UK Column News - 27th June 2025

Good afternoon. It's Friday the 27th of June 2025, just after 1:00. Welcome to UK Call News. I'm your host Mike Robinson and my Co host in studio today's Patrick Henningson. Welcome to the programme, Patrick. Great to be with you, Mike. And journalist Mark Anderson joins us by video link from the United States. Now later in the programme, Patrick is going to be covering Gaza. Mark will be looking at support or otherwise from the people of the United States for Trumps Iran policy.

And I'm looking at how Ofcom intends to fleece the social media companies in order to finance its censorship regime. But we'll begin today with the news that the British regime is

deeply happy that Operation Interflex, the training regime which prepares Ukrainians for death, has passed its three year anniversary yesterday. More than 56,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been trained by the UK and 13 partner nations, which I suppose is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Ukrainian casualties, I'll admit.

But when we take into account that Operation Interflex focuses on equipping trainees with battlefield essentials such as basic infantry course, leadership training and instructor courses. In fact, the devastating effect of this training is probably much wider once the graduates return to Ukraine. Patrick.

But at a recent meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group on the 4th of June, Secretary of State for War John Healey announced that the UK will spend a further £247 million this year on training the Armed Forces of Ukraine. But don't worry, recent polling data shows that 90% of all the trainees who've completed Interflex training since January 2025 feel more confident in their lethality and survivability at the end of training.

Patrick, I don't know what your thoughts are on that, but but that is a pretty disgusting comment I thought. Well, 90% of who? How many of us? What's the survival rate of Interflex alumni right in the field? That's the We don't get told this statistic. That's the stat I want. Is that 90% of those who've survived? No, that's just 90% of completed the training before they go on to the battlefield. Interflex sounds more like a club in Soho, but we'll get on to that later.

On, yes, but anyway, Minister for the Armed Forces, look, Pollard MP said. From each Ukrainian soldier made compound ready on UK soil to the £13 billion committed in military support, we're proud of every element of our contribution to Ukraine's fight against Russia's illegal invasion. Must be very proud. But in the meantime, the UK is going to boost Ukraine's air defence with 350 missiles using funds seized from Russian

assets. And this is, as they say, could help protect Ukrainians from Putin's attacks. So these are Asram missiles which are going to be fired using the Raven ground based air defence system supplied by the UK to Ukraine, with five more Raven systems due for delivery very soon. And that brings the total to 13, perhaps a useful number for them there.

But anyway, initially this was used as air to air missiles fired from fighter jets, but AF engineers have adapted these missiles in just three months to be launched from the back of AUK designed and built truck similar to vaccines. They seem to be able to redesign these things very quickly.

But anyway, working with a British defence industry team from MB MB DAUK in Bolton. Now let's just have a brief look at the Ministry of Defence promo video for Riven, or at least part of it. Good afternoon. My name's Ollie Todd from Task Force Kindred and I'd like to introduce you to the Raven Air Defence system. This is an air defence system which was generated in 2022. We went from concept to delivery of a capability within three

months. It's an amazing system which combines the HMT 600 Supercat vehicle with an advanced short range air to air missile, the Asram missile, which has turned it into a one of the most effective short range air defence systems in use in Ukraine at the moment.

The system is built upon a HMT 600 which is a high mobility 6 by 6 all terrain vehicle with a bespoke mount built on it to fit 2 ASRAM missiles which sit on rails that we have taken from older and out of service Hawk, Jaguar and Tornado aircraft. The system can be deployed very quickly, the missiles can be moved into a position and can engage targets as required as

quickly as possible. The system can be operated from both inside the cab as well as remoted to up to 50 away from the vehicle, giving great flexibility for the operator whether they want to be in the vehicle or away from it. System uses a GamePad type controller so that they can identify, track and then switch from the seeker on the on the roof of the vehicle to the seeker on to the missile,

allowing it to engage quickly. The operator can then switch to a secondary target and engage that as required. So far, we've sent over 400 missiles to Ukraine and they've conducted over 400 engagements, which we understand with a success rate of over 70%. It's been very effective against drones, cruise missiles and could also engage aircraft and helicopters. I mean, Patrick, what a joke Because, you know, on many levels it's, it's a joke.

So they've taken obsolete equipment from fighter jets that aren't flying anymore and effectively sent it over to Ukraine to get rid of it so we can buy some new stuff ourselves. Is that what's going on there? 70% success rate. So this is probably the best system in the entire world according to those numbers.

Well, is it because in a speech a few days ago, Vladimir Putin announced that Russia will quote, will focus in particular on the nuclear triad, The strategic missile forces we equipped with the latest ER systems and the aviation component of the strategic nuclear forces would be reinforced with upgraded TU160M missile carriers this year. These are not ground based. In addition, he said serial production of the state of the art medium range missile or

Resnick is underway. It has demonstrated outstanding performance in combat situations. So look, let's just remind ourselves what a Resnick looks like, because that silly little system that we are sending over Ukraine isn't going to deal with this, is it? No, neither is the Iron Dome or the Thad or the Arrow 2 or Larry David's Sling. None of that is effective against that level of hypersonic missile.

What is effective, Mike, is I know this is going to sound crazy, Diplomacy. Diplomacy is actually probably the best defence, but nobody wants to be called Neville Chamberlain do they? No Appeaser, Appeaser, This is Europe. They don't. Well, look, we'll be coming on to missile defence again in a second, but but I just wanted to continue with this article from a couple of days ago by Hamish to Bretton Gordon, the British Deep state's regular mouthpiece, Hamish to Bretton Gordon.

So he published this article in the Telegraph and then as he made clear who he thinks the real target of the recent US bunker Buster bomb attack on Iran really is, and that's, he says, Russia. Of course, I'm just going to take a couple of quotes from this because it is quite incredible. So he said that Operation Midnight Hammer, an incredible demonstration of U.S. military power and Israeli operations before it, have made plain the fragility of Russia air defence systems.

Putin will be quaking in his boots today. Iran, Israel has shown he is vulnerable. These events will be shaking the very foundations of the Russian military. How does that work? We'll look at this picture of Hamish to Britain gore and bring that up on screen. I think it's more like hammered by midnight like rather than midnight. Absolutely. Well, look, he went on to say

this. The the Russian dictator and his adversaries must not have realised that their defences could easily be suppressed if the Ukrainians or other opponents such as NATO had the right tools. The comprehensive US and NATO intelligence networks that we've seen in Iran, which even allow them to pinpoint and assassinate key leaders and nuclear scientists almost will will have terrified the Kremlin hierarchy. The more so as Ukraine appears to have similar similar reach inside Russia.

Operation Spiders Web in which Russia's strategic air fleet was decimated several times over stance as testament to their effectiveness. And he went on to say it is even not even clearer that America has total overmatch against Russia's forces. And if Trump chose, he chose to, he could inflict battlefield defeat on Putin or eliminate him personally by equipping Ukraine with the same weapons that

Israel has. I mean this seems to me to be really delusional stuff, particularly in light of Resnick and and other advanced weaponry that Russia hasn't even brought

onto the battlefield. Yet, well, it's this warmongering, hawkish rhetoric that we need to take out the other countries head of state, take out all their political leaders Israeli style, and somehow that's going to scare the Russians. No, what that's going to do is get us into World War Three, because if Russia or any other nuclear armed state believes they're existentially at threat, who knows, they might engage in a pre emptive nuclear strike.

If this is the way warfare is going to go, nobody wants to talk to each other. They think that oh, it's it can only be settled by lethal force. You're dealing with nuclear powers here. Yes, and we seem to be doing our best to convince them that they have no other alternative. That's, that's, that's the rhetoric we're hearing. It's completely insane. And it's going to bring, I think it's going to bring death and destruction on a scale never

seen before in the human race. But that is that what these people want or are they just talking tough and then coining in the money on their European defence stock portfolios and they really don't care or they're so deluded and detached that they don't think that that will ever happen and they can just carry on assassinating leaders.

It's. Yeah, it's hard to know what to say about it. But anyway, on Wednesday we were briefly talking about the NATO summit, which of course was shortened because Trump wanted it shortened, apparently.

But. Daddy wanted a shorter programme. Yes, but you've got more on that now for us. Yeah, well, here's the the conference here, Mike. I mean, you just take a look at it, big production. Obviously they went to impress Donald, so they pulled out all the stops on the the event there. But so you can see some usual suspects here zooming in on Emmanuel Macron, he and that Mehdi Frederickson there to warmongering Eurocrats. And there's Keir Starmer, the British Prime Minister as well.

So all the alpha dogs are out in force. As you can see. There's, there's daddy Mark Rutte's sugar daddy Donald Trump and all the rest of the nondescript European politicians. I don't know, half of them are, there will be some few familiar faces, Mike. But basically the, the whole focus was around Trump, you could see. And it was also around money, spending money. And as we said, a lot of talk, a lot of excitement in the stock market for European defence contractors.

And I think that's what it's really about. I but the, the big, the big showstopper, of course, at least from where as far as we're concerned, was Zelensky. And we'll, we'll bring this up here. Vladimir Zelensky was basically, Vladimir Zelensky was basically unveiling. This is a big signal here. This is a big signal. He is wearing a jacket for the first time in three years. Zelensky is wearing a jacket and no green T-shirt. There's a collar on that yet.

You see that, right? We'll check the shoes in a moment. This is a signal he's wearing. He's still got the high tech boots, but he he's basically signalling. Is the war over? Are we in a frozen conflict because Zelensky's wearing a, a blazer? That to me is a huge story here. So he's not wearing AT shirt for the first time in three years. So he's he's also not the centre of attention, Mike. He is. Trump is clearly the centre of

attention. So Burzynski has accepted his role here as second fiddle, but we'll put that aside for the moment. And I'm not kidding about the symbolism that means he's not a wartime president, even though he's unelected. Anyway, he's probably on the way out, I would think fairly soon, but we'll see. But Donald Trump basically took the opportunity to chastise everybody in the world about what he did or didn't do vis A vis Iran. And we'll talk about the

implications of this. Listen to this. I just want to thank our pilots. You know, they were maligned and treated very bad, demeaned by fake new CNN, which is back there, believe it or not, wasting time and wasting. And nobody's watching them. So they just wasted a lot of time wasting my time. And the New York Times, they put out a story that, well, maybe they were hit, but it wasn't bad. Well, it was so bad that they ended the war. It ended the war.

Somebody said in a certain way, you know, that it was so devastating. Actually, if you look at Hiroshima, if you look at Nagasaki, you know, that ended a war too. This ended a war in a different way, but it was so devastating. What bothered me about these reports are with fake reports put out by the New York Times failing. I call it the failing New York Times because it's doing terribly. Without me, it would be doing no business at all.

But and by fake news, CNN and MSDNC, all of these terrible people, you know, they have no credibility. You know, when I started there were 94% credibility the media. Now it's at 16% and I'm very proud of it because I've exposed it for what it is. But. When Donald Trump started, his credibility was, you know, marginal. And now it's fallen straight through the floor, right? So I don't know who he is just on. I want to get your comment on his comparison to Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

But it's one thing to talk about the fake news with CNN, New York Times, that whole stick. And a lot of people got behind that because he was an insurgent candidate, he was a rebel, he was a disruptor. He has just launched an illegal undeclared war of aggression on fake WMD supposed evidence. So the whole fake news shtick doesn't actually work. And that's the problem with Trump.

He doesn't have any awareness, he's not able to read the room and unfortunately he's surrounded by Euro sycophants, so there's not much we can do about that. Yeah, I mean, what what fascinated me about that comment with respect to Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that it echoes what Hamish to Bretton Gordon was saying. He was basically saying, well, Trump dropped these bunker Buster bombs and it was there as a signal to Putin that Putin should be very scared. If we look at to Russia and

Nagasaki, the war was over. There was no need to do that. That was a signal again to Russia at that time about what the US capability was. And so I'm fascinated that that Trump is basically echoing what is effectively the British deep state mouthpiece and, and, and the language that he's using as. Well, yeah. And just completely over the top. And he the megalomania is we comparing what he did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki as if it's even on remotely on the same scale.

But they're just constantly pumping themselves up or our pilots or did this, our pilots did that and so forth. It's it's kind of it's, it's sad, quite frankly, and it's not impressive at all. In fact, it makes Trump look

weak. And of course, we know that Trump has been taking orders from Benjamin Netanyahu, an American president subservient to a leader who's indicted in the International Criminal Court for war crimes and who's lording over the size of a country the size of New Jersey that is

basically falling to pieces. That's how strong Donald Trump is. But here's his defence secretary Pete Hagseth, the most under qualified cabinet member in the history of the United States Fox and Friends weekend host, suddenly becomes defence secretary. It's a Horatio Alger story for rags to riches for the, for the, for the generations of. But here's Heg Seth again, attacking the media and basically Pooh poohing any accusations that they didn't completely obliterate Iran's

nuclear facilities. For a tactical reason with President Putin. Let him answer this. Hello, Mr Secretary. Yeah, there's a reason the president calls out fake news for what it is. These pilots, these refuelers, these fighters, these air defenders. The skill and the courage it took to go into enemy territory flying 36 hours on behalf of the American people in the world to take out a nuclear programme is beyond what anyone in this audience can fathom.

And then the instinct, the instinct of CNN, the instinct of the New York Times is to try to find a way to spin it for their own political reasons, to try to hurt President Trump or our country. They don't care what the troops think. They don't care what the world thinks. They want to spin it to try to make him look bad based on a leak. Of course, we've all seen plenty of leakers. And what do leakers do? They have agendas and what do

they do? Do they share the whole information or just the part that they want to introduce? And when they introduce that a preliminary, A preliminary report that's deemed to be low, a low assessment, you know what a low assessment means low confidence in the data in that report. And why is there low confidence? Because all of the evidence of what was just bombed by 12:30 thousand pound bombs is buried under a mountain, devastated and

obliterated. So if you want to make an assessment of what happened at Fordo, you better get a big shovel and go really deep, because Iran's nuclear programme is obliterated and somebody somewhere is trying to leak something to say. Oh. With low confidence, we think maybe it's moderate. Those that dropped the bombs precisely in the right place know exactly what happened when that exploded. And you know who else knows Iran?

That's why they came to the table right away, because their nuclear capabilities have been set back beyond what they thought were possible. So Pete Hegseth saying trust me, bro, trust me bro, trust me. I'm going to tell you the truth. We don't have anyone on the ground but but trust us. Trump said that Israel put agents on the ground to go and inspect the damage afterwards in Iran. Completely insane. He completely made that up. So they don't really have the credibility there.

Pete Hegseth trying way too hard. I don't know what the old Shakespeare saying. Is he? Does protest too much in there? He does protest too much, too much, trying way too hard to make his case. Mike, it's almost like that. This is like the, it's like North Korea level kind of politics. Not to knock Kim Jong Un, because he's looking pretty good right now compared to this clown

show. But just this whole, the fact they have Trump, Hagseth and Rubio standing there, it means that neither of those people have the gravitas to hold the stage by themselves. They need this show of force again, completely weak and it just shows you a lack of character in gravitas and then sitting there and basically over explaining this thing for 2-3 minutes. It's embarrassing, Mike, but I on that front, I think we'll see

what information comes out. We shall see, because I'll bet you it's very different, the real story than what they're trying to sell here. OK, so that takes us on to European weapons. Well, this, this is the main part of this conference, Mike, is was to drum up pressure and support by the United States to get Europe to pay its fair share, to pay for its defence. Well, here's one of many reports here, this one by Politico. US dominates European weapons

purchases. So what Trump is doing is getting them to spend 5% of GDP and spend it with Uncle Sam or most of it. And how much are we talking about in terms of percentages here? Let's take a look at some of the numbers. So Trump is basically panhandling for the United States military industrial complex. Let's take a look at the numbers, though. This is according to the Stockholm Institute for Peace. And look, look at this, Mike. It's not even close.

The United States towers over every other country in terms of arms exports to Europe. Look at that. And these are recent numbers, by the way. And this is only expected to increase the US share. So there are other people in there doing work and supplying things, but you can just see the 5% GDP spend. That's a huge payday, a huge payday for the Americans. So what are we looking at here? Turkey backs NATO's 5% defence goal here, planning a nationwide air shield, An air shield.

Turkey's planning to prioritise its steel Dome project. So not to be outdone by the Iron Dome in Israel. Erdogan wants a steel Dome. What are we looking at here? Every country saying the same thing. Golden Dome, Iron Dome, Steel Dome. We're looking at an arms race. That's exactly what we're looking at here. And take a look at the coercion and bring this up on screen. Trump says Spain will pay more in trade after the refusal to meet NATO's defence spending

targets. So NATO is determining what government spent. And if you don't comply, Trump will hit you with punitive tariffs. This is outrageous. Everyone in Brussels should be railing against this. This is the United States imposing budgetary spending is as we said before, NATO is directing European economic and political affairs here and we'll bring on screen here, this is a Professor Carlo Masala from the

Bundesvier University here. And to look at what he says, all the Europeans are looking at the US like the rabbit looks at the snake, hoping that the snake won't bite them. This is the German defence university as well. So that's what that's the attitude there. And again, this is echoed here, another influential think tank. This is a Guntram wolf from the Bruegel think tank, economic think tank in Brussels. This is what he says about the 5%. They will not get there.

If you are a highly indebted country, you can't issue more debt. It means very difficult budgetary choices. So that's what some of the experts in Brussels are saying. But let's just look at the methodology behind this. This is the defence reality. OK, a lot of talk, but let's look at the reality in the EU, why countries will not meet their 5% spending. And here's the first one, the EU 0% GDP growth projections and a recession. So that's 5% of a smaller GDP

and we'll go here. State budget constraints require new laws, so in some cases there might be constitutional amendments required for this as well. And the deficit spending is hurting EU states credit ratings. And we'll go on. Government forceds, they're forced to bring in austerity measures as a result of this and privatisation, more cuts in public and social services. So that's what it looks like and

voter backlash it's coming. And they're not interested in a war with Russia. So that's the reality of defence spending here. And just to round this discussion off a Germany is asking the United States for Europe truth with troop withdrawal map. This is the German defence minister here saying head sex and the US counterparts are pushing to provide a road map for AUS pull back from Europe and but the the French are

saying something different. An unnamed French diplomat talking to the Financial Times. We must do nothing that would encourage the Americans to leave because that's not in our interest. OK. And then I think the Financial Times is kind of taking the Mickey on the Germans here. Germany floats return to conscription if volunteer plans fails. They want 80,000 volunteers in the next 10 years and they throw up a photo here of literal pensioners in suits.

It's almost like an inside joke. I'm not sure if that's what's intended. Yeah, not sure. Anyway, well, look, on Wednesday, let's change topics

completely and come back to the UK because Wednesday I was talking about the UKFCDO spending. That's the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office and the amount of money that they were spending on GAVI and other vaccine initiatives. And if you remember, we were looking at the top three recipients in the area in in this sort of policy area. So Global Fund to fight AIDS and TBA billion, GAVI a billion and 350 million to the IFFIM, which is effectively is to Gavi as well.

Well, no sooner had that report gone out than the Foreign Office announced a further 1.25 billion going to Gavi. And this announcement was made by David Lammy at Gavi's Global Summit in Brussels. Now this they say extends a close 25 year partnership which has helped to vaccinate over 1 billion children globally against diseases like meningitis, to prevent more than 18,000,000 lives being lost and to improve countries economic prospects.

And they claim that the pledge will get help Gavi in their mission to protect up to 500 million children between 2026 and 2030 and save up to 188 million more lives. This is the same kind of numbers that we've heard many, many times over the last number of years. But then we get to the reality because it's actually all for fun and profit, with the claim of 14,000 jobs supported through the partnership with health companies like GSK in the UK.

And even better, they say Gavi helps strengthen the UK's health security by preventing the spread of dangerous infectious diseases before they reach our borders. And this reduces pressures on our hospitals and health workers, enabling an NHS fit to the futures, fit for the future. So it's all good news. But Mark, let me welcome you to the programme and tell us in a related topic about the Vaccine Integrity Project. G'day, gentlemen.

Yeah, we've heard about integrity projects before on UK column here. We have in a very liberal state in terms of the state government, the state of Minnesota, what is known as CID RAP, and they're launching the vaccine integrity project out of the University of Minnesota as

noted. And what appears to be happening is there's a kind of a coalition of physicians and Big Pharma apparatchiks that are concerned about the way that the CDC is being run under RFK Junior. And as it shows here, let's put this one up. This explains it very succinctly. Children's Health Defence came out talking about this CIDRAP group and what it's doing to challenge the vaccine approval process. And what Children's Health Defence put out was this pharma

friendly. Public health officials launched new project to shore up US vaccination policy. The Vaccine Integrity Project may launch a committee that will evaluate the scientific evidence supporting individual vaccines. But this task get this is currently performed by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practises. The Children's Health Defence believes this is a move to usurp that advisory committee.

Probably somewhat of a medium to long term project As I understand it so far, my report today is is preliminary. We're looking at this since in terms of being aware of what might be coming down the road later rather than waiting till it's too late. But this shows in this next slide Doctor Michael Osterholm, a regions professor and director of CID RAP. And he said this this project acknowledges the unfortunate reality.

He says that the system that we've relied on to make vaccine recommendations and to review safety and effectiveness data faces threats. So the the battle lines, you might say, are being drawn. The Children's Self Defence wants to see the standard advisory committee that's part of the governmental infrastructure stay in place under RFK. They believe this group is

trying to usurp that. So we'll see what happens, but it appears to be so far, Big Pharma trying to stir the pot and mitigate against whatever controls the government might be exercising. That would push Big Pharma back on its heels. Of course, RFK Junior made some recent changes to that advisory committee and got rid of a lot of people on there that he thought evidently were too pro

pharmaceutical. So lots going on there, much to watch in the days, weeks, months and even years ahead, but a very important development at this point. So back to you guys. Thank you, Mark.

Thank you. OK, let's move on. If you like what the UK column does, you'd like to support us. We do need your continued financial support. If you look in the UK front page of the UK column website, you'll find the place to go to to do that. All assistance is gratefully received and very much appreciated. And thank you to everybody that does support us in that way so far.

Now yesterday at 1:00 PM, we put out an interview between or a discussion between Brian and Ben on the transition, which is all about the transition of British society and governance. The way that local governance is changing city regions, city states being set up in this country. Plymouth, not immune from that by any means at all. So if you haven't seen that discussion, please have a look at that and try to get an appreciation of how things are

being changed in this country. Tonight at 7:00 PM Jerem is putting out the latest weekly banter with Charles and with me and hopefully that is going to be a reasonably commercial 1. So do join us at 7:00 PM for that reminder of the 18th of October in York. The latest the next UK column on location event tickets will go on sale in a few weeks time. Please join us for that if you possibly can. And finally Sounds Beautiful then is taking place as we

speak. And once this news programme is over, Patrick and I will be whizzing down the road along with Kenny to to meet everybody there. We're looking forward to the weather is very pleasant so we should be having a good time over this weekend.

Now, Patrick Gazza, people not having a great time there. That's an understatement of the of the Millennium. Unfortunately, we have to report on this as all eyes were on Iran, all eyes were on what was going on with the US and Iran and Israel. Everyone took their attention off of Gaza. And what has come out in in the last couple of weeks, especially in the last seven days is beyond horrific. And we'll bring up, we'll start with this very important report here and this is up at 21st

Century wire.com. And what we're doing is serialising the highlights from the Harvard report. This is from the Harvard data, the hidden numbers behind Gaza's real death toll. Now the numbers being bandied about. Mike, you're probably familiar with 60,000 dead in Gaza, something along those lines here. What we found here, the grim arithmetic. IDF data. IDF data reveals 377,000 Palestinians are quote, unaccounted for, IE dead or missing.

Dead or missing 377,000 OK, this is by these numbers. We're looking at a Holocaust here and we don't say that lightly or casually. The report unequivocally demonstrates that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, this organisation we exposed a couple of weeks ago, compounds, they were strategically placed and built to be inaccessible to most, particularly to the 1,000,000 residents of Gaza City. Hence the riots for food cut off by the Nazarene corridor. This is by design, they're

partitioning Gaza. the United States and Israel are doing this in concert here. And the current system fails to support the 1.85 million unaccounted for accounted for, let alone the 377,000 missing Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Here let's take a look at some video footage of shooting where people are starving. People cut off with food and aid and water by Israel. OK, and they're going to collect

food at these feeding points. the US and Israel call them and they're being shot at. Hundreds of people have been killed trying to feed themselves and their families. Take a look at this. So you get the idea. It's, this is just, I mean, how this is acceptable by the British Prime Minister, by anybody, the European leaders or anybody in the US, how that's acceptable? Who engineered this? How did this come to be? the United States and Israel are fully responsible for it.

Here's the Israeli press, though. Take a look at this. This is what they're saying. This is Haaretz. It's a killing field. IDF soldiers ordered to shoot deliberately, deliberately at unarmed Gazans waiting for humanitarian aid. That's the Israeli press today, OK, That's the Israeli press. That's not us. That is not the opposition media. No, that's the Israeli press. So they're starting to basically take wanting to take responsibility for this. The New York Times has pushed

the boat out as well. It's dangerous to seek food in Gaza here. This is what they're saying in the New York Times. So again, if there's any doubters out there, I think it's time to get real. Since the since a new Israeli backed aid system which we talked about began a month ago, hundreds of Palestinians have been killed near distribution hubs in southern Gaza. According to local health officials, the new aid centres

are death traps. This is AUN spokesperson, spokesperson Yens Lyric. OK, so and they go on and it gets worse. Gaza is the hungriest place on earth. And just to round this commentary out here, when we are able to bring anyone in, it's getting plundered immediately by the population. That's the level of desperation. This is what happens when you

starve 2 million people. So there we are and they go on here, the Israeli backed system run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Sounds good, doesn't it? It's not. It was just given 30 million by Donald Trump yesterday. And they'll be paid into the accounts of private US and Israeli contractors. OK, just so people know. And so that's that's the situation. And we have Mike, we have

exposed this organisation here. We'll bring them up on screen, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and we did that couple of weeks ago and we showed you some of these actors here, all Deep State CEO Jake Wood resigned and you got a USAIDCIA operatives and other sort of people that are under investigation. I mean, this is as dodgy as it gets. Again, CIA. So that's that's the long and the short of that situation. So how this is even allowed to happen in 2025 should shock everybody.

But but how quiet and supine our politicians are about it. They they wax on about human rights all these years. You remember that responsibility protect and oh, the Rohingya and oh this and that. Whatever the cause is for the Palestinians, nothing. Total silence. Everybody's scared about speaking out against an ongoing genocide and this is the result. And that's a 377,000 figure. Just to clarify, that is coming from IDF data.

From IDF Data and I, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, but they're working with Ben Gurion University in Israel. And this is done through Harvard's organisation called Dataverse, published in their, their publication there. So, yeah. So it's, it's about, as you know, for, for sceptics, for people defending Israel, I'm sorry, but this is credible information.

Yes, yes, OK. Well, Mark, let's welcome you back onto the programme then and and let's talk about US people's attitudes towards the conflict in Iran and what have you got on this? This is coming from the Global Chicago Council on Global Affairs initially. Yes, it is. Let's put this up and I can kind of launch this out. Recently in UK column, I did a report on a Chicago Council survey that generally said that US support for Israel was lukewarm at best.

Granted, that was earlier in the spring, but this same report now the same survey, same sponsors, the Leicester Crown Centre on US foreign policy, which is a Jewish family. If so, say French based global marketing firm, and the Chicago Council itself, a very recent one, including during the conflict. More Americans oppose rather than support US strikes against Iran.

It shows the authors there that those who want to freeze the frame can look that up. Now, moving on from there, there's been a lot of protests lately in Iran itself, and we're seeing some footage from New York City. I want to make it clear, of course, that this doesn't mean we're all in with the think tanks. The Chicago Council is the former Chicago CFR. We often take a rather dim view of some of their globalist and internationalist views. But the Chicago Council, for

example, gets AUS tax exemption. Therefore they have to have a lot of their programmes, not all, but a lot of them open to the public and they have to serve some public purpose. So the Chicago Council conducts these surveys and they're fairly credible. They do a better job than most to their credit. And what's interesting is that they they did a pretty detailed survey.

We'll show a couple slides in a minute, but a big perspective on this is that if, if Americans knew more of the complete picture, for example, if there was a more knowledge of of Israel's nuclear programme, if inspections were allowed in Israel's nuclear facilities, how then would Iran's very paltry, as we understand it, nuclear facilities compare, imagine side by side inspections allowed in Israel's nuclear facilities compared to Iran's. Again, how much of A threat

would Iran's facility pose if you could make that comparison? This is the big deficit, and I believe that deficit explains at least part of the anomalies and oddities in the Chicago Council survey of the June survey that we're talking about now. I think you wanted to comment on something in that slide, Mike. Well, yeah, just before we get onto the the attitudes themselves, I just wanted to I saw during the course of the the video clip that this is a still from it.

We see people there flying Israeli flags. We've got somebody there on the left. If we just put a ring around that one with AUS Israeli flag mixed up and someone on the right here with a flag that they've got wrapped around themselves.

And the question is, Patrick, I'd be interested in your thoughts on this is whether these people are there as some kind of kind of demonstration or whether they're they're actually signalling that, that even though they are carrying Israeli flags, they support the demonstration. I mean, there's only two people there and amongst the crowd as far as I can see. So it's first of all, it's not

much of A counter demonstration. Second of all, they're they're putting themselves at risk if they're taking an opposing view perhaps. Well, it could be both, Mike being New York with a sizable and very active Jewish population, pro Israeli population, certainly in within the Jewish community. I think it could be a small

counter protest. But then again, there there is solidarity that has appeared where Jewish groups and people who previously supported Israel and including inside Israel are now putting out videos making public statements condemning the government of Israel and the United States for attacking Iran. So there's some solidarity coming together that is looks like a bonafide real anti war, you know, universal sort of effort.

And that only stands to reason because Israel's never got a taste of their own medicine, so to speak. I'm talking about the public. They never been themselves meaningfully attacked, not in the way that they have levelled all the countries around them like Lebanon on like the Palestinian occupied territories, Syria, etcetera. They've never had to face that themselves. And now they've gone out and hit Iran.

Iran struck back. And I think it's a wake up, a big wake up, a big epiphany for a lot of people. And Jewish Americans, Israelis, they see how the tide of public opinions turning against Israel and also turning against Trump as well. A lot of his supporters have basically forsaken MAGA because of this. It goes against every single principle he campaigned on, of course. So that that's what I think is you're going to see more of this. I think more of this. Yes, OK.

And and Mark, So what are what do you think people's attitudes are then with respect to Israel, Iran and US involvement in that? Well, according to the survey, and this is an interesting one, the the, the, the phenomenon of what's going on it, it lacks A galvanising Pearl Harbour, Havana Harbour, 9/11 event that would tripwire the US into this fervent patriotic war alongside its greatest ally in the Middle East, Israel. It it lacks that drama, that spark.

So this slide here from the Chicago Council's most recent survey gives some insight. Those that oppose the strikes, talking about them before they happen and afterwards. The numbers of them were higher than those that favoured them. See it, the dark lines are those that favoured before the strikes and the the numbers are a little higher after the strikes in terms of those that favoured them. Those that opposed them were hired to begin with both before

and after the strikes. And one thing that's throughout this survey is there's a lot of people, moderate and sometimes high numbers that say, I don't know enough to say I don't know enough to form an opinion. My take on that initially, guys, is that if they would read, ironically the Israeli media, they would learn a little bit more. You'll learn a lot when you read the Jewish press, that's for sure. And sometimes they do come out against Netanyahu's government to a degree.

They put out some reality. But beyond being misinformed by the Western media, I think a lot of this is just that there's never been, as I alluded to, a actual substantive, published, reported inspection of Israel's nuclear facilities. And if people knew more about Israel's nuclear arsenal, just like if they knew more about what happened with the USS Liberty and Israel deliberately attacking that US ship and 67, that being a bellwether event that would bring peace rather

than war. If these things were more widely and commonly known, if these, these kind of surveys would show very, I believe, very remarkable results and the Israeli state would lose a lot of its credibility. Credibility, because as I alluded to a couple minutes ago, imagine if we knew the full range of Israel's nuclear arsenal and put that up alongside Iran's. Suddenly Iran's would look so insignificant and

inconsequential by comparison. But moving on, there's a couple other slides we can just take a very quick, quick look at. People can freeze these to look at them for more detail. Were Israeli strikes justified in the first column?

In the justified column, those that answer justified, that is, again, we see that big Republican spike, the Democrats and independents much more lukewarm or saying basically that, you know, they're, they're not justified because in the unjustified column we see the Democrats and the independents, the blue and the yellow being higher and of course the

Republicans being lower. So the duopoly, the the Republican wing of the overall establishment, the evangelical element within the Republican Party that we often talk about is what puts this over the top. So moving on from there, there was also a recent additional survey by the Chicago Council, and we'll show this just briefly. This is back in April, mid April. But even then, six in ten Americans support US participation in a nuclear agreement with Iran.

So it was leaning toward let's do agreements, let's do something approaching diplomacy like what Patrick alluded to, rather than rather than just leaping into kinetic war. And the rest of this kind of explains that U.S. policy toward Iranian nuclear development, to put it simply, continuing diplomatic efforts. The top set of four horizontal lines got the most response. Continued diplomatic efforts. Then as you go down the the totem pole, impose tighter

economic sanctions. Again, no kinetic war, very high numbers down again, conduct cyber attacks against Iran's computer systems. And only when you went to the bottom of that long survey do you get now to conduct airstrikes. Very moderate numbers send U.S. troops and so on. So over the course of the spring and the summer, there has not been any appreciable war fever in the United States, that's for sure.

And it's it's becoming a very tough sell to just go in and arbitrarily bomb a neighbouring country without a declaration of war and even without any kind of bellwether event like a Pearl Harbour that would facilitate motivating the public to be all behind the war effort. Lastly, this last slide just recalls the third survey of the the most recent two that I reported on today are in addition to 1 I did about four or five weeks ago on UK column. And that was more general.

Americans are growing more divided on US support for Israel. So all, All in all, the American people are not real highly motivated to get behind all of this. And it's an important trend to to take a hard look at. Maybe you guys want to comment a little more, but it's it's very interesting and I'll keep following this stuff as it goes along. Thank you, Mark. I would say if Mark's talking about there being no bellwether event like 911 or whatever, we got to add the word yet onto that.

Yet, yeah, because right after this, if you noticed on social media at the talking points are being put out Iranian sleeper cells, Iranian sleeper cells every all the influencers are pushing it. I think that was a coordinate

campaign. And lo and behold, and we didn't have time to include this in today's report, but Iran, according to Tehran Times, supplied the United States with intelligence of an Israeli false flag on US soil, which didn't happen after Iran supplied intelligence to warn the US government. That was yesterday. OK, Now take that with a pinch of salt if you'd like. But is there any coincidence all the talking points, Iranian suit sleeper cells setting up the narrative for a false flag

attack. There's clearly something going on. And so they went. They're not going to let this lie. Israel has plenty of tricks up their sleeve. If you look at history and like Mark said, the USS Liberty, they wouldn't do that, would they? Of course not. OK, well look, let's move on then.

And on to online safety in the UK. Ofcom has announced hired Intense to fleece the social media platforms in order to fund its censorship regime and they cite the Online Safety Act's reference to what are described as qualifying worldwide revenues and say that it is this measure that should be used to determine the level of fees platforms have to pay for the privilege of being regulated.

They also pointed out that the same measure which could be used or which would be used to define sanctions should Ofcom find any platform and breach of online safety rules. Now the question is what are qualifying worldwide revenues? Ofcom defines them as, amongst a quote, amongst other things, a firm's global revenue from relevant parts of the, of regulated services rather than just all the revenue that is

attributable to the UK alone. So in other words, they're looking at globally, but they're saying that it's on the basis of relevant revenue. Uh, but what's considered relevant is not defined. Now, they say that fees will be equivalent to approximately 0.2 to 0.3% of company companies qualified worldwide revenue each year. And on the face of it, that might not sound like much, but bearing in mind the global revenue of the Facebooks and Twitters of the world, it's actually quite a lot.

So in Facebook's case, for example, that's certainly going to be in the region of 10s of millions of pounds. I'm estimating it at about 30 to £40 million for Meta as a whole, not just Facebook. If we look at X probably around the £1,000,000 mark, TikTok probably in the 5 to 7,000,000 LB mark, and Snapchat in the one and a half million pound mark. And as you go down the list, it all starts to add up. But don't worry though, there will be thresholds before any of

these fees have to be paid. And they think that somewhere in the region of global revenue of between 200 and 500,000,000 lbs is appropriate. In other words, if your revenue is below that level, it's not worth their time to try to collect the fees. Maybe they feel like they need to send in the the the bailiffs. Perhaps it's too expensive for

smaller companies. But anyway, a week ago I was reporting on the so called high effective, highly effective age assurance aspect of the Online Safety Act. In other words, the requirement to prove your age when accessing certain types of content. Now the types of technologies which they consider to be highly effective are listed on the right hand side of this particular graphic.

Credit card cheques. Open banking, which allows consumers and businesses to securely share their financial data with third party service providers through APIs, application programming interfaces, photo ID matching, facial age estimation mobile network operator age cheques, digital ID services and email based on age sorry email based

age estimation. Now of course, in order for these age cheques to be done, you've got to make it clear to the your mobile operator, for example, that you're visiting Pornhub or whatever the the website is that's wanting to estimate your age or get some verification of of your age and so on. But yesterday Ofcom announced that the major porn, the major porn providers have actually signed up to this now and they have decided to do this in time

for Ofcom's deadline next month. Now, I'm not going to list the sites that have agreed to comply with the regime at the moment, but if you're really interested in that list, it's on the Ofcom press release, which would be listed in the show notes. Now, Ofcom claims that monitoring compliance with these new duties is a priority, and that any company failing to comply will be subject to fines. In very serious cases, a court order to prevent the site or app from being available in the UK.

So they're already building the Great Firewall of Britain and they've already launched investigations into four porn providers. And as I say at the time, or as I said at the time, all the focus from Ofcom is on verifying that someone is over the age of 18. At no point did they comment on any requirement to make sure that someone who is under the age of 18 or make sure that someone was under the age of 18 for access to site, a site aimed

at children. Umm, so, you know, this is all the focus is on children accessing pornography initially because porn is always the, uh, the sort of leader in this and whatever happens with pornography has rolled out to other services later on. Uh, but you know, as I say, they're not worried about perhaps older people accessing websites are specifically into children. That is just not on the radar at the moment at all and quite incredible. This is an amazing shakedown

operation by Ofcom, isn't it? Shaking down these big global corporations to fund a new bureaucratic censorship? Joe versus the Volcano Department of Information dispersal. Why? Why don't they just get rid of social media in Britain and have the BBC do our social media? Then all our problems are solved, aren't we Patrick? We can have a licence that we pay to use our phone, just like the TV. Is that not where things are headed? That is exactly where things are headed, I see.

Oh, we're too far ahead of the Overton window there, Mike. Yes, got to be careful. We shall keep an eye on this and keep reporting, but I think that's absolutely the case. Mark. Let's come back to you then and Chatham House, which of course everybody knows, or at least everybody should know, one of these globalist policy making

organisations that is very British. Oh indeed, I decided recently not only to cover the Chicago CFR, which is the Council on Global Affairs. We talked about their surveys, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, the original New York CFRI wanted to branch out to Chatham House. I literally was thinking about it a week or two ago. All of a sudden I get an email for the first time ever. Somehow one of my emails got on their email list and they sent me this notice.

Maybe not like on a personal basis, but maybe part of a mass email, I'm not sure. They're having a programme July 2nd entitled How should Britain build influence and impact on the Korean Peninsula? And that's something we hear about all the time, reassessing the UK's role in security, security diplomacy and engagement on the Korean Peninsula. So as of July 2nd, noon my time, I'll cover that in real time and we'll see what that's about.

So that's an advance announcement, plus I'm kind of branching out to cover Chatham House a little bit more. And a quick footnote is it appears that UK column, when they have the public open, open programmes could send someone to 10 Saint James Square where they're located and actually go in and cover it in person. It appears to be that way anyway. There's also an interesting move I picked up on this as I was looking into this programme. Let's look at this. There's a little bit of a

changing of the guard. Evo Dalder, the former US envoy to NATO under Obama, is stepping down as CEO and president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. And Leslie Benjamuri has been named president and CAOCEO of the Chicago Council to replace Galder. She comes to the council from the Royal Institute of International Affairs, known as Chatham House in London, succeeding succeeding evil Dalder, who's shown to the right

there. So we have a Chatham House apparatchik going over to the Chicago Council to replace its president. Here is the person doing the replacing Leslie Benjamin Murray as Chicago's new global leader. She directs the US and America's programme and shares the faculty of the Queen Elizabeth the Second Academy for the Leadership in International Affairs at Chatham House. That's what she's been doing there.

She's also a professor of international relations at SOAS, University of London. And like many a Council on Foreign Relations member, that's sort of a commonality. So as they're doing this programme, there's, there's this changing in the Guard. It shows there's a very horizontal relationship between all these think tanks, revolving

doors, the whole 9 yards. And as we know, the, the main things the think tanks do is they, they form a bridge from plutocratic and financial interests into government by supplying the personnel, the study papers, in depth studies, white papers, you name it, recommendations for government. That way the, the main constituent of government is the plutocracy, not the people. That's the main function of these, of these particular think tanks.

But that's the latest of what's going on in Think Tank Land, you might say. And my, my question always is, Mark, why does the mainstream press never look deeper into these types of organisations and what they actually do, what the kinds of lobbying lobbying that they actually do is? It's amazing. And and the Financial Times, the Chicago Tribune, on my side of the pond, they collaborate with these think tanks and we've talked about this before.

They'll be a moderator at one of their discussions, They'll be part of a panel discussion, but they never actually step outside and objectively outside looking in and report on it. I've talked about before. I went to an October 2017 programme where Rasmussen, then head of NATO, was speaking in Chicago, The head of NATO speaking in Chicago. I was the only reporter there. Why? Why wasn't the Chicago Tribune there? Where's the Sun Times? They're only there when they

break bread with these people. They don't actually report on them, even though there's plenty of ample reasons to report new people stepping down or new people coming in, other people stepping down that might get a little blurb, you know, a little, a little couple lines in the business section or something. But it, it's a strange phenomenon that extends to Bilderberg reporters. They drop their in, in journalistic integrity at the door. They leave it at the door.

They go in, they collaborate, but they don't report. They're betraying the journalistic code, you might say, but I could go on. But it it's a frustrating and and sort of inexplicable thing at times. Yes, I know why. OK, You don't want to bash your potential future employer. Everybody is a potential employer in the land of the press and think tanks and government. It's one big revolving carousel, that's why. OK, well I'm sure we'll talk more about that an extra in a couple of minutes.

Amongst other things, we'll have a short extra today because we do need to hit the road, but join us in a few minutes of UK column Member four extra. Otherwise have a great weekend. We will be back on Monday at We Pay at 1:00 PM. See you then. Bye bye.