringing everything to be equal. And I, I just feel that it's an unachievable thing, you know, you know, at the moment because, you know, poverty is something that, that you can't just, you can't just throw money at it because there's so much corruption involved. And what they're doing is, is with Ubi, it's a way of making people completely reliant on the
state. And that's what they, they, they tested it out in places like I think it was Nigeria. And it impoverished people because you have a set amount of of money and a set amount of of carbon credits, because all of that will be linked to your carbon credits. And all of this is really about control. It's not about equity. It's certainly not sustainable either. So OK, so we're going to get a world full of poverty. That's something to look forward to. Not.
But they're also going to end hunger, I noticed. Tell us a bit more about ending Hunger. Ending hunger is, is really about controlling the food chain. And as I said, creating super farms. They've got it in mind to create if you only have to look at the Sainsbury's future food food report. They're, they're trying to create these massive food super farms and get rid of farmers.
And they've even said that in the transition, the agricultural transition plan 2021 to 2024. You can look it up online. It's absolutely, it's there in insight. They talk about, you know, 24/7 robotic farms, massive super farms that are run by robots and phasing out meat and dairy and all of that they're saying is the way to end hunger.
It's impossible, you know, to to actually envisage sort of the way they want farms to work in. Is it, you know, what could go possibly wrong when you've got corporations running farms, you know, people that know nothing about nutrition and know nothing about all they know about is money, and that's what we're looking at. I just wanted to say it's also
in the wording. If you read the, the 17 sustainable goals, how, how it's worded in the document is, is very different to what they actually mean. And that obviously can be very confusing unless you realise that there is this other agenda behind it. You know, so they, you know, they want heritage seeds banned and replaced by annual GMO seeds.
You know, they want to record all our habits and monitor everything on the blockchain and use sensors, as Sandy was saying, so that everything is, you know, provides data that they can then sell on to third parties. And it's all in their own documentation.
And when there was a document that I pulled off the C-40 cities website and it's actually got what the, what the aims of meat and dairy consumption are, they think it's achievable to get people's meat consumption down to 16 kilos a year. Well, I was a carnivore diet. I'm, I'm doing that every, every, every, every fortnight, every or three weeks or so. You know, I wouldn't survive. I wouldn't last a year if I was
trying to do that. And the idea that they are trying to support farmers and support farming when they've got a declared goal that to ultimately eradicate meat and and dairy consumption, which basically means get rid of livestock farming. You know, the two don't marry. You can't say you're supporting farming when you've got an agenda to stop meat and dairy consumption by the public. It just doesn't fit together. And so all they can try and then fit to do is sort of monoculture plants.
So yeah. Now I just want to say anybody can download this document. It's called the Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World and it's the C-40 Cities document headline report. Now C-40 cities as, as as Robert said, they've, they've even put together this planetary diet, which is rationing. It's basically rationing. They've got a pie chart of all the things that, that are sustainable and all the things that aren't and, and what you
can and cannot eat. And that really is a big, if you, if you really want to go into the C-40 cities, They're the ones that were advocating the 15 minute cities where you could get everywhere within 15 minutes. And it's caused mayhem in, in Oxford, Cambridge, Canterbury.
And you know, it's, this is the way that they're, they're looking, they're looking at, at really it's making everything smaller, everything your life smaller, your diet smaller and advocating rationing, which is kind of what we're looking at at the moment. Sandy rationing. I mean, I agree. I think we're already in those days and I think a lot of people are aware of the agenda and many people are stocking up on on things.
Quite rightly. If a farmer is sitting at home now watching this and the bank account is not looking very healthy and the outlook is not looking very healthy. And all of a sudden they get a call from someone or a letter through the door that says, hey, you know what, we could use your land for a soul farm or wind turbines or something like that rather than your agriculture, your dairy farm or whatever. What is actually happening with regards to incentivization?
Because any, any farmer sitting there now is going to be thinking, well, you know, if I'm doomed, it's probably best off that I get rid of the land and take the money now while I can. What's your advice and and what is the advice that's been given out to farmers specifically at the moment? The farmers are being de incentivize if there's such a
word to to farm. They they're being told by in this is all in the agricultural transition document 21/20/21 to 2024. They've they've been given from 20. It was from 2020 or 2021. They were given five years, I think it was. So now it's, it's actually by two, 2027, their subsidies stop, their subsidies stop altogether. But until then, their subsidies
will, you know, are sanctioned. If they don't, they have to stop doing any farming that is unsustainable in, in the view of Defra. So Defra have said, you know, you, you can't, you have to start phasing out, you know, meat and dairy. And they're really encouraging them. They're more than anything, they're incentivizing them to put up wind farms, you know, solar farms, any, you know, any sort of renewable energy on their land. They get paid extra for that.
They've got to set up businesses because they won't have their subsidies after 2027. So they have to set up what, what Defra said, sustainable businesses on your land to support yourselves basically. So it's become a business and it's a business of not now creating food.
And what's really worrying is that if you look on the land mapping for most of the town that the city councils or the sorry the county councils, if they do have a land mapping, some don't a future land mapping they do in North Somerset, you'll see that their land mapping up to I think it's 2040. There is no provision for food and land mapping. It's all housing. A lot of a lot of farms are selling that, selling up for housing.
A lot of they're going in for renewable energy, loads of solar, solar farms, wind farms, rewilding, herbal lays, glamping, you know, you name it. You can do anything on your farm except produce food or you incentivize. There's no food security provision, which is which I believe is, is, is is unbelievable. And a lot of people are making noise about this in their town councils. So what we have to do is just talk to the farmers and make them see that this is a very
short sighted view. We've got to be looking at the long term food security of our planet and our country. So I think that any farmers who are just selling out, you know, they're going to, you know, where's their food going to come from. This is what you have to ask them. Yeah, Sandy made exactly the
point. I was going to say there was, you know, farmers, if, if you're not, if you're not producing food and your mates down the road aren't producing it either, you're going to go hungry the same as we are. Because we're going to talk about it in a bit. But you know, some of the, some of the measures which they're, and aims that they've got for, for shipping and, and, and air
transport and things like that. You know, food won't be coming into the country because if every every country in the world has the same regime, which is what they're trying to make it a global agenda, then you know, there isn't going to be the movement of food across borders. And, you know, if we're not producing food in the UK, there isn't going to be any food. And it's really as simple as that.
So I would really urge farmers to resist the temptation and find other ways of of earning money from their food, which we won't know we're going to talk about, discuss later. But you know, it's a very short sighted view to, you know, take, take the money now and you know, and then wonder where your food's going to come from in the future.
I think this is a very valuable point, not just for us in the UK, because I think farmers need to be reassured that especially those of us that are watching this interview, our audience that know the agenda, we really do need to support our British farmers. And if this, if this is a global issue, right? So this is going on in other
countries. And I would say the same to you, wherever you're watching from internationally, whether you're watching in Europe, whether you're watching in the United States or Australia, or wherever you are, please support your local farmers because they're all in the same boat. You know this model is not just for the UKI can see some very disturbing slides ahead of me containing pictures of no no other than Sir Klaus Schwab and the world's Economic Forum.
I can hear everybody groaning now, but who wants to? Who wants to lead us into the World Economic Forum and the pact that was signed in 219, which is also got us to where we are now? Yeah, I can. I can do that. Yes, there was a there was a pact signed between World Economic Forum and the United Nations in June 2019. So, you know, everybody thinks so. The World Economic Forum, they have nothing to do with governments and all the rest of it. They absolutely are.
They have got influence throughout governments throughout the world and Klaus Schwab, who is the head of of the World Economic Forum, has even boasted on video saying how he has captured governments and, and, and got half at the time he had half of the cabinet of Canada had been through his
Young Global Leaders programme. And so the idea that governments are actually working for us, I think we need to forget that they should be working for us. They aren't in power, as they like to call it. They're in office. And there's a very big distinction between power and
office. And they're in office and they should be working for us. But in when it boils down to it, they're working for these NGOs who are all being gathered together by the World Economic Forum and that, you know, they're putting these global policies out and influencing governments big time. And we know Keir Starmer has already said on, on video that, you know, he prefers Davos to Westminster. So, you know, we aren't making these things up. Sandy and I have have done lots
of research into this. And we're, we're trying to make sure that what we present today, we can back it up with documents and, and, and that there are videos to back up what we're saying in terms of this is their own words. These aren't our words and our interpretations. These are their words. This pact that they signed, it's called the UN Forum Partnership, Strategic Partnership document. And I mean, it's important that farmers know that this is not
conspiracy theory. This is all backed up by documents and, you know, sort of events that really did happen. We have to get away from the fact that it's conspiracy. And I think that's what's holding the farmers back from understanding a lot of this. So This is why we're here, really. But the UN for foreign partnership, it was signed between Antonio Guterres, who's The Who was the general secretary of the of the and still is of the, of the UN in 2019.
It was signed between him and Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum. And it was too, they decided that they had to accelerate the 17 goals yet again. It wasn't moving fast enough for them. They've got real, they've got to pull this off by 20-30. So they're going, they're going for it.
And So what they did was they cite, they held this meeting in the United Nations headquarters between, yeah, between these two, you know, between the, you know, World Economic Forum and the UN. And the, the partnership identifies 6 areas of focus that they wanted to really accelerate and it was financing of 20-30. How do they finance the 20-30 agenda? Climate change, health. Now this is the one that really stuck in my mind.
Digital cooperation and gender equality and empowerment of women education skills to strengthen and broaden their combined impact by building an existing and new collaboration. They wanted health support, well being for all countries and all that kind of thing. And, and what happened really is that they got their digital cooperation because they say digital cooperation meets the needs of the fourth industrial revolution while seeking to advance global analysis and and
inclusiveness. So they needed to get digital cooperation completely, get the people to buy into digital cooperation. So the story goes on. Yeah, obviously when when COVID came along, it became the opportunity to, as Klaus Schwab said, the pandemic presents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect,
reimagine and reset our world. And so as Sandy was saying, they're trying to push this, this forward fast now, because it, it's sort of gone from being conversations behind the scenes that very few people knew about to the point where we are actually now starting to see some of the changes and see some of what they're trying to impose on us. And so COVID was used as, as a way to do that.
And, and I think the clearest example of that was when we were all in lockdown, they were still putting up the infrastructure for 5G for all the digital surveillance and all the rest of it. So, you know, it is coming out in the open and they are trying to push things forward because I think they think if, if they can get it to a certain stage, it'll be fait accompli. And by the time enough people wake up and start to object, they will already have their
control. And, you know, I do feel that some of the coming food shortages, which I know are going to happen will be potentially used as Debbie has already sort of inferred, you know, if we end up with food rationing, that requires identification. And obviously during the Second World War, everybody had their little, little paper passports to, to, to, to go and, and go and collect their rations for, for the local shops.
But when it comes to now, they're going to use this as a leverage to bring in digital identity. And you won't be allowed to collect your food unless you're on the digital platform. And then that means we're all subjected to the potential of being socially scored in the future. So this is all being pushed forward very much more quickly now. And it is coming more and more into the open because they have to, because they've got to, they've got to impose it on us.
Now, Klaus Schwab wrote his book The Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the two books. So, you know, if you really want to understand that they've written it all down or Klaus Schwab has and it's very dystopian, which reflects his his background political influences with mounted tongue and and all sorts. As Roger said, you know, during the lockdowns, we this digital cooperation was forced upon us whilst we were literally
sleeping. We were in lockdown and, and all the infrastructure went in as as Roger said and the 15 minute cities were implemented during it. You know, all the infrastructure went in for those as well. Let's not forget that that's that was really trying to just push almost a smart city agenda on to us. But you know, big cities, just locking them down, what they're
doing right now. And this was a prime example of it. The digital corporation was a start of the 10 year transition that Klaus Schwab had also said in his book from share our normal price based sort of, you know, free market shareholder capitalism to stakeholder capitalism. It's it's a way of corporations holding all the power instead of the people holding the power. It's a corporate takeover. It's an oligarchy.
Is is what Klaus Schwab's talking about in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. It's almost as though we're talking about the weaponization of nature. Almost. Exactly what's what Sandy's describing there, this sort of partnership between government and and corporations, that sort of stakeholder capitalism. Mussolini described that as, as the definition of Nazism, which is where corporate and government take hold.
And, and that's the whole thing. Stakeholder means those who are actually involved in those industries. So they will have dictate to the people who, who, who, who use those services and, and products rather than the the consumer sort of demanding and, and dictating which direction we go in because we are the people and we're supposed to be in power.
So, you know, it's Nazism by its old name, but they're calling it stakeholder capitalism to try and wrap it up and make it sound something a little bit more advanced than that. But you know and and we know. That there's. Also, the UN Charter 109, which makes provision for the United Nations to be revised and replaced. And this was supposed to happen in 1959, but it never actually happened. But they're trying to move it
forward now. And in the same way that United Nations has replaced the League of Nations in 1945, they're calling it United Nations 2 point naughty. But they're also talking about being a new global government so that it would be a new way of, of, of the United Nations effectively taking over our governance totally. And that there is actually a conference pencilled in, I think for 2026, but they said they definitely want it by 20-30.
So, you know, these are these agendas are absolutely real. And we're obviously getting close to these dates where, you know, a few years ago it sounded like a long way away, but actually they're not very far away now. And This is why people need to be aware and and start to sort of realise what's going on so that we can object now just.
Going back to when you're mentioning The Great, The Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the books, I would say to anybody that hasn't read them, they are quite shocking. I mean, it is the plan, it's the blueprint almost that it's in
your face. But I want to remind everyone as well that Klaus Schwab was knighted by the now King Charles. And whilst many think that it was Klaus Schwab that announced the Great Reset at the World Economic Forum, actually it was Prince Charles when he was Prince Charles. So I just wanted to throw that in. But I mean, this is a big, this is big money here. This is a big financial gain for those in control. Roger, do you want to take us
into the financial side of it? In 2023, they, they put together a new financial instrument was created by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC to the New York Stock Exchange. So they're, they're looking to monetise everything.
I mean, there's even, I think there's a website where they talk about, you know, using trees and, and, and everything in within nature and, and giving you some monetary value, which countries can then effectively used to to underpin in the same way the gold used to underpin currency. They're looking to use nature now to underpin currency and keep their Ponzi scheme going from from that point of view and
the new digital currency. So, yeah, you know, they're trying to manoeuvre and use, you know, are effectively are the people's assets because everybody, the world belongs to us all. You know, they're trying to use that to, to, to, to control themselves and, and to back up governments and to use that to, to impose taxis and, and whatever else. I mean, I think there was even a video of somebody of the World Economic Forum saying, you know, people need to stop thinking of oxygen being free.
So, you know, it's got to the point where, you know, you'd have to pay a tax in order to, to, to breathe. But I mean, how, how they're going to enforce that is beggars belief. Maybe that's where the medical aided assisted dying comes in. But it's, you know, it's, it's, it's got, it's so ridiculous. It sounds so outlandish that people don't think this is what they're planning. But it is, you know, they are on video of saying these things.
So it it is absolutely coming down the track and as we say, anything differently. Absolutely. Just to, just to sort of endorse what, what Roger has, has just said, you know that they did create this financial instrument at the, by the Securities and Exchange Commission at the request of the New York Stock Exchange.
And it's called, there could be these financial instruments called natural asset companies, natural asset classes, natural asset corporations, and they're based on environmental stewardship. So really it's about the stewardship and the Nacs hold the rights to ecological performance. So you're almost given stewardship of your land. You don't you, you can own it, but you can't control it because you, you have to be checked up on basically to make sure that you're sustainable.
And these companies giving licence to control lands, both public and private, that would be required to block any unsustainable activities such as meat production or dairy farming that lead to the degradation of ecosystems in their view. So, you know, basically, how do you, how do you make a, you know, take control of land and make it profitable while not owning it? Well, they, they use this ecological performance such as nature conservation, restoration
or sustainable management. So the NACS, the natural asset companies would quantify and monetizing natural outputs using a system and it it's all the the farmers are having to comply to this biodiversity net gain or if they don't now they will do. And biodiversity net gain is the financial instrument that's used as a scoring system. It's a bit like Esgs or environmental and social governance contracts in businesses. So they will be scored.
And so these natural assets that would normally profit the farmers and the land owners would now belong to corporations run by what many would call environmental special interests. So that's the that's it. You own your land. You don't control it, you don't profit from it. Basically, they're going to stop you pretty much doing everything, which is what the World Economic Forum said in the 1st place. You will own nothing.
We go back to that. And and you know, as we're, as we're speaking now, I've just seen an announcement come through to say that President Trump, who has as we're speaking, hasn't yet been inaugurated but will be attending Davos this year, which is interesting, don't you think? But, you know, all of this is going to lead to, well, I mean, they're going to kill us through starvation by the sounds of it.
Because, you know, I'm seeing a very stark headline on your next slide, which says the coming food catastrophe. And this is not just to farmers. You know, I know that we're doing these presentations for farmers, but we're also doing it for you, for the public, because unless we get food, we can't eat. So take us through what kind of catastrophe? I mean, is this as bad as it looks? Well. Yes, I mean, farmers are saying that we're heading for a massive
food shortage worldwide. This will be blamed obviously on climate change. That's what they that's what they do. You've got, you know, wars, you've got Ukraine and and and Gaza all threatening food, food supply chains internationally with net 0 policies preventing
farmers from farming food. We have a perfect storm for some kind of, you know, sort of famine if you like, if we don't do something about it and that the farmers have the power in order, you know, if they're fully informed to to avert this, I believe anyway. And the budget change of the inheritance tax was not a miscalculation. It's all part of the deliberate attack on UK farming and small businesses in step with global plans. Government, governments are following the UNWEF agenda and
don't work for the UK public. You know, they're not working for us. They they, they're taking their, their orders from from the WEF and the United Nations. Unfortunately, you're quite clearly showing, you know, that in a slide that you have here to say that 2023-2024 was the worst crop failure since World War 2 in the UK. And of course, war brings disruption for every, every single service and provision you can think.
Not just destruction to land and crops and farms and buildings and people, but to food supplies and transportation and to to delivery as well. I mean, you know, where, where is this leading because we, we know that moving forward, we're looking at electric vehicles. We're looking at they don't want us to travel anywhere. They don't want us.
I know that you've been looking very carefully at the Absolute 0 reports and many of our viewers will know about Absolute 0, but can you talk about that a little bit as well? Because I think that plays into the whole that the whole scheme and agenda moving forward. Yes, the the absolute zero, it's called the UK Fires Absolute 0 report. You can look at it online, it's still there. Just type in it must be UK Fires Absolute 0.
And it comes up now this document was produced and commissioned by the UK government and they they commissioned it in I think it was 2019 or 20. Yeah, something like that. Anyway, it was, it was some, it was commissioned by the UK government through top universities like Oxford and Cambridge as a white paper really. And how, how could we achieve
absolute 0? No, forget net zero, how do we get to absolute 0 Carbon, carbon CO2 in the atmosphere, which you know, as you and I know would create, you know, things would, wouldn't live, you know, zero CO2 is 0 life basically. And so, but Julie, they came up with this report and I think what's interesting is I think it's page 4 of this report.
If you do do have a look at it, they've got a very colourful colour coded road map really to 2050 to 2050, from 2020 to 2029, which is from now or from 2020 to, you know, 20-30. They've got a 10 year window and then it goes on from there for 20-30 to 2040. And then obviously 2050 is when you hit absolute 0. So we've, we've got net zero until 2049. Basically it says in, in this air travel and shipping to be phased out between 2030 and 2049. So how do we get food imports?
I mean, it's like being a prison island because they're also shipping and, and, and flying by 2049. They want to stop it. Fossil fuels to be phased out. You know, how would farm machinery operate as EVs are totally impractical. What's the point? No beef or land production after 2049, no wood burning stoves, no gas boilers, no gas appliances. And we already know that they're trying to phase out gas and, and, and wood burning stoves at
the moment. So I'm putting in things that are inefficient like ground force seats, ground source heat pumps, things like that, appliances with, you know, everything restricted to electric and the size reduction to be cut for the power requirement, transport and energy to be cut by 60%. How will food be moved around the country? Construction or concrete and mortar to be phased out and the retrofitting of all houses to
comply with net 0 regulation. So all of this is a perfect storm for all of us literally living in poverty A and B not having food. You know the food distribution would break down if you if we got to absolute 0. So that's my take on it. Do look up that document, the absolute it's called. I mean, I've been, I have this on my website in 2014 it was 20/20/15.
So it was, it's a big, it's a big document, but it's worth going through it. And and certainly even if you can't go through it, look at page 4, which is the the road map to 2050. It's quite interesting isn't it, How how some of what's been announced very recently in parliament is also feeding into this.
Because we've had Keir Starmer saying he wants the UK to be the centre of AI. And yet I know that both Google and Amazon have said in the United States they need to build 4 plus nuclear power stations just to power their, their AI future. And so, you know, if, if they're trying to stop us over here from, from, from, from, you know, having gas power and, and trying to be, you know, reliance on, on wind and solar with, with no fossil fuels.
I mean, what's, what's going to happen is, is the electricity just going to go into AI in the UK and then the people won't have any, We'll have blackouts at home. You know, there's only a finite amount of of, of electricity that can be produced. I mean, the whole thing is absolutely, completely unsustainable. And as Sandy was saying, you know.
This is this is a global. Plan so when they're saying no air shipping and travel for us this this actually applies to all these other all these other countries as well. I mean, it is, it is quite, quite unbelievable how, how this is, you know, even thought this is, this is even going to be
possible. It's not only unbelievable, I don't think I think it's completely unsustainable, you know, and just add, add to before we go on to my next favourite subject flooding because I'm looking at the clock and I'm thinking, you know what, we might even have to go to a Part 3. But I really do want to get to Roger's latest announcement about Bovia. So hold on tight because I promise that will be included in
this this interview. But I just want to remind people that it's just been, remember the Nudge unit nudging you into doing things? Well, they've just been recontracted to nudge you into having heat pumps. And as Sandy's just said, number one, they're incredibly expensive. For some houses, you're going to have to have your whole central heating system ripped out and replaced. Or you can have a hybrid, but whatever, it's going to be a massive cost up to 20,000 lbs.
So the nudge unit have been employed to nudge you, incentivize you into having a system that is not only inefficient, but it's going to cost you an absolute fortune. So just to add that on the nudge unit and heat pump because that's the next big thing coming up, along with carbon credits,
of course. So let's go to my favourite subject, which is floods, because we were talking earlier and in my introduction, I was saying and our love, thought and prayers do go out to everybody that's being affected by wildfires wherever you are in the world. And of course our attention at the moment is drawn to California. And you know what I'm seeing in fires in, in in America, I see in Europe and the UK floods and I see no insurance conveniently for fire victims.
It's the same in the UK for floods. But let's look at the deliberate destruction of land using floods. Sandy, take us from there. It's interesting because I, I was living in in Somerset in 2014 and 65 square miles of Somerset were underwater. It was the worst spring rainfall that they'd had in many, many years. And banks of the, the river Brew the Parrot and the tone had burst their banks and people were literally in terrible trouble.
They were having to evacuate their houses and it was, it was really, really bad. And a few of us went down to help with the sandbagging. And what was interesting is that there was no help from the government, the Environment Agency or the army, the Navy or anything.
The only people that had come to help the people of Somerset were the there was an aid organisation called Kalsa, their international Sikh aid organisation, and they've thrown in from the Haiti earthquake to help the people of Somerset because the people of Somerset, the, the locals got in touch with them and the, the whole operation was run by the local pub, the village hall and this amazing organisation, Sikh
organisation. And I, I thought this was very, very odd because we were all doing our best, but there was no one to be seen. And sure enough, all the, all the, the media were gathering on the bridge, watching, watching everything rise. And nobody did anything. And it took a it took days and days for the army to arrive. And, and basically they spent an hour doing what I would call a photo shoot, passing the bags to each other.
And then they went and then Prince Charles arrived and he was taken down the, the banks of the River Parrot on a, on a wooden throne. And he was saying something must be done. And he went off and, and the, the Environment Agency were nowhere. But what really made me wake up to what was happening is a lot of the locals were saying, and also a, a journalist down there said to me, you know, this is deliberate because they've
stopped the pumping stations. They haven't dredged the reams for for decades, since the Environment Agency got, you know, were put in charge. Nothing has been done to maintain the ability for the, the natural drainage, you know, that had gone on. You know, all the, all the infrastructure to, to drain the levels had been decommissioned. Basically they just let everything silt up. One of the journalists who was a fantastic bloke, who Christopher Booker said to me, this is Agenda 21.
And I said, well, I'm looking at all that because this was in my early days of research. And I, you know, he, he said, look at Policy six of the Environment Agency. And I later learned that that area where Policy 6 had been implemented in 1997 by Baroness Young was actually the area that was designated as a floodplain for, with EA, you know, with
Environment Agency Policy six. I, Baroness Young to, to, for biodiversity, for the, for wading birds to, to be deliberately flooded for wading birds and for the RSPB. And that that didn't make sense to me because there's already an RSPB sort of bird sanctuary just down the road. So this was all part of literally reclaiming land, you know, a land grab and getting rid of livestock because all the livestock had had to go. They were all flooded out.
And what's interesting is, is, you know, if one looks at policy 6, you can see that the pink area on the policy map is exactly the area that flooded on on at that time. And then they're kind of doing it again at the moment. We're getting consultations all along the coastline, particularly where I live in Somerset, saying, you know, we get that the levels will flood now due to climate change and
and sea level rise. And So what we're finding is that they're holding all these consultations and more or less preparing people for what they call resilience. They've got to become resilient to the flooding, Like move all your, all your electrical sockets up the wall, you know, put to put everything above the, the, you know, the flood level in your kitchen and all this, it's almost like normalising
flooding. So it's going to happen anyway and you'll have to deal with it. You know, the fact is they're not, they're not maintaining the infrastructure that was put there 400 years ago to stop the levels from flooding. And it's for me, I'm seeing it as a way of getting rid of farmland because there's another, there's another issue with the, the coastline right by the nuclear power station that they're building EDF and the Chinese are building a big power
station. And unfortunately, they've said that because they're using the water to, to cool the reactors, the fish stocks are being sucked into this process. And therefore they've got to have more sea to for the fish and they're going to re sea all the the salt, basically the grazing salt marshes, which is where the cattle go to just graze the salt for certain periods of the year. And then they move on to the grassland. But they want to take away a whole load of farmland and turn
it into sea, which is madness. Why can't they put a philtre to stop the fish going into the into the reactors? I don't understand it but all I know is it's another way of getting rid of farmland. Well, I'm taking a big deep breath because and we are going to get to the future of food. I'm going to go to the future of food. Roger, to you next. But before I do, I have to say that Prince Charles was doing a lot in his reign because he came
to me as well. I met him when he came to my area, when my area flooded and as a repeated flooded victim of 102 Times Now. Yeah, that's right. 102 times I can tell you that what's happening to you is happening to communities all over the country, including my own. And a lot of it is because there's been no investment into the water infrastructure, and not just the environmental, the environment agencies, pumps and, and their infrastructure, but also water company infrastructure.
And what we've been getting is that water companies aren't statutory planning consultees, so they have no say in whether a housing development goes on. Is anybody checking that the infrastructure that is being plumbed into that housing development can cope? The answer is no. So what we're getting is an overwhelm.
We're getting private companies performing public duties and we're getting, we're getting local authorities and water companies using homes as attenuation tanks for sewage floods and for surface water floods. And there is no legislation for flooding on land. The EA are the regulators for what happens in a in a waterway or in the sea in coastlines. But there is no regulator for
floods that happen on land. And, you know, I live in an area that has a lithium mine, a desalina tion plant and sewage spills all in one area. And that is not good for the environment. It's ecocide basically. It's not good for the environment, and it's certainly not good for humans to live in. So I had to say that because the future is water. We all need water to live. And water is now questionable. And how badly contaminated is our water? So, you know, floods, engineered
floods, I'm with you 100%. So yeah.
And I am mindful now that, you know, we're literally out of time and I've made all of these big promises to everybody that we're going to be talking about eggs and we're going to be talking about mad cow disease and we're going to have to do a Part 3. But I did promise you to bring you up to date with Bovia. And before I show a video that Roger has put out on Bovia, I want Roger just to very quickly remind, if you could do it very quickly, Roger, just give us a
quick reminder because two weeks ago, everybody was talking about Arla, everybody was talking about Bovea. What was it? Was it safe? Can you, can you introduce the video that we're about to see? It's only a short video, but could you just give us a quick introduction? Just remind people about Bovea. It's, it's a product that's put in cattle feed and it changes the metabolite or changes what goes on in the Reuben, which is the part of the stomach that that ferments the grass, the
cattle, the cows eat. And the idea is that the cows will produce less methane because methane they think is a, is a greenhouse gas. OK, So I'll have put out a tweet basically saying that they were going to start or they were, they were having a trial with 30 farms to use this Bovair to reduce the methane. And obviously the milk would would be, would be being produced by these farms.
And there's quite a big uproar on Twitter, which I'm sure everybody's aware of. I was sort of concerned about it. I read some of the trials and I wasn't convinced that they'd gone on for long enough and all the rest of it. And I was also concerned that it was classified as a feed additive in the UK, although the FDA had classified it as a drug over there.
So I decided to write to the Veterinary Medicines Directive, the BMD, but also the chief veterinary officer to, you know, say why hasn't Beauvaire been have been checked and why hasn't it been classified as a drug? Yeah, So the video gives a little bit of an explanation as to the response that I that I got. And here's that piece of video that Roger put out. Please watch and listen and
share. Through an email exchange with the UK Veterinary Medicines Directive, BMD and Chief Veterinary Officer CVOI changed the VMD to explain why they have not categorised Bovera as a veterinary pharmaceutical when it has been in the USA. By the FDABND informed me that Bovair had self categorised its own product as a feed additive despite the fact that it is only authorised in the UK for use in
lactating dairy cows. It specifically says it is not for use in dry cows, heifers, bulls or calves. If it is safe enough to be considered a feed additive, it should be universally safe for feeding to all cattle. Due to the self categorisation of Beauvera.
As a feed additive, the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland carried out the UK's official authorization process for Beauvaire. There is no facility within the FSA or FSS to make a full and proper veterinary assessment of Beauvaire. The CVO informed me that this consequently means that no official health and welfare evaluation has been carried out in the UK with respect to Beau Bear's impact on the cows being fed it to be fair.
She praised this point. Herself last autumn, but still the VMD of which she is part allowed the manufacturers to self determine that Beauvaire be categorised as a feed additive and to go ahead with feeding trials in the UK. This is a complete derogation of duty by the VMD in my opinion. The VMD defended this on the basis that 35 other countries have also derogated their duty in not properly assessing Bovair
either. To be clear, there are no studies that have looked specifically at Bovair's impact on fertility, metabolic disease, lameness, mastitis or any other aspect of cattle health. The longest try used by the FSA to assess Bovair budget accounts for only 15 weeks. Despite the fact that a whole lactation lasts over 300 days and Bovair is intended to be fed at every lactation throughout their life, there is 0. Information on the. Cumulative effects of feeding bovair over a number of.
Years the CBO. Informs me that she. Is awaiting assessment by the UK VET Risk Group who are currently trying to find out more information. In the words of the CBO, this may take some time. In the meantime. Those dairy. Farmers who are already feeding Beauvaire are probably blissfully unaware that no veterinary assessment has, with regards to their cows health and welfare has been undertaken. They have every right to reasonably expect that such an
assessment has been performed. Beauvaire should be. Withdrawn from Use until. It has been properly assessed not only for its health and welfare impact on cattle, but to make a full and proper assessment as to whether it makes any difference to climate overall. On the basis that it has now been proven that the earth temperature is not determined by greenhouse gas radiation, the production of methane, CO2 or any other supposed greenhouse
gas is immaterial. Methane and CO2 have never been a problem and never will be a problem. Wow. That was very. Powerful Roger, just very briefly and we will talk more about Beauvier and Arla in Part 3, but very briefly, is there anything you want to say after after watching yourself Farmers can no longer. Trust that what they're being advised to feed or give to their cattle has been adequately
tested. And I think like I've already said in the last interview I did with you on my on my own that, you know, the PCR test isn't suitable but for being used in a clinical situation. And yet it is for for, for still being used for, for testing animals for clinical disease.
So, you know, farmers are going to have to start questioning everything that they've been advised to and consider whether it's in their animals best interest to subject them to to being tested and where the products that they are being advised to use are, are actually being properly tested either
now, it seems. But I mean, the big take home and and the real big in climate message that I think needs to be shout shouted from the rooftops is that there has been a study published where it proves that there's a completely different model to explain climate temperature, planetary temperature. And it not only works for the for, for our planet, planet Earth, but it also works for
other planets as well. And you know, the data fits, unlike the climate climate change model that's been used to, to, to push a whole net 0 fiasco is based on models that don't, don't consider all the cycles that naturally take place. And, and it's based purely on the idea that there's a greenhouse gas effect. Well, you know, given that that paper, a recent paper, and there's a great video on YouTube and it's called beyond the greenhouse gas or beyond greenhouse effect.
And I'd urge everybody to, to watch it. It's quite long, but it's worth watching. But it, you know, it does explain that, that there is a different model that it, that fits the data much better. And on that basis, anything that's being pushed through on the back of net zero has absolutely no, no vindication whatsoever as far as I'm concerned. So, you know, this is where we need to sort of stand up.
And you know, and I've, I've urged the chief veterinary officer and the VMD saying why haven't senior groups, including them within the veterinary profession? Why aren't we standing up and saying, and you know, for the cattle, for livestock farming and, and all the rest of it on the basis of, of this alone, it's enough that we don't need to be pushing these measures on, on our farmers and, and the land
doesn't have to be sacrificed. You know, we've got little enough really fertile and a lot of land that's farmed in the UK is quite marginal. It's only fit for pasture. And so, you know, we don't we need this land for food. We don't need it for for energy. There's we're not under the same pressure that that they're trying to make out that we are. So let's let's find other technologies that don't take up our our food. And I would owe to farmers to to
resist on that basis as well. And resist is the big. Message If you like what the UK column is doing and you feel that you've gained from this interview, which I'm pretty sure you will have done, please share our content. Please tell people that we exist and that this information really needs to go to everybody, to farmers, to members of the public. Do you see it now? This isn't just an inheritance tax agenda. This is a much more dangerous dark agenda.
And British farmers listening, we need you. We support you and please, please hear what we're saying because this research is it's taken years. Everything is evidence. And I'd like to thank you both Roger and Sandy very much for all this amazing hard work and passion that you put into this for all the right reasons. And on that note, I will promise everyone there will be a part three if you're both in agreeance. And first of all, I'm going to hand over to Roger for, as
always, your last word. Thank you, Roger. Thanks, Debbie. I'll make it short after the last. One, we're just to reiterate what I've just said, you know, resist, resist, resist. You know, we, we don't need to go down this agenda. And you know, provided we all do stand up, I, I do think it's
going to be positive. And you know, the the good thing about that's come out of Bovar and the Arla story so far is that it has pushed people to find their local farmers and, and, and for local farmers to then to start supplying their local, local people too. So you know, there is positive coming out of this. So it it might sound all a little bit too and gloom, but but there is light at the end of the tunnel. But we've just got to look to see that light and move towards it.
And yes, you're absolutely right. Every. Cloud does have a silver lining, and we're all in this together. And on that, Sandy, thank you so much for all your incredible hard work. And if you're open to our Part 3, then you're always most welcome. We'd love you to join us for Part 3. And it's over to you for your last word. Thank you, Debbie, and thanks for the opportunity. For us to, to get this out without you, we wouldn't be able to thank you.
I think as Roger said, it is about a resistance. It is about a resistance. And I, I think if, if farmers knew really what was facing them and the long term implications of what is going on, I think every farmer would agree that, you know, that things have to change. They can't, you know, they, they can't be pushed around like this. And you know, this whole global governance of, of farming and it is a land grab. And if they can see it's a land grab.
And absolutely as, as Roger said, the, the, the, the Beauvier, I call it a scandal really. It is a scandalous, scandalous that that managed to get into the food chain. You know, people are beginning to look at the ingredients as well of of stuff in supermarkets and realising that they possibly need to be more aware of what is going into their food. I've noticed a lot of people looking at ingredients now and realising that there are certain ingredients that aren't good for them.
And the Beauvier thing has really highlighted that. And the more awareness people have, the more they'll want these natural products, which is the way we should be going. And the farmers, I believe that if they, if they really knew this agenda and knew that the long term thing is going to affect future generations, their children, their grandchildren, their grandchildren's children, whatever, they wouldn't be going
along with this. And we have to make the, you know, sort of somehow get them to realise that this is not a conspiracy. This is a it's a conspiracy, but it's not. It's a conspiracy on them, not not the other way around.