UK Column News - 13th August 2025

Good afternoon. It's just gone. 1:00 on Wednesday the 13th of August 2025. Welcome to UK column News. I'm your host, Charles Mallett. I'm joined by a returned Mike Robinson. Welcome to the programme, Mike. Thank you. And via live link we have Patrick Henningson and Sandy Adams. So welcome to the programme

both. Now as always, a lot to fit into the programme, but we'll be dealing with the issues relating to the changes in the criminal justice system, looking at how the sky is to become further infested with drones, all in the

name of progress of course. A further and detailed look at the latest with regard to the Online Safety Act 2023, as well as an update on the situation in Lebanon and following Friday's news, the latest on the Putin, Trump will they won't they situation as well as sources of funding for the wokery pervading the country. In addition, we will look at the push for vaccination for all animals everywhere, for everything and indeed plans for another proposed gigafactory.

But what we're going to start with today is the latest situation from Gaza and indeed the killing of several Al Jazeera journalists by the IDF, for which we will go straight to Patrick Henningsen. Patrick. You know, this is a a very important story. Certainly it's nothing new. We've been watching journalists being killed in Gaza for the last almost going on two years now. Won't be long till October 2025

rolls around. But just to look at the Al Jazeera report, Taj on this, obviously they were talking about their journalist, their media team members here, Anas Al Sharif, very highly regarded award winning journalist was killed as well as I think in total, technically 5 journalists and two other people were in this strike. They were in a tent set up outside Al Shifa Hospital, which had already been bombed and occupied and attacked by the Israelis numerous times since October 7th.

And this, there's something about this story that has really captured, I think, the attention of people in the West, as public opinion is already shifting against Israel, where the Western mainstream is starting to acknowledge that there's something going on here that is historic and needs to be brought to an end as quickly as possible. We're talking about the violence, the killing, and what can only be described according to international courts of justice and others, as a genocide.

But here's a video posted by Anise and his team just before, you know, just hours or days before they were killed by the Israelis in this strike. But we'll roll this video and and listen to what he says the. It may have been an older video previously around the time of the alleged short, short lived ceasefire, but the they're clearly marked as press and and what we're seeing in the reporting now, we'll show you evidence to that effect that they were targeted.

And there were warnings from the committee to protect journalists as well as from other organisations, including the U NS own rapporteur on this particular issue. So there were multiple Reporters Without Borders, other organisations that the Israel, the Israelis were running a smear campaign against Denise, branding him as Hamas, as a Hamas journalist and so forth. So they're basically justifying the killing of this journalist. Now let's look at the New York

Times coverage on this. And this is important to point

out how they frame this year. And if we look at what, what, what to know about Al Jazeera, the broadcaster targeted by Israel. And, and if we just look at the author on this, and this isn't just in this case, this is really for the New York Times across the board, Efrat Livni for cut her teeth with the Jerusalem Report, an absolute partisan on this issue and how she's framing it is, you know, is, is basically Al Jazeera is having to defend themselves in

the opening paragraphs of this report. Al Jazeera said the strike killed five of its journalists and denied Israeli claims that its reporters have ties to Hamas. And and she goes on to to basically it's almost like has to make the case to defend. Al Jazeera needs to vindicate itself and prove that it's not these reporters aren't terrorists or affiliated with terrorists. It's unbelievable. And we'll show you what happens when you put the shoe on the

other foot. But here, here is the numbers. And if you look at this, Israel's killing more journalists than any time ever in history. These are this is from Brown University, Ivy League school in the United States. Look at all those wars first from right, from the left hand side, World War One and two, I think less than 100 journalists. Korean War in 1950 to 53 or you know, less than 30. Vietnam slightly more, you know, 60-70 than Yugoslavia, a little bit less, 40 something.

Afghanistan up towards 70 you could say. Ukraine minuscule, they're less, you know, less than 30. And then we have Gaza 2023 to 2020, five, 238 plus that doesn't count. Cameraman, in some cases, drivers, people who are in support teams to the journalists. And mind you, no Western journalists are allowed to report in there. So what's actually going on here? Israel is preparing a ground invasion into Gaza. They do not want anybody documenting what is about to

happen. But this has been the policy straight through. They don't even let their own journalists in there, by the way. And so now they're killing all of the stringers that work for global mainstream media as they have with UN workers and so forth. So that that that seems to be

what the policy is here. Now, let's look at this piece by Jonathan Cook. And this is just a stunning piece of journalism by, by by Jonathan who who we've remarked before, award winning journalist, OK, the BBC helped kill Anas Al Sharif. It's reporting will kill more journalists. And the point here, let's let's, let's look at what's said here by the BBC, OK? This is what they're saying they're positing in the report.

There's a question of proportionality says the beep is just, is it justified to kill 5 journalists when you were only targeting one? Think about that for a minute. The way this is being framed is so insidious by the BBC. And here's what Jonathan Cook says in his analysis. This is just a brilliant article, by the way, and I encourage everybody to go read it. But he said, imagine that Israel finally allows Western journalists into Gaza after blocking their entry for nearly

two years. A team of five familiar BBC faces covering the region set up shop in Gaza and work out of an improvised studio inside the enclave, like a tent at Al Shifa hospital in this case. And he goes on. And then news breaks that their studio had been hit by an Israeli strike and all 5 killed. Jeremy Bowen, Lisa Doucette, Yolande Nell, Lucy Williamson and John Donnison, the author of this particular piece that Cook is critiquing.

Now just imagine the uproar. What would be the reaction from the West? And here, here's what the reaction would be. So is Jonathan Cook saying. In short, the British government and a servile BBC that regurgitates its positions have the blood of Al Sharif and Gaza's other journalists directly on their hands. They helped kill him, and in reporting his murder, they're ensuring that more journalists in Gaza will be murdered in the

days, weeks and months to come. And the analysis goes on to just show how insidious this terrorist label can be that's just applied so arbitrarily by Israel and by extension by the British and the US and European governments to basically justify killing pretty much anybody that is insinuated as being connected to Hamas. You have to remember Hamas is the elected government. They're they're in charge of the administration of Gaza from the beginning of this crisis.

So anybody that used to be a press officer for the Hamas government prior to October 7th, OK. It's and he makes the argument this would be no different if Britain is implicated in war crimes in assisting Israel in the genocide. Then all the BBC people that work for a state broadcaster for a government that's simply implicated in in a major war crime. Then what are they at that point?

Are they terrorists as well? Or the BBC could, could somebody say, well, they're, they're they're linked to the British government there and British government's guilty of genocide or a go. The journalists are, you know, fair game. That's the argument Cook's making. And it's quite a it's quite a shocking and compelling argument. And again, just just to go back to the article here, go to Jonathan Cook's sub stack and do subscribe. I'm a subscriber to Jonathan and, and, and read this.

This is just an amazing piece. He does amazing work. But this is just something else. Now look at this, OK, this is the national in Scotland, UK spy plane over Gaza as Israel killed journalists. So the the implication here is, is, is the UK government involved in their overflights which take off from RAF Equatorial in Cyprus and then supplying all the information and data over to Israel?

We know about the Lavender AI applications and how they're used to track and target individuals, including journalists. Is that what happened here? Well, here's Matt Kennard and he's been reporting on this and done excellent work on this particular subject here on X UK government never wanted you to see this. They spent 20 months concealing flight paths of RAF spy missions over Gaza on behalf of Israel, but they recently contracted it out to AUS company. The new pilot soon forgot to

turn off his transponder. The evidence for a war crimes trial right here. And that's it folks. I mean, there's enough evidence here to lodge a serious legal challenge on this basis to all these governments, particularly the US and the UK on this issue. And, and we, we've compiled a lot of the documentation of this, including PDF documents and so forth. So if you want a deep dive, go to 21st century y.com and ask Al Sharif. Unyielding voice for Palestinian justice will not be silenced.

And that's up there on our website. So I do encourage people to go there for more details. And, and I hope this is the, this is one of those stories that's going to change people's attitudes on this who've been on the fence on this issue. Let. Let's hope so. Yeah, Patrick, thank you for that. And I just want to briefly demonstrate the sheer hypocrisy of the UK regime, particularly if it as you suggest and as others are suggesting, they were directly involved in this operation.

So let me just bring this on screen because when it was set up by a previous, although sorry, it was set up by a previous regime. Sorry. Let's go back. The National Committees for the Safety of Journalists, Sorry, I'm getting this wrong at the moment. Let's here we go. The National Committee for the Safety of Journalists, I should say, still exists. It's currently headed up by Jess Phillips MP, Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against women and girls in the Home Office.

And yes, OK, I hear you all saying, but that's only for the protection of UK journalists and there's a certain amount of hypocrisy and that in itself. But if we head over here, you got a sneak preview of it to the House of Lords Library. We can talk about the Media Freedom Coalition, also set up

by the UK government. And it is a part of a group of 51 countries that the British regime LED, which advocates for media freedom, the safety of journalists and holding, specifically holding those who harm journalists to account. So is the UK going to hold itself to account here? I don't think so. Israel's not part of the media freedom coalition as we might expect, but the UK is absolutely still a member. So, Patrick, very briefly, I mean, what are your thoughts on that?

Well, first of all, the Media Freedom Coalition, I think this was promoted by at the Time Lord Ahmed from not mistaken a few years ago, Amal Clooney. This is when Jeremy Hunt, I believe, was the secretary at the time. And they did this while Julian Assange was incarcerated in a in a maximum security prison. Belmarsh, that one of the world's most decorated journalists was being held without any charge, basically without any legal due process arbitrarily and eventually got out.

But that's when they launched that. While they put as they locked up Assange, they launched the Media Freedom campaign. And I spoke about that publicly at the time and others did as well, just to point out the sheer hypocrisy of it. Talk about a double standard. It's not even worth commenting on. So, I mean, you just have to look at the record of these governments who are pushing these.

These are just public relations, you know, things to put out to make it look like they're friendly to the press. But in at the end of the day, when it comes to national security and hardcore geopolitics, all this stuff goes right out the window. Yeah. And Charles, you know, anybody that's in the British media that thinks that if they're abroad, they're in any way, so they're any way safe. They're naive.

They are. Although I think another thing that's worth pointing out, following on from what Jonathan Cook's been saying, which is absolutely right to to bring out is the incredible inconsistency with what was happening in Syria. In particular, Jeremy Bowen's sort of glad handing of Jelani Al Sharar, who of course until that point was reckoned to be the head of a terrorist organisation, yet the BBC were there actively promoting him.

So that the the inconsistencies and the hypocrisy just is, is really boundless. But as you say, Patrick, one would hope it would be a turning point. But I mean, how many times we said that before? Indeed. Yeah, now what we will do is come back to these shores and look at the subject of Home

Affairs and the criminal justice system because the past couple of weeks has seen a deluge of edicts, so called policy changes and the obvious deployment of smokes and mirrors. Consultation is out on updating the operations and response guidance for police and it runs until the 14th of October. And I thought I would just draw your attention to the fact that it includes terrorist attacks, severe weather emergencies and major public events where something has gone wrong.

Now, in an effort to deal with situations that might be perceived to have gone wrong or are about to go wrong, the Home Secretary has been busy announcing the roll out of 10 new vans for seven new police forces that are going to be carrying out live facial recognition. Now she talks about it like there's absolutely nothing wrong with this and there are no consequences. But of course there absolutely are.

It was been described in in the statement that they will operate according to strict rules which ensure that they are only deployed when there is specific intelligence and the College of Policing has guidance on how the technology should be used. I would put it that on the balance of probability, it's very unlikely to turn out that way.

The College of Policing guidance on live facial recognition states that each face that is found is mapped by software taking measurements of facial features, such as the distance between the eyes and the length of the jawline to create a unique set of biometric data. So there's no ambiguity. This absolutely does represent a harvesting of harvesting process

of metric data. Now at this point, therefore, I would point you towards the Information Commissioner because it is pointed out on his website that you may make a subject access request and I quote the right of access alter also entitles the requester to a copy of their personal information when you use biometric recognition systems. So this is the deployer of the facial recognition system.

This includes personal information such as a biometric sample, as well as any biometric data such as a biometric template. So the system I would say, as it currently stands, would be unable to cope with a large volume of subject access requests. And there'll be a link to all of this in the show notes.

So I think from a journalistic perspective, UK could be very interested in any reports that might come in of the way in which subject access requests that you might put in concerning live facial recognition are dealt with. And this could be a considerable method by which the system can be challenged. Now, on a very much related note, there's been a change put forward by Ministry of Justice and they're describing it as to restrict sex offenders from

entering geographical zones. Now this is in effect geofencing, which is the process of monitoring an individual by GPS to ensure that they do not move on the bounds of such an area. But it seems from what they're saying these areas could be made to be very small, which of course conditions people into considering that justice has never really been served. And I would say that it looks like it's normalising confinement by these sorts of

remote systems. Linked again to this and tied into the ever quoted plan for change is the much vaunted plan to deport immediately. But This is why I refer to smoke and mirrors because section 32 of the Border 2007 deals with exactly this issue, deportation of foreign criminals. And subsections four and five talk about the purpose of, for the purpose of the Immigration Act 1971.

The deportation of a foreign criminal is conducive to the public good and the Secretary of State must make a deportation order in respect of a foreign criminal. So this is something that's being dressed up as a new policy or new bit of law. In fact, it's not. It's a failure to act on the law that was already in place. Now a statement also on deportation, pointing to what the immigration white Paper will do, As though this really is a silver bullet by Shabana Mahmoud.

And again, using disingenuous language every time as they've sort of made it up in the 1st place. But to harness or to continue to harness the emotive subject of racial and ethnic tensions, the National Police Chiefs Council have put out guidance saying that they're going to consider disclosing the ethnicity and nationality of suspects when they are charged in high profile and sensitive investigations.

Now this of course relates back to the events immediately after the attacks in Southport last year, at which point it was deemed that it could have been expedient to peace had the police actually put details out in relation to ethnicity.

Of course, this is being misreported because we're only talking about this happening at the point of charge, and indeed police still retain control of. Decision making process that there's every chance that it continue, it could continue to be carried out in such a way that absolutely does fuel the fire for what they're calling disinformation.

Now with Palestine Action arrests in mind, I've just draw attention to the Crime and Policing Bill which is currently going through Houses of Parliament now. And section 10 of course talks about the offence of trespassing with the intent to to conduct a criminal offence which would carry a sentence, a maximum sentence of only three months.

Now, hypothetically speaking, had the Palestine Action Bryce Norton activists been stopped short of painting the aircraft that they did subsequently paint, they would not be a prescribed organisation today. So I would say it presents an obvious issue when considering the different outcomes and it would look as though it would open the door to pressure on police to allow an intended crime to go ahead because the consequences would be more severe.

And just as a closing note, just to point you towards the what's called the AI plan for justice. And here we have the issue of pre crime absolutely writ large, which is saying that they're going to be driving the responsible adoption of AI to enable people to deliver world leading public services. What they really mean is just handing over control of absolutely everything to a computer and not experiencing any comeback. They talk about a violent predictor, analysing different factors.

This is concerning violence in prisons. So in effect just handing all responsibility, all control to the system and indeed it covers the wider justice system. But of course, the main point to fall out of it is that whilst it says that it's not going to take away from what judges do as people and indeed cites several other bodies, prosecutors and whatnot, It does not make any reference to juries, of course. So I will wrap that up there. And now we are going to go to

Sandy on what might be perceived as a slightly related issue, which is that of drones. Yes, it, it certainly is related and also with facial recognition and GDPR and everything else that goes with all the stuff you've been talking about. Because Pricewaterhouse Cooper have published their 3.0 Skies without limits. They they had a 2.0 in 2023 and this paints a picture of drones that are ready to transform the UK economy. Price for tyres Cooper aiming to have 900,000 of the skies by 20-30.

I think they're behind, to be honest with their with their predictions, but nevertheless, that's, that's their intention and it's paving the way for unprecedented surveillance along with it. So we, you know, it's powered by advanced AI and it's quietly eroding our privacy protections. The Civil Aviation Authority are making provision for this for drone flight up to about 500 feet. I think it's 4 to 500 feet. And Amazon have now got contracts to do their deliveries with drones.

So that's going to knock out a whole load of delivery drivers and jobs in the UK. And they say that this is going to promote jobs. I, I can't see it somehow. Price Waterhouse Cooper's latest study shows major break breakthroughs. Drones are now flying beyond visual of sight for many monitoring purposes. Agricultural drones are spraying crops and mapping farmland and

promoting agrotech. And they're, they're being used in, in surveying and all sorts of things, which I, you know, I think there's a valid use for drones. I'm not saying there isn't. But the, the, the issue is there's a, it's the quantity of them and that they will be surveilling us at the same time. So, you know, for industry, it may be a, you know, progress, but for the people, it could be

a big red flag. Every one of these Jones can be fitted with high resolution cameras, thermal sensors and even facial AI recognition. Once that infrastructure's in the air, it's only a matter of time before it's used to track people, which I'm sure it will be. And there's obviously the the GDDPR question, which is the U KS main data protective law. It comes under pressure because in theory GDPR says that you can't collect personal data without consent or a clear legal basis.

But in practise, drones can gather all this information without you even knowing what's going on. So faces on a streetcar, number plates, movements linked to home addresses. Combine that with AI and drones, you know you, they see you and they can identify you and they can predict your behaviour and cross reference you with other databases. So, you know, the the AIG level analysis drones become mobile data harvesters in effect.

So, you know, we've got there are issues here with the drones. You know, it it reports and celebrates growing public acceptance. This this paper does saying over 70% of industry stakeholders now see the perception as green. But the more we normalise these drones it the easier it becomes for governments and corporations to run permanent aerial surveillance. That's the problem.

And I, I think that really, you know, we're not far from a, a scenario where drones linked to AI command centres can track individuals in, in real time. So the industry says drones can deliver medicines faster, inspect power line safely and monitor the environment more effectively. But once, once it's all in place, they could become part of an always on surveillance grid, which is really worrying. So that's it really. They're, they're developing them

at breakneck spree speed. And before the drones make that decision for us, you know, are we going to do something about it? Thank. You again subject access requests. That seems to be a reasonable option for completely helping deal with this. Yeah, if one can work out where

to direct them, of course. And I think the other, the other thing to point out, which I referred to a few months ago was if we're to be told about the threat of drain swarms on the continent, how are we to perceive whether or not a drone is friendly or a threat? And I think that might be coming into play now whether or not you're a member of UK column.

I hope that you are making best use of the website, but if you're not, we'll have a quick look at where you can go to find out what you need. And indeed, at the top right of the homepage is a search function, which I would encourage you to use. I would also make sure that you use the sections and indeed take a look at the comment because there is absolutely enormous amounts of information there and a great place to start whatever it is you might be researching.

If you are not yet a member, but then please consider joining us on the front page is a great big button saying click here and we'd love to have you on board as a monthly, a annual or indeed a lifetime member. Now in terms of what's going out in the near future, we've got Germ talking to Carl Zarr who you will be familiar with. That's on at 7:00 this evening. And then, Sandy, just a quick bit on Peter Taylor, who you've

just recorded an interview with. Yes, Peter Taylor was, he was aun environmental scientist and he, he realised whilst he was working for many, many years, he, he, he was in the ecology movement. He realised that there was a different agenda coming in and he realised that that climate change was an issue and he wrote a book called Chill and he was vilified for it. So it's his story really of, of of what happened after he wrote the book. Chill. Super.

Thank you very much. And that's going out at 1:00 tomorrow on the UK Column website. Now coming up, we've got the Hope Freedom Festival, which UK Column will be at. So please make sure you get tickets there and use the discount code UKC 2 zero. And then Patrick, very briefly on the Rebel tent this year. Yeah, this is going to be a a powerful line up, a beautiful days festival just outside Exeter. That's this weekend, Friday, Saturday, Sunday.

And Craig Murray, David Miller, myself moderating some of the panels, Matt Canner, Yard Loki, Chris Williamson, ASA Winstanley and of course Jackie Walker and Zara Sultana from the new political party with Jeremy Corbyn. So it's going to be amazing Rebel Tent this year at Beautiful Days. So if anybody's going to be at the festival, of which they'll be many, come up on the top of

the hill and check us out. And if there's any tickets left, just get in touch with their website and see if there's any availability. But should be pretty powerful. Fantastic. Thanks Patrick. So do get along to that if you can.

And then a reminder that our the first speaker we've announced is Andrew Wakefield for our on location event in York Saturday the 18th of October. There are tickets left, so please don't delay, but also remember that you will have the access to the pro the film, Andrew Wakefield's film Protocol 7. Should you buy a ticket, There are only 150 tickets left for the in person event, but plenty obviously on the live stream. So please make sure that you do

consider joining us for that. We'd we'd absolutely love to see you and it will be a phenomenal event. Now I said that we're going to be looking at online safety, so I'm going to hand over to Mike for the latest on that and indeed the ACT concerning it. Thank you, Charles Wright.

So on the 22nd and 23rd of July, the High Court in London heard a legal challenge brought by the Wikimedia Foundation against the Categorisation Regulation of regulations of the Online Safety Act. Now the Wikimedia Foundation says it shares the UK government's commitment to promoting online environments where everyone can safely

participate. But they're complaining that that the fact that they are likely to be made a so called category one organisation under the ACT and that would quote undermine the privacy and safety of Wikipedia's volunteer contributors, expose the encyclopaedia to manipulation and vandalism, and divert essential resources from protecting people and improving Wikipedia.

For example, they say, the Foundation would be required to verify the identity of many Wikipedia contributors, undermining the privacy that is central to keeping Wikipedia volunteers safe. In addition to being able to accept being exceptionally burdensome. Burdensome. This requirement, which requires just one of several category One demands that would expose contributors to data breaches, stalking, lawsuits, or even imprisonment by authoritarian regimes.

So in other words, they're not happy that the age verification requirements would expose the identity of Phillip Cross. Perhaps, and I want to be clear here, as much as I believe that Wikipedia is completely compromised and is as far from an objective as it can get, they are correct to raise these concerns. And I would very much like to know the identity of Philip Cross as much as anyone else who's been on the receiving end of his propaganda.

But they were absolutely correct to take this to court. So I'm certain that everyone, or sorry, I'll rephrase that, I'm certain that very few will be surprised that on Monday this week, the High Court dismissed the Wikimedia Foundation's court case. And but not without caveats, because according to the statement from the Wikimedia Front Foundation, the judge recognised the significant value

of Wikipedia as safety. It's safety for users, as well as the damages that wrongly assigned Online Safety Act categorizations and duties would have on the human rights of Wikipedia's volunteer contributors, they say. The court stressed. They say that it does not give Ofcom the step the and the Secretary of State a green green light to implement a regime that would significantly impede

Wikipedia's operations. And they said that they could face legal repercussions if they fail to protect Wikipedia and the rights of its users. In order to achieve that outcome, the judge suggested that Ofcom may need to find particularly flexible interpretation of the rules in question, or that the rules themselves may need amendment in Parliament. Now, we should know that the first category categorization decisions from Ofcom are

expected later in the summer. So this is not a done deal yet, and perhaps this court case will still have an effect on that decision. But of course, the justification for all this is keeping children safe. This is a lie which gov.uk repeats for everything that it's doing. And my question then is why are they talking about this approach when the bigger risk to children is adults accessing sites and children and those adults posing

as children themselves? Just to reinforce this, the National Crime Agency estimates that there are between 550,000 and 850,000 people in the UK who pose a sexual risk to children as of 2024. And so I want to then highlight the US based National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children because they have recently published their latest cyber tip line report covering up to 2024. And they noted that last year they received 400, sorry, 546,000 reports from tech firms

of adults across the world soliciting children. That's a 192% increase from 2023. And I think that's probably more to do with the fact that these are being reported much more often more than anything else. And it's probably the tip of the iceberg. Now around 9600 of these reports came from the UK in the first six months of 2024 with Snap Snapchat reporting far more concerning material to this organisation than the other

platforms. And this is, as I say, the tip of an iceberg since it's this is only covering incidents that are reported and not incident incidences that have gone past being unreported. And yet Ofcom apparently doesn't

see this as an urgent priority. And in a statement to me from Ofcom, their media team explained that quotes the use of age assurance should also make it harder for adults to pose as children, given age cheques must be highly effective at determining whether a user is an adult or a child.

That's disingenuous because later on in the same statement, they go on to say our approach to highly effective age assurance is that services should treat users as a child and apply the the default protections unless they've gone through an age check and been determined to be over 18. And I mean, I shouldn't be the only one that sees disparity

here. All of Ofcom's rhetoric on this, including at the recent age assurance live event, which they ran, is about verifying that people are over 18, not under. And they claim so. They're suggesting that in doing that they can protect children that are under 18. It doesn't work that way because mostly platforms are checking for being over 18. They're not checking people that are are supposedly under 18 and they're not asking people on

child oriented websites. They're not asking children to verify their age that they are under 18. That's not part of the the current programme. So anyway, they claim to have anti grooming measures in place and but as the NCMEC report demonstrated, if those measures exist at all, they're highly ineffective.

But don't worry, Ofcom is quotes currently consulting on further strengthening these anti grooming measures by proposing that platforms should you just reuse robust AIDS cheques to underpin measures they take to protect children from grooming. End Quote. So I'm just going to say it again, the Online Safety Act, the entire regime needs to be repealed and Ofcom needs to be disbanded. And we're glad to see that the petition is now up to 518,656 as

of 10:00 this morning. It's slowing down, but we did. We need to keep the momentum up in this. The whole issue needs to go back to Square 1A. New conversation needs to happen, Charles, around this whole censorship industrial complex, which has been built.

And then just to end this segment, Speaking of digital ID, because that's basically what we've been speaking about, Companies House, which hasn't given a damn about the accuracy of their database records in the last 180 years, has suddenly decided to demand ID verification for all company directors. And Charles, my question is, why now? Quite. Yeah. Well, I mean, you know the question that can be applied to absolutely all these things that

are demanding similar. It's absolutely nothing to do with the requirement for company directors, that's for sure. But no, I think I mean, very good point there with the specifically with regard to the, you know, all the organisations that are affected by the Online Safety Act and Wikipedia in particular 91 comes to mind. And there's just this absolute failure for people to recognise that it does actually present a threat to everybody, regardless of your position on the

spectrum. Let's say now something we'll talk about an extra I'm sure Patrick, we said that we would

give an update on the situation in Lebanon and we'll we'll go to you now for your, your take on the latest there. Sure. And we, what we believe is just from what's been happening politically, Lebanon is on the cusp of exploding and right now tremendous threat of a civil war breaking out. And I say civil war in sort of quotes because the last protracted civil war, so called civil war in Lebanon was really orchestrated by external powers, namely the United States and Israel.

And so I think we can more or less expect the same thing here. What you need to understand about this is that the US is, is trying to pose a Hobson's choice to Lebanon that it's, it's either disarm Hezbollah, OK, And obviously they're doing this on the behest of Israel or face a bloody civil war. So those are the two choices that the US is trying to through their operatives in in government and so forth and with all of their diplomatic power. So that's, that's what's

happening. And The Who, who will take advantage of of this situation. Jolani regime in Syria are poised to move into the north of Lebanon. And then we have Israel poised to perhaps, you know, do a scorched earth campaign in South Lebanon and invade again and look at what they've done to Gaza. So you can imagine any threats of Hezbollah in this neighbourhood or that village or whatever and you and they would have full justification to bomb it into the stone ages.

And so you could have a repeat of the previous Lebanese quote, civil war. But this would be a much more violent and much more intense. And the United States has just built a fortress on the hill north of Beirut, an embassy the likes of which no one has ever seen before. And why have they done that? Why?

Why is that facility in place? It's right in a pro American stronghold north of Beirut. So they that's their fall back plan is a civil war in Lebanon. And by doing that to end any armed resistance in the vicinity of Israel.

So just wanted to point that out now that the the brainchild behind this the the emissary agree, if you will, from Washington is Tom Barack. He was originally appointed as ambassador to Turkey, but he's really the kind of wit cough with a brain in in the background, but very nefarious. He is of of Lebanese background, we're told. But what he is trying to orchestrate here is so insidious. So I mean, do keep an eye on

this situation. There's more to be said, of course, with more time, perhaps another programme. Patrick, just very briefly, I mean, do you see this being run in a similar way that the so called civil war in Syria was? Very different, very different. The the factions are much more hardened. You know, after the last civil

war. What you have is a collection of warlords that have their own sort of fiefdoms, the Lebanese Forces, Christian Marianites, the Amal Hezbollah and all these different groups have have have kind of the Druze have a kind of power sharing agreement where the central government's very weak in Lebanon as a result. And so you will see in more intense sectarian fighting, but you'll have a more, much more intense military strikes by Israel.

The United States will be involved militarily as well. And then Jolani and the Wahhabist Wahhabis moving in to Lebanon in the north. I mean, they really want to set people against each other along Sunni, Shiite and Christian lines, pro US, anti US, pro Israeli, anti Israeli. So it, it, it has the potential to be really, really a, a bloodbath. And but it it is may take a while to percolate 6 to 6 to 12 months even.

But the odds of Hezbollah disarming, I'm not sure if they want to after seeing what's happened when other people have disarmed or after what happened to Syria. As you say, Mike, in that sense, it would be similar. They, they took out all of Syria's military installations in 72 hours when Jelani took over in Damascus in December of 2024. So what, what? What would save the Hezbollah in South Lebanon from the wrath of Israel in the US if they disarmed?

Nobody would. Or the wrath of Jelani and his Wahhabi ISIS. You know, brigades coming over the border, nothing to save them from a massacre. So. Yeah. Thanks, Patrick. Again, of course, the United States and Russia very much implicated throughout with everything you're referring to in Syria. And you were talking about Trump and Putin with regard to Ukraine on Friday. What's the update on that?

Well, the big meeting supposedly on Friday and what, what you need to pay attention to here is the fact that while this is gaining headlines, OK, what what has actually changed where, where, what, what, what new policies have the US articulated? Have you heard anything from the Trump administration? Anything new, any better insight or understanding of this issue, the causes of the conflict? You hear nothing. So I, I think you can expect that there's going to be no breakthroughs.

Russia doesn't doesn't have to make any concessions. I don't believe they will. the United States has no leverage. So the US is buying time. The question is, what are they

buying time for? Another sneak attack, perhaps like with the Istanbul negotiations just a few months ago, a sneak attack that came and, and Trump can't guarantee he can't guarantee Zelensky is going to sign on to any deal and the hard right in Ukraine. He can't guarantee the Europeans are going to abide by any agreements, even in principle, nor the UK, the UK and Europe, they, they have other plans for Ukraine. So does the Lenski. They want to keep this conflict going, that's clear.

So what's going to be achieved in Alaska? My prediction is very little, But what's Russia doing? Russia is potentially playing the US in their by their own game, in a game of chess that Trump may very well find himself checkmated by default because Russia is in the ascendancy militarily on the ground. They're making advances and they could easily throw the Ukrainian political situation into chaos by playing along with this Trump gambit.

And so Trump might think he's getting something out of this, some movement towards, you know, better ratings for resolving Ukrainian conflict. But Russia could very well be sending the Ukrainian and the the US political position into a tailspin here, and we'll be there to mop up the mess the way that they see fit. So we'll see what happens. Thanks very much, Patrick, and we'll see how that plays out.

Jane, also very much worth pointing out, there can be no guarantees, no switching subject.

You're all you're able to bring to mind whether you're listening or watching various woke policies. But the persistent question is where does the funding come from? And Sandy is going to be dealing with some of this, I know. Thank you. Thank you, Charles. Yes, I mean, I've been looking into this as, as have others and I'll mention them later on because they have to be credited for some of this research.

But it would seem that the, the UK, our taxpayer is funding some of some of the woke NGOs and charities that are, that are, are, are, are literally, I mean, I, you know, I'm looking at it as ideological subversion. I mean, it's, you can't describe it as anything less. So one of the main NGOs in this is, is the UK Research and Innovation. And underneath them are nine other NGOs and charities that, that, that they feed into and, and are receiving government

funding and charitable funding. But it's all a little bit

woolly. We know that it is is taxpayer funding but and, and, and how much is is charitable funding we're not sure, but certainly things like the Arts Council of England and Soho Theatre. The funding level of the Arts Council England distributes around 445,000,000 a year with Soho Theatre receiving 2 million and they they put on theatre performances like 52 monologues for young transsexuals and it shows them urging the audience members to check their privilege

at the door. As you know this is this is quite controversial really. And then you've got to academic and cultural research 811,000 for a study on the sustainability of Romany gypsy lifestyle. 1.5 million for research into white centricity of folk music, multiple other grants such as coloniality studies and feminist rituals, witches casting spells and porcelain as a critique of white supremacy. Those are all flagged for

taxpayer funding. And, you know, we've, we've got to, to look at this and, and I've got a, a slide here of the direct, you know, it's, it's diverse Diversity, equity and inclusion, of course, is all part of the mix. And they've got these sort of memes of, of how they, how they feel that, you know, they need to promote all this stuff and it's very niche. I mean, I'm, I'm going to go into how niche it is and it gets very, very niche, I can assure you. Now we're looking at the, the,

this one, which is the gay porn. It's the Europe that gay porn built 1945 to 2000. Now this man, he's he, he's got a research project. He received funding from the Arts and Arts and Humanities Research Council, which is under the UK Research Council and he he got funding for eight nearly nearly 1,000,000. It's 841,830 lbs. And he says I'm a queer cultural theorist of of the body.

My research draws from queer studies and media studies, visual culture and cultural studies to investigate the ways in which the queer body has been produced, policed and contested as political, political site of creative and effective sexual world making in modern and contemporary cultures.

Now, if that isn't a bit of a word salad, I don't know what is, but he received a heck of a lot of money to go and and study this in in Holland. He's currently the honorary professor in Art History and Visual Culture at the University of Exeter and Professor of Gender Studies and chair of Sex, Media and Sex Cultures at Lingnoping University in Sweden.

And his monograph is Bareback porn, Porous masculinities, Queer futures, and the Ethics of gay pig, gay pig masculinities, whatever that is, I've no idea and I don't really want to know, to be honest. So all of this is, is, is, is coming out of, of, of funding. And do the British taxpayers know about this? And would they agree with it if they did? And they've got things like pregnant men and international exploration of trans male.

This academic project, listed via the UK's Research councils, explores how laws and policies affect the health and needs and experiences of trans men, especially around pregnancy, healthcare interactions and reproductive decisions. So we're looking at a lot of money here that's, that's sloshing around. And those, those NGOs that are underneath the UK Research Institute, apparently it's about 900,000 of them. You know, 900 million is, is, is

going into these projects now. We've also got the Galatea, the Galatea Theatre production, which was John Lily's play in LBGTQ focus performance, which was again, it was a council funded, Arts Council funded project, the Diversalariums and it's centering on marginalised communities in the contemporary performance of early modern plays, focusing on Shakespeare being a little bit too white and well not they said pale and male, I think they called it. And this is what the Emma

Franklin who is the she was the director of Galatea. She says as LBGTQ people, our histories are often erased or confounded to fit the narrative of sif sis normalised patriarchal society. A play like Galatea should radically alter our attitude towards queer identity today. Now you know, this isn't, you know, this isn't designed to to trans bash or gay bash, but we have to look at how niche this is and how how much people would actually agree to all this.

Now, somebody who's doing a lot of research into this is a lady called Charlotte Gill. Now I'm going to to to mention her because she has done a big deep dive into it. Do go to her sub SEC and support her. She's and she says there's lots of them, but they're the main the charities and the main drivers of open borders. There's lots of them and they're incestuous and self perpetuating. Private and state funds are

problems. Some charities end up directly receiving taxpayer funding, EG being funded by taxpayer funded charities. It's a racket and I think this really doesn't deserve scrutiny. And we've got also another, another sub stacker is Lewis Blackpool and he's doing a big deep dive. He's done lots of fo is into, into things like the Paul Hamlin Foundation, which is a, which is a taxpayer funding. And they, they sort of mingle

with hope not hate. And he's put in loads of FO is into who is funding the, the, the, the Home Office bringing in of, of migrants. And I think that's really worth looking at. He's, he's doing a lot of work and I'd like to cite him as well because he's spending a lot of

time doing that. And, and he's looked and he's found all these different, if we take get the next slide, yeah, he's found, I think it's about 14 different charities that are funding the the whole migration project and they all need scrutinising and looking at. Yeah, um, and yes, we're, we're looking at the, the UN refugee agency, the migrant help and cities of sanctuary. And I'm not saying that migrants

shouldn't get help, they should. But at the moment it's volume and, and, and speed that's coming through. And we have to look at the, the, this ideological subversion that's going on because they, they all both UKRI and sanctuary cities. Look, they use our theory of change and it, they, it's a change agent sort of model.

And what I really would like to, to, to link it up to is the fact that, you know, it, this all goes back to the Frankfurt School and the Jewish intellectuals who made the 19, you know, made the 1960s. And I'd like to quote Yuri Besnamanov, who was the most amazing guy. I don't think he's, he's not alive anymore. But anyway, he was a he was a former KGB spy, but he spoke lots of words of wisdom and also warning. Ideological subversions are a process which is legitimate,

open and overt. If I could have that up game, that slide. Because, yeah, it takes 15 to 20 years to demoralise a nation. The important thing is to keep them in a state of ignorance. Once society is demoralised, facts no longer matter to them. And I have to agree with him. And, you know, are we paying for for our own demise? And I think it needs scrutiny, definitely. Absolutely. Right, Sandy, it does. And thank you very much for that.

Patrick, if I may just invite you to comment quickly, particularly given the remarks of Yuri Besmanov quoted there. Well, I mean, it's that's a famous viral video that he did on television in the 19 early 1980s. I think like that. I think it's important to point out Yuri Besmanov also worked. He did anti Soviet propaganda for the CIA. So you also have to look at it

in that context is what he said. You know, it, it's been repurposed in today's, you know, I guess alternative media Meilu as anti globalist or something like that. But what he did the work he did with the Canadian government via the CIA and for the CIA, the CIA exfiltrated him by the way, from the Soviet Union as a quote defector. But he did a lot of things for America in this sort of service

of propaganda. That's that was more or less his career function for a long time, as well as being a a member of the John Birch Society. So and just pointing that out just to contextualise him and you know the statements he's making at the time. Thanks, Patrick. Yeah, point very much worth making and also if if anyone hasn't seen any of the the interview that President of did give, it's widely available on all the video platforms. So do do look that up. Now I'm sticking with the theme

of investment and how it coincides with fear. I am going to talk a little bit about Blue Tongue, about which there are increasing amounts coming from the Animal Plant Health Agency and Defra. And particularly they've just sent out an email to their stakeholders talking about important changes to the restrictions in place in Wales.

Now specifically this is talking about vaccinated animals with the BTV 3 serotype having been able, or at least granted the ability to attend English markets within 20 kilometres of the Welsh order. They're also keen to point out that, quote, contrary to popular belief, where animals test positive for BTV 3, neither the premises or the animal are put under restrictions, so keepers are urged to report suspicion

immediately. I'll go on to explain why I think that is. Now the the narrative is tightly controlled when it comes to the emergence of disease and indeed the government have just republished the guidance on how infected infections emerge, giving you absolutely no room to doubt that between 60 and 80% of emerging infections are derived

from animal sources. We must fear the animals and that these infections have been emerging for thousands of years as interactions between humans, animals and their environments have increased and change. So bear that in mind.

Also bear that in mind when considering the Perbrite Institute, which of course is where an awful lot of this leads back to and it's very close relationship with not just the Animal and Plant Health Agency, but as shown on screen, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And I will just walk you through the steps for investment yielding dividends. We see here from the Perbrite Institute that they've had a vaccine, veterinary vaccine, innovation and manufacturing to

improve animal health. Now, what they're really talking about is being supported by the Gates Foundation. This goes back to 2023. And to make it absolutely clear how the corruption in this particular story runs, we're just going to listen to a clip of Bill Gates speaking about this. I have played it before but it's always worth a listen. Invested $10 billion in vaccinations over the last two decades and you figured out the return on investment for that, And it kind of stunned me.

Can you walk us through the math? Well, it's pretty. Impressive that when you take these vaccines, get them to be very inexpensive by making big volume commitments. Have that right relationship with the private sector. Get the delivery system. So they're really getting the coverage out there. You literally saved millions of lives.

And 20 years ago when we created these new multilateral organisations, Gabi for the vaccines, Global Fund for HIV, TB and Malaria, we didn't know they'd be successful. They've gone through lots of challenges about making sure the money gets there, making sure the efficiency is right. But as we look at upcoming replenishments for those, and we've got so much distractions politically that the international needs like this could get eclipsed if we're not

careful. You know, we see a phenomenal track record. It's been 100 billion overall that the world's put in. Our foundation is a bit more than 10 billion, but we feel there's been over a 20 to 1 return. So if you just look at the economic benefits, that's a pretty strong number compared to anything else. Here we are 21 return and a

great big grin. As you said it, as I said prior to the clip, corruption, there's absolutely no other word that should be used to describe it. And of course we go to 2024 to see what happens if we've got the Purbright Institute talking about accelerating global vaccine development. Now the most recent update within the last week is that there's now a partnership to advance mRNA vaccines for

livestock. And again, I I point you towards the fact that there are of course many more vaccines given to animals than there are humans. Now, part of the problem people like. Ian Brown who of course has a relationship not just with Herb Rice Institute, but formerly worked for APHA and indeed he has been involved with the World Animal Health Organisation and indeed the Food and Agriculture Organisation, both of which are

funded by by GATE. So that there is absolute cross pollination and the site Weybridge and Purbright are only 12 miles apart. So absolutely hand in glove one might say. Now this, as I said, does shift the focus away from slaughter on suspicion and I point you towards the vaccine guidance and in particular the market authorization. Just a reminder that these vaccines were authorised under exceptional circumstances.

So of course we're moving away from slaughter on suspicion because we are able to vaccinate everything and it's a driver of great profits and of course comes with much greater element of control and surveillance. Now on a related note, in terms of the lack of due care and attention, I would just point you to some of the scaremongering that's going on from the BBC and indeed the government about chikungunya supposedly delivered by mosquitoes.

And indeed a warning just now that they've had to withdraw a vaccine following very rare fatal reactions, which will sound very familiar. But don't worry because the vaccine will be available on the UK market from the 18th of June 2025 S never mind those very rare fatal reactions. Is there any need to worry? And indeed are people going to

talk it up? This is the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, which talks about 90 related deaths across the worldwide reporting system for chikungunya. But of course, given those statistics, why on earth would anyone be considering taking a pharmaceutical product against it now related to this in that mosquitoes are reckoned to breed in areas of stagnant water.

The National Drought Group talking about addressing nationally significant water shortfall and they've got a piece on how to save water at home. I made reference to this becoming possibly jeopardised given that the colonial administrations have indeed prohibited people from collecting water decades ago. And indeed the Chinese authorities reported to be doing the same thing. But what you can do to save water is to delete all the emails and pictures and that is

absolutely true. This is off the government website this morning under the It's your fault again heading. So that's the that's the direction that we seem to be going in. But we're building data centres. We are, we are building data centres as reported on many, many times and I'm pleased to say that Sandy now is able to

direct us towards a project in Somerset that seems to be underway at the moment. Sandy. Yes, I mean, it's been, it's been built for for the last two years or three years actually, I think it, it started quite a while ago and it's called gravity and it's a smart campus. It's a major giga factory and they want to create a battery, you know, sort of it's a battery factory.

And I'm going to link it also into the mining the, the Cornwall mining company, the lithium mining company, because the lithium for this gigafactory is going to be coming mainly from Cornwall, obviously from abroad as well. But they're getting the Cornwall mining sorted. So it's it's quite, it's quite interesting. So let's run that that video about this giga. It's like a smart city. Yeah, if we can run that please.

Oh, OK then next. Yeah. That is it, you know, No batteries, no transition, no lithium, no batteries. All our modern devices, electric cars, laptops, mobile phones all need batteries. Lithium batteries. At the moment the UK imports 100% of it's lithium. Here in the UK, and particularly here in Cornwall, we have the capacity to produce 50,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent every year, which is more than half of what the UK needs.

We're not actually extracting the lithium that exists here on our doorstep, we're importing it and that needs to change. Cornish Lithium have the objective of producing lithium in a sustainable fashion. We have two ways of doing it. One is repurposing what's already there at an existing China clay quarry and the other is to extract lithium from geothermal waters. We have a revolutionary way of

extracting lithium. We've managed to achieve what we've achieved because we've got a world class team and cutting edge technology. Every tonne that we can produce here down in Cornwall, it means we're displacing A tonne that would otherwise need to be imported. Cornish Lithium is putting Cornwall on the map for lithium extraction. We are leading a modern day renaissance of Cornwall's 4000 year history of extracting minerals to develop a product which is essential to the energy

transition. Yes, that's the Cornish Lithium mining company and prior to that it was the tin and copper mining company. So it does seem interesting that that oil, gas and coal bad lithium is really good, even though it's highly toxic. And in order to get this lithium to the Giga factory in in Somerset, in Bridgewater, they're going to have to cross 3 counties with it to get it there. So there, I'm sure there are

safety concerns with that. So if we can look at the gravity video now, which is the smart city that they're building in Bridgewater? Yeah, Sandy, you need to, you need to explain this because. Oh, right, OK, sorry. Yeah, it's anyway, here it is. It's Bridgewater in its proximity to Bristol and Exeter International Airports. Now they've already expanded Bristol Airport hugely and they've they're going to put a railway into this site. It's just like a smart city with massive connectivity.

It's 616 acres of Somerset countryside and here it, here it is, it's, it's got marketing suites, it's got people can live there, they work there, there's gyms, there's nurseries, there's just about everything you could want. And there's the train that takes you in from London or wherever you have to come from. Or it could be another country. And local development is 1.1 million at the moment and they're going to create 7500 jobs. And they've got dark fibre connectivity, opportunities for

sustainable transport. Everything is electric and probably automated. And nobody, yeah, nobody's kind of driving these things. And it's a it is a complete smart city that's been built on the doorstep here. So what, what will happen? They're way behind their their scheduled dates of completion. So maybe it'll never happen, but it's it's in the making. Thank you very much, Sandy. And of course, an energy transition that nobody has yet

sufficiently justified. But we'll talk about that more, not just an extra, but forever after. I dare say no, just to give you a short teaser. We'll hope you're going to hang around for extra. But Wilsey reports this time from a Freedom Festival in Lesters, which is a very quick look at a clip of that. And we'll play more in extra I want. To. Love you baby. There are some more more to come there on Extra.

Now we're just going to close out the programme by reminding you that although we at UK Column do take every care to get everything absolutely right, sometimes it doesn't quite go according to plan. So what we're going to do is cast our eyes back to a year ago and see how the news programme began as it was then. Yeah, I don't even know what the bloody day is now. 14th Get it wrong, we can. Not yet. 14th. Yeah, all day.

All right, good afternoon. Today is the 14th of October 2024. We are 20 minutes past one and welcome to this special edition of UK called News. We had some technical problems. Right. Hang on, it's August. You said October. Sorry, I think that just might be 11 confusion too far. That's the technical issue. We've we've shot, we've shot into the future by too much that's really trying to get back. Let's just go and straight myself. Oh, God, this isn't.

We should absolutely play this bit good, right? I didn't even spot it. Yeah. Well done. So just to clarify, we should point out that was that was what happened this news programme one year ago, yes, when I went on holiday. OK, yes, point, point taken. Absolutely right. Anyway, what I will say is thank you very much to Mike for bringing the studio with me. Thank you to Patrick and to

Sandy for joining. I'm sorry we have run over, but Please remember that we have got the interview with Carl Czar going out the German warfare platform tonight and indeed Sandy's interview with Peter Taylor at 1:00 tomorrow. So if you are able to join us for extra in a few minutes as a member, please do so. Otherwise we will look forward to seeing you at 1:00 on Friday. Thanks very much. Bye bye. Bye.