UK Column News - 11th June 2025

Good afternoon. It's Wednesday the 11th of June just after 1:00. Welcome to UK Call News. I'm your host, Mike Robinson. My Co host today is Charles Mallett. Welcome to the program, Charles. Thank you, Mike. And joining us via Live Link, our researcher and activist Sandy Adams and journalist and peace campaigner Vanessa Bailey. Today we're looking at proposals for digital ID and how it's being sold to us. Charles and I have been doing a lot of research on this and

there's a lot to discuss. We'll also be talking about defence and the food industry. And sticking with the issue of ID, Sandy will be looking at the increasing use of facial recognition in the UK, in UK supermarkets. And she's also talking about the origins of a new film which some of you may have seen already called The Agenda. And of course, Vanessa joins us live from Lebanon.

She will be covering demands for resignations from the Foreign Office and Israel's funding and arming of ISIS, allegedly. So, uh, Charles, let's begin with digital ID because the

British government, uh, has decided that, uh, we all need one. They have, yes, yet again. But there's going to be a lot to get through. But we'll start with going back a little bit. So just over a year ago, the Starmer regime came to government and the momentum for a national digital identity has gathered more and more energy. Looking at the Plan for Change, last year's manifesto, it's clear that there's no mandate to do so because of course digital ID was never mentioned.

But instead the policy has been driven by a Trojan horse in the form of a countermeasure against uncontrolled migration. In April, a group of Labour MPs wrote an open letter declaring the need to secure our borders and that the time has come for what they call an ambitious digital ID programme. So the clamour for greater control over immigration coincides with the release of end of year figures from the Office for National Statistics indicating that net migration

into the UK has dropped by half. Although one thing the ONS is unlikely to be accused of his accuracy. These figures are provisional and they're all sorts of caveats, like the omission of the numbers of asylum seekers, for example. Last month, in what was a very obvious ploy to set the conditions for a universal digital ID, the government published a white paper on immigration, at the core of which was a control mechanism on which they say they are pinning all their hopes.

They say we will strengthen border security by rolling out digital identity for all overseas citizens through the implementation of E visas and new systems for checking visa compliance, replacing the former biometric residence permit

cards. Now the latest volley has been fired by Labour Together, a think tank which is inextricably linked with the Starmer camp, most obviously because of the current chief of staff at Downing St. Morgan McSweeney, who has jumped directly from Labour Together into Starmer's inner circle back in 2020. In the executive summary, they state that 1,000,000 people live in the UK without permission to do so, undermining Britain's social contract and sense of Fair play.

They go on to say that this is how a mandatory universal national identity credential, they're calling it Brit Card, can help Britain control illegal migration and secure its orders. Now, platitudes are, of course, tossed out to appease the reader. Quote, this is your country, you have a right to be here. This will make your life easier. It is at the heart of the social contract. And it goes on in that sort of vein.

Now, in light of the perhaps inaccurate figures from the ONS, this might seem like quite the sledgehammer to crack this particular nut, as it's only explicit in its remit to deal with less than 1% of the UK population. Moreover, it appears to break with the line on digital ID until now, which is set out by the Office for Digital Identities and Attributes, which is categoric in stating that this kind of ID would not be mandatory and therefore not

universal. Now, as a demonstration of how this kind of drift occurs, it is worth looking back to the words of Boris Johnson on the subject of identity.

Back in 2004, he said if I'm ever asked on the streets of London or in any other venue, public or private, to produce my ID card as evidence that I am who I say I am, when I have done nothing wrong and when I'm simply ambling along and breathing God's fresh air like any other freeborn Englishman, then I will take that card out of my wallet and physically eat it in the presence of whatever emanation of the State has demanded that I produce it. And then, of course, we have the

legislation from 2006, which was repealed by the Identity Documents Act 2010, which declares that no ID cards are to be issued by the Secretary of State at any time on or after the day on which this Act is passed. So somehow this has not been considered in all of the back and forth and the propagandising. Instead, the government has been pushing the nation with on a persistent basis, with the actual delivery coming via

stealth. And whilst it may be accurate to say that digital identity is not mandatory, it's perfectly clear that there are now a range of processes for which this is a prerequisite. It also looks like another instance in which the rise of reform has been turned to the advantage of the Labour Party, here of course capitalising on the theme of tough action on migration, thus capturing votes at the same time as convincing people that joining an ID scheme really will be convenient and secure.

Now, the Brit Card document is opaque on the subject of enforcement. There are many references to it, but no explanation as to how it will be achieved. And further, it's not at all clear how such a scheme could be made, could be made mandatory, or in what other ways a digital ID would affect the lives of those signed up to it. There's certainly no reference to the right to a private life as enshrined in Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

And the reality of course, is that it's only ever been about surveillance, control and money. Now the recent analysis from the sector would appear to reinforce this. Nearly 300 companies are acting in this space and they generated over £2 billion in the year 2023 to 2024 with 888,000 sorry, 888,000 million gross value added and over 10,000 and full

time equivalent employees. Now given the use of migration as the vehicle to drive this forward, it should seem ironic that only 75% of these are headquartered in the UK and that 3034% of those, the digital identity firms have a physical presence in international markets. So, so much for migration in effect, or at least overseas

issues now. Finally, when 1 looks at how digital ID has been used to date, it's perfectly clear that the greater part of its use is related to a transactional arrangement rather than for any of the given reasons. This is precisely the same as with the COVID jab, which many people took in order to be able to fly or continue to work,

rather than for health reasons. This chart here shows that the primary reason for uptake is, believe it or not, to access access online gaming or gambling accounts. And with regard to reusable ID, only 8% of this application concerns what's called proving the right to work or live in the UKI know Mike's got plenty more to say on this, but there really is a lot to cover and I dare say, well go over it in in

further detail in extra too. Just a quick correction, that's 888 million, not 888,000 billion, of course. That's true, because that's not a number. Yes, indeed. OK, thanks Charles. Now I thought it would be good to look at the mainstream sales job that the on the issue of digital ID here. So here's Polly Tonby and the Guardian. And she's suggesting that the Brit Card Project would cut down on bureaucracy, help guard our borders and prove Labour has

pride in digital identity. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, Charles, but Britain's identity has been based for quite some time on the idea that ID cards of any kind are the kind of thing we might have seen in the Nazi in Nazi Germany, and so have been opposed by multiple generations. Twenby even recognizes this. She wrote Papers Please. Those words strike terror in 1000 war movies.

Stasi or Gestapo officers are a breed apart from the unarmed plot who demand no ID cards from a free British people. So when the government contemplates a universal ID, it sends instinctive twitches down some spines. And my question is, do they think enough of the generations who remember this have died? And so time to press ahead? I suspect that's possibly the case. Or is this part of the preparations for the next war?

That might be the case as well. Then we have Andrew Orlovsky writing in the Telegraph. He believes the digital ID cards be could be Starburst poll tax, referring to Thatcher's original attempt at local taxes which resulted in just about everyone coming out onto the streets in protest. And he says here, but there are two serious problems and they're set out, they're set on a collision course. First, Brit Card will be mandatory so we'll be forced to

use it or go off grid entirely. Second, and this should alarm us all, Labour Together proposes that Brit Card will use the government's one login digital identity service, which is mentioned 13 times in the proposal. This has become an expensive and sprawling government IT project that has engaged hundreds of contractors and cost taxpayers over £300 million. What we know about it is very

troubling. Concerns have been raised about the security of the project at the deepest levels of the state. When we create a one login account, it hoovers up our personal identification documents. This ID becomes the key that unlocks other government services. So an insecure system has serious consequences. It not only puts individuals at risk of identity theft and impersonation, but also makes defrauding the government much easier.

End Quote Now Bloomberg here then points out the digital ID of all kinds is here with a report on Sam Altman's eyeball scanning Orb devices that Charles reported on a few weeks ago. And they say that starting this week, people in London will be able to scan their eyes using Tools for Humanity's proprietary Orb device, the company said in statement on Monday. And the service will roll roll out to Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff, Belfast and Glasgow in

the coming months. Then we had Apple, who held their WWDC keynote presentation on Monday and describe to describe the latest features they'll roll out this year and across their platforms, including expanded support for digital ID. And I'll end by drawing everyone's attention to Big Brother Watch's campaign to get the Starmer regime to drop the hole insanity.

Rebecca Vincent here, interim director of Big Brother Watch said make no mistake, the new digital ID proposal reportedly being considered by the government is another plan for a mandatory universal ID under a new guys. The so-called Brit card would fundamentally change everyone's relationship with the state, moving us towards a papers please society, citing that phrase again and putting a burden on all law abiding people to prove our right to be here.

This would mark a severe departure from Britain's long and proud history resisting mandatory ID. But the debate about digital ID isn't really about migration, it's about access to and control of everyone's data. We urge Downing St. to reject this Brit Card proposal and find alternative solutions to improving government deficiency that do not March the country towards a mandatory universal ID or otherwise trample the privacy rights of the entire population.

Well, OK, the place to start with any campaign in this issue surely would have been the Data Use and Access Bill, which Charles has mentioned already. But it's too late to engage on that now because it's going through its final stages in Parliament and it's right on the verge of royal assent. So, you know, this is all-encompassing legislation and it's it's just, it's incredible how much this enables, but that is the basis of everything that's going on in this area.

It absolutely is, and I think it speaks volumes that the only sales points or sales pitches concern absolutely everything but the merits of the system. It's either for going on computer games or gambling, or it's for migration, at least figures that concern only 1% or less of the population. Or it's for something entirely spurious that there is quite clearly not sufficient information or substance to be

able to sell it properly. And I think they, you know, it's known that if they tried that, that absolutely wouldn't work. People would reject it wholesale. If there's no need, no point. And we just just as a final point on this piece of legislation, it is an enabling act and it enables, as I say, such a broad use of our individual data. It really should have been campaigned much more stringently against from the beginning. But anyway, let's move on then and welcome Sandy to the

programme. And a related topic, Sandy, because you've been looking at the issue of facial recognition. Yes, thank you, Mike. Yeah, again, It's, it's, it's privacy. Asda has come under fire for trialling live facial recognition cameras in its supermarkets, prompting a formal legal complaint from civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. Yeah, again, they're, they've got their work cut out at the

moment. The privacy watchdog argues that the retailer's use of biometric surveillance is unlawful and infringes on the data rights of millions of shoppers. Asda's trial began in March across 5 stores in Greater Manchester. Using technology developed by UK start up Face Tech. The system scans customers faces against a watch list of alleged offenders compiled by the retailer. If no match is found, the data is reportedly deleted immediately.

Critics say the move sets a dangerous precedent. Big Brother Watch describes the system as a high risk intrusion into personal privacy. Likening it to turning everyday shoppers into suspects, as does trial, is deeply disproportionate and chilling, said Madeline Stone, the group's senior advocacy officer. Warning of a broader trend of unchecked biometric surveillance spreading across UK policing and

private sectors. The complaint argues that widespread deployment of LFR could have a profound impact on the data rights of 10s of millions of people, and urges regulators and government to step in before the technology becomes normalised. The controversy reflects a broader public unease over facial recognition in the UK aid. the ADA Lovely Lace Institute has also issued warnings saying that LFR is being rolled out in a

legislative void. The group says current UK laws are fragmented and inadequate to regulate such invasive technologies and called for urgent legal reform. The scale of biometric surveillance in the UK is growing fast. A joint investigation by the Guardian and Liberty Investigates found nearly 5 million faces were being scanned by police in 2023 alone,

resulting in over 600 arrests. Now LFI is being trialled not only in supermarkets but also in sports venues and High Street chains like Budgens and Sports Direct. Most retail use use cases, especially for marketing, surveillance or general customer tracking, are unlikely to meet these standards and would likely be ruled unlawful if tested in court. So I noticed that my local home bargain store were using live facial recognition.

They alert customers with a small notice on the entrance that frankly, most people wouldn't see, saying it was for your safety. Your facial recognition data is captured when you enter the store. If it doesn't match their banned list, it's supposedly deleted automatically. But how can you be sure? This requires a boycott of Home Bargains and any store that's rolling out this technology without consent. This is a recording of me challenging the manager at Home Bargains. Oh, hello.

Sorry, I just started trying to say because you've got facial recognition, haven't you? Yes. What happens if you don't want your face? It's because it's automatic as you walk in, isn't it? Yeah. So what can one do about that? Because it's, it's actually against my privacy to record my face without doesn't or anything.

So what it does is when you come in, it scans it and then it checks it goes to a database because like, and if it doesn't match someone who's banned, then it just wipes it back off again. So it just scans for people who are banned for like stealing and inappropriate behaviour and stuff like that. So can you, can you request that your face isn't scanned because

you're an automatic thing? Yeah, in Astra at recently because it's actually it is against your previously yours to scan your face without permission. And so I mean, I, I, I will be kind to your head office about just because it is against GBWD PR, although you say it isn't, it actually is, is so from bargains. I know, I know that there was, I know other companies that do it. I know it doesn't make it right. But thank you very much for your information. OK, bye.

Bye. Yeah, it doesn't make it right just because everyone's doing it. And this is what this is the battle we have, you know, so that's, that's the way they look at it. If if we've told you we're doing it and everyone's doing it, it's OK. And it's not, it's not OK. Now, Sandy, of course they do. They have put up the notice on

the door. So assuming you see that notice and read it, no matter how small the text might be, they would argue therefore that, you know, you have effectively contracted with them by walking through that door and given them your consent. So, so the issue's got to be that, uh, you know, as you say, a boycott of, of organisations that are doing this is really what needs to be considered. Yeah. And Big Brother Watch are saying it's it's actually is a, is a is a is a breach of privacy.

So that would have to go through the courts, I guess. Yeah. But in the meantime, boycott, Yeah. Yes, OK. Thank you, Sandy. Thank you for that.

Vanessa. Let me welcome you to the programme then. And well, the this is related to Gaza of course, and the Middle East, but the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office have decided that if you are not happy with government policy then maybe that's tough.

Yeah, And I, I want to remind everyone, as in Charles's report, this is your country when it comes down to digital ID, but it obviously clearly doesn't come down to it being your country when it comes to any dissent against government policy. So this was a report, it's been widely reported across all mainstream media. But this is in Politico. UK officials say civil servants concerned about British support for Israel can resign.

So just taking from the article, 300 staff from the FSTO, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, wrote to David Lammy saying the UK had contributed to the erosion of global norms by failing to take action against Israel. And they went on to point out, and this is very similar to what happened at the BBC. They also noted with concern efforts to screen out questions about Gaza in all staff meeting sessions and urged ministers to publish legal advice and

potentially suspend arm sales. I mean, of course I would argue arm sales have been claimed to have already been suspended, but we know perfectly well that they haven't. Only specific parts have been nominally suspended. So who responded to this? First of all, Ollie Robbins, who's the UK Foreign Office permanent Under Secretary, so

advisor to the government. If your disagreement with any aspect of government policy or action is profound, your ultimate recourse is to resign from the civil service. This is an honourable course. So absolutely no, you know, concept of discussion or taking people's points on board. 300 is a relatively high number of civil servants who've come

forward. Quick look at who Olly Robbins is. He was managing director of Goldman Sachs 2019 to 2023. So for five years he led international negotiations on G85 lies, intelligence alliance, Brexit and he advised 4 prime ministers, including during the financial crash of 2008. And just very quickly to look at Goldman Sachs's role in in supporting Israel since October

the 7th. This is a investigation by Bank Track 7, underwriters of war bonds instrumental in enabling Israel's assault on Gaza, new research finds. This is very recently published. And let's have a look at who heads that list. Of course, guess what? Goldman Sachs, by far the largest institution listed, having underwritten more than $7 billion in Israeli war bonds

since October the 7th. But it also includes the Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, Barclays and JP Morgan Chase. And I think City is up on that list also. And then Nick Dyer, who was the other second permanent Under Secretary to go back at the civil servants, and this is taken from the article, they warned civil servants that while there was no problem having criticisms of government policy, their job was to deliver the policies of the government of the day wholeheartedly.

And for me, I don't know how you feel, but there's a sort of subliminal threat in that statement that if they don't wholeheartedly support government policy, of course they can resign or they can be pushed out. Nick Dyer and Olly Robbins have been supporting wholeheartedly UK efforts to go to war with Russia and Ukraine. This was from April the 17th on on X at Nick Dyer's account.

Last week I visited Kiev to reaffirm the UK's unwavering commitment to Ukraine, speak to our partners inside and outside government and spend time with staff at UK and Ukraine. Very similar wording, of course, to the statements they make about their unequivocal support for Israel. And we did recently do an interview at UK column with Ben Rubin and Doctor David Miller on the connections between Ukraine and Israel. So I would recommend that people

take a look at that. And of course this goes back to the over 100 BBC staff accused the network of pro Israel bias in their Gaza coverage. And of course we can't really divorce the BBC from government itself. And so it's interesting that there is mutiny both within the BBC and within the government itself.

And then this is basically from the Middle East or the minister for the Middle East yesterday, Israel and the occupied territories, Minister for the Middle East statement, statement to Parliament on UK sanctions on Israeli government ministers Itima Ben Gavir and Bezalel Smotrich, who of course are considered to be the furthest right extremist members of Netanyahu's government who have been, let's say, at least encouraging the Reformation of the former Israeli terrorist

factions, Ergun and Stan, under the control of Bengavir in the occupied territories. Bengavir has effectively been arming the extremist settler factions and obviously they've been leading consistent attacks against Palestinian farms and property. And of course, we know that the annexation of the West Bank is continuing in line with the continuing genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. So what did Hamish Falconer have to say? It's a very long statement. People couldn't go and read it

themselves. But I just took a couple of points. So he's saying This is why we've pledged 101 million to the Palestinian people this year, quite who those Palestinian people are.

He doesn't clarify why we are working to strengthen and reform the Palestinian Authority. Of course, the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas is known to be nothing more than a stooge working on behalf of the Zionist regime and actually punishing their own Palestinian resistance against the consistent Zionist ethnic cleansing in all areas of Palestine. And he says that we are clear that Hamas must release hostages.

Of course, again, no mention of the 9000 plus hostages taken by Israel since October the 7th and existing prisoners in Zionist jails that are being raped and tortured and physically abused on an hourly basis, many of them of course dying in imprisonment from starvation and torture. So he's clear that Hamas must release hostages, but no mention of the Zionist held hostages and that Hamas must have no role whatsoever in Palestinian

governance. Now this is connected to my next report on what's happening in Gaza. But it's clear that the British government is defending the United Kingdom of Israel over and above British citizens, in my opinion. Vanessa, let me ask you a quick question. If you were working for the British Civil Service and you felt that you were being asked to do things which were counter to your personal morality, would

you resign? Well, no, I I would kick up a fuss which I guess these 300 civil servants have attempted to do and effectively are not being listened to in the fact that in staff meetings Gaza is not even being allowed to be brought up. I mean, I think that there should be and there is scope under legislation, I'm guessing, for the civil servants to take action against the government for not heeding their concerns over British government policy. Yeah, brilliant.

It's, it is an astonishing line to take. And I think the Foreign Office to double down on this is, is inexcusable really, especially at the same time as even the head of the ICRC in the region is describing the flagrant abuses of international humanitarian law and the complete disregard for the Geneva Convention. So for the Foreign Office to take this line seems entirely tone deaf, for want of a better phrase.

I mean, I think it's much more to talk about, but it seems a disgraceful way to treat people with entirely legitimate and legitimised concerns. Absolutely OK.

If you like what the UK column does, you would like to support us and the place to go is support.ukcolumn.org, there are options there to help us out, including making a donation, joining as a member. And if you do join as a member, of course, you get access to members only content. So such as UK column News Extra, which immediately follows this

program. You could support us by picking something up at the UK column shop or if you want to buy something from Clive to carl.com, if you use the link on this page, we do get a small Commission for everything that you buy, although it doesn't cost you anymore. And I just want to say once again, a massive thank you to everybody, everybody that does support us in this way.

And also a thank you to anybody that does support us by sharing our material because of course, although share links are provided on the on the pages that are on the UK column website, it is increasingly difficult for us to get content shared on social media. And your help is absolutely needed. Now tonight at 7:00 PM, Jerem will be speaking to Zoe Harcombe. And this is everything they tell you about Diet is Wrong. Fascinating discussion. Yeah, it.

Absolutely is just flies in the face of all the conventional wisdom, particularly that was pumped out by the government, all the nonsense such as 5A day and don't eat meat. And she will, she will set the record straight. So really worth listening to. OK. 7:00 PM tonight in the usual places, including ukcolumn.org/live and then tomorrow at 1:00 PM also in the usual places. Brian is speaking to Vicky Ashe now.

This interview is with a survivor of abuse so please be aware that watching this could be triggering. However, it is an overwhelmingly positive interview so do join Brian at 1:00 PM for that. The interview that went out one yesterday with Gemma Cooper on reflections on the day with mothers separated from their children, that is up on the UK column website as an on demand version. If you want to have a look at that, please do.

And Charles, the next on location event date for Everybody's Diary Saturday the 18th of October. Yeah. It's we'll be there before we know it and we are very excited about it with good reason having had an event in Bristol and indeed Cheltenham this year. And these in person events absolutely are the way to go.

But I think mainly for now it's important to say that we've got a theme which is going to be health and therefore, of course, considering what Zoe Harkin has to say is really pertinent. But it'll be a terrific gathering this time in the north of England. So hopefully an accessible place being York for people, perhaps even from north of the border. And we're delighted to say that the venue's fantastic.

It'll take cash, there'll be a chance for a social in the evening and indeed there'll be contributions from UK column presenters throughout the day. So really, really exciting event on the horizon and there'll be more details and the detail with

regard to tickets in due course. And finally a an announcement about tonight, June the 11th 7:15 for 7:30 hailings future This is talking about haven't borough council leader councillor full Monday he'll be speaking haven't chief planning officer and your haven't borough councillors and so on. Do head along to that if you want to get involved in local politics in that part of the world. Now, Sandy, let me welcome you back to the program.

And just just over 2 weeks ago, we met with Mark Sharman and

Phil from Oracle Films to look at their new documentary. What were your thoughts? Yeah, I mean, it's, it's been long-awaited and it's it's called The Agenda, Their Vision, Our Future. And it was premiered on YouTube Rumble and X last Wednesday. If you haven't seen it yet, it's well worth sitting down for an evening with friends and watching it. It is one hour, 15 minutes long, but it's excellent. It's it's almost like a feature film, excellent in quality and sound and vision.

Now, I just wanted to share a brief story about how the idea of this film came about. Really. Glastonbury is an interesting place and it's said to be the sacred ground, in my experience, is also both a mirror and a magnifying glass. It often reflects the greater battle between light and dark playing out across the earth, and sometimes from this place, truth breaks through the ether and reverberates around the world, and I've witnessed that happen twice. Weirdly this film was one of

those moments. After a council meeting about Net 0 and 15 minute cities which astonishingly went viral in March of 2023, we challenged the council to the Great Net Zero debate at the Town Hall on the 7th of July which was live streamed by UK column Thank You. Unbeknownst to me, Mark and Patricia Sharman were in the audience and after the event they asked if I would help them with a film about Agenda 2030.

I agreed and I gave them all I had on the subject and pointed them towards a few people who were already doing excellent work in that area and inspired me, Patrick Woods, Rosa Corey, Alan Jabi and more. Mark and Patricia and Phil Wiseman from Oracle Films ran with it and the project just grew and grew. It was a real learning curve for them too. But after two years of extremely hard work, the result is nothing short of a masterpiece.

It's amazing some people feel it hasn't gone deep enough. And yes, we all know there are deeper layers and other scenarios not dealt with in the film. However, delving too deeply may result in losing the engagement of your audience. This film effectively helps those new to understanding the links between climate, COVID and technocratic control and to to make sense of the current events that are going on in our world. The deeper truths, I'm sure,

will come later. As I said earlier, you can find the film on Oracle Films X or Rumble YouTube. Sadly, we're interrupting it with ads every few minutes. And that was YouTube, not Oracle Films, by the way, so it's probably best to to view it on Rumble or X if if you don't pay for not having ads. So let's have a look at that trailer. The last to control other human beings is a story as old as time.

There's a very strong drift in the direction of globalization, of the ultimate centralization of control in the hands of unelected officials at super national organizations. They want all of the resources of the world in their pocket. The bigger. Picture is that an attempt is underway now to collapse liberal democracy and replace it with global technocracy. This. Is a coup. They're saying we can control with rules. We don't need currency anymore.

It's like an inverted prison. You are supposedly free to roam about, but everything you want to access is behind lock and key. The. Potential for social control is gigantic and potentially irreversible. They plan to commandeer land, reduce farming and radically change the food we eat, transform the supply of electricity and then dictate how we use it, and replace currency with a system of credits. All three strategies are built on the premise of a climate

crisis caused by carbon dioxide. I do. Not think there's a climate crisis. And I based that on all the evidence and the climate data sets that we build to answer questions just like that. The government is very clear that they want a catastrophic. Story There is no single science paper that proves conclusively that. Humans. Control all or most of the global climate. Europe's. Mad dash towards net 0 is.

To the economic suicide politicians are purposely impoverishing ordinary people purposely deindustrialized in Europe, it's just. Tremendous amount of damage in the name of saving the planet. It does make you ask what is it we're actually saving if we're paving it over? I think what we're dealing with here is actually a global war on agriculture. When you look at how many farms are selling out, we're walking into food shortages. If I. Can switch everybody from real

food to pharma food. Then 100% of the agriculture industry can go through my publicly traded stocks and I have complete control. This is the biggest public relations scam in the history of the world, but it's far more than that. It's a blueprint. It is the action plan all. Life on Earth is going to be radically changed everything. Will be monitored the environmental consequences of every human action the general. Population cannot fathom the psychopathy of the vision that

they're facing once. The digital ID is in place. It's game over for humanity. So Sandy, it is a fantastic film and we absolutely recommend everybody watches it. Yeah, yeah. No, it's, it really is great for people who it's beautifully produced and for people who really need to join the dots. And there's a lot of them. You know, this has the capacity to really wake up millions of people all over the world and, and, and, and start their journey into really understanding what's going on.

And I think they've done an amazing job. I really do. Yeah. Thank you. So, so the message from us is absolutely share it now. Let's move on then.

NATO head Mark Rutter was in the UK on Monday. He visited Chatham House where he delivered a speech on building a better NATO. He welcomed Keir Starmer's strategic defence review for its NATO first orientation and he said he was really impressed by Starmer's plans. He he was asked if the UK should increase taxes even further to fund the rearmament programme. So let's have a listen to what he had to say. Well. It's not up to me to decide, of course, how.

Countries pay the bill. I mean, what I know is that if we want to keep our societies safe and and look, if you if you do not do this, if you would not go to the. 5%, including the 3 + 5, the 3.5% core defence spending. You could still have the National Health Service or in other countries their health systems, the pension system, etcetera. But you'd better learn to speak Russian. So if that didn't have you in stitches, I'm not quite sure what will. But you know, what's he saying here?

If we want to keep our society safe, I wasn't sure that. I mean, this is a narrative that we keep hearing, particularly since COVID. The government is here to keep society safe. He went on to say we will build a better needle, one that's stronger, fairer and more lethal so we can continue to keep our people safe and our adversaries at Bay. And this is the same narrative, exactly the same narrative as from the Strategic Defence Review. Is this the role of government

or or NATO for that matter? Anyway, according to Ruta, it's all about the supposed Russia threat. Russia could be ready to use military force, he said, against NATO within five years, five years. He went on to say. Let's not kid ourselves, we're all on the eastern flank now. The new generation of Russian missiles travel at many times the speed of sound. The distance between European capitals is only a matter of minutes. It's there's no longer east or

West, there's just NATO. Now, of course, we don't need to concern ourselves with the fact ourselves, with the fact that NATO is more than 1000 kilometres closer to Moscow than it was during the Cold War, and that Russians have been warning for decades about what that would mean. But Rudda also mentioned China. Which he said is also modernizing and expanding it's military at breakneck speed and so on. I mean, it just went on like

this for the whole presentation. Now As for what NATO, the alliance itself needs, it needs a 400% increase in air and missile defence, millions more artillery shells, a doubling of logistics, supply, transportation and medical support capabilities, more jet fighters and tanks, drones, long range missile systems and so on. It is clear, he said, if we do not invest more, our collective defence is not credible.

Spending more is not about pleasing an audience of one, it's about protecting 1 billion people. And so the question then is how is this going to be paid for? Well, let's have a listen. The facts are clearly. There that Russia is able. Within five years to to mount a credible attack against NATO territory if we do not now start to take these decisions. And then of course is the issue

how to finance that? Well, that's up to national politicians, and they're always I. Mean when I was in politics, you were three sources to do this from. 1 is taxation, another is savings elsewhere, and the third one is a higher deficit. I mean, in the end, politics is making choices in scarcity. This is why you why you choose your politicians and then a centre left politician will be make different choices from a centre right politician.

But OK, that's, that's that's up to the national government. But my my point is we've got to do it. Facts are clearly. So he was definitely encouraging, he was definitely encouraging Starmer to increase taxes. But, you know, deficit spending, we've seen recently the removal of limitations on deficit spending in in Germany. And this is increasingly going to be something that we're we're looking at more and more debt.

I would imagine that the speculators are getting very excited, you know, at the thought of what all this is going to mean for stock prices and defense contractors, as you pointed out last week, Charles. But in the meantime there's been some pushback around Europe. The Madrid Assembly against rearmament and militarisation, a coalition of more than 70 groups held a rally in Madrid on Saturday against the E US rearmament drive. There were about 68,000 people

on the streets. It was the largest anti war protest in Spain for quite some time and to quote them they said we view with concern and anger the war mongering drift that EU leaders and governments have embarked upon trying to drag the peoples of the continent into it. The hidden objective behind the tangle of media intoxication is, after having pledged our productive economy into deep crisis, to justify to the public a huge transfer of public funds

to the death industry. And so they ran with slogans along the lines of no to war budgets, notary armament, no to the militarisation of society and the economy, military spending for social purposes. They instill fear on us and sell us, quote, security. And they're buying on the money with with most of that anyway. Now the E us promotion of the so-called 72 hour Survival kit was given as the best example of of this kind of thing. And as I said, this was a

coalition of groups. They all agreed on the anti war message. Many groups chanted and carried banners calling for the NATO, for NATO bases to be thrown out of Spain, Although reportedly not everyone was quite on the same page on the NATO question. But nonetheless, they got together to run this. And just to to finish this segment, we'll mention this article here.

This is from the Guardian. Britain has escalated the global nuclear arms race and it's bringing us closer to Armageddon. This is Simon Tisdale absolutely making this point very strongly, that the strategic defence review is an act of insanity and we need to go then finally to Lord Robertson, the key author himself, who's absolutely now suggesting that Britons must be prepared to fight for their country. I don't think so, George. No, I mean, I wouldn't think so either.

And, and that seems to be borne out by the feedback we've had sort of across the board and also looking at what Luke Pollard, Armed Forces Minister, announced the other day in terms of dropping, absolutely dropping the standards for entry into the armed forces. So it's it's not looking good.

And I think also to just go back to the Guardian article, it's interesting to see that probably for one of the few times in recorded history, the Guardians have to be on the same page as the Russian administration in in deeming the UK as responsible for war mongering and war mongering. Yes. Indeed, Vanessa, let's come back

to you. Welcome back and let's talk about the latest from Israel and Gaza. Yeah, well, shot, Cora. There are reports that Israel, or rather Netanyahu's regime, is funding ISIS in Gaza to attempt to overthrow Hamas or to at least muddy the water. Of course, Israel was also admitted to having funded and armed the various groups of fighting to overthrow the Syrian government, and those included ISIS and al Qaeda.

So here it is. Avigdor Lieberman, a coup uses Netanyahu of arming ISIS linked militias in Gaza. The PM's office offers no denial. And then let's see exactly what Lieberman said on a Can TV interview that I put that in. The Zionist regime was in quotes. Transferring weapons to a group of thugs and criminals to identify with ISIS on the orders of the Prime Minister. So let's have a look at who this group is. Very quickly.

Abu Yasser Shabab is the leader, a resident of Rafa in southern Gaza. Declared formation of a new armed force which identifies very much with ISIS ideology, operating under the Palestinian legitimacy. Allegedly that received the blessing of the Palestinian Authority leadership. So let's go back to the fact that the British government has been recently working hard to develop collaboration with the Palestinian Authority.

So is the British government effectively by default also supporting ISIS that is collaborating with the PA in Gaza? A question that should be raised potentially with the British government itself. Netanyahu has come back and actually confirmed that Israel is arming effectively ISIS. He determines them to be clans in Gaza to fight Hamas after Lieberman's allegations. So effectively they have admitted it. And what did his office actually say in this article in the

Jerusalem Post? These statements must be a glaring red line for anyone. So that in other words, they're attacking Lieberman, outing them for anyone who cares about the security of the state. They harm first and foremost our soldiers and put hostages at risk. Israel's interest is to protect soldiers by using whatever means

possible. So a very sort of convoluted statement there put out by Netanyahu to try and defend the fact that he is, well, claiming to be fighting terrorists in Gaza. He's actually now funding an arming terrorists in Gaza to fight terrorists in Gaza. I mean, you can't sort of make this stuff up. And recently there was a video circulating on social media in the last two days which show the ISIS factions opening fire on the aid cues, which of course is a lure.

It's a trap to bring out the young men from the remaining so-called safe zones in Gaza that of course are not safe zones at all. They're being routinely bombed and then basically to open fire on them. So the IDF now doesn't have to do it. It can rely now on ISIS, as it did in Syria, to run its war against the resistance in Gaza. So let's just have a look at the

video. So. It's not enough that they're deliberately starving Gazans while bombing them, burning them alive, using weaponized aid against them, and now bringing in terrorist factions that, you know, the West is condemning in Syria, allegedly. While of course, they are also funding and arming them to carry out strikes against young men that are going to gather aid for their families out of desperation.

I mean, it's, I don't know, this entire situation just seems to descend into greater and greater sadism and humiliation of the Palestinian people. Silence from the anybody that's, you know, helping to promote the Israeli cause. Vanessa on on the issue of of the working with yet another extremist faction. Yeah, I mean absolute silence. Nothing from the worst, but it's business as normal apparently and and civil servants are not allowed to object.

Yes, incredible. Charles, let's move over to you then. And well, we've been covering

the issue of the Holocaust Memorial Bill and the the government's desire to build a new memorial towards the Holocaust in the centre of London for quite some time. What's the latest on that? Well. As of today it goes to the report stage in the House of Lords and this will enable us to give a further insight into the intense politicisation of the issue and the apparent desperation which successive governments have tried to push

through. An initiative was importantly rejected by the planning authority and for very sound reasons. Now, the latest development is that the Co chairs of the Holocaust Foundation have been sending out letters to garner support for the proposed memorial. And some of these are very much worth mentioning because of who they've gone to and and the language used. Now, it's fair to say, I think that some of the language used in that letter is strong.

In particular, quote, the United Kingdom is a leader in the global response to Holocaust denial and distortion. The uniqueness of the Holocaust must be preserved in memory. There are too many countries attempting to rinse their history through the Holocaust. Interest groups hijack the language of genocide for petty and sometimes sinister reasons.

End Quote. Now of course in this fairly long letter, they're very cautious to avoid any of the issues of the direct controversy such as the destruction of Victoria Tower Gardens or indeed the planning process, which has been an enduring and so far unsuccessful issue. They're they're certainly not shy of making best use in terms of an opportunistic sense of the conflict in Gaza in order to

expedite their cause. And as part of the amendments for the report, stage 1 says that there's a clause to be inserted saying the sole purpose of any learning centre must be the provision of education about the genocide of the Jews and anti-Semitism. Now also going into looking at the letters and the recipients and the responses, it, it, when one considers sort of independence and due process, I

think it should be of concern. There's been interaction with the Metropolitan Police Service who really should be remaining independent of any such decision making. But nonetheless there's a reply in there from Matt Jukes, who's now deputy Commissioner. And he concludes by saying overall, although security arrangements will need to be extensive, we consider that the proximity to Parliament brings as many benefits as risks from a security perspective.

And he goes on and say he looks forward to passing it further with you. Now, it's a curious statement to end on in that if there are security considerations, how can that be a benefit? How can it be said to be bringing benefits? Of course, this is political language which is very much unbecoming of Metropolitan Police Service. This is reinforced by John Stevens, who's commissioner back in 2002, thousand and five.

And he talks about public access and safety concerns and maintaining public access to the gardens during and after construction. Now he's, he effectively undermines the whole process by talking about security arrangements being in line with those of to other public buildings in Westminster. So we're talking about bag checking, scanning at an entrance pavilion, which totally distorts the purpose of the gardens and indeed people need to book tickets and and all the rest of it.

Now the the other thing to point out is that at the Imperial War Museum just over the river, there are of course the existing Holocaust galleries. And here we see on the map the proximity to one another less than a mile apart. Again, undermining this as being a location and also put forward in the amendments very significantly with regard to planning is that they're to consider for the first time alternative locations for security purposes.

They're also to consider alternative designs and something that's going to be more sympathetic perhaps. And also if there's a case for saying they might have overblown the anti-Semitism angle in that now because security is deemed to be such a strong consideration that this site might be considered to be too dangerous. But but mainly they need approval from the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England and indeed UNESCO before anything can go ahead.

And significantly, that it must not adversely affect any other memorial or the setting of such memorials in Victoria Tower Gardens. And indeed the integrity of the Victoria Tower Gardens as a green space dedicated to the well-being of local people in perpetuity, which was what was set in legislation in 1900 and has been ridden roughshod over

now. Therefore, I would conclude by referring to the parks, the Royal Parks Authority, which of course are talking about the Victoria Tower Gardens, hosting A stunning range of sculptures that celebrate freedom. And essentially the central purpose here is that the gardens were designed for a particular purpose, and there's no doubt the Holocaust Memorial subverts those purposes entirely.

So, given these conditions and the amendments, it should be impossible to see how this can proceed, but we will follow it nonetheless. Thank you, Charles Sandy. Let's then come back to Glastonbury for a second and,

well, the Glastonbury Festival has some strange medical advice. Yes, once again it's Glastonbury season and they seem to be buying into the big pharma narrative again. They've done this before. Today, Glastonbury Festival girls are being urged to make sure they're vaccinated against measles before heading to Worthy Farm. The UK health Security Agency. The UKHSA is warning the highly infectious illness is circulating across the country and my numbers in the West to southwest and London.

It says measles is easy to catch in environments like festivals or travelling. As Gloucester ME gets underway in just under two weeks time on the 25th of June, health experts say people need to be aware of the health risks so they can enjoy the event safely, Doctor Alistair Wood, Consultant Health Protection at UK Health Security Agency Southwest, said. We want festival goers to enjoy their time at Glastonbury and

other festivals this year. Being aware of the current health risks will help those attending joy there enjoy their time as much as possible. Measles is circulating across the country and festivals are the perfect place for measles to spread. If you're not fully vaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella, please contact your GP to see if you can get an appointment before coming to the festival. Unbelievable. There we go. Yes, what can we say? They keep banging this drum, don't they?

They absolutely do. But it's a drum that yields loads of money, so keep banging it, absolutely. OK. Well, look, we'll end then today with animal health. And well, in fact, we're not

really talking about animal health because we're talking about slaughtering of animals. Here we are. But the but the overall issue being that of animal welfare which the government makes great claims to care about. And on Monday there was a debate in response to a petition which had received over 100,000 signatures and the title was to ban non stun slaughter in the UK.

Now this should have led into a discussion about animal rights but in fact the reality was rather different because, and this is not to criticise the starter of the petition, but it turned into a rather divisive debate, more concerned with

people than practices. The current law of course states that in both commercial and home slaughter settings there is a religious exemption in that this mostly affects the Jewish and Muslim faiths in that non stunned slaughter may be carried out for these religious purposes.

Now the debate drifted somewhat from animal welfare and it it what was significant was it was really a case of balancing some areas of what are regarded as animal welfare against what was being described as the expression of religious freedom. Now as pointed out by the RSPCA, the percentages concerned are small with the exception of sheep.

And if you can't see the screen, there's about 2.8% of chickens nation nationwide and 1.9% of cattle, but nearly 30% of the total amount of sheep slaughtered in this manner. So the the the issue kept returning to Judaism and indeed Islam and therefore the people involved.

There are lots of contributions from Jewish and Muslim MPs putting forward their case, but what did drop out of it was of course the fact that the government really pays lip service to animal welfare in the wider context. So there was no no broadening of the debate, as indeed there should be 1 might say, about the Treatment of Animals in life, in commercial farming and indeed in death, because of course the majority of the vast majority of animals are not killed in this

manner. But there are certainly problems within the system. The other thing, again not discussed at all, was slaughter on suspicion, which we've covered a lot with regard to bird flu and the number of birds have been destroyed with techniques such as expanding nunch and fame or indeed gassing.

So this is this is all part of the sort of rather confusing agenda as to whether we should or shouldn't eat meat and whether we should or shouldn't be afraid of animals, something that seems to be encouraged and discouraged by government. At the same time. We've cast our minds back to the potential COVID cat cull picture of the cat outside Downing St. back in 2022, I think it was. And then again just to when one considers whether or not, you know, these things can happen.

This is Hilda Keane's book The Great Cat and Dog Massacre, which was about the pre emptive destruction of nearly 1/4 of a million pets from 1939, based on what turned out to be a completely false premise. Now this is something I'd like to go into rather more next week with the. The state of abattoirs, and indeed more general piece on animal welfare, because that was the one point this debate really did not touch upon. It was much more concerned with

who rather than how. Yes, thank you, Charles. Let's Yeah, Thanks, Charles. Right. I'll just you're having trouble with numbers today, 3/4 of a million, not 1/4 of a million. OK, well, thank goodness you're here. Yeah. All right. We're going to leave it there for today. Thank you, Charles. Thank you, Vanessa, and thank you, Sandy.

We'll be back in a few minutes. If you're UK column member for some UK column news Extra, if you're not a member, please consider joining us. We do need your continued financial support. And again, thank you very much to everybody that is a member. And we'll see you in a few minutes for extra, enjoying the interviews tonight with Jeremy and tomorrow with Brian. And we'll see you on Friday at 1:00 PM as usual. See you then. Bye. Bye. Bye.