UK Column News - 25th August 2025

OK, hello and welcome to UK Column News. It's Monday the 25th of August 2025. Welcome to UK Column News. Just after 1:00, I'm your host, Mike Robinson. Joining me in the studio today is Charles Mallett, Brian Gerrish, Diane Rasmussen, McCarthy, Ben Ruben, and Patrick Henningson. I got it. All right. Massive thank you to everybody that's in the room and all the people that are outside waiting to get into the room. It's fantastic. We're going to begin with

Charles today. And Charles is talking about something or other. What is it, Charles? National security, Yes. OK. Thank you very much, Charles. National security, of course, concerning everybody, always, all the time. Thank you very much. And I should just say, if you're tuning into UK column News for the very first time and wondering why we've overlaid this particular track onto our

news programme, we haven't. We're at a festival and there's a music tent directly outside this one, so you'll just have to bear with it. But national security coming into the headlines at the moment from Hong Kong via the South China Morning Post talking about the protracted trial of Jimmy Lai, which I won't go into great detail on. But suffice it to say that this is being documented at least in the mainstream as being a pro democracy trial.

So we're just going to examine some of the things that have fallen out from it and indeed some of the things that it's

pointing towards. But the situation in Hong Kong at least, is that they're in the concluding phase of the trial now in the United Kingdom. This is being something that's reported going back to 2019, the protests which which were apparently being supported by lies media organisation Apple Daily subsequently having closed reported or reputed to have links at least with the Pentagon and indeed with a number of

other organisations. But that will be something for you perhaps to look into further. The point I want to make in that the the government has put out a document about this is that they have in here referred to what China did in 20/20, which was to pass the national security law.

Now the way that's been written up as it were by both Hong Kong and the United Kingdom is that Hong Kong lacked sufficient political will to do it. So China stepped in and made it happen, which was deemed to be a contradict, A contravention at least of Hong Kong status as a special autonomous region.

So the point here to be drawn out is that the national security law was being deemed to be inappropriate or indeed to have been conducted in a manner that didn't fit the correct and lawful system, rather than dealing with the content therein. And that's the bit that I want

to concentrate on now. The fallout from this, as far as the United Kingdom was concerned, was that as a result of the apparently draconian national security law passed in Hong Kong by the Chinese authorities, there was a concession made by the United Kingdom under the British National Overseas visa, which was effectively to grant status of British nationality to people in Hong Kong that wanted to move into this country. And just give you an idea of the

effect of that. We've got a government document there talking about people coming via safe and legal humanitarian routes, updated just two days ago, or if you're watching on screen four days ago, no. Oh good. This is the graph that shows that effect. And I think it's worth pointing out because not only does it deal with the Hong Kongers who are at the lower end of the thing.

And if you're, if you're listening and not watching, then I'm sharing a bar chart that has at June 2022, an enormous spike in the number of people coming into this country described as having safe and legal humanitarian passage. And the top of the the bar is dominated by 179,000 people from Ukraine and a slightly lesser figure from Hong Kong.

So with migration so much in the news at the moment, it is worth looking back to this as it's described safe and legal route and the hundreds of thousands of people that do come into the United Kingdom that way. Now also recently, and this is where the hypocrisy becomes most obvious, we have the what's called the G7 rapid response mechanism, the RRM who've made a statement on what they're describing as being extraterritorial arrest warrants.

And the the crux of the statement here made by the government and sponsored by other governments is that the authorities have, this is Hong Kong authorities have put out arrest warrants for bounties on individuals outside of Hong Kong's borders, including in the G7 countries, for exercising their freedom of expression. So that's what we are to take away. We are to take away that because of a law that China put in where Hong Kong lacked political will.

The consequence of this is that Hong Kong is now prohibiting people from exercising their freedom of expression. Now we will go to examine whether we think this is really the case. They go on to say this form of transnational repression undermines national security, state sovereignty, human rights and the safety of communities.

So we've heard of all this. What we don't really get to hear quite so much about is our own National Security Act which came through in 2023, shown here on the the headline as it is on the government page. I would just make the point that in relation to part of the policy and indeed regulation that's enabled by this, which is the Foreign influence Registration Scheme, which you will have heard Dan Jarvis, the security minister, talking about the entire time.

I would just like to point out the failure to use any sense of objectivity when evaluating what might be constituted as undue foreign influence or indeed foreign interference. And I've got on screen a particular clause about there being an enhanced tier where foreign influence is concerned. There are only two countries in that enhanced tier at the moment and you're probably already there, but they are Russia and Iran. It is not substantiated as to why they should be, but they are.

And this is all part of the way in which the narrative is developed via means of the legislative tool that is there to create that particular situation. Now I've talked about the the the registration scheme furs as it's abbreviated to. I just thought I would point this out, which I have done before just to articulate really

the hypocrisy. It says that it requires the registration of particular activities in order to strengthen the integrity of UK politics and institutions and protect the country from state threats. Quite rich language, one would say in 2025. Now additionally, they do go on to talk about freedom of expression, which is exactly what the rapid response mechanism has just been complaining about in terms of

extraterritorial warrants. And they say, no, absolutely, this will not affect people's freedom of expression and nor will it prevent anyone from engaging in political influence activities. It simply requires openness and transparency. Well, how much openness and transparency really is there, because we are talking about the situation of extraterritorial activities where criminal

proceedings are concerned. So I have on my UK column clipboard the particular sections of the National Security Act 2023, which causes the British law which has extraterritorial powers. Section 1 concerning espionage. Absolutely, the British government may do precisely what they're accusing Hong Kong of doing now. Section 2 concerning trade secrets. Section 3 in terms of assisting a foreign intelligence service. Section 35 to concerning bodies corporate.

And this of course, is the most explicit, which is Section 36, specifically labelled offences committed outside the United Kingdom. So the level of hypocrisy here is absolutely spectacular. And I should also point out, as has been referenced for those of you sitting in the talk tent earlier today, I appreciate people, people watching the news

on the screen. This might not make much sense, but we've talked about the, the way in which the Terrorism Act 2000 is used in a, in a absolute multitude of ways now incorrectly. But of course one such would be Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which includes action taken outside the United Kingdom and of course stipulated in Section 1, including action taken for the benefit of a prescribed organisation. Which takes us straight back to the whole idea of freedom of expression.

And at the moment we are talking a lot about Palestine action and its prescription. But what I'm getting to is that if you were to express support for Palestine action from a foreign country, then you would still be captured by both the National Security Act and indeed the Terrorism Act 2000. So what the government are putting out about the Hong Kong authorities is absolutely disingenuous.

Now the reason I mention this is because as we all know, freedom of expression is lumped into what's described loosely and lazily as conspiracy theory and how that is taken on and used and manipulated. And of course we are at Hope Freedom being run by the Hope Sussex Community. And I would just remind you, if you have not already aware that they chose to speak to the BBC the other day and were, as you might imagine, misrepresented to put it diplomatically.

But I think the key bit of text to draw out from the BBC sounds advertisement is this bit of text here saying is a home educating community really teaching children conspiracy theories. Now the answer to that question is neither here nor there. The point is really that the BBC are conceding that they have an issue with children learning anything that hasn't come from either the government or the BBCI. Think that's the inference to be

drawn from that. And just to draw that point out a little bit further, in terms of where one is meant to receive information from, I would point you towards GCHQ, where on their culture page they have a section about education and outreach, which means they are running courses and classes for young people during school holidays in order that their minds might be

set on the right path. So we go back to more or less where we started, which is the National Security Strategy from 2025. And as it says in that document, extremist ideologies are on the rise. All of this has a link going right the way through it, and you are in the middle of it here by being in this talk tent at this magnificent Hope event. So that's where we go from the trial of Jimmy Lai straight through to our own national security strategy, with many gargantuan lies told upon the

way. Thank you, Charles. Slight change of topic here. We're going to head over to Ukraine issues and Nord Stream pipeline in particular with Patrick. I suppose this has a national security context as well. Pat Straight. Away. Here we go. Yes, Thank you, Charles. Thank you, Mike. First thing I'm going to say is we have to get out of this paradigm that we're stuck in. Extremism, Extremist ideologies. There's nothing extreme about what we're talking about here.

They're the extremists, OK? They're the extremists. What's going on at the the high echelons, The wealth gap that we're seeing is just unbelievable. Historically, that's extreme, OK? This is not a counterculture event. You got to get out of their framework, OK? This is the culture. They're the counterculture. Just understand that they try to disempower you. This is one of the hangovers of the 60's. The counterculture. No, no, we're the we're the culture. McDonald's is the

counterculture. OK, Bank, the investment banks, global transnational corporations. That's the counterculture. OK, just want to get that straight. I'll talk about the Nord Stream pipeline a little bit. If you've watched the headlines just to kind of, it's an interesting story. It does have an effect on our lives, of course. It affects our fuel bill. It affects the cost of heating and powering our homes. And they, if you read, if you read the news, there's been an arrest.

The Germans, the Germans are on the case. Rest assured, they're going to get to the bottom of it. They have their best people on it. They've nabbed A Ukrainian named Sergei Kuznetsov. OK rested in Italy on holiday with his family and they believe he's one of the Nordstrom saboteurs connected to the crack team of Ukrainian super soldiers that were seen drunk on the pier in Poland with a cigarette hanging out of their mouth with a 50 foot sailboat. Pretty plausible, isn't it?

That's that's the story they're going with. That's the story they're going with. So this is the biggest red herring story imaginable. So what I'm going to say is pay attention to the timing. Pay attention to the Tommy, Why have they arrested this guy? All of a sudden, this Ukrainian, they're keeping the story alive. There are political negotiations going on vis A vis Ukraine with the United States and the European powers.

And trust me, the Russians have made Nordstrom an issue and they made it known to the Americans and whoever their counterparts are in negotiations that that is one of the chips in negotiations. They want to have an independent investigation as to who did it. Now, the Germans did an investigation and they've been sitting on their findings for a

year and a half. And Sweden and Denmark, the Nordstrom pipelines were blown up in their exclusive economic zones, OK, They sent investigative teams and reconnaissance teams immediately. But Sweden can't release any of that information because of sensitive national security concerns. As far as the Danish go, a similar excuse.

So it is very likely that the Swedes know and it's very likely that all of the NATO countries, in my opinion anyway, based on the evidence that I've looked at exhaustively, some of which we published and reported on at the UK column, that most of the NATO countries that were involved in the drill which took place in the Baltic Sea in July, I believe in June and July, BALTOPS 22 in 2022. They know about the Nordstrom sabotage, OK, at least at the higher echelons of the European

Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, Even so far as the Sakur and NORTHCOM as well. All of these countries, United States, Britain, Norway, Germany, would very likely have been involved in this. That's that's my understanding and I don't share that opinion alone. Many top investigators agree with that and many mainstream pundits are now saying the same thing. But still, we have this Ukrainian story that's being

drifted out. So I think this is designed to deflect and distract from the real saboteurs. And that's all this story is. They're going to kick the can down the road for another 10 years and we'll still be arguing about it like JF KS assassination in 20 years. If we're whoever's still around was saying did they did? Did they not? Did they do it? This is one of the biggest acts of industrial infrastructural sabotage really in the modern era. It's state terrorism and it's gone unpunished.

But the worst thing about it is you're not allowed to talk about it. If you're in the mainstream media. Imagine something that significant and that consequential to the cost of living in Europe and our economies. You can't even talk about. It's verboten. So that itself is incredible. It tells you the type of situation, the type of time in history we're living in. The other story which has come out is there was, there's been a

story. I've got a point to make on this that is probably unexpected, but in terms of the deaths in Gaza, officially 62,000, officially, not unofficially, officially 62,000. The number is quite likely higher, which I'll show you in a minute. But this was a story investigation done by the Guardian in the UK and 972 magazine.

I think this is an Israeli publication. 85% of those died are quote, civilians in Gaza. So Israel has been even by mainstream standards has been under, has been playing down the the amount of civilian casualties. So now you have British and Israeli mainstream media basically debunking the Israeli government. OK, it's taking a long time, but they're doing it as well.

Harvard Dataverse and Ben Gurion University in Israel released a report which we reported on a few months ago, the the true number of casualties in Gaza that they pegged at 377,000, dead or missing 377,000. Now some people would say, well, that's the Guardian or it's an Israeli media outlet. Why would you trust them? It's all lies. The mainstream media is lying. And Harvard Dataverse. I mean, Harvard must be. It's an elite institution.

Why would you listen to them? Ben Gurion University, it's an Israeli institution. Why would you listen to them? These are mainstream sources. And the point is, there are a lot of lies in the mainstream media. A lot. But not everything is a lie in the mainstream media. And sometimes, and not everybody

in the mainstream media is evil. There are good journalists in all of these institutions, and there are bad journalists and corrupt editors and gatekeepers and men in black suits standing off the camera directing and denotices issued. OK, that happens. But belatedly, sometimes the truth starts coming out and that is what's happening. So when you see mainstream outlets and institutions telling you something that sounds shocking and it's going against.

The government, your government's narrative and against the, in this case, the Israeli government narrative, you should take notice because that means the penny is finally dropping. My opinion, way too late, way too late. It's not going to save any of those 377,000 dead or missing Palestinians. And the other study that says 85% of civilians, what do they

mean by civilians? So in their own way they framed it in in that sense, when I I would make an argument against that is a is a, is an armed militia in an occupied territory? Are they, is the militia part of the civilian population? Some people would define it as such, international law and the UN Charter defines it that way. But our governments in the UK, in the United States and in G7 countries or EU countries, many of them will say no armed

resistance in Gaza is terror. Are they terrorist organisations? We've prescribed them that's, I love that word prescribed. We prescribe them as terrorist organisations, but that goes against UN Charter. International law says every country has the right to an armed resistance struggle if they are being illegally occupied and according to multiple UN resolutions that is undoubtedly the case full. There's a massive body of international law that supports that.

But our government in the United States, in Britain and in European countries, they don't recognise that, that in their in their mind and in their foreign policy, their proscription of these groups, even though these groups have never attacked America, have never attacked Britain, have never done any Expeditionary terrorism at all. But because Israel says they're terrorists, they have lobbied hard on our governments to label

them as terrorists. And not just those groups in Gaza. There's many around the world that fall into the exact same category. Anybody that goes against the US foreign policy or against the dictats of the US State Department most likely will be labelled a terrorist organisation. They will be proscribed. OK, is that fair? Does that make any sense? Is that aligned with international law? And somebody say, well, there's no such thing as international law?

No, there's not, not here and not in America, but the other 90% of the globe actually follows it and has to follow it. But our governments don't because we're we're special. This is 2 tiers of geopolitics. That's the irony. That's the dichotomy. And that's where the debate needs to be. So I will just leave leave you with those two things to think about. And yeah, to my colleague Mike, thank you. Thank you, Patrick. OK, let's let's move on to

online safety. And I just want to everybody know what 4 Chan is. Yes, for for those that don't, 4 Chan is a, a discussion group, A forum based in the United States. It has quite a reputation for hosting pretty much any kind of content that possibly exists. Some of it's very unpleasant, but nonetheless it's there because apparently the United States has a constitutional

right to freedom of speech. But Ofcom, as we know, is the body in the United Kingdom that is required to implement the Online Safety Act and to act as the generator of government censorship in the UK. And Ofcom has decided that it is going to be a regulator of the entire Internet and on the

entire globe. So they have decided to open and they decided in June actually to open an investigation into 4 Chan. And I'm sure you won't be able to read that, but So what it says is we're initiating an investigation to determine whether the online discussion board, 4 Chan has failed or is currently failing to comply with its obligations under the Online Safety Act. Our investigation will focus on potential breaches in the following areas. Failure to respond to statutory

information requests. Remember, they're based in the United States. They're not here. There is no statutory information request that applies to them. Failure to complete and keep a record of suitable and sufficient illegal content risk assessment and non compliance with the safety duties about

illegal content. So that was in June and then ten days ago or so they issued a notice to 4 Chan saying Ofcom is satisfied that that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the provider has contravened its duties under Section 102 B of the Act to comply with two requests for information. We'll consider any representations provided in response.

Blahdy, blahdy blah. The Ofcom statement then doesn't go on to define sanctions, but 4 Chan's lawyers are saying that Ofcom has imposed a £20,000 fine with daily penalties after that. And I'm pretty sure that they'll be interest applied to any outstanding payments. That's what they're going to try anyway, but unfortunately for Ofcom, the 4 Chan lawyers have decided to reply with a statement which although it appears quite long on screen, then there ends with the word

off. So you can imagine what that said. Now, as I say 4 Chan controversial because people are able to post just about anything that they like. But of course, as we've seen with the issue of age assurance and so called pornography or pornography size, but I say so called because that's how it's being presented in the media, that age assurance and the requirement to identify yourself to websites.

Now it's just about pornography, when in fact it's about just about every social media platform that's out there at the moment. And of course, we've seen as a result this massive rise in people getting interested in VPNs, virtual private networks and the ability to to be relatively anonymous in your Internet usage, but also to appear to be coming upon these sites from a different country and therefore not subject to the age assurance requirements.

Other related news then is that TikTok has decided that they now just before we said, but this TikTok is the most censorious social media platform that we have ever come across. Kenny, if you speak to Kenny later, who's at the back of the room will tell you that we are regularly having TikTok channels shut down and he's regularly having to buy another SIM card, get another mobile phone number and open it in order to open another TikTok account. And but so they are the most

censorious. So you you perhaps understand that I'm not terribly sad that they've decided to fire or at least make redundant most of their moderation team. Hundreds of hundreds of jobs being lost in the UK just at the time that of course they're required to start implementing an even more rigorous regime as a result of the Online Safety Act. That's the good news.

The bad news is that the reason that they feel they can get rid of all these people is they're going to be increasingly relying on AI to make these decisions. OK, good news. Yeah. It's perhaps a a bit ironic then that they have decided to update their terms and conditions and their their policies in this area.

So this is safety and civility. And so that's as you can see at the top there in the pink area, that is basically saying that as from the 15th of September, the rules are changing and that the new rules are going to be implemented. So let's just have a look at the new rules here and let me just

find this here. So the ones that I want to highlight hate speech and hateful behaviour, we don't allow content that provokes hate or attacks people based on protected attributes like race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. OK, Violent and hateful organisations and individuals, we don't allow people or groups. Now, I'd, I'd advise you just to sit carefully in your chair because you may fall off as I, as I read this, violent and hateful organisations and individuals.

We don't allow people or groups that promote violence or hate, including violent extremists, criminal organisations or those responsible for mass violence, right. If we post anything to TikTok about Israel, it's taken down immediately, am I right, Kenny Right. OK, so that's that's why we haven't posted in TikTok for a while. It's it's taken down immediately. Any criticism of Israel? And yet in their terms and conditions, it says including those responsible for mass violence.

Is Israel not responsible for mass violence? OK, that's what's the next one. Then the next one is integrity and authority. Misinformation. We don't allow misinformation that could cause significant harm to individuals or society. Define it, please. Right. What is the definition? It's what they decide and it's completely arbitrary. And of course, this is a reflection of the legislation. It is undefined in the legislation. It's undefined in their terms and conditions.

They make it up as they go along. But more importantly, government, UK government is sending little hints. Maybe UK columns shouldn't be on this platform. Maybe 21st Century Wire shouldn't be on this platform, this kind of thing, right? So, so I just want to finish this segment then with a report that's appeared in the Register entitled. It's not a report, it's an opinion piece. I should say it's entitled. The Online Safety Act is about

censorship and not safety. Patrick, how many years have we been saying this? 7-8 years we've been saying this. The Online Safety Act was never about safety, never about the safety of children. It's only about censorship. But I just want to highlight a few of the things that this guy says.

Now this is a guy called Paige Collins, he's from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. This is a a campaign group based in the United States that that tries to make sure that the Internet is is open and free and non censorious and non

surveillance as possible. And he's saying here, implementation of the UK Online Safety Act is giving Internet users around the globe, including those in the United States moving to enact their own age verification laws, real time proof that such laws impinge on everyone's rights to speak, read and view freely. I'll just make the point that that's not my mistake in the text there that was just copied and pasted from his article. So he did say U.S. states.

So anyway, it goes on to say the new USA rules require all online services accessible in the UK, social media, search engines, music sites and adult content providers to enforce age cheques and keep children from saying quotes harmful content. Social media platforms Reddit, Blue Sky, Discord and X all introduced age cheques. Spotify are requiring users to submit face scans to a third party digital identity company, Yoda to access content labelled 18 Plus.

Now the point here is he again is falling into this trap of yes, OK, he's recognising that, that the legislation is pushing at the moment to verify that somebody is over the age of 18 before they get access to certain content. I'm not aware that anybody except the UK column has been pointing out that, yeah, that's fine, but nobody is doing anything to assure the age of an adult who's using a child orientated website and pretending to be a child.

Children are not required to age to verify that they are under 18 for those platforms and therefore adults are still able to access those platforms. And the numbers of cases that are reported to social media platforms of adults grooming children on, you know, platforms that are age appropriate for children is through the roof and nobody's looking at this. Ofcom is not really too concerned about it.

They're saying, well, age assurance is going to deal with it. It is not going to deal with it anyway. Page goes on to say the scope of so called harmful content is subjective and arbitrary and often sweeps up content that governments and CEOs of online services might not want, regardless of whether it's legal content or not. That is a fair comment. But you know, he's still not not grasping the full nettle here. And there's, there's much more to this act we've got to

remember. So far we've only had two aspects of the Online Safety Act actually published by Ofcom that is so called illegal harms, again, not fully defined, and the age assurance thing. The age assurance thing is the thing which has caused this to happen. It is that is the the aspect of the act that has caused that to happen. But these are only two of a wide ranging and really unpleasantly draconian act. And there will be more to come on this.

But again, just to reiterate, we need this number to be around the 2,000,000 mark as as a goal. Because once we start getting it to that level, then more and more people are starting to get some kind of oversight of what this is. And we need to start talking about the other aspects of it that are coming. And one that I just want to briefly mention once again before I finish is this issue of protecting so called journalistic content from

recognised news publishers. And that is the mainstream media mainly that's who they have in mind for this. So that most people who are commenting social media can have their content arbitrarily removed. But the mainstream media, the aim of the ACT is to make sure the mainstream media that their content is retained and is there for everybody. So, so that's that's where I want to leave that for today. Now add break. Who wants to do the ad? Do you want to do the ad break

chart? No, OK, I'm doing the ad break. OK. For everybody that's watching on Monday, if you're not AUK column member, please do join us. We do need your financial support. Thank you to everybody that is supporting us this way. If you look on the UK column, new website front page, there's a nice big button there for you to press which will show you all

the various options. And the only other ad that I want to mention today is the York event coming on the 18th of October. It's going to be a fantastic event. Lots of people have bought tickets already. They're running out fast. Andrew Wakefield is going to be speaking to it. And if anybody is joining us for that, everybody either online or in person will get access to Andrew Wakefield's film Protocol 7. Tess Laurie is also joining us for that. And we'll be announcing more

speakers in the coming week. Brian, you're next. Well, it's a pleasure to see a live audience because normally we look at a a camera screen or a computer screen and that's the audience and I'm talking to a black screen. So it's great to see faces. Now we've done a lot of geopolitical stuff. We've done a lot on law and legislation, and the message in today's news has overwhelmingly been something is closing in on our society.

It's designed to silence us. It's designed to restrict what we can do. It's designed to change us in all sorts of different ways. But I just want to bring in another layer, hopefully, which of these is going to do it. I seem to have this problem when I there we are. OK, It's gone now. Little things make a big difference. So this is an email that came in to me a couple of days ago and it just said, dear Brian, the church is trying to destroy itself.

There can be no doubt. Please do as you wish with the information below. And that came from Auk column supporter in Cornwall. Now I knew the context of this because unknown to quite a few people, there is a massive attack going on at the moment against not only Christianity but churches, and this is happening all across the country. It's very pernicious.

Many people can't see it, except the people who are still active in the Church of England and are still going to their local church because they are seeing things happening. Now, one of the groups that set itself up in Cornwall is called Save the Parish. And this is just a local group and they are fighting. They are really trying to fight. And what are they seeing happen? Well, they're seeing the Church of England deciding that basically they can't afford

vicars. Church of England doesn't have any money. We'll challenge that a bit, a little bit later in this news segment. But, and so what's going to happen is that vicars are going to retire, leaving fewer vicars. And then the vicars that remain are going to be asked to look after more than one church, 2 churches, three churches, 4 churches, 6 churches. And when you look at this plan of action, of course, it's

totally untenable. It's impossible for one vicar to do the proper job of not only looking after the church and running Christianity in his his, his or her parish, but also the pastoral care, getting round and visiting people in need and doing things which perhaps good Christians should be doing. So this is a a created protest group in Cornwall and they've

been starting to push back now. I was given a little heads up that this man is retired Admiral called Sir James, Sir James Burnell Nugent and he he was former commander in Chief fleet. So this is a man of some of some substance. He has actually been involved with this group challenging what

the Church of England is doing. And I take a lot of comfort for this because very often, and I've been very frustrated in the past that we've never seen senior military officers having the guts to stand up and be counted on a number of issues. But here, very quietly, this man has been standing up to challenge what's been happening with the church. This is a little bit of of his CV, if you like, in relation to

this. So he's been a church warden and he's been a member of the Bishops, Diocesan Council, the Deanery Synod and the local worship leader. And his objective at the moment is to persuade the Church of England in its various forms to place parishes higher in their priorities rather than seeing them a source of resources. Now that's very polite language, and I'd expect nothing less from a senior officer because they will always go for the polite

language. I can read through this and say this man is actually starting to wake up and he's seeing something. So this is a bit more. Has that changed? Yeah, what he said here is if you have experience of being in a large benefits with few clergy where there's limited pastoral care and much reduced regular Sunday services, especially Holy Communion, then please make a representation explaining why these large groupings do not

work. That's the the amount of the grouping up of churches he's talking about. Then he goes on to say there's a growing body of evidence that these amalgamations lead to quote a doom loop of reducing church attendance, decline in pastoral care and deteriorating finances. And if this machine will work for me, let's bring this in. This is a Christian saying. I can see doom, death, destruction coming into the

church system. I am looking at the church system itself, the Christian Church being undermined and destroyed and who is doing it? The Church of England itself, the highest authorities in the Church of England. So the final part of what he what he states publicly in this group is that they failed to deliver the Church of England strap line of a Christian presence in every community.

So instead of the Christian Church trying to expand and win over people and convince people that perhaps in faith and the Christian faith there's something to be gained, they are looking at the policies coming from the top of the Church of England are actually destroying the very church and faith system itself. He says that many diocese, including Truro, are ignoring this evidence and pressing on with large parish groupings of churches.

If you can add evidence of your own experience that these large groupings do not work, it would be extremely helpful to any parish unhappily facing the prospect of a merger, particularly those in the Lizard Peninsula.

Now if you think this is localised to Cornwall, it's absolutely not because this is centralised Church of England policy which is happening across UK and there's been some disastrous examples of how this policy has been unfolded in the Midlands, which is absolutely devastated the remaining Church for communities. So how can we show what's really

happening? Well the UK column about a year ago now focused in on this man who was at the time the Bishop of Truro. And it was his policies that was bringing in this grouping up of churches, getting rid of vicars and increasingly increasing the number of staff who had nothing to do with faith or pastoral care. And we were very taken with this image because it was the image used in a talk that he gave over what he was trying to achieve.

But the words were there will be no return to the way things were. So not only is the church destroying itself from the inside, there's the warning. Don't even think that you are going to do something to stop it because there's no way back now. What he didn't anticipate was that in Cornwall at least a group of people would stand up

and say no, we're fighting back. And as a result, when he left his post as Bishop to move on to a a new, a new site, I think he went to Winchester, he went under a very big black cloud and his reputation was in a bad place. And what am I talking about here? Really, this is people power in action. So if we look at him, what he said, Bishop Philip has said in a publicly available, sorry, publicly available video, there will be no going back. The change will take place.

Things are not to remain the same. And he claims to be guided in this destruction of the Christian Church by God. This is fantastic, absolutely incredible arrogance. He claims to be guided in this by God in response to the dire financial shortages in the county's bishopric, the Diocese of Truro. This is another lie because the Church of England is not short of money. It's just where it chooses to

use money. All the while, he's being assisted by external advisors and facilitators who must be paid money sucked away from pastoral care to a big corporate machine. Truro diocese already employs 38 permanent staff compared to 64 clergy. So the Church of England is becoming a corporation, a corporate body which is destroying the faith which is supposed to be promoting. And this is a very big attack on

what remains of our culture. And lastly, it says here it spends 30, sorry, 350,000 lbs annually on net zero climate change work. Never mind supporting the poor, the ill, the sick, the suffering. We're going to get into climate change, right? This is deliberate policy. The beast is in the church and it wants to destroy it and it wants to destroy Christianity. Now UK Column has reported this is one of the articles you can find on the website Welbeys Church of England 2021.

Trillions for guy. Agreed, but peanuts for the peasants. Why do we, why did we use trillions? Well, because when you get into what is known as the Church of England's Transition Pathway Initiative, in the centre of the description of what it's about, this was Wellby, Archbishop of Canterbury at the time, boasting that he was interacting with global bankers and investors, huge hedge hedge funds, and that they had already raised 10.1 trillion in order to progress climate change.

So the head of the Church of England was not doing anything to repair the roofs of the churches. He was not doing anything to pay the wages of the vicars. He was doing nothing to help the poor and the needy, but supposedly as a Christian he was interfacing with those bankers like Christine Lagarde for example, and they had already raised 10.1 trillion. Right now two things are going on here. They want to destroy the Christian Church. I'll just bring in some more

articles from UK column. Let's put them up on the screen. So this is the one where we were talking about what was happening with Truro and what was taking in place in Cornwall. If I bring up the second one here, this was Christians in Cornwall speaking out and I was able to do an anonymous interview with somebody in Cornwall who was prepared to talk about what was happening in the church. Why was it anonymous? Because they are frightened of the backlash from within the church.

And indeed, the Bishop of Truro had built himself up a reputation that people who went to him to remonstrate against these packaging up of the churches, He was very abrupt, abusive, particularly to women in the discussions. And he was incredibly arrogant. And so it took somebody to come and see me to do an interview anonymously. Now Charles is Charles Mallett has also been digging into what's been happening with the church. And of course, here he's flagging up the no prayer laws.

And I'd say to you, just think about this. What is the state frightened of? It's frightened of you speaking your mind. It's frightened of you doing what you think is right, but it is frightened of prayer. There's a reason for this. When I get the opportunity to talk to you at the end of the day, we'll discuss it a bit more, but that's another one of the articles up on the website. We've also got another one there where's where will be no prayer zones, a challenge to the churches.

And finally this one back to where we started, which is about well be and the fact that he can raise 10.1 trillion for climate change, but he can't solve the problems inside the Church of England. If I sum this up, this is an immense attack on culture in this country. As we came here, Ben and I drove through a really lovely little village, can't remember the name, but it was a postcard with a beautiful church. I would guess Norman, I may be

wrong. You might not be a churchgoer, but you can appreciate the architecture and beauty of the churches in this country. This is all to be destroyed, as is any real engagement with faith, because they regard people of faith as being too strong to stand up against these draconian laws, which the start of the UK column News has talked about. So I'm going to end there. And I'm going to say it's beautiful to see your faces

instead of that camera. We've got more time today, so today, happily, we'll be able to discuss some more of the subject matter, perhaps in extra time, but also at the end of the day. Thank you. Thank you, Brian. And you know, we criticised the British government for not defining terms in legislation, but I did notice that when you were talking about Welby and Lagarde, you left the term interfaced undefined. I'll leave you to think about that now, Diane. Hello everyone, thanks Mike.

Can I go back to the outbreak for just a moment please? Just to let everyone know, the interview going out on Tuesday is Louise Payton. She is a a former NHS nurse, trained in the NHS, still is a nurse. However, she has been deemed non compliant by the NHS since 2001 because she refused taking jabs far back as 25 years. So she has an amazing story to tell about her career and her

new role as a holistic healer. And I met her at the Thetford Truth and Freedom Festival that I went to you a few weeks ago. So please join us Tuesday at 1:00 or streaming afterward. I have some different topics I'm going to talk about today that relate mostly to libraries and education as you might expect from me. If you watch UK, call them regularly. I do first have a bit of breaking news that I do not have in the slides.

For those of you who have been following the Fernethi Residential School case that we've been following since what about over three years now. Colin Smith MSP who was the the the MSP who has led the the petition for their their fight

to justice. These were young girls at the time who were badly abused and always possible as young girls from Glasgow at Fernethi Residential School from approximately 1960 to 1991. Colin Smith got this all the way to the debate on the floor of the Scottish Parliament like I

believe it was last month. It was just announced this week by the BBC and other mainstream outlets that Colin Smith, who is who was a member of the Labor Party until this week, has been suspended from Labour for possession of indecent images of children. And he's the one who's been fighting for the sexual abuse of these girls that happened for

all of this time. So I just want you to be aware that even if we think that it's somebody that seems trustworthy, we have to watch everyone because chances are they might not be. So what I want to talk to you today about specifically in today's news is this was a tweet that I saw that actually UK Column Viewer shared with me a

few days ago. This is a man called Luke Glowacki. He is a PhD from end anthropology from America. He is an anthropologist at Boston University. He's done some really amazing work. I believe he's still rising up in his career. He's currently an assistant professor, but over the years he's been doing a lot of work in Ethiopia in in truly disadvantaged areas and trying to make things truly better for people in that part of the world. This is just part of his CV

thing. You know, he was educated at from Harvard. He's working at Penn State University, Boston University, some of the top universities, as we call the Ivy League schools in America for the last several years. And he did his training there. So here's here he is out in the field in Ethiopia, truly making connections with people in the field, trying to understand how to create relationships. And really, I, I looked into

what he's done quite a bit. And as a, you know, as a cancelled academic myself, I, I do truly respect his work. And I can't say that for a lot of academics anymore in the field. So what happened to him this week? He shared this tweet. It's had over 600,000 views and thousands of shares.

He, as you all know, or you know if you watch me at all, I'm a cancelled librarian as well as a cancelled academic for trying to speak out in favour of children and against ideology taking over the university libraries in this country and throughout the West. He shared this information saying that he, his university librarian, so again at Boston University, just reached out to faculty members asking us to sign a quote citation justice

pledge. So now we don't just have social justice, we don't just have climate justice. We now have citations justice, right? So what are citations? Just as a reminder as UK columns librarian, that when you write a paper, you have to put your citations at the end, just as we do in show notes, right? Those are citations to link back to the original sources that we used. So now we have to have citation

justice. And so he's shared photos of all this and he, I'll show this to you in just a minute. He said I was quiet for years in the face of Allison Anity, looking for a job, didn't have tenure, etcetera. But after seeing how our universities have been rocked, if we are to have any hope of fixing them, we have to speak up more, much more. Let's give Doctor Luke a round of applause, please. It takes a lot to speak out.

So the citation Justice pledge, which his faculty was asked to sign up for, I'll just, I'll just share a bit of it. They have a big impact apparently on scholars and their successes. Citation Justice allows us to use the power of citations to address historical and continuing under citation of certain groups by being intentional with our citation practises.

This fall, your Librarian is launching A Citation Justice Pledge to encourage all of us at Boston University to commit to intentionally uplifting and centering the scholarship of individuals who, because of our systems and the legacy of historic system, which means Western universities, even though they're in the West as I'll be here, have not been centred in publishing and research.

This includes authors who are Black, Indigenous, persons of colour, of varied abilities and part of the two SL, GB, TQIA Plus community. Can't say that after a beer. Can you commit to being intentional with your citations this semester? By signing up, you could receive a sticker. Wow. One person will win a Boston University Libraries tote bag, mug and T shirt. Wow, I'm excited. So we go on into a little bit more of what this means.

We need to recognise what sources we cite are a reflection of our own identity and positionality and understanding our own identity and bias, we can seek to integrate other perspectives. Nick was on and on basically. So who are you citing? So for those of you who don't know the story of what happened to me, this, this tide, This is why I'm so passionate about this.

The first thing that started the route to my cancellation as a librarian and as an academic was because I spoke out at a panel session about whether or not the act of citing, referencing was actually a racist and oppressive practise. And I said no, you just have to cite the thing so people can find the thing, right? No, that was not the case. I got a letter saying I violated the conference code of conduct and two years later I'm not working full time for UK.

Call them. So it all worked out in the end. So anyways, Doctor Luke replied to the librarian, he said thank you for your email and I'm very glad to know that we have these resources available. Thank you because she listed all these resources to find citations that are from these different communities, he said. I'm writing because of your encouragement that we signed a pledge for citation justice. I know citation is a citation justice.

Sorry, not citations. It's a relatively new effort, but it's one that many, including myself, find belittling and discriminatory. Further, I don't think asking faculty to sign a pledge has any place in an email introducing yourself and your services to faculty. I'm disappointed that this is how the library has decided to spend its time and resources. I'm happy to discuss more with you or any of the faculty on this list.

Now, it's quite possible that he will be looking for an alternative news outlet to work for in a couple of years after he sent this back to the librarian. But I just want to show you, like how infiltrated universities and libraries have become, which goes throughout all of the different institutions that we talked about at UK column, of course, because here you see the

replies. Anytime you see someone on X who has a blue sky profile, you know, to watch out for that person because they're the ones that are putting all this into place. And so she was basically questioning him, saying, so are you basically all these people calling him the discriminatory bigot? Even though, as I said in the beginning, he does his field work in Ethiopia and has done so for years, He's now bigoted.

Now I'd like to see how these people are spending years in Ethiopia living in the field helping those communities. But he's the one who's the racist bigot, right? So here's what we're supposed to be doing. What is citation justice? I didn't know I had to look it up. Cite black women.

It is the site of active citing authors based on identity, although they wrote identify as they had a typo to uplift marginalised voices with the knowledge that citation is used as a form of power in a patriarchal society based on white supremacy. Again, this is what I was counselled over. The University of Birmingham says that Citation Justice is using the power of citations to address the historical and persistent under citation of certain groups by changing citation practises.

As Preena Vaya Gopal puts it, a largely white or largely male curriculum is not politically incorrect and is often believed, but intellectually unsound. So all of you straight mind white men out there, you're intellectually unsound, including all my colleagues up here today, guys. Monocultures do not produce good thinking and are in themselves a lethal form of unmarked, narrow identity politics. So this woman, Professor Gopal that they cited, that's her

work. She's professor in the Faculty of English at the University of Cambridge, and she talks a lot about all these issues. She wrote a very long article in 2021 called on decolonization, and the university basically saying that everything needed to be decolonized, which of course means destroyed, destroying Western culture, destroying

Western heritage. Everything that the University of Cambridge has held for hundreds of years needs to be put aside for things that are not British, essentially, right? Or English or Scottish or whatever you want to say. So here's some more recent articles from other people talking about the issues of citation bias and diversity.

That we are not being diverse, we are not being proper academics if we are not including a range of sources and that we are being biassed if we are using sources that come from the own country where we are choosing to work and educate people. Now we have to have a citation diversity statement as well. So we have to put, well I don't have to anymore because I'm free of the system.

Thankfully we are, we are supposed to now if we are academics put a statement and do a search and determine the percentage of women, the percentage of non binary, the percentage of etcetera that we have cited. And they've got a specific statement here in this one paper that I chose this from our references contain 30% woman first name. They're basing on names, which is a lot of assumptions, right? Woman last name 11% man stroke woman, 15% woman stroke man and 40% man stroke man.

This method is limited in that names, pronouns, and social media profiles used to construct the database may not in every case be indicative of gender identity. And B cannot account for intersex done by new or transgender people. We look forward to future work that could help us to better understand how to support equitable practises in science. The diversity conclusion statement. So these are just some, this is from the journal. You see the rainbow cake.

You anybody want a slice of the rainbow cake? So this is from one of those journals saying this is how we have talked about inclusion and diversity from a particular journal. That last one was from a certain paper. So we're seeing this everywhere. However, it's not very inclusive that in order to view that paper, you have to pay £48 just to download the PDF. That's not very inclusive and diverse to me. Or if you want to purchase the entire issue, it's 485 lbs.

So Nature have used bioengineering, which is that I, I did a report on UK column news on Monday about Nature, Springer Nature, which is one of the biggest academic publishing areas in the world companies. And this is saying we encourage citation diversity statements to put those into their articles. So again, we're seeing this all over and we're here. We're talking about first basing it on 1st and last names, looking at pronouns, self attested race or ethnicity on

professional websites. So of course if I were to identify as a black man, you couldn't tell that without asking me. So that may create some inaccuracies and that they have these tools that they've that they've started promoting where you can actually download people's names of the citations that you have created to try to predict whether or not they are male or female or, or black or,

or British or whatever they are. So now we're getting really technical about it and nature portfolio once again, here's the more information about the citations. And this is what I'm going to be talking about at 3:00, if you're around, is the Sustainable Development Goals, because what they're saying is that citation diversity relates to Sustainable Development Goal 5, gender equality. So if you want to hear more about my talk at 3:00, it's called How to How to be a Globalist Librarian.

Please join me then or otherwise later if you're at home. Thanks very much. Thank you, Dan. We'll just mention that Diane left home at 3:00 this morning to get here for this. So thank you, Dan, very much. And finally, let me welcome Ben. And, well, we're talking about design councils. Good afternoon. I'm going to define some terms. Firstly, justice the the maintenance or administration of what is just and morally correct. You don't need to play around

with that too much. And people who are playing around with words like justice are not interested in justice, they're interested in the opposite. And extracting revenge a lot of the time for perceived slights and things that may have or may not have happened through history. It's a very dangerous game that

they're playing, unfortunately. And that Lady from Cambridge, I think I heard recently that Cambridge University have said that just the very idea that there is a distinct Anglo Saxon ethnicity is itself racist essentially, you know, so they're trying to destroy the culture, they're trying to destroy the physical infrastructure of the church, which has been taken over by the beast.

And actually I'm going to talk a bit about the beast because whether I realised it or not, for most of my adult life, I chose to and was trained to serve the beast system, specifically the right wing of the beast system, also known as international capital, with the left wing being global

governance. And what I'm going to take you through now in a slightly technical and perhaps autistic way, is how international capital and global governance are harnessing the generative power of humanity in order to affect the transformation of the global system, right. And I'm going to explain where those tools came from that they

that they're using to do that. And a really good place to start is the Design Council, which is a, a British organisation started in 1944 by 33rd degree Freemason Winston Churchill to look at options for the reconstruction of the country economically, politically, socially in the wake of the Second World War. Right. So this is where that organisation came from. And earlier this year they issued this framework. This is the doubled Blimey, the double diamond.

It's what they call it. And to cut a Long story short, this is about setting challenges in order to deliver outcomes and getting creative teams to redesign the system. So what this is about, it's about telling people what we need to happen and then unlocking their creative potential to get them to build that thing for you, right? That's how global governance gets things to happen around the system everywhere on Earth, right? So I've already mentioned that I'm going to get quite specific

about terms, right? So I talked about international capital, but the capital doesn't just mean money. It's part of the equation. The way I think about it is the coordination of knowledge, assets and capabilities for the purpose of creating and extracting value, right? And we create and create value for and extract value from citizens. And citizens are people owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalisation to the protections or privileges of a nation or state.

As all of us, we're all citizens of somewhere, OK. And capital is coordinated by the chief is an individual leading coordination of knowledge, effort and ability and assets to deliver value to citizens, to deliver value to and extract value from. Actually, as I'll get into quite importantly. And the chief runs an entity, it's a discrete operating unit in the system. And our system is divided into 3 parts.

We have the public, private in the third sector, the charity sector also previously in centuries part known as the church, right? But that's kind of been done away with. We then had charities. We've now got something called civil society, right? So there's been a transformation that's happened over decades

there that we can see. And the discreet operating unit, the entity can be tiny, could be a little organisation, it could be the health hub up there, that's a discreet operating unit where I had some breakfast earlier on. It could be a big international corporation like Google. It could be the UN, right, top to bottom. They all have someone leading them. That's the chief, importantly. And what's the chief doing? He's trying to engage in a transaction with the citizen.

They're trying to deliver value to and extract value from the citizens. So to go back to the example of the health hub earlier, I went in there and I said, can I have a cup of tea, please? And they delivered that value to me and they gave me a cup of tea. And in exchange for that, I gave them one of these nice tokens that someone gave me when I got here. Yeah. So that was the value exchange. They gave me a cup of tea, I gave them something back.

And that's actually how it's supposed to work. Like if you've got a healthy system that's working properly, then capital delivers value to the citizen, citizen gives some value back, and then there's some leftover afterwards and capital gets to keep that. And then essentially it's how the system operates, Right. But they're, they're playing around with it and doing all sorts of bad things. I haven't got time to go into now. But I mean, if you watch the UK column on a weekly basis, then

you'll hear about those things. And essentially what what what should be happening is that when this transaction takes place, capital and citizen, the chief and the citizen enter into a state of symbiosis with each other. You know, so this is mutual dependency essentially, because I need as a citizen, the health hub as capital to give me a cup of tea and they need me to give them something back, right?

I mean, it should have a symbiotic, mutually beneficial, mutually respectful relationship with each other. A lot of the problems that we got right now are to do with this being degraded. So capital isn't behaving in a symbiotic fashion with the citizen, is behaving in an abusive and an extractive in fashion with the citizen. That's a lot of what we're experiencing.

Yeah. And, and, and, and a lot of the organisations that I was working for, as I, as I came to realise, are the ones that are the the most responsible for that actually now in this framework, which is something I've developed myself by the way. But this just kind of helps me explain a bit about my world view and how I look at the look at the world. We then have things that are out and in so out there visible to the citizen.

So again, to go back to the cafe, this is the seating area where we can all go and sit down and there's something to eat. And that's the kitchen. Yeah, out in. And also, these are the things that are externally visible to and experienced by the citizen. And these are the things that are invisible and inside and hidden away. And this is where things get interesting, right? Because the international capital and global governance are particularly playing around with this bit, the internal.

And this also maps quite neatly to the kind of left brain, right brain idea. Because the value that you deliver to the citizen is expressive and experiential and the way that you do it is linear and predictable and scientific. And I won't read all of this stuff out, but this actually links to the thoughts of Ian Gilchrist. So there's probably some people here who've been reading in the Gilchrist. He's become quite prominent

recently, right? So this idea of left and right brain, analytical and creative, it's not strictly art and science, right? Those two things are linked to each other. And this bit here, top right, the, the expressive, external, outward facing, valuable thing that can be delivered to the citizen is what I call magic. It's about creativity, it's about stories, it's about experiences, it's about the value that we deliver.

And if you look at an organisation like Google, so we've talked about the, the, the health hub, let's put it a kind of big international corporation level, this is the magic that they deliver. And you may or may not like this, right? But this is actually, if you think about it in a historical context, astonishing, Yeah, that something like this exists. They have these stores, they have this technology that they communicate. They're offered to us. They can arrest our attention

through visual creativity. They can articulate all of the different complexities of the proposition that they can actually do, like what value they can actually deliver to us these incredible devices, you know, which themselves or you show that to someone from 100 years ago, they wouldn't believe that it existed, right? You know, it is indistinguishable from magic in a sense, right? So this is the the front end stuff that we're talking that the the corporations think about.

And then the internal stuff is what I call money, logic, process, technology, how value is delivered, the stuff that goes on behind the scenes. This is Google's European headquarters in in Kings Cross. There's a fascinating stuff going on in Kings Cross, by the way. They're basically built a completely new city around King's Cross in Houston and Camden.

And it's it's like the old city's been pushed to the side and this new global, international corporate thing has just been layered in over the top of it. We've got a friend who's been doing some research on this. It's really interesting to look at, probably share more of that over the next couple of months. And then this is what happens

behind the scenes. So it's about people, of course, in offices playing computer games because like it's a lot of what you see in these tech companies, right? Like it's work, but it's also kind of not work as well. You know, it's, you know, this, they're not getting their hands

dirty, let's put it like that. And then also crucially for organisations like this, and increasingly so, it's about this hardware, physical infrastructure, data centres, algorithms and the the people are becoming less of a component of the system, right? And those two things together are how I and actually, frankly, how they might use slightly

different language. But this is how international capital, global governance, people at the top level of the system think about things, think about magic, think about money. You could also call that creativity and commerce. This is also in some sense the feminine and the masculine. Yeah. And actually from the Masonic sense, this is the compass and the square. Importantly, I mentioned Churchill earlier, right?

It's very similar stuff. And when you get into the top level of those organisations, what they do is they bring these things together because if you understand the way our, our education system is, is built, people are either creative or they're analytical, right? We get sort of hired off in different directions quite early in our education.

That's deliberate because they don't want us being able to bring those two things together effectively unlocking our generative potential ourselves, right? Really importantly. And the bit in the middle ties it all together to bring it back to design.

Is, is design, right? So actually, when you want to think about how to take a structured approach to complex problem solving and organisational transformation, which is what they are attempting to affect globally across every single area of the system, from the the top biggest international corporations to the smallest companies through things like the B the B Corp scheme. Then you use design to do that. And this framework has been around for quite a while, probably 20 years in, in, in,

in, in this form. So this double diamonds been around for quite a long time. But earlier this year they introduced an expanded version, which crucially includes the word stakeholders, which you didn't before, right? So you can see how they're trying to engineer a situation where stakeholders, an additional layer of participants in this generative process need to be involved.

And also the idea of collaboration, Co creation, creating things together, IE with them, in order to align to the challenges that they're setting in order to unlock the outcomes that they're looking for. And who's behind the design council these days? Bunch of people essentially representing the combined interests of the United Nations and the World Economic Forum in order to bring those two things back together. Money and power. Magic. And what was it? Magic and money, creativity and

commerce. The feminine and the masculine, the compass and the square at the top level in order to bring forth that change that they're trying to unlock across the global system. Thank you. Thank you, Ben. And that brings us to the end of today's UK Column News. Thank you to everybody that's joined us. Thank you to everybody that's taken part. We will have a 5 minute break and then we'll be starting UK Column News Extra. So stick around for that. We'll be back in 5 minutes. Thank you.