UK Column News - 12th September 2025

Good afternoon. It's Friday the 12th of September 2025, just after 1:00 and welcome to UK Column News. I'm your host, Mike Robinson. My Co host in the studio today is Patrick Hennigsen. Welcome to the program, Patrick. Great to be with you, Mike. And journalist Mark Anderson joins us by video link from the United States. Later in the program. Patrick and I are going to be reporting on the fallout from the Charlie Kirk killing.

And Mark's going to cover the visit to the UK and particularly Chatham House by Israeli President Herzog. But we're going to begin today with, well, of course, who else but Peter Mandelson, because everyone will. As everyone will know by now, Peter Mandelson has been removed as EU KS Ambassador to the United States. And of course, we should remember this is the third time he's been sacked from a government role. So he was ambassador to the United States.

He is no more. It is all collapsed in a heap now. The reason this time, according to the Foreign Office, was that the release by the US House Oversight Committee of a batch of emails revealed what they called additional information that was materially different from what was previously understood about Madelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Well, have a look at that claim in a moment.

But in the meantime, Keir Starmer, of course, has attempted to distance himself from the whole debacle. But if we remember back at when Mandelson was appointed, the statement from #10 was the fact the Prime Minister has chosen to make a political appointment and sent Lord Madelson to Washington shows how importantly we see our relationship with the Trump

administration. Could that be because they recognize the the, the similar activities, the similar alleged activities, we should say, between Madelson and Trump? Yes, not the Trump administration. Or is it the Epstein administration? Well, good question, The statement at the time went on to say we're sending someone close to the Prime Minister with unrivalled political and policy experience, particularly on the crucial issue of trade. He's the ideal candidate.

Is that the trade in children? Street trade, probably, but you could be that, Mike. Ideal candidate to represent EU KS economic and security interests in the United States. And of course, if your security interests are guaranteed through blackmail, then perhaps that is sort of. I mean, these are all allegations. Of course, we've got no evidence whatsoever. I'm sure none of these dots connect Mike. None. None. Now let's come back to modern day and well, first of all, here

we have this Sky report. They called this a an exclusive saying that security services had raised concerns around the appointment of Mandelson, but #10 did not judge them serious enough to block his path to becoming U.S. ambassador.

Now, the claim from the Starmer regime is that they were not involved in the security vetting before Mandelson's appointment, and his official spokesperson said that security vetting is carried out by government departments and that these kinds of roles are only filled subject to vetting checks being done. They didn't say anything about vetting checks being passed, just that the vetting checks have been done.

But getting back to the idea that this newly the newly released emails provide any materially different information, let's remember that in 2022, AJP Morgan report, originally written in 2019, became public through court documents for the first time. JP Morgan had written this report because of their its relationship with Epstein. Now, sadly, that report doesn't seem to be still available, but it was cited in multiple media reports, for example, the

Guardian here. And they they quoted saying that this internal report had found that Epstein appeared to maintain a particularly close relationship with both Prince Andrew and the Duke of York and at the time and Lord Peter Mandelson, a senior member of the British government. And they went on to say that Epstein wrote to his private banker, Jeff Stanley on 17th of June 2009 in relation to Mandelson say that Peter will be staying over at 71st over the

weekend. Do you want to organize either you or you and Jimmy quietly Up to you. So clearly the connections there were already pretty much public. And I don't think that there was anything really in the latest batch of emails that added aside aside from this statement that that he considered Epstein his best pal, it didn't really come bring any new information to the table. So, Patrick, it seems pretty hard to to claim that that this

was materially different. I think, I think the thing problem there, Mike, is the just daily trial, that whole case, I mean, that was fleshed out to the federal courts, hugely embarrassing. There was a massive payout also as a result of that involving the banks as well and just Staley himself somewhat implicated. But to fact you throw Mandelson in there in the mix with Staley, Epstein and all the things that were going on, reading those emails is quite harrowing in retrospect.

I mean, what exactly are they talking about? And the picture that shocked me the most is Epstein going out shopping with Mandelson, you know, picking out belts and cravat ties. I mean, when grown men go shopping like this together, it's, it's not, it's not the usual thing, you see, is it? I mean, it's so there is besides having a close relationship, they seem to be more than chummy. Let's just say or say very close

mates a good. They seem to be yes, although Mileson, always released since this all came out for the last couple of years has been complaining that he regrets ever being introduced by Glenn Maxwell to Epstein. But anyway. They all say that.

Yeah, I know that. But. But look, yesterday someone asked me why, if Mandelson's connections to Epstein were too hard to handle, is Trump, who seems to be suffering the same kind of allegations, still invited for a state visit when he seems to have questions to answer on his connections to Epstein? Well, let's just remind ourselves who Trump is coming to see because, Oh yes, it's that man on screen there who allowed Jeffrey Epstein to stay at Windsor Castle all those times.

Really. Yes. Was that the same man that appointed ADJ to be his social? Secretary, we're just, we're just indeed coming on to that. Exactly. We've got exactly that, that article from the Guardian. Jimmy Savile invited guests to royal party on Prince Charles behalf. Yes, exactly that guy. And of course, we should point out that Mandelson wasn't sacked because Starmer thought he deserved it. And why do we say that?

Well, in fact, many believe that Starmer himself has still many questions to answer over the cover up of Savile. So if we take that little grouping there of of Savile and King Charles and Starmer and Epstein and Mandelson, could it be that they're all part of the same club? Well, you know, one might ask that question and the other thing you said it was third time he's been sacked. Yes. So he has been sacked multiple

times. So if you get sacked from your post more than once is do you get rewarded with a lordship, a peerage? Of course, yeah. Is that how it works? That's. Exactly how I was. Always confused about the qualification process, but thank you for clearing that. Up. Yeah, absolutely. Now, of course, Starmer could still under pressure over this.

But before we get all smug that Starmer could fall, let's just remind ourselves who the new Deputy Prime Minister right now And well, maybe the grass isn't greener on the other side in that case. But anyway, Patrick, let's let's

move on to international affairs. And we did. We met, although we mentioned it in passing on Wednesday's program, we didn't go into any detail on the Israeli attack in Qatar. Well, this is, I think, I think this is changing the game slightly. Here, we'll bring this headline up on screen here. The UN Security Council now kind of in turmoil in the sense of members are condemning Israel over their deadly strike on Qatar. So the Israelis have attacked Qatar, trying to assassinate the

Hamas political delegation. The ones who are negotiating or in negotiations with intermediaries with Israel over lots of things like ceasefires and the release of the Israeli hostages. Also the release of the Palestinian hostages, which they don't talk about 'cause there's 9000 of those. That's not a popular topic in America, but this is the pattern, Mike.

We've seen this with everything with the United States and the US would would have probably provided or been involved in the loop on the intelligence loop on this. OK, negotiations are taking place high level with Ukraine.

This happened with Ukraine, whether it is Istanbul, huge sneak attack against Russia, the same with Iran, why the Iranians were in the within Oman negotiating a potential, you know, impasse with the nuclear deal, a sneak attack by Israel against the Iranians. And here we have again negotiations with Israel and Hamas and they tried to assassinate the counterparty. So this, this is how I mean, who would want to go into negotiations with the US or

Israel at this point? Because it really you will be attacked or they'll try to take out whoever they're negotiating with across the table. I mean, this is basically what, what's going on here. The, the, the Trump, the, the Trump statement here. This, I mean, I'll just quickly read a few sentences of this this morning.

The Trump administration was notified by the US military that Israel was attacking Hamas in Qatar, which very unfortunately was located in the section of Doha, the capital city of Qatar. This decision was made by promised Netanyahu. It was not a decision made by me unilaterally bombing inside Qatar, sovereign nation, close ally. the United States is working very hard and bravely taking risks with us to broker peace does not advance the Israel or American goals.

And and he goes on, he's talking about Steve Witkoff here working hard and so forth. And then it's embarrassed. No condemnation. It's it's it's total humiliation. The only thing missing from this picture is, you know, a GIMP suit. Quite frankly, this is just for America. This is total humiliation. This is Trump getting down on his knees and totally prostrating himself at the altar of the Israeli lobby. I mean, it is really

humiliating. I don't know how much more of this the president can do, but clearly, he's not in charge if he was. So look at the we'll play this news clip here. This is from one of the Qatari foreign ministers here talking to CNN. This will tell you basically where we're at on this issue. You don't we. Oh, sorry about that. Let's try again. This is theater. That's that's what they call it. Honestly, I have almost to express he needs to be brought to justice.

He's the one who's wanted to the ISIS. That's number one. So I think that someone like him trying to lecture the war about the law, he's he's breaking every law he's breaking. He broke every international law. He's a starving people in Russia. He's doing all these rogue actions in the entire region. What's next? What's next for him? I mean, I honestly, I have no words to express how rage we are from such an if you could just

run. And I say to Qatar and all nations who harbor terrorists, you either expel them or you bring them to justice, because if you don't, we will. I mean, set it right there, right. So no one to negotiate with. Basically we're going to kill anybody. Any potential leader we'll kill or imprison. So there'll be negotiation. So that's where things are at. I think this is really, I didn't think there could be an all time low Mike, but they've they've outdone themselves, the Israelis on this.

Well, in the meantime then, of course, we mentioned this on Wednesday, but this claim of drone strikes by Russia and within Polish sovereign territory. And a a major crisis for NATO. Everyone's screaming Article 5 on this. Let's but let's, we did a little investigation on this MIC and I think we we have a pretty good idea of where things are at. Let's take a look at this Poland, the downed drones. So the accusation is that Russia was flying drones into Polish territory.

But what really happened? Let's take a closer look here. I think we're going to get some answers. So Warsaw has asked is Poland has asked for formal consultations with other NATO states under Article 4. That's prior to Article 5. You go into Article 4 consultations here. The drones allegedly arrived from Belarusian airspace rather than Ukrainian airspace. That is a confirmed fact. So that's an interesting detail that you don't read much, or at least it's not made prominent in

the Western media here. And Poland has yet to show any evidence via official state agencies to prove that the drones were identified as Russian. So that is still yet to happen. There have been images put out in the media, including The Associated Press image we have in the background, which we showed at the beginning when we showed the initial image. So that's something that has yet to come. But here's the here's where we're at. This is the important part.

Russian forces have successfully hit multiple arms production facilities in western Ukraine. That's kind of what this is about. Russia has extended their targeting to the West of Ukraine, and it's causing huge problems at NATO headquarters because they don't know what to do before they managed to avoid this. This is all part of the plan for Ukraine here. So let's take a look at where we might be able to get some other answers on this and take a look here.

Well, this is what the great and the goods say. Here are the reactions from Europe. Mike Kaliakalis, whether it was intentional or not is absolutely reckless. This is absolutely dangerous here. Mark Rutte whether it was intentional or not, it's absolutely reckless.

It's dangerous. They're basically saying the same thing, reckless and unprecedented violent violation of Polish airspace's Vanderline. That picture is very strange of Starmer and Zelensky and Macron. I just want to say on on the off there, Russia conducted an egregious and unprecedented violation of the Polish airspace, almost identical statements from everybody. And Macron weighs in. Russia must put an end to this reckless escalation here.

So the rapid response mechanism has been has been invoked here, but well, we'll get some answers. Let's go to Belarus. Let's talk to the Belarusian MOD. And I think they know what's happening. Minx has claimed credit for giving the Polish military an early warning about incoming drones. That's an important detail. You didn't read that in on the CNN report, I can assure you.

Oh, and it gets better. Belarus were tracking Russian and Ukrainian drones used for mutual strikes overnight, confirming that some of them had lost their track as a result of the impact of the party's electronic warfare assets. So jamming, BPS, jamming has thrown some of the drones off. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened here. And the Belarusian warning allowed the Polish state to

respond promptly to the threat. And the general noted here, this was one of the spokespeople from Belarus, adding that the Polish side had also informed Belarusian forces on duty about the approach of unidentified aircraft from the territory of Ukraine. Another important detail which was left out of Western coverage here. And their Belarusian air fences shot down some of the stray aircraft. That's another new revelation here from this. And just so people can see,

that's the map there. You can see how closely this tri-state, Tri national border area is. And this is the the site there right over the Belarusian border very close to Ukraine as well. So it's completely plausible, Mike, here, by the way, the Polish shut down to two or three major airports as a result of this. But it's perfectly plausible as we found out, you remember in November 2022 when there was stray anti aircraft missiles

that fell into Polish territory. The press immediately ran with it and said it was a Russian missile attack, nearly came to some kind of an Article 5 crisis. And all sudden we find out that that didn't happen and the whole thing was de escalated. I think we're seeing some of the same things here. But what's important is they're panicking because Russia has moved up, stepped up their attacks against arms manufacturing facilities in western Ukraine. That's really what this is

about. And yes, yeah, OK, OK.

Well, sticking on this topic, we want to let everybody know because it's fantastic news, that the Starmer regime has done a deal, sorry, with the United States for what they describe as closer defence ties. Now this they're saying British government is saying that working people will be more

secure. As the UK Armed Forces prepare for the new era of threats with a major deal with Google Cloud for the latest security technology strengthening collaboration between the UK and the United States, The language that they use is absolutely fascinating, they go on to say.

The partnership means that the latest technology developed by Google Cloud, including AI, data analytics and cybersecurity, were used by Defence Intelligence national security specialists to share secure information between our partners and out compete our adversaries. So this is a £400 million contract. It's going to deliver what they claim to be a key recommendation from the Strategic Defence Review for a digital integrated service. It's going to provide resilient and secure networks.

And John Healy said that today's investment shows how Defence is an engine for growth, supporting highly skilled UK jobs in Vibrant British tech startup ecosystem. So this once again is being justified that jobs are are going to be created as a result of the war narrative. But unfortunately, people got a an early sight of this. But let's head over to the United States because I want to very briefly get your thoughts on this, Patrick. And that was the news that Donald Trump has issued yet

another executive order. This was and he began by saying this in his executive order on August the 7th. Seventeen, 89236 years ago, President George Washington signed into law a bill establishing the United States Department of War to oversee the operation and maintenance of

military and naval affairs. He went on to say the name Department of War, more than the current Department of Defence, ensures peace through strength as it demonstrates our ability and willingness to fight and win wars on behalf of our nation at a moment's notice, not just to defend.

And he went on in the executive order to say, I've therefore determined that this department should once again be known as the Department of War and the secretary should be known as the Secretary of War. I don't know what your thoughts are. I mean, I don't know what your thoughts are on that. It's it's very clear that they have moved from a purely defensive footing onto an aggressive offensive footing. But not it just rhetorically offensive that's taking us back 150 years.

So this is this is classic reventionism. Basically, we need to get back to the glory years. We need to go to the golden age. This is classic is a reactionary, political reactionary and fascist. Language this is these are fascist proclivities. It's just blows my mind like the thing they accused Trump of all those years with Trump Derangement syndrome. He was a fascist before he was actually doing fascism. He's now actually doing he's actually now doing fascism and

the left is just paralytic. They, they, they're not responding or not responding any coherent way. I think they've just shot all of their rounds on fake scandals during the Russia gate period and now you have a real problem, right? I think why would you name it the Department of War if you weren't planning for war? Simple question. Very good question.

But anyway, coming back to the UK then for a second and the Starmer regime has officially stood up the Cyber and Special Operations Command to be led by this man, Sir Jim Hockenhill. Hockenhall, sorry, he gave a keynote speech to the Defence and Security Equipment International 2025 conference a couple of days ago and he said that last week on behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff, we officially stood up the Cyber and specialist

Operations Commander today. I want to set out the implications of what that change brings. So what are the implications? Well, this is yet another regime agency to deal with this information. He made that point very clearly, which he claims is used as a weapon, eroding cohesion, a cohesion at home and sowing doubt abroad. But that's not the only thing.

The mission of this new agency is to generate and operate specialist capabilities ready to fight across all domains, they say, to make the United Kings secure at home and strong abroad. So this is the integrated operating concept that we've been talking about so much over the last few years since the previous defence review.

So this is it in action. Home is as much a theatre for operations for these people as abroad is, and therefore the British people are viewed by this government as much of an enemy as the Taliban is, and this is really an unprecedented, unprecedented situation. A war on free speech. A war on opinions, A war on points of view. Anything that could be labeled as, quote, Russian disinformation or the viewpoint of the enemy. You know what happened to the, the remember those great green

jobs all those years? Those have been replaced with great defence jobs or Great War jobs if you're in America. Well, if you're in Britain as well, although we haven't overtly said it yet, but Mark, let me welcome you to the

program and back in the staying in the UK for a second. And well, we had a visitor this week, the President of Israel, indeed. Good day, gentlemen. I, I was putting my other news together and I got on Chatham House's mailing list recently to make sure I don't miss anything. And of course, Israeli President Isaac Herzog spoke to the Royal Institute of International Affairs, AKA Chatham House,

September 10th. And it was interesting as I started watching the video, he was interviewed by the Chatham House director, Bronwyn Maddox. And, you know, you normally think of these globalist organizations and we're and we're rightly suspicious of many of their machinations. You normally think of them as more or less pro Israel. But as we've seen in other avenues, at other think tanks now, Chatham House has taken a little bit more of a questioning

approach to the Israeli machine. And this video we're about to show shows that there's considerable skepticism of the Israeli point of view on Gaza and related matters. Well, let's go ahead and watch this. It's quite revealing as well. Struck Qatar hoping to kill the Hamas leaders, but they're there with US knowledge and endorsement and are the negotiators for a potential ceasefire. So should we conclude that Israel does not want such a ceasefire?

What Israel wants most is to bring back the hostages and the key to changing the entire Vista of the region and the future of the region and getting out of this horrific situation which we've endured for the last two years is getting the hostages back home. Today, two hostages.

These are Gali and Ziff Berman, two brothers, 28 year old, they're from Kibbutz Farazza. They this is a picture of them touring Britain and they are wonderful, wonderful brothers who have been abducted and kidnapped and their fate is unclear since October 7th, so many countries, many, many countries. President Herzog have called for the release of the hostages for Hamas to return them.

But the hostage families seem dismayed by this attack on Qatar, saying that Israel is destroying the negotiations that might have brought a ceasefire. So let's speak about the negotiations to bring back the hostages. Israel has accepted every proposal and almost for the last year or so, every proposal that was laid down by the mediators.

Israel has accepted the the whole notion that was led by the United States, including with other other parties, meaning the Qataris and the Egyptians. And then we were faced time and time again with either a refusal or endless procrastination by Hamas, for example, in the last few months.

You're probably going to ask me also about the humanitarian situation because the way as it happens, I am, but I have to answer because of the the Hamas's feeling that they had the upper hand publicly in their image wall. They decided not to move on any proposal. As you can see, Mr. Herzog was put on the grill pretty, pretty well at at least in terms of Chatham House being more aggressive than they normally would be to get some information

out of him. Of course, his his statements that Israel has been right on, right on top of this, you know, trying to honor all the agreements and that it's blameless are, are just not believable statements whatsoever. And but it's good to see this coming from the Royal Institute. I also just got this information that Chatham House is continuing an intensified focus on the Israeli Palestinian conflict with its long standing Middle East program, as Chatham House is calling it.

And it talks about they've hosted Mr. Herzog and they've hosted Yasi Bailin, Hussam Zamlot and other relevant Israeli officials and mainly Israeli officials anyway. And these engagements, they say at Chatham House reflect our core purpose to support informed debate. And Branwyn Maddox, the lady that we just saw is coming out in favor of Palestinians, Palestinian statehood, she's saying in the official Chatham House statements. So these are some interesting developments.

Maybe you guys want to comment from here. But this just happened and it was very important to get this out there. Thank you. Mark, what are your thoughts? Well, Isaac Herzog is really the chief propagandist of the Israel. They push him out to push all of the crazy stuff. He's that's his, that's basically his job.

It's, it's a, it's a not a very powerful position in the Israeli political government, but he has been tasked with basically pushing most crazy stories and propaganda ever since October 7th. So it's no no surprise seeing him squirm in his chair there when asked some really basic questions. He was too much for him. But what's Craig Murray been up to? Well, he was protesting the the arrival of Isaac Herzog and the

fact that he was meeting I think probably with the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. We got some some video of this actually. Take a look. Murray heckling the motorcade of the Israeli president here. And in his own defense, Craig basically comments here. Hertzog is in the blue Range Rover. Somebody kindly caught this video of me at Chatham House and put it out on Instagram. I am normally such a mild mannered person, says Craig Murray.

And he is a very mild mannered gentleman, Craig Murray. So to get Craig out basically haranguing visiting heads of state, I mean, that really takes something. But those are the times we live in. Indeed. OK, let's move on. If you like what the UK column does, you'd like to support us. We do need your ongoing support and thank you very much to everybody that is contributing in some way.

If you would like to help us, there is a link on the front page of the website which will take you to a page that gives you all the various options for how you can help. If you can't help us financially, please do share our material because of course your help to get around the censorship regime is vital as well. We need to say a massive thank you to everybody who's bought tickets for York because of course, that is now sold out.

So no more tickets, physical tickets available, although there might be 1 comes on. So we'll let you, we'll let you know about that. There may be 1 new ticket available very, very soon, but if you aren't able to get there physically, then please do consider joining us on the live stream. Those tickets are available now and it's going to be a fantastic day. You're not going to miss anything if you join us on the

live stream. So if you possibly can, please do. OK, Let's move on then to the

situation in the United States over the last couple of days with Charlie Kirk, because, well, obviously his body has now been brought home and well, apparently with full state honours to some degree, Patrick, because, well, who's that at the front of the coffin there? It's like the vice president, JD Vance it. Is indeed so he's he was very keen to be seen at the front of the coffin putting it on, helping to load it onto the plane.

And. But what I'm particularly concerned about really is the rhetoric that's coming out around this. But before we get on to that, let's just look at some of the BBC coverage of this. So the shootings there, there had been two previous suspects which were who were considered persons of interest by the FBI, but have been released again, there's now this new video has appeared and new photographs have appeared. So here's the BBC footage of it. And I just wanted to to look at

some of the photographs here. So there's there's one of them, the most recent images released in search for the gunman. There's another one. There's a third one. There seems to be something missing there. Patrick, can you see what it is? Well, beside the fact that the images they've chosen don't have the face in it, I'm sure there's plenty of other images that have the face. They they're not showing the face. That's one thing I noticed. But there's another thing.

If this is the shooter, wouldn't he be carrying the weapon? Well, indeed so. So there doesn't seem to be a gun. And this is this is very strange. Even in the video clip that they released of of someone in black jumping off the roof of the building and running across the street towards the little wooded area where allegedly the firearm was found. Doesn't seem to be carrying a firearm.

He seemed to be carrying the backpack that that you that we saw on on that image there, but he didn't seem to be carrying a firearm. So it could be very confusing. It could be in the backpack. It could if it was a multi piece disassembly. Which it wasn't. Which it wasn't. It wasn't. That's the only option I can think of there. Otherwise, it's a big gaping hole in the story.

Well, it seems to me at the moment, but in the meantime, the thing that really struck me was the language being used on social media. So let's just look at some of the examples of it. This is somebody saying Philadelphia school teacher on the left. I need my my detectives to find out who this scumbag is and get him fired because the guy is wearing AT shirt that says is he dead yet? Now whether that is a legitimate

photograph or not, I don't know. But the but the, the, the point here is the, the vitriol that is coming out from people that are pro Charlie Kirk and people that are clearly anti Charlie Kirk. It's just off the charts. If we move on here, another scumbag here talking about Florida Democrat Steve Cody marks Charlie Kirk's death. There's I saw a huge amount of

mocking of the thing. There's no question that that was going on. It's the way that people are being radicalized here, which I think is of major concern. The patriots and tick Tock are old are taking all scumbag Democrats on tick tick tock down. So we got to start to see stronger language here taking people down. And then we see the scumbag. Sorry, we're surrounded by pure evil.

This scumbag is laughing and celebrating the assassination of Charlie Cook Kirk. Sorry, we're at war and whether we like it or not. So we're now getting the war narrative here. But it's not just people on social media that are using very, very strong language.

And in fact, a, a, a well known voice in the alternative media scene in the UK is speaking out against one particular person in the United States, and that is David Icke talking about Alex Jones and really being quite critical of Alex Jones's coverage. This just one, this is his pen tweet today. David Icke's pen tweet today featuring one of Alex Jones tweets, but this one is quite stronger. You know, alternative media RIP

is what David Icke is saying. So look, I just wanted to to very briefly, Patrick, play a little bit of some of what Alex Jones has been saying in the last day or two and just have a listen to this and then we can have a chat about it. The Democrats just killed Charlie Kirk today. They're desperate. They're losing. They want to intimidate you and me and everybody else. And the left is everywhere celebrating him. They're so happy. They had witches in groups

cursing him in the week before. They had people in Utah releasing a song a month ago about killing him. We'll get to all of that. But the reason it's a shot heard around the world is he came out a few days ago with the murder of the Ukrainian 23 year old refugee and the left trying to cover up. It was racially motivated. The killer says. I got that white girl and they said he's the bad guy, he's the fascist, he's Hitler. So Charlie Kirk will live forever and God bless his family

and everything he's done. But the left everywhere, literally celebrating this just shows you how sick these people are. They want you dead because you're not a Satanist, you're not a pedophile, you're not a globalist, and they're not going to stop. So you can't roll over the political correctness. You can't hope they just go away. You've got to stand up against them culturally, economically,

spiritually. Right now, he went on to then say people need to stand for office to counteract the left. But the, the, the language that's being used here, call it basically blanket calling all, everybody on the left, Satanists and paedophiles, that they're all out to kill anybody on the right. This is really dangerous language in my opinion. And you know, all that is going to do is drive people further and further to the extremes.

You know, I, I think in the UK and the United States in particular at the moment, we're seeing a massive effort to pit people against each other, Patrick, to the point of significant violence. And I think that that it's a really dangerous situation, situation at the building. It is no matter what you think about the Charlie Kirk's killing, which you know is disgraceful in and of itself.

Well, first of all, the, the, you know, the, the accusation from the right and from Alex Jones is that the left is radicalized, woke ISM is out of control, but they are themselves radicalizing. The reaction to woke ISM, anti woke ISM has become radicalized and Alex is dog whistling to go out and fight and then he's saying, but do it peacefully, you know, kind of thing. But he is obviously dog whistling there. So they they're both sides have been radicalized and this is not by accident.

And the right is basically claiming to be the victim. They're so they're trying to repurpose these events. We'll talk about the Ukrainian refugee stabbing in a moment. But when you look at this is interesting because, you know, whatever, whatever you, there's no proof that the left is behind the shooting. And a lot of the accounts that are gloating that you showed about Charlie Kirk's death are

anonymous accounts. The biggest, some of the biggest anonymous accounts on X. These are people that are so cowardly they can't even put their name on their account. And then they're the ones rallying up and amping up. And Elon also boosts some of these accounts as well if they happen to agree with with Elon as well.

So. Can I, can I just make a point on this briefly because, you know, Alex Jones has lost significantly because of his claims about a certain shooter event, school shooting event, Sandy Hook, right? In which where he was saying that the story from the mainstream press and from the FBI and so on was fake. In this case, if if a story comes out saying that the left was responsible or a representative of somebody who considered themselves on the left or. Trans shooter or something? Right.

If that, if that is the statement from the FBI or from the mainstream press, what will Alex Jones say at that point? Will he will he say that that's also fake, or will he say that that's real? Well, the trend on the right is they'll go with whatever story happens to align with their own political bent on this. So they would he would say that

the official story is true. So again, it's it's baffling that people that, you know, like know about false flag attacks, who pioneered educating people on false flag attacks will then jump to a run with a political narrative that's basically, you know, incendiary. So let's let's just look at some of them, the media coverage on this mic, because I think it's interesting here, we'll bring this up on screen. This is the blaze, the whole front page, It's Charlie Kirk.

Charlie Kirk. This is at least 20 or 30 stories. This is Glenn Beck's media outlet here. Charlie, why the Charlie Kirk assassination will change us in ways this generation has never seen. How on earth can you make such a statement when you don't even know who the shooter is yet? OK. And so and on and on it goes. And this is a little more radical here. We'll look at this from the California Globe.

It's a conservative website, or at least the writer is by the looks of it. Charlie Kirk will blow this headline up here. Look at what this says a little bit little bit bigger there. Charlie Kirk has fallen a martyr for American patriotism. Well, we don't know why he's fallen. We don't know who shot him. That's those are important details, right? You'd want to know who the murderer is, what the motivation is. Then you can work out whether he, you know, fell for American values or not.

So I mean, these are just typical reactions here. But the the main point Mike here is that what is that what is going to be the state reaction to this? What, when you're weaponizing all of these left, right and political polarizing angles on this, which everybody is doing OK, The state and the security state have moved in very

aggressively on this. So this is Aaron Cohen, who is on Fox all the time, is security expert, who I think is an Israeli. As well, and this is his reaction, of course, he's on full rotation on Fox pushing basically this watch. Cameras part part of your your whole gig, Aaron Cohen, is to make sure that you know what's going on here. Could this guy be profiled? What's the next step for investigators looking at this?

Well, so there's there's, there's very good technical tools that have fallen into local law enforcement's lab. There's flock systems for cameras which allow license plates to be read. I'm sure that the Provo Police Department. Who? I I recently spoke to about Gideon not long ago Trace. We kicked him out an alert. I guaranteed them and I actually made contact with them quietly to let them know that we were.

Going to be ramping. Up the system for any additional attacks or copycat attacks out there and shot that out to 20 more agencies who are on the pilot. So there's a flock system which allows. Those those cameras are essentially placed around counties and around cities. They can read license plates. They don't monitor people's name and personal information like they just they literally will get you a license plate. So if this individual jumped into.

A car, which he likely did, that'll get dropped into the investigation. Once they get a make on that, if possible, they can then start picking cell phone towers to try and track down cell phones that'll get thrown into the mix as they start closing in on the investigation. But really, I think the biggest concern now is hunting down this shooter. Could be a collapsed AR, could have other pistols and weapons, could be, who knows, getting this guy in handcuffs and arrested.

Everything else will fall into place afterwards. But there's an active threat out there and he needs to be. So he's not being correct there. Israel does gather personal data and attach it to a facial recognition. And they're using this, they're pioneering this in Gaza against for, for killing civilians, basically. So there's the Israeli security experts.

So they're going to all these Israeli experts on U.S. media to to empower the state, the Trump administration to crack down on, you know, potential threats, potential threats. So where's this going to end? Well, here's Marco Rubio, take a

look at this. So in Thomas Fassie, great journalist here in in Italy, this is how it starts, the new Patriot Act breaking Marco Rubio's State Department will ban any foreigner from entering the United States who, quote, celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk on social media using AI tools, presumably. And this was announced and confirmed there. So I mean, you, you do get these sort of reactions as a result of what's happening.

And I don't know where exactly this is going to head in in the long run, but let's take a look at what rallies are looking like and will continue to look like. Look at the security perimeters around political events now in the United States. And again, we see a lot of this as well. But inside you basically what's this is it's this is hardening the echo chamber politically. And this is what's happening. The polarization in America is increasing.

Trump rallies are sort of resembling sort of cult kind of evangelical revivals. And people are becoming more and more balkanized in their political corners here. And, you know, I look at a film like V for Vendetta in 2005. And just coincidentally, they they merged the cross of Saint George there with, I think a Norse symbol as well.

And this was the party of the Lord Chancellor there and V for Vendetta. But you know, you look at those science fiction depictions of the future and I have to ask legitimately, you know, we're not far off actually, if you look at some of the the symbolism that's going on around this. And this was and V for Vendetta, that was a race based party. I think it was Norse Fire was the name of the party, of course, famously played by I think it was John Hurt. I believe the actor.

I can't remember. I think it was who was in 1980, Orwell's 1984, Yes, right. So, but but here's the other question. This was clearly a professional hit. I cannot look at this event with Charlie Kirk, Mike and say this is not a professional hit from a distance. Sneaks onto a roof, long range rifle, perfect shot hitting the artery on the side of the neck. I mean, in that same Israeli security expert we had on Aaron Cohen, he was in the segment before that.

We didn't have time to show it saying he got lucky, the shooter got lucky. Nothing to see here. He was just probably a radical leftist or what. I don't know what the explanation on Fox was, but that's basically his shtick. But this was a professional hit. They don't have the shooter. He didn't post the manifesto on 4 Chan. So. So if it was a professional hit, who hires professional hitmen?

State actors, governments, which government and state actor has logged in the most amount of political assassinations in the last few years? It has to be Israel. So here's James Lee, who is a major influencer on social media. And he reminds us of this pattern, this change in Charlie Kirk's rhetoric just over the last two months and what that might mean in terms of could Charlie Kirk have fallen foul with powers well above even his pay grade? Listen to this.

This is a source that I trust very much, and this is coming from the top levels of government. And they were having dinner with people, senators in the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee. They are not openly saying this at this point, of course not. But in private conversation, they're saying, hey, this looks like potentially Israel is behind this. Wow. And then in terms of getting to the actual evidence itself, a very close friend of Charlie Kirk's put put out there.

Charlie didn't want to put out this tweet himself, but he told a friend to put it out on the Internet and said, hey, if I go against Israel, I think they will kill me. And when, when did he say this? This was August 13th, so less than a month ago. I can see Charlie over the last few months sort of taking new information and have his mind shift a little bit, right? He used to be an Israeli

loyalist. Then he starts to sort of mildly criticize Israel and that, hey, I don't think, you know, we shouldn't be allowed as an American to question the acts of the foreign government. I have text messages, Megan, calling me an anti Semite. I have less ability sometimes online to criticize the Israeli government about backlash than actual Israelis do. And that's really, really weird,

isn't it, Megan? And he publicly said hey, maybe Epstein was Mossad. He certainly had a lot of connections to Israeli ex prime ministers. And there's also this clip where he questions how October 7th happened. Was there a stand down order? Six hours? I don't believe it. Israel's the size of New Jersey when I took a helicopter ride from Jerusalem to the Gaza border. It's 45. Minutes. Six hours. They're live streaming the killing of Jews. Was that somebody in the

government say stand up? That is a legitimate non conspiracy question. I mean, this is a big problem for Israel. Charlie Kirk was maybe the most influential figure on the right, especially with people under the age of. 30. And when you start to have somebody that influential as a conservative is say, hey, we need to maybe reassess this relationship, there's something weird going on. This is a warning to people in the media to say, hey, you need to stop this right now because

you could be next. So Charlie Kirk is one of the most influential conservative for the for the 18 to 40 age group, probably one of the most influential conservative voices or advocates in the country. So for him to change path even a little bit on the Israel issue, on the Gaza issue is huge. And then this happens and Netanyahu takes advantage, Rabbi Shmuley takes advantage. They're all basically drifting off the back of this tragedy, OK?

And that in itself is strange. OK, but but let's just finish this off then with with this question of the Ukrainian girl and and the murder of the Ukrainian girl. And was that actually a race related incident? Well, this this was earlier, just a few days before. And then this happens. Fatal stabbing of a of a Ukrainian refugee blonde, good looking white as as as she's been portrayed by the right wing media and she was killed by this black man in North Carolina on a train.

Clearly this person had mental issues like so many other people who do random killings on the street. But immediately it got branded by the media on the right wing media as a racially motivated. I think even Alex Jones said it was racially motivated According to him. But we don't know that for certain. But then there's the federal reaction here. We'll bring this up on screen. He's going to be charged much

with the federal crime. So this plays into the troops on the street using federal assets for law enforcement here because it was on a mass transit thing being charged with the federal crime. And then we'll go back to that original video. Yeah, this one. And so how how the right wing media is totally trying to spin up a race, a race war on the back of this watch. But because it's race related and it makes white people look bad, it's got a lead. If it leads, it bleeds.

If it bleeds, it leads. If a black bleeds, it leads. I didn't want that same. Energy all the way around. Then if we, if we must talk about it, I want that same energy all the way around. So these are the same people that lost their minds over George Floyd, pushing that narrative like it was a. Lynching when the facts scream suicide. But they have. When the facts claim suicide, there was no suicide with the George Floyd thing anyway. We'll put that aside.

But that was a typical podcaster in America basically saying, well, if if what they did during George Floyd by making it about race is wrong, then we're going to be wrong and make it about race. SO2 wrongs don't make a right. Now I covered the George Floyd story in depth. We also shared some of that on this program at the time there, there there was no evidence of any racial motivation by Derek Chauvin. It didn't come up in the trial, The prosecution didn't. None of that stuck.

So there was nothing there. And likewise here, what we have is a clearly a mentally ill psychotic person who has randomly killed this Ukrainian refugee and it's been immediately branded as a as a race incident to stoke up a race war. Everybody in the media is so anxious to pit white against black, Christian against Muslim. They just won't stop until they see blood on the streets. That's my the only conclusion I can make here.

You if it's not about race with George Floyd, because there's no evidence. There's no evidence that it is here. Not any real evidence, compelling evidence. Why can't it just be a crime? Why can't it just be a murder? Why do we have to attach race to it or religion? Because we're being plagued. Yeah, and, and that's the problem. And that's the thing people really need to step back and

take a deep breath about. And the other thing is with Charlie Kirk, Last thing I'll say, Mike, it's important. You know, I, even though I disagree with Charlie Kirk, especially on the issue of Gaza and some of the crazy things Charlie Kirk has said over the years, it's not, it's not permissible or it's it to to, you know, shoot or try to kill somebody you disagree politically with. And that goes for all the radical leftist as well.

And that also goes for the people on the right with their political enemies. I mean, we cannot get to a point in society where we cannot have a political conversation that must be settled at the barrel of the gun or the end of a fist. We're very, very close to being at that point. And we're being pushed towards that point and, and you people need to step back and think, are you being pushed to that point? And if so, do you know who's pushing you?

It's an important question. You got to stop, pause and think about that. Mark, let's come back on to the

issue then of American troops potentially being deployed domestically and what's your thoughts on this and whether that actually has any support within the American population? Well, the the background to this is very important in the immediate wake of the Civil War. It really wasn't a civil war in the strict sense, but what they call the War between the States.

The north, of course, were the victors, and during Reconstruction federal troops were used in ways that were more along the lines of policing functions and there were considerable abuses. So in 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was drafted to limit, at least limit the use of the army in domestic law enforcement. And now the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, which I watch pretty closely along with Chatham House CFR, they're birds of a feather.

They came out with a September 4th survey here that we can show that on the screen Americans oppose overall, they're saying domestic use of U.S. troops. And we can go on from there and show the subsequent slides. They're very brief. These are some recent headlines I showed last week when I touched on this issue. Axios reported that there was a federal ruling that could restrict Trump on potential San

Francisco troop deployment. And Chicago Tribune reported As Trump threatens more Guard troops in U.S. cities, including Chicago and Baltimore. Here's what the law allows. And this next one gives a very brief summation of what this is about. Recent weeks. This is from the Chicago Council survey.

Recent weeks have seen an escalation in the use of troops for domestic operations to a degree not seen in recent memory in DC. President Trump has commissioned DC's police, deployed immigration agents and asked states to lend their National Guard forces to the nation's capital, urging a crime crackdown. I abridge this text a little bit, and then I emphasized here whether U.S. troops should be used domestically has gone from a theoretical question to a practical one.

Quote, UN quote. And that's according to some of the narrative in this Chicago Council survey. From there, this is 1 slide. I only used one graph here and I can explain it. Let's put that up. The the top one is those who favor it. And of all those surveyed, 29% favor using U.S. troops for law enforcement to whatever degree they call it protest suppression. Sometimes that may be true. Sometimes they're guarding federal property or guarding ICE agents. It's a mixture of things.

But of those that favor the use of troops in this way, 52% were Republicans. That's the long red line on top, 17% Democrats and 23% independents. Those who oppose it were 70%, seven, zero, 70% of those surveyed. And of those 70 percent, 47% Republicans, 83% Democrats and 76% independents. Interestingly enough, among those that favor or oppose these troop deployments, the Republican reading is close to

equal on both sides. And in other words, almost half the Republicans oppose and half support this use of troops.

I'll mention that yesterday I managed to get together with a friend that worked on the border to protect private ranchers land from illegal immigration from from illegal border crossings out near Eagle Pass, TX on the other side of Laredo from where I'm at. And I asked him about this and he felt that the troop, the troop deployments, though he hopes they don't last long, were necessary to protect mainly federal property and protect ICE agents from violence.

Although he had some questions maybe about protest suppression, things like that. The the conversation kind of ended there. He used to help apprehend illegal crossings when he worked for these private ranchers. That's what he was hired to do two or three years ago. So he has a pretty unique view on this. He actually was in the Rio Grande River itself getting wet and getting very directly involved in this.

And one other thing I'll mention is he said that a lot of Texas Governor Greg Abbott's efforts to quell illegal crossings were largely greatly exaggerated. And actually under under the guise of being a strong border enforcement governor, what what Abbott was actually doing was allowing more illegals. And therefore the numbers got tremendously high in terms of how many illegals are in the states.

And according to the guy I talked to last night, with such high numbers of people having crossed during the Biden years, 1010s of thousands a month, that he felt the troops, the troop deployments were at least necessary because they have to make up for lost time because so many people were allowed to enter the country illegally. Now very few are entering the

country illegally. And he hopes the troop deployments again, don't last long, but he feels they're necessary to bring the numbers down to get enough deportations and to enforce the border laws the way that Trump announced it. So that was his more or less pro Trump view on it. On the other hand, when does it end? Because in principle, using the troops for for domestic law enforcement can become a very slippery slope very quickly. Very unfortunate things can happen and abuses can soon

follow. And that's what brought about the Posse Combat Tatus Act to begin with. So there's some things that remain to be seen the the troop deployments have been largely just LA and DC so far. Apparently Baltimore and Chicago have not happened yet. So there there are some things that remain to be seen in terms of the scope of this thing. But these are some of the points that I gather these these are some of the key observations at this point. Yeah, sorry, Mark, Thank you.

Thank you for that. Now back in the UK then, well,

for a lot of years now, I've been following the accusations against people, people ending up in prison in this country, falsely accused of various things. A lot of years ago, it must have been about 2012 or 2013, I was visiting somebody in Strangeways Prison in Manchester. And one of the points that he made to me during that visit was that there were a ton of people in that prison, one of the worst presidents in the country, who were there on indeterminate

sentences with no release date. But the only thing that they needed to do in order to get a release date was to admit their guilt. But they would not do that. So why am I mentioning this? Yesterday was falsely accused day, and Will Coleshill was at the Royal Coach of Justice to report on that for us. So let's just have a look at that. Hello, this is Will Coleshill

reporting for UK column. And today I'm down at the Royal Courts of Justice talking to people on international Falsely Accused Day, talking to people about miscarriages of justice and how our justice system is broken. Yeah, this is the Falsely Accused day outside the Royal Courts of Justice and it's to bring together lots of organisations who who either claim to have been falsely accused and who represent different parts of that community, I suppose. Hello gents.

May I ask what brings you down here today? Well, it's interesting the Jeremy Bamba case because he's the same age as me and I followed it for since I remember the case when I was in my early 20s and here, here I am. He's still in jail for and there's some of the evidence was produced. It's been a fast this sounds farcical to me. So I've got Lucy that be today. Well, Lucy was found guilty and sentenced to to all of 15 whole

life orders. Our case is in the hands of the CCRC at the moment for review and we're just hoping for a referral back to the Court of Appeal as soon as possible because she's in the primaries of her life and they're dwindling away. So my name is Mike Thompson. I am founder and director of Falsely Accused Network. We support anyone falsely accused of domestic abuse in England and Wales and I'm here today to show strength and solidarity with the falsely accused and the other

organisations here today. We just want people to know that there is a lot of injustice out there. The the system is not a great system at the moment, needs a lot of work doing. They fail a lot of people and yeah, continue to do so. It's very common for a man who's been falsely accused to go through post traumatic stress disorder. They can enter deep phases of depression, anger, mood swings, and unfortunately some of sort of the ultimate action you can never, ever get back the the

last time. And it isn't just the person affected it, it's families as well. You know, it's got massive effect on people's families and, you know, careers, pensions, you know, it's a financial impact as well. My mum was a sub post office worker. They wanted her to take on this new equipment, the Horizon equipment. And she said, no, you know, I can't learn computers, blah, blah. Should if they forced me to do that, I will shut the post office.

And she did. So had she not shut the sub post office, we could have been, you know, our family could have been wrapped up in that. So it literally can happen to anyone. Have you seen what's been happening to the MP who exposed it, Andrew Bridgen? Yes, yeah, they will belittle him as they do to, you know, a, a lot of these people that, that expose it, they, they do what they can to try and trash their name. And what specific changes do we really need within the courts?

You know, the use of circumstance and scientific evidence has got to improve. I think juries need to be better informed when they make decisions, especially like medical, medical cases. They've got to be better informed and it's got to be balanced as well. You know, you can't just have a strong prosecution. It's got to be, it's got to be fair. Because when you've got one person arguing for the prosecution and nobody for the defence, who is The Who is the

jury going to believe? If there's no, if there's no contest, who are they going to believe? I believe the victim policy introduced by Keir Starmer when he was from prosecution services inverted the principle of innocent and in law. And, and everybody here has had a experience of that and they're here to stridently fight it and, and to and to point out to Starmer and his people where

they're going wrong. They know they're going wrong and we have to do something visible now and again like this. What's particularly broken is the presumption of innocence. Second, a woman makes an allegation against the man, he's automatically seen as guilty and treated like a criminal before anything's any evidence has been reviewed or any trial.

And that's got to stop when there is a miscarriage of justice that they should be a lot easier and quicker to get to the get it in front of the back in court or whatever needs to be done. What about jury unanimity? Jury unanimity it's a real problem when you have the majority verdicts As for example in Lucy let me original trial and in Andy Malkinson released a couple of years ago, exonerated a couple of years ago. Those were majority verdicts.

There were two people in both of those juries who are two or about that number who didn't agree that the person was guilty. And imagine how they felt when they went home. That's a, it's an, it's a aberrance of justice. The, the Trochuria. I was on what a majority, A majority, A unanimous verdict. And I think that's a good thing. I mean, after all the law says has to be beyond reasonable doubt. Well, if the two people disagree, there's some doubt

there, that's for sure. I think, you know, 1:50 is still not enough, you know, But when you're talking about whole life sentences, you know, mistakes do happen. It's been proven. You look at Andrew Malkinson, Peter Sullivan this year, Stefano Kishko from years back, you know, you've got to be sure than sure. What do you think about what's going on with all of these district judges who aren't volunteers like magistrates and as your state employees and can lock people up for six months.

These judges have a have a tendency to be trained in certain new culture crimes, new allegations of that. And we'll follow that rather than and the pressure on those people to protect to follow conviction targets. It's just like it is on the police until they start doing it with the principle of British law as we're all used to it. We're screwed because they're just they are woke indentured for want of a better term, you know. Well, I think all things the best.

I think the whole thing is the complete best and it all needs overhauled. It's absolutely shocking the state of it now, you know, and it's only going to get worse. So do you think we've got a 2 tier justice system then? Yeah, I'd say it's a multi tier justice system because I know what the two tier can apply to in certain intersectionalities with race and immigration, that sort of thing. And then there's sexism going on, misandry, misogyny,

everything. All these different competing identity groups, all that needs to be chucked in the bin and get back to the presumption of innocence and law for everybody in that country. Well, that sounds good to me. Where can people find out more? I think go to go to empoweringtheinnocent.com. In it on a Google search, they'll find all of the empowering, the innocent things

under there. Yeah. So it's been an interesting day today down here at the High Court. You've had a lot of people talking about the failures of the justice system. I've experienced it. I'm sure a lot of people have experienced it in recent years, whether it's from the postmasters to all of the men falsely accused of domestic violence, to people put in prison for murders that they may not have committed. This is Will Coleshill reporting for UK column. Thank you and thanks to Will for

that. Very good report, yes. OK, Patrick, let's just very quickly because we're well over time here, just very quickly and with with what?

Well, we were going to do a feel good segment because that went over really well last time with John Bolton there. But we're going to do an educational segment, I think more of a cultural heritage educational segment here. So we'll bring this up on screen, as you know, tomorrow, September 13th, that's the big free speech rally led by Tommy

Robinson here. As you can see, a lot of the opposition media are jumping on there on the what's on section here, full route of Tommy Robinson's huge quote, free speech rally through the capital in London. Tommy says a millionaire going to show up. It's going to be a million man March for free speech, I guess. So that's exciting here. But what what we want to point out is, is the symbolism, especially of the the English

flag here. And as you know, Tommy likes to adorn himself in the cross of Saint George. This is one of his big calling cards ever since the days of the EDL here. This is an old photo hear from back in the day. Tommy is the head of the English Defense League. So you'll often see St. George's flying when you see Tommy in public and at rallies and so forth here. So but then there's a whole conversation about about Saint George himself. This is the Patriot St. of England.

This is what the cross of Saint George represents. Why is Saint George the patron St. of England and what was his nationality? That's an interesting question. I always thought growing up that Saint George was English, and then he left England with Richard the Lionheart fight in the Crusades, you know, and the rest is history. Sean Connery and Orlando Bloom and the Kingdom, Kingdom of Heaven and so forth. But that's not actually the case

here. We just did a little bit of digging and some people might be surprised, not least of all Tommy himself here at the nationality of Saint George. It turns out Saint George, his father was a Turk and his mother was Palestinian. So Saint George is effectively Palestinian. He, he, he lived most of his adult life in Palestine. He fought against the oppressors in Palestine. He's venerated to this day by the Palestinians. There's a church, a Chapel, historic Chapel in his name as well.

So he's highly regarded by Palestinians, Christian Palestinians specifically, as a kind of hero figure here. So I mean, I hate to break it to you, Mike and everybody here, it's not such a bad thing depending on what side of the issue on, but you know, Saint George was a Palestinian. Well, maybe Tommy will add the other flag alongside of the cross of Saint George. I don't think he will, but then again, isn't it interesting though? History is bizarre. History can be bizarre.

It's so strange, it's so strange, but we thought we'd share that with you and, you know, go ahead and talk about that at the pub. I think that would be a nice icebreaker for a conversation at the dinner table or whatever. Saint George, Father was a Turk, mother was a Palestinian. I'll leave it there. We got to leave it there for today. Thank you to Mark and Patrick and everybody that's watched. We'll be back in a couple of minutes for some extra. We'll see you then. Bye bye.