UK Column News - 18th June 2025

Good afternoon, it's just gone. 1:00 on Wednesday the 18th of June 2025, Welcome to UK Column News. I'm your host, Charles Mannett. Joining me in the studio today is Ben Rubin. Welcome to the program, Ben. Thank you, Charles. And we have Vanessa Bailey joining from Lebanon, Sandy Adams I remote link from Somerset and Doctor Liz Evans from West Sussex. Now today's program will in many ways extend the theme of

Monday's news program. And I mean by that, we will be articulating the threads that bind together the agenda, which express themselves even at the most local level to push out globally policy. And to that end, we will be taking a look at the context in the Middle East within which the escalation of the current conflict concerning Iran is set and how that pertains to the Sustainable Development Goals

and in particular their origins. And also looking at the local level and how householders are affected by policy concerning the agenda and subversion of such local authorities, as well as the latest on the push for pharmaceutical propaganda and weight loss jabs, and also the latest environmental concerns over the relentless push towards AI.

Now, as I say, we're going to make a start with the conflict in the Middle East, but in particular the context within which that's set and tracing it back through history. So we'll go to Vanessa now in Lebanon. What I need to do today is to basically show a road map for the war that is currently being waged against Iran. That began a long time ago. But let's look at 2009 and the Brookings Institute paper. Which path to Persia? If we can just have a look at the actual slide itself.

Options for a new American strategy toward Iran. Now the Brookings Institute is one of the heavyweights among the so-called think tanks with connections to the State Department, to the military Ministry of Defence and also in 1952 received funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation. So they're they're very influential. So let's have a look at this actual strategy paper. The link will be up in the show notes so people can go through it, but will it's 170 pages.

So which path to Persia? So this is the Part 1, the trouble with Iran, U.S. policy options towards Iran. And Part 1 is basically dissuading Tehran, ironically called the diplomatic option. So let's have a look at what that actually entails. So we then have a chapter. We just have the next slide, please. So first of all, Chapter 1 and offer Iran shouldn't refuse.

So this began back in 2005 through the method of persuasion, which of course we're all well aware of with regards to COVID and to various other regional wars, particularly against Iraq and Syria with the weapons of mass destruction and so on. So in 2005, Bush was already trying to persuade Iran to halt any kind of nuclear development, even though, of course, at that point they were also not looking

at developing nuclear weapons. So if we actually have a look at this slide, it shows basically that the nuclear weapon gag has been running for about 30 years. People can freeze frame this. Obviously the writing is very small. They can freeze frame and have a look at all of the accusations levied at Iran for the last 30 years of having or or wanting to

develop nuclear weapons. And then 2012, this was Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli's Prime Minister at the UNGA, who of course showed his his bomb, nuclear bomb image at the UNGA. And then moving on back to the actual paper itself. And in the second part in the paper, if we can just have the slide, please. Sorry, tempting. So this is Chapter 2, tempting Iran, the engagement option, which is basically a gun related very much to the negotiations

over Iran's nuclear program. And then moving on to the following chapter which is related to disarming Tehran, the military option, if we can. Again, sorry, thank you. Chapter 3 going all the way, which would involve US invasion. Chapter 4, the Osiric option which would include air strikes.

Now that relates to Operation Opera, a Zionist operation back in 1981. In 77, they Mossad claimed to have found that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was developing A platanium reactor and they bombed the Osirak plant in in Iraq in 1981. And it then became known as the Bagan doctrine, which basically if an Arab leader calls for the destruction of Israel, they will not be allowed to have nuclear

weapons. So again, putting historical context onto this and then Part 3 of the actual which path to Persia, which includes regime change, not surprising there. Chapter 6, The Velvet Revolution, supporting a popular uprising, which is very similar, of course, to what we saw back in 2022 with a Western orchestrated uprising under the

pretext of women's rights. And of course, we all know how women's rights are doing now in Syria, that the West has imposed their al Qaeda unelected government there. Chapter 7 Inspiring an insurgency supporting Iranian

minority and opposition groups. And again, the West has been doing that for a very long time with the MEK, the Mujahideen Al Khalq terrorist group, Chapter 8, the coup, supporting a military move against the regime, weaponizing the Iranian military against their own government, then moving on to Part 4, which is deterring Tehran. And this is known as containment in the document.

So this is basically relating to if they fail in all other strategies, Chapter 9 is accepting the unacceptable and containment, preventing Iran from expanding beyond its borders, but potentially allowing it its nuclear program.

And of course not forgetting that that going from Bush to Obama to Trump and Trump again, there has been this vacillation, Trump pulling out of the nuclear deal and then changing all of the conditions to the nuclear deal from yes, they can enrich uranium to know they can't to they must stop their entire missile program. And of course Iran has historically stuck by its red lines which which are that it

can enrich uranium. It just will not develop a nuclear bomb and it's not going to stop it's missile program. And then of course moving on to the Samsung option. This is Israel's plan to to to basically use nuclear weapons if it if it feels that it's under existential threat. This is from the article in the Progressive. So the Samson Option is not designed to deter a nuclear adversary from a first strike or counter strike. Israel is the only nuclear armed state in the region.

Rather it's purported purpose is to ensure Israel's survival. Nuclear weapons would be deliberately used against a non nuclear adversary as a last resort to prevent an Israeli defeat. So clearly Israel is the nuclear threat in the region now. It's costing Israel 300 million per night to intercept the current missiles coming in from Iran. At the level that they're coming in, there are three possibilities now. Either Israel will declare a mission accomplished and declare

victory. Regardless, according to the Washington Post, they only have about another 12 days of being able to actually intercept Iranian missiles until their air defence batteries basically stop working. They will potentially use the nuclear threat. Or of course, there is also potential for US and UK involvement, which will lead to the devastation of the Gulf states, the Arab Gulf states, the closure of the Hormuz Straits and the triggering of the resistance factions in the

region against US bases. So I just want to finally bring in said Morandi, professor at Tehran University, speaking to Sky News on exactly what Iran is going to do to deal with this latest round of Zionist aggression. Iran will not hit back harder. Iran will hit back much harder. The head of the Iranian forces says Iran will destroy, target and destroy all of the Israeli regime's infrastructure. This was the tip of the iceberg. Iran will lose no war.

The Israeli regime will. It is time for you and others to end your racism and to end your support for the superior race and to accept that all people in Palestine have equal equal rights and the Palestinian people have a right of return. Return. Jews, Christians and Muslims are equal, unlike what you say, they are equal and we will accept nothing less than that. The regime must go and keep all

people must be treated equally. If the only thing, there's no doubt that Israel will lose, but the only variable here is the United States. If the United States gets involved, I have no doubt the US, the US will be swept out of Iraq by the Iraqi resistance and all its assets in the Persian Gulf will be destroyed. So I think the message really to take away from this is that nothing happens by coincidence

or by accident or or suddenly. It is pre planned and the road map runs through bipartisan presidents from the the instigation of these. Projects, absolutely, but I say yes, coincidences do not take place in this fashion. And that's absolutely critical context, which people are not having been brought to them by the by the mainstream. Of course, now we are aware that we're having a few technical problems with the delivery of this programme.

This is not entirely unusual and reflects what it is that we do. So I apologise for that. We are going to stick with it. So if you can stick with us, that would be fantastic. Now context is everything, as we say repeatedly. And to that end, we're now going to look at the Sustainable Development Goals from Ben. Absolutely, yes.

And we're going to keep our eye on the Brookings Institution, actually. Thanks, Vanessa, for that report. Fascinating context, important context, and really important to understand that it's these unaccountable, unelected think tanks behind the scenes that are really setting the agenda, whether that's through the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East that we've seen over the past few days or indeed.

And I think people need to really think about this in the formulation of global political and economic policy that's currently being rolled out by our political leaders. So the Brookings Institution is involved in planning conflict with Syria. It's also directly involved in the strategy and delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals through this initiative. It's the 17 rooms. So this is all about rejuvenating the Sustainable Development Goals through shared action.

And this is a collaboration between the Brookings Centre for Sustainable Development. You can just see in the bottom left hand side there and the Rockefeller Foundation. And as Vanessa just pointed out, the Rockefeller Foundation actually provided the seed funding for the Brookings Institution, which means actually what we're looking at here is just one single power structure that is dictating terms to the rest of humanity. What is 17 rooms?

So it's a grand international convening of political, corporate, NGO types. Nothing democratic about this whatsoever. Happens once a year since 2018. They all get together, they have a lovely time, they collaborate, think creatively, get around their blind spots, work with a dream team of experts, make connections, spark action, and just go for it, right? That's what they're up to. In 2024, there were over 100 people involved across each of

the 17 rooms. So essentially they create a room where a discussion is convened, one for each sustainable development goal. And you've got people there from JP Morgan, the Clinton Foundation, the Blair Institute, very heavy NGO for NGO focused, a lot of academics in the rooms. Importantly, though, there are only two Co chairs, right? So this is essentially about manufacturing a narrative of collaboration around something which is actually only properly

understood by these two. Yeah. So this is Zia Khan, the senior vice president of innovation at the Rockefeller Foundation, and John MacArthur, director of the Centre of Sustainable Development. Now, the Brookings Institution clearly loves the SDGS. Where can I get my hands on one of those T-shirts? Isn't that just fantastic? Right.

But ultimately, I guess the point I'm making is that we get a lot of communication delivered to us about the Sustainable Development Goals and the UN and the democratic processes that surround it. But actually it's these two guys that are in control of this, right? Just two people and obviously the boards that sit behind them. But the idea that this is based on the shared understanding and best endeavours of the holy humanities is, is really

ludicrous, right? And this is crucial for people to understand, not least because as Vanessa's established Brookings Institution has been helping to define the strategy for regime change in Iran. So the people dying in the Middle East currently, based on the thinking put forward by these people, but also because the SDGS are being used by people like Lisa Witter at the Apolitical Foundation, who's a young global leader of the World Economic Forum, to reshape our

political system from the top to the bottom. That's what they're up to right now. And also to drive this global public private partnership. Yeah, this integration of government and financial market interest, best evidence through the strategic partnership that was signed in 2019 between the UN and the World Economic Forum.

Uncle Klaus and Antonio Guterrez, we can just see here, very proud of the fact that they've signed a strategic partnership in order to deliver the Sustainable Development Goals, which were developed by the same people who are escalating conflict in the Middle East right now. And importantly, as we'll get into, and Sandy's going to come and touch on this and I'm going to come back and speak about

this as well. The thing that Brookings are most particularly concerned about on their website. This is the most recent post from May the 15th is building state and local government innovation capacity. They want to transform our local councils and there'll be much more on that as we go along in the show. Super excellent. Thank you very much, Ben. It's all about these connections, most of them of course entirely inappropriate. And Sandy, on that theme,

obviously people are continuing asking sort of what they can do and whether there are ever any successes. So let's hear what the latest is on that. Well, a few weeks ago I mentioned that the West Knowledge Action Group had actually managed to overturn an LTN, a low traffic neighborhood within their within their

neighborhood. And I just sort of looked at this ruling and and realised that, you know, the Lambeth Council lost and it was denied appeal and the LTN must be removed immediately, which is really quite, quite a success. The order is binding and enforceable and as a court judgement and failure to comply could lead to contempt of court.

Now the council must also pay claimants legal costs £35,000 as ordered plus potentially more for for driver refunds over the LTN fines which is a massive of win.

Now the main tool used to win this case was the gunning principle, which was a precedent set quite a while ago and the court focused on the procedural impropriety, particularly breaches of the gunning principles, which were principle one is the formative stage and Principle 2, sufficient information where the West College Action Group prepared a detailed 53 page dossier and this dossier was submitted to Lambeth offices in June 2024, but it wasn't taken into account. And then principle 4

conscientious consideration. The judgment found that the council officers ignored significant objections and produced selective partial reporting of consultation responses without any explanation of why the dossier wasn't wasn't weighed. Now these procedural failings rendered the consultation unfair and thus unlawful under established case law, which is Brent versus Gunning and R Mosley versus Harringay. These these are this is the

precedent that was used. So the key takeaways are you can draw direct parallels when challenging 15 minutes. It is renewable energy planning, 5G master approvals, any sort of consultation. The consultation was truly formative. Was the consultation truly formative or was the decision already fixed? You know, was it a predetermined outcome? Did the authority provides sufficient info and informed response, and was this response time adequate and accessible?

Were the responses genuinely considered? Now, in this case, none of that was done. So that's how it was overturned. Even if one principle is breached, a court may find the process unlawful and orders to push decisions can be enforced, just as in the Stolage case. So that's a reason to be cheerful this week. OK. Thank you. Sandy, thank you very much indeed. And I think that links neatly into what Ben's going to go on and and develop as a theme. Indeed it is, yes.

Thanks for that, Sandy. That is the reason to be cheerful, isn't it? And I think that the the people of East Sussex need to be aware of that because we've got a consultation coming up which we want to talk about in a moment.

I will just start with this one quote though from GK Chesterson. What we should try to do is make politics as local as possible. Keep the politicians near enough to kick them. The villagers who met under the village tree could also hang their politicians to the tree. It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians. Are hanged.

Quite like that, right. So this is on the back of the segment that Brian delivered last week on Monday about the dissolution, the Theta complete essentially, which has been handed to residents of South Hams in in Devon with local councils being dissolved. And the whole county ultimately apparently is going to be integrated into one single authority under Plymouth Council without really much discussion

about this at all. And we've been inundated with examples over the past few days of this happening elsewhere around the country from the Highlands of Scotland, right the way back down to the South Coast of England. I'm going to focus on East Sussex today. Thanks to Flowy for sending this over and I'll draw your attention to this article, which is who will govern your council

time to have your say, right? And importantly, I think that the the operative term is in the opening paragraph there it says that there'll be, there'll be 1 council. The government wants to reorganise local government so that everyone in East Sussex gets their services from just one council. It could mean apparently, so this means the county, districts and borough councils are going to be replaced. There'll be a single authority for about half a million people potentially, right.

And they're saying that this could happen. But as the article goes on to say, a letter to the government from Wealding District Council suggests the smaller councils have been given little choice but to support their own abolition, given the time constraints and government criteria limits. And so this apparently is just happening. It doesn't sound like any of the gunning principles have been adhered to, very importantly and unsurprisingly. So what is this all about?

Well, obviously it's presented as a good thing. It's all about streamlining local government, delivering efficiencies, improving outcomes. Love those outcomes for residents and communities, making best use of resources, some very non specific isn't it? Noun for the future. Importantly, enhancing local democracy, local identity, transparency, accessibility, local decision making and accountability. Which seems ludicrous given that the while trying to reduce the

number of councils, right? It's going to deliver the exact opposite of this, isn't it? What else? Supporting and driving decision making and public service reform, both Sussex and local level public service reform. I'll come back to that in a minute because then that gives us a clue as to where this is coming from. And then finally providing a stronger and unified voice to help attract investment and tackle priorities, which I think probably gives the game away, right?

This is ultimately about money. So attracting inward investment, international capital to buy land, buildings, whatever it might be from one authority that controls the whole of the county and makes it easier for that money to come in and take the things they want take. But then also to tackle priorities, unspecified priorities. Essentially this is the government missions, right? So it says, though on the right hand side, it's not a done deal.

There is a consultation running, it's open to East Sussex residents until next Monday June 23rd. So if you're in Eastbourne under East Sussex Council, Hastings, Lew's, Rother or Weald and District Council then you are able to reply to this. The link is on screen. It'll also be in the show notes. And it sounds like that the precedent set in Bulwich could actually be quite compelling. So I think they need to be told about that by as many people as

possible, right. And maybe we can have another victory on our hands here. So back to public spending reform or sorry, public service reform and a little look into where this is coming from. And ultimately it's coming from the centre. Yeah. So if we go to look at the spending review which was announced last week by Rachel Reeves in Parliament on Wednesday, I think it was, we'll go straight to the section on

public service reform. 3.3 Yeah. The governments approach to public sector reform is guided by three principles to integrate services so that they are organised around people's lives. This is the state organising itself around your life and don't think that that's being done in a positive way. Yeah, this is about micromanaging you ultimately. Yeah. So they want to improve long term outcomes for people through a focus on prevention.

So that means the state intervening in your business in order to stop you doing things it doesn't like you doing. And then apparently this is about devolving power to local areas that understand the needs of their communities best with services that are designed with and for people. And I don't buy this for a second. This is about power getting closer to people, not people getting closer to power as we spoke about last week.

But importantly, this is being done in partnership with civil society and the impact economy, right? So this is charitable foundations, philanthropic wealth, IE rich people with an agenda trying to re engineer this the the country in a way that that meets their ends ultimately, right? And this is embedded into government policy. This is driving the spending review, right? Did they continue?

I'd highly recommend going to read this, particularly Section 3 because all this is being done under the the narrative of improving the NHS. By the way, they've kind of tucked this away in the bottom of the NHS section.

If you go to the 3.31, we can also see that in reforming local government, the government will take action to return local government to a sustainable financial position, including by providing an additional 3.4 billion of grant funding per year by 2829. So central government is propping up local government which is broke. So the tax base has collapsed out in the regions.

So central government is going to pump £3.4 billion of money into keep these structures propped up and obviously as as as a consequence of that is going to be exerting control over what happens in in those localities. We can also see that wider reforms unspecified will ensure funding is effectively targeted based on an updated assessment of need and will consolidate funding to give local authorities greater flexibility to innovate.

That word is very important to innovate, to transform themselves, to move from one system to to a new system. And ultimately, and these consultations that are popping up all around the country are about this. It's the transformation of central government. Where else is it coming from? We talked about Rachel Reeves

and the spending review. Well, crucially it's coming from Cabinet Office. Georgia Gould MP, Cabinet Office minister speaking to Demos earlier on this year saying when the rules at the centre are blocking services, are you stopping me from doing what I want to do? Georgia Gould then we need to change those rules and they're completely re engineering the state she was in.

The Guardian also George Gould on Saturday talking about the fact that the civil service is too remote from people's lives across the UK. Apparently the civil service needs to be in people's lives. So what she's saying, a few quotes from the article, she says that her job was to help close the big gap between those doing the front line operational roles and those who are making policies. Whitehall working would be turned inside out.

It's the term that she's used as the Cabinet Office has announced that Starmer's health mission is going to be based in Leeds. So a lot of NHS people moving to Leeds, it's opportunity mission moving to Sheffield, it's growth mission to Darlington and civil servants are going to be working with local government and frontline workers to pioneer new approaches. So again, this is the transformation of service delivery around the government's missions.

And the Cabinet Office has also announced it was back in May that they're going to be shutting down Whitehall buildings and moving civil servants. So about 12,000 civil servant roles are going to be moving out of Whitehall into the regions, and they're actually trying to get to a point where 50% of all senior civil servant roles are going to be based outside of London in the next five years. And apparently that's about policy being made close to the

communities that are affected. But actually, this isn't about the evolution of power. It's about turning the whole country into Whitehall, essentially. Yeah, that's what I can see happening here. And putting Georgia Gould and the Cabinet Office in the driving seat, right? So what's a little bit more about her background? She's a fascinating and

important character. She learnt her political trade, certainly professionally as mayor of Camden Council and the central London councils are a test bed for a lot of the policies that are currently being introduced. And importantly, she's a Labour Party insider. She's the daughter of Lord Gould, Blair's favorite

pollster. Lord Gould was then a partner at Floyd Communications who run communications PR for the UN Sustainable Development Goal. So this links directly back to the Brookings Institution that we were talking about a few minutes ago. And importantly this this popped up which I think is quite interesting in telling about the connections between Gould and the other component parts of the

Labour establishment. So this is from 2003 in the Camden New Journal, you can see George Gould there in the background on the right hand side. She's also interestingly there with a young woman called Alex Burtles, who is the daughter of Patricia Hewitt, who was health secretary under Blair from 2005 to 2007.

And in the 1970s Hewitt was general secretary of the National Council for Civil Liberties when it was affiliated with the Paedophile Information Exchange for eight years from 1975 to 1983. And in the centre there we can see that's Margaret Hodge, who at the time this was taken was the education minister under Tony Blair.

A position that Hodge was supremely well placed for given that she arrived into office with a reputation for ignoring horrific cases of child abuse in care homes that she was responsible for while she was the leader of Islington Council. Who better to mentor a new generation of Labour politicians coming to office and who better to oversee the transformation of local government? And Sandy, I think you've got

something coming up about Islington Council as well. From Islington people that had bought their properties under the Right to Buy scheme quite a while ago. And what's happening now in Islington Council is that they are actively repurchasing homes previously sold via the National

Right to Buy scheme. And this includes around 907 homes by March 2026, with 193 bought in the latest round using funds from the G, the Greater London Council and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is the MHCLG now. Why are they doing it now? It's apparently they're facing the highest ever numbers in temporary accommodation. Over 1700 homeless households are under pressure to house both local families and refugee arrivals from Afghanistan and Ukraine.

Why are home owners being asked to pay now? This is, this is what's happening is that the home owners are being levied massive bills up to £70,000 for repairs as part of this sale back process. So it's almost a fait accompli. These people that have bought their homes are now leaseholders, private leaseholders are now being given these huge bills which is forcing them into either bankruptcy or you know, if they can borrow the money from the bank.

If they can't, they are being forced to sell up. So, you know, if the leaseholders must settle these service charges and any outstanding major works before completion. And since the council only buys back the homes with vacant possession, developers often pass the repair costs on to the homeowners via Section 20 notices, which is really, you know, you've got to bear the cost of this. And for, I think there's a slide there. I'm sorry, I've lost the, the

screen that shows me the slides. So I'm sort of doing this a bit blind, but there is a a slide there that shows the cost of, for instance, a three to four bedroom flat is 60 8700 and something which is a massive amount for someone to have to pay and it it's forcing them out basically. Now what's interesting is the announcement will make the council's buybacks program one of the largest in the country.

All the homes will be ex council homes in Islington that were sold under this right to buy policy. And it will be a mix of 123 and four bedroom properties for individuals and families. Now what what seems to be happening is that the, the part it was Islington Council have employed a a public private partnership, really a management it's called partners Islington Private finance initiative management and they've passed responsibility on to this this

management company. And unfortunately the the repurposed buyback homes are being used for temporary accommodation. So this isn't long term. This isn't long term council tenants like we used to have. These are for refugees and homeless households from Afghanistan, Ukraine and other crises under the UN and UK resettlement schemes. These homes support integration and stability for people in vulnerable situations and part of the borough's commitment as a borough of sanctuary.

Well that's all very good, but why are people being made homeless for this? I don't, I don't, I don't really. Yeah, I find this really astounding. So the, the, you know that you've got Councillor John Wolf, who's the executive member for Homes and neighborhoods. And he says there his reason is there are currently 1737, 1737 homeless households living in temporary accommodation in Islington, the highest figure

since records began. These homes will provide security for people experiencing homelessness or for those who fled conflict, giving them the stability they need to start rebuilding their lives locally. More people will have access to good quality temporary accommodation in Islington when they need it most. I'm proud that we are leading the way with our buyback program and doing everything we can to increase the number of council homes in the borough.

And then there's a quote from Abdul Basit Bahami Bahrami who's a resident of an ex right to buy property and he said moving to a council buy back home changed my life. After fleeing Afghanistan safely and having a safe and secure place to live gave me the stability I need to rebuild, I was able to continue studying for my PhD, something I once thought was impossible. Being close to my two brothers

has made a huge difference. It's meant our family could stay connected and support each other. This home has also given me the chance to raise my own family in a safe and welcoming community. Well, I think that's great if we can help people, but do we need to force people out of their homes and bankrupt them to do so? I don't think it's, you know, this is just madness. And then you've got other residents who actually did buy on the the Right to Buy scheme. Auguste George Reggio, who is

retired. He's been living in his flat since 1981 and received an estimated bill of between 57,000 and 61,000. And he says I would expect a Labour council to be more caring to the needs of ordinary citizens. This will take up most of my savings, leaving me at the mercy of friends and family. And then there's another man called Neil Hoskin who's a resident also and he said I'm incredibly worried. I fear it will sink me both financially and in terms of my

mental health. So this is a real problem. I mean, I don't know what you think, Ben, but it's astounding. And it's happening, you know, in Islington. And it will be trialled everywhere else as well I would imagine. It's just theft, isn't it, theft

of private assets by the state. And actually, the, the fact that these were sold by the councils in the 80s now obviously being bought back significantly more, I would imagine them than the value that was, that was got for them at the time is, you know, classic mismanagement and, and corruption by, by, by local councils. And who's running the Cabinet Office at the moment? The the former mayor of Camden.

So there you go. Yeah, Thank you very much indeed, Ben and Sandy really joining the dots. And I think it does bring to bear the very significant subversion and manipulation of the system that the local authorities should be running for the benefit of those who are paying for it. But obviously we see that that's

not happening. I think specifically with that, getting people to buy homes in a leasehold capacity and then abusing the freehold system by which they control what's spent on the building, leaving the leaseholder powerless is particularly egregious. And also, of course, it this makes it totally relevant to a lot of what Ben's been reporting about the control of local media in order that these issues are communicated in a particular way.

Now if you are not yet a member of UK column, you may not be aware that we are funded solely by our members and our donors. So if you would like to join in and support us, then please go to the website and look at the ways in which you can do that. And we would be delighted to have you on board as a member.

I'm pleased to say that selling like hotcakes in the shop, we have a fantastic I love CO2 badge and let's face it, we'd be a bit pushed without any of it. So at the moment demand has outstripped supply, but please do get an order in and we will get that to you soon. Now we've not yet released a date for the sale of tickets, but we are getting very excited about our upcoming event in York on Saturday the 18th of October.

There will be further details on that when we have them, including a date of release for tickets. So if you were thinking of getting in touch to ask when are the tickets going to be on sale, we will tell you exactly when that will be shortly, but just not quite yet. Now Ben and Brian spoke and that went out and was very well received yesterday. Ben, just going to give us a few quick words on that. Brian Gerrish, legend leader. Go watch it. Perfect. Well done. Very brief and to the point.

Now going out tomorrow, Mark Anderson spoke speaks to Phil Turney going back to 1967 about the unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty by Israel. Of course, particularly timely interview to to think back to that period. So that's going out tomorrow at 1:00. And then tonight at 7:00, we've got German warfare show with Stu Peters being interviewed tonight, next weekend, it's

nearly there. We're going to be at the Sounds Beautiful festival in Dorset between the 26th and 29th this month, so please come and see us there. And then next month we've got the Thetford Truth and Freedom Beer Festival, which both Sandy and Diane are involved in, so do get along to that. Just after that, on the 20th of July, there'll be a dissident meet up near Exeter. Of course, links to all this will be in the show notes.

And then August Bank Holiday weekend will be the Freedom, the Hope Freedom Music Festival and UK column will have a strong presence there. So we do hope we will see you at that point. Now, as you'll be aware,

there've been many campaigns by the Pharmaceutical industry, aided and abetted by governments and media organisations. To bash us over the head with enormous amounts of propaganda. And the latest of those, or at least the one that's been concentrated on by Doctor Liz Evans, is the weight loss jabs. Now, Liz, please give us the latest and set it within the context that you've been reviewing. Hi there. Thanks very much, Charles. Yeah, I've done a deep dive into the agenda behind weight loss

jabs. They've been hailed by the media and others as a panacea for all societies ills and there are growing calls for these products to be rolled out widely to the UK public. So just to give some background, you've probably heard of a Zenpic, which is produced by Novo Nordis. This has been around since 2017 as a treatment for type 2 diabetes, but it can only be used off label for weight loss in the UK.

So a higher dose of the same drug, Semaglutide is called Ragovi and this was authorized in 2021 for weight loss. Then at the end of last year, Eli Lilly's Monjuro was approved by NICE for a phased roll out on the NHS to obese people with ABMI of over 35 + 1 related comorbidity. So 3.4 million people in England are eligible for the jabs and the NHS is hoping to reach about 300,000 of them in the first

three years of the roll out. Both Wygovy and Monjuro are injected weekly and Saxenda is a similar drug but requires daily injections. These drugs cost the NHS about £150 a month per eligible person and it's estimated that another one and a half million people are buying them privately from clinics, supermarkets and online pharmacies and this is costing people 2 to £300 a month. So this is big business. So looking at how they work, they're powerful drugs with

multiple modes of action. They promote rapid and often dramatic weight loss of up to 20% of body weight. They suppress appetite. They delayed stomach emptying so you feel full for longer. They also act on the pancreas and liver to stabilise blood sugar. But worryingly the weight loss is not just fat, it's also bone and healthy muscle mass which has serious long term implications for health and ageing. And as with all drugs, the jabs have side effects and some of

these are very serious. Common side effects are nausea, vomiting, bloating, Constipation and diarrhoea. At more serious side effects include gallbladder and kidney damage and depression. Then pancreatitis and gastroparesis can be life threatening and studies are now suggesting an increased risk of thyroid cancer. So the the last couple of decades we've seen an increased public acceptance to take drugs like statins for life as a

health prevention measure. This has created the climate for a lucrative market for pharma to produce preventative drugs to be taken repeatedly by healthy people promising better life, longer life, better health claims of reducing the risk of serious and common diseases that people fear the most, such as heart disease, cancer and dementia. And of course the biggest winners in this scenario are the pharmaceutical companies who will have a high guaranteed long

term income stream. So I wanted to talk about wild claims for weight loss jabs which began at the end of last summer. In July 2024, there was an observational study from Oxford University published in The Lancet, which was widely reported, claiming that Ozempic could cure depression and cut the risk of dementia by half.

Then at the end of August 2024, there was a rash of headlines across the mainstream media in perfect Harmony, all claiming that Ozempic could be a fountain of youth by slowing down ageing, the elixir of life. Then in January this year, we saw more sensational headlines, claims that Wygovy and Monjuro could reduce the risk of up to 42 conditions. Then at the beginning of May this year came an extraordinary weeklong push of pharma propaganda for the jabs across

the mainstream media. And so I've put together some slides. I think you can see the first one there showing some of the Telegraph headlines that week. So if we could just go back to the 9th, these headlines were mirrored most days in the Guardian and other newspapers. So on the 9th of May where there were claims that the jabs would be a game changer for the economy, saving 5 billion a year by boosting productivity. But this study was based on

government modelling. So say no more than May the 10th brought reports that the jabs could effortlessly reduce alcohol cravings. May the 11th we were treated to the exciting news that these miracles of science could also treat anxiety and depression, apparently disproving earlier concerns that the jabs actually increase the risk of suicidal behaviour and psychiatric hospital admissions.

In case you weren't persuaded by now that you should start these miracle jabs immediately, On May the 12th we read that weight loss jabs may halve the risk of cancer, but they had saved the best till last. The Telegraph headline on May the 13th hailed the fact that everyone, whether obese or not, could live longer on these jabs, leading to a golden age of medicine halving deaths from multiple diseases by preventing heart disease, cancer, liver and kidney disorders and even

dementia. This incredible news was accompanied with inevitable calls for the NHS to roll out the jobs at scale, although a telling quote came from Catherine Jenner from the Obesity Health Alliance who admitted that pharma is investing heavily in obesity because they quotes recognise the scale of the opportunity. We were reassured that there are 150 new injections and pills in the pipeline to help people who are neither overweight nor

obese. So up to this point there was almost no mention of side effects or any issues with these new drugs. Then on May the 14th came the admission that when patients stop weight loss drugs they rapidly regain the weight within months. But this was spun as a demand for the NHS to drop its two year limit prescribing policy and instead prescribe the jabs for life to reap the benefits. If this is sounding too good to

be true, you are correct. Every single media report failed to mention the ongoing class action Ozempic lawsuit in the US, which is currently at over 1800 claimants and includes Monjuro, Wygovy, and Saxenda. Legal cases are being brought against Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly for failure to warn patients of the risk of gastroparesis and ileus, or about a potential link with blood clots and a condition that causes blindness. Gastroparesis, or paralysis of

the stomach, is very serious. It may be irreversible. Even after stopping the jabs, victims are left with constant nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, reflux, bloating, severe dehydration. Their food doesn't digest. They have nutritional deficiencies, blood sugar instability, severe weight loss, and a very poor quality of life. It is a psychologically devastating condition. Every meal is a battleground with the loss of the pleasure of eating and the stress of trying to maintain adequate

nourishment. And there is no known cure. Now if that wasn't bad enough, Ozempic face is another well known side effect, an aged haggard appearance now being treated by cosmetic clinics with fillers. You couldn't write it. So where was all this pharma marketing propaganda in the media? Reports coming from? Every article cited the European Congress on Obesity which was held in Malaga from the 11th to

the 14th of May this year. The Telegraphing Guardian had sent their health correspondents to Malaga to cover the conference, so I decided to do some digging into who runs and funds this conference, which was the 32nd Congress on Obesity held by the European Association for the Study of Obesity, who

are known as ESO. So the screenshot that's on your screen from the Congress website shows that Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly are two of the major sponsors of this conference, confirming my suspicions that this was a farmer marketing event. The glossy shop window and vehicle for their scientific papers to be released to the media with maximum coverage and minimum scrutiny. And Hua ESO, the Europeans Association for the Study of Obesity, who run these annual conferences.

Well, from their website I learned that they are a charity established in 1986 as a federation of professional membership associations from 38 countries. They claim to be Europe's leading voice of obesity science, medicine and community. They are in formal relations with The Who and are actively involved in EU Commission initiatives including scientific consultations and obesity education across Europe, a powerful influence on national

policies and who funds ESO. You've guessed it, the top corporate members on their website are Lily and Novo Nordis, and they also say that ESO is currently engaged in project partnerships with Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Pfizer and receives support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation to award

5 research grants. I then discovered that the UK government had announced A partnership with Eli Lilly at the end of last year, stating that this public private collaboration aims to set the stage for government to work with industry to trial innovative approaches to treating obesity and includes A5 year trial called Surmount Real UK to evaluate the long term safety and efficacy of Bonjour.

So with all this industry and media lobbying to roll out weight loss jabs to millions, what's next? So my last few slides show a relentless push from all sides to get more and more of the population taking weight loss medications. Big Pharma has its sights on exploiting this untapped and highly lucrative market. The Who recently indicated that they may endorse the use of weight loss jabs to treat obesity in adults.

Their new guidelines on treating obesity are due in August and are expected to include calls to increase access to the jabs in low and middle income countries. And another WHO team is even looking at adding these jabs to their essential medications

list. Then organisations such as the Blair Institute are joining the clama with a call this month for the NHS to speed up the roll out of fat jabs by sending them in the post to half the adult population by using digital first methods, which is their word for online health screening. Only three days ago, NHS Medical director Professor Sir Stephen Powis called for a mass rate roll out of weight loss jabs like statins.

And alongside the roll out of the fat jabs, new weight loss pills are being developed, presumably to reach those who find the idea of injections unpalatable. Disturbingly, but predictably, big Pharma has obese children in their sights as a cash cow. The use of weight loss jabs in children was presented in Malaga as a neat solution to meal time

rows with families. And in true Big Brother style, the NHS has just announced A sinister plan to give out bathroom scales to families with overweight children, enabling the state to monitor children's weight remotely. Initially sold as a nudge for healthy habits, it is not hard to imagine weight loss jobs for children being rolled out in the not too distant future. So to conclude, are we sleepwalking into another public health disaster?

Rolling out novel drugs with no long term safety data to millions of people without proper informed consent? Overplaying benefits, underplaying risks, and failing to address more natural solutions for obesity such as dietary and lifestyle modifications sold as a quick fix for a complex problem and creating a generation of people who will need regular injections for life just to maintain a

normal weight. And all boosting the coffers of big pharma with a steady stream of taxpayers money by doing while doing nothing to improve public health. Does this sound familiar? Liz, unfortunately, it sounds very familiar indeed. Thank you very much indeed for a very, very thorough and I'm afraid, rather harrowing report. Appalling to think that people should be put in that position or at least find themselves in such a position to be looking

for that as the alternative. And just to round off, I found that the Brookings Institute, with whom we have been or rather at whom we've been looking today, have of course engaged with this topic, writing a paper on it just back in April, of course, in effect promoting exactly what it is you've just been talking about. So we'll go on and discuss that in extra. But Liz, thank you very much indeed. Now, Next up, and you might be

wondering how it's related to what Liz has just been talking about, but I would put it that it is in that we are considering a society that has fallen from good health and therefore the issue of recruitment and retention into the armed forces is going to be an increasingly difficult situation to resolve. And despite like this, of course, the armed forces putting out much propaganda about all the things that are on offer.

But with the spectre of the escalating violence in the Middle East at the moment and the Prime Minister indeed talking about de escalation at the same time as sending or at least committing resources to the very escalation of the conflict that he's talking about de escalating, I think we need to be very much mindful of the the agenda at play now the Brookings Institution here we are again.

How how must your reorganize its conventional defence and this is absolutely a another propaganda exercise in which they write just yesterday. In fact, most Western European armed forces face growing personnel shortfalls and are now exploring various conscription models. And of course, they go on site. The Nordic countries as an example, they talk about military preparedness and how this requires A proactive political messaging.

Well, on that front, back in March of this year, House Commons Library put out a conscription and national service paper. Do note that the photograph there shows women, so the messaging is very clear there. And of course, they're hanging this on what they describe as being the COVID-19 pandemic and changing security situation in Europe, prompting discussions about the need to improve civilian resilience in the face of emergencies up to and

including a state of war. And they go on to say that many countries have long had some form of compulsory national service and several have begun reintroducing mandatory military service. Now, this, of course is absolutely attempting to normalise and legitimise the idea that conscription will be a thing. And of course, this should be considered alongside the land warfare conference at which John Healey and Roy Walker, the head

of the army, have been speaking. Walker, in fact, said that fighting with the British Army would be such an unfair proposition that that no one in their right mind would do so. Now, I think I know what he means by that, but I would question whether a potential adversary might actually be considering it the other way about in terms of that very

unfairness. And we go on on the propaganda side of it, with the Telegraph putting out an article very much about conscription, the tiny Swedish island regiment tasked with protecting Europe from Russia. Of course, this is a regiment of conscript and we're showing a chap from 2 Power there with this regiment. Conscription is mentioned over and over again throughout this article. The Daily Mail joining in, of course, presenting graphics like this, which very much suggests

that we are absolutely at war. And briefly, I will just round off with one of the latest messages from Donald Trump saying that we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran. And he goes on to make comments about that. But the what I want to focus on is the use of the word we. Who does he mean by we?

And how long is it before we start hearing language concerning Israel and Iran that are, if you're not with us, then you are against us. And there is very, very little doubt this is a push towards a conscription narrative here in the UK and we will absolutely follow this. Now that takes us into a final report from Sandy.

We've been looking at AI and the way in which government is pushing it as though it must be the defining feature of all communications between people and indeed with government. But we've also looked at the environmental concerns about it. And Sandy, you've got more on that and and particularly Elon Musk's role within this. Yes, thanks.

Thanks very much, Charles. Yeah, I mean, you, Charles, have done some great work on data centers in the UK, highlighting the hypocrisy of sustainability in both water and energy. And Elon Musk seems to have really upset people in Memphis with air pollution. So Elon Musk's massive XAI data centre is poisoning Memphis. It's burning enough gas to power a small city with no permits and no pollution controls. And residents tell us they're they can't breathe and they're

getting sicker. So if we could have that video clip, please. Thanks, Kenny. Sometimes the most shocking corporate misconduct is hidden in plain sight, invisible to the naked eye. What is happening here will swallow up our world if we don't stop it right here, right now. Looking back, there was an early clue that the world's richest man was up to something here. It's just like, why is Elon Musk coming to Memphis? The people of Memphis soon found out. Now Elon Musk is coming to Memphis.

To build the world's largest supercomputer. A year later, people here want answers. To protect our lungs and not. To see that they had 35 gas turbines operating and polluting our. We went to Memphis and found an environmental crime scene, Musk's data center, burning enough methane to power a small city with no permits and no pollution controls. I have not seen anything like this. We believe they've already violated the Clean Air Act.

As Musk helps dismantle the very federal agency that's supposed to protect us against pollution like this, there is no way to miss how this is a coordinated strategy. Yes, that's quite quite worrying really. Apparently 11 months ago, Elon Musk's ex AI opened a large AI dentist centre nicknamed Colossus, and he named it after a 1970s film about a supercomputer that becomes sentient and takes over the world, which is quite

interesting. It was housed in a former Electrolux factory in South Memphis to power his chat box, Grok. Now, Musk was late to the AI party with all of this because Open AI and other chat box platforms were operating already, and he was in a big hurry to get Grok up and running. And to meet massive energy demands, the company brought in 35 portable methane gas turbines, operating them with proper without proper air quality or Clean Air Act

permits. XI claimed 364 day exemption for temporary generators, but this loophole doesn't apply to these industrial scale turbines. Aix has become one of Shelby County's largest emitters of smog, producing nitrogen oxides, according to calculations by environmental groups, and aerial images confirmed 33 turbines were active, despite Permix being filed only for 15. The facility's emissions are estimated at up to 2000 tonnes of nitrogen oxides and NOXS

annually, far exceeding nearby. Anything nearby that's regulated. The surrounding community, including historically black neighborhoods like Box Town, are already burdened with health problems. Residents report worsened health systems and symptoms, sorry and invisible pollution from the site.

Environmental and civil rights groups including the NANAAPC or CP, and the Southern Environmental Law Centre have launched legal action, calling the project a clear case of environmental racism and demanding accountability from both AXI and local authorities. The conflict now puts a spotlight on where the technological advancement can coexist with community well-being, or whether powerful corporations can be held responsible when they sidestep

environmental safeguards. One of the residents of of Boxtown said he may be a millionaire or a billionaire, but what we need is clean air. And they, they, they've had many meetings about this and they are actually challenging it legally and I'm pleased they are. Now what we have to realise is in the UK, every major data centre uses diesel generators for backup power in case of grid failure.

And these generators admit, you know, they emit nitrogen oxides and contribute to smog and respiratory issues. They have particulate matter harmful to lungs and cardiovascular health, and carbon monoxide, which is toxic to at high concentrations in areas with many cluster centers like Slough or parts of London. This back off infrastructure can create local air quality risks, especially during blackouts and

testing cycles. Now every open AI chat box question you ask, believe it or not, uses 50 millilitres of water. Now you imagine the amount of questions that are asked worldwide in a day and daily uses are enough to enough energy to power 300,000 homes. So is our energy and our health being sacrificed to these centres. And I think they, without a

doubt they are. I don't know what you guys think about that, but yeah, we, we, we are sacrificing our health and our, our use, our, you know, we will be rationed because these energy centres are taking all the water and energy. Sorry, these data centres are taking all the energy and water. Absolutely does appear to be the case Sandy and and exactly how the priorities will fall is something that we must continue to scrutinise. Now. Thank you very much indeed for that.

Apologies if that appeared rather glitchy with the technical difficulties have persisted and and Sandy I'm afraid was made to look somewhat like an AI rendition for that report. So apologies for that. But that brings us to the end of the programme. So thank you very much to Ben for joining me. Also Vanessa and Liz and Sandy by remote link. If you are a member, stay on and join us for Extra.

If you're not, please do consider joining and you will have access to Extra. As I say tonight, the German Warfare Podcast will be an interview with Stu Peters. And then we've got Phil Turney going out tomorrow at 1:00 PM. And otherwise, we will see you for the news program again on Friday. Thank you very much. Bye bye.