UK Column News - 27th August 2025

Good afternoon. It's just gone 1:00 on Wednesday the 27th of August 2025. Welcome to UK column News. I'm your host, Charles Mallett and I'm joined in the studio today by Mike Robinson. Welcome to the programme, Mike.

Pleasure, Charles. Good and we have our live links, Sandy Adams from Somerset. Now in today's programme we'll be looking at the relationship between the Online Safety Act and digital identity, a closer dive into the surveillance state as it is, how the 2030 Agenda is wielded as a control mechanism and a well, I suppose another look at the very questionable decisions being made in the energy sector as well as the relationship between so called public health propaganda and

celebrity. But we are going to get started today with the issue of deportation, and the past fortnight has seen the issue of mass deportation as being the key political and social battleground, with opportunists crawling out of the woodwork at every turn.

Just yesterday, Nigel Farage and Zia Youssef took to the stage to give speeches under what they're calling Operation Restoring Justice, including saying that they would do away with not just the European Convention on Human Rights but also the Human Rights Act 1998. Now they in fairness then, they did take a a large number of questions from the press, which they answered in varying degrees of well, they were varyingly convincing, let's say to be perhaps generous to them.

There seem to be exceptions to every rule when they were actually pushed, especially concerning the rights of Afghanistan residents to remain. Farage qualifying saying that yes, absolutely those who fought with the Brits and Americans. Which of course is slightly contradictory considering that the most recent statistics show that Afghans are among the greatest numbers of those that he is suggesting that he would

deport in the 1st place. It's all a bit contradictory and confusing, but nonetheless, everybody is weighing in. Yvette Cooper, of course, saying that she will overhaul the system after inheriting. She's very clear to to make the point that she's inherited the problem. And from the government statement, she's promising to end hotel use under some of the most significant changes to the

asylum system in decades. And she concedes that whilst there is a backlog of 106,000 cases waiting to be heard, but wait times are increasing, with an average wait time of 53 weeks. Now, just like Nigel Farage, the government appears to have no real idea of how it's going to actually achieve any of this. It's a point of political expediency at the moment. And just to confirm what I mean by that, just have a quick listen to what Dan Dan Jarvis

said to the BBC recently. No commentators on this particular issue think that hotels are the appropriate setting. No, no, I think, I think you made that point falsely. So what is the appropriate setting? You are a minister from the Home Office? Yeah. So. The appropriate setting will be a range of other different sort of sets of arrangements. Can you name some? Parts of the country, well we, we are working through the options of what they might look we. Had a yeah.

We've had a year and during that time we've returned 35,000 people who didn't have a right to be here and we've increased asylum decision making by 116%. You you you have to do more than one figure. You know this is a. Issue a live issue now. We've had somebody on the programme this morning saying the first council, Broxburn Council, saying they're going to seek legal advice, whether they can now do the same. This problem's going to get bigger. It's a headache for your

government. Could you at least answer just so specifically? If it's not hotels as security minister, what is it? It won't be hotels because of the commitment that we've made and therefore it will have to be a range of other more appropriate accommodation. Dan Jarvis there taking the hit for the government. In fairness, the BBC, the the correct question is being asked and there's an absolute failure to answer it.

Now. The the catalyst for all of this coming into the news has been the High Court ruling on the case brought by Epping Forest District Council and on their website Chris Whitbread, the leader of the council has written, and this I should remind you, concerns the Bell Hotel. He's written, so far as the council is aware, there is no criminal record checking of individuals who might only have been in the country a matter of days before being housed at the hotel.

The use by the Home Office of the premises for asylum seekers poses a clear risk of further escalating community tensions already at a high and the risk of irreparable harm to the local community. Then he says we are frustrated that the Home Office continues not to listen. And then he explains how planning permission is being brought to bear. He says it is not in use as a hotel and it doesn't function as a hotel. As I said, this is the Bell Hotel.

The establishment of a centre to accommodate asylum seekers is not appropriate in planning terms. Asylum seekers have been at the Bell Hotel since early April this year, but the council has only just been moved to act by the protest. So it would appear that direct action can yield results, but there is nuance in how they're interpreted. Now Mr Justice Eyre, in summing up at the High Court, makes a few important things clear. He take he takes heed of the planning issue but completely

dismisses all other concerns. And This is why the sorry. It is this precedent which should be considered, especially since so many other councils are proposing similar action now. Eyre said the questions to be answered are whether there has been a change in the use of the bell and if there has, whether that change is material in planning terms.

He then goes on to say that the claimant has submitted that there was a risk of irredeemable harm, that prolonged continuation of the use of the bell could result in community tensions which would not heal. That amounted essentially to speculation and I take no account of it. And then he said, the defendant contends that the current application has been triggered by unlawful activity to which no weight should be attached and by unjustified speculation.

I have explained above the limited weight to be given to the fear of crime and the consequences of the reactions, both lawful and unlawful, to the use of the bell. So whilst this may be held as a victory, as I say for direct action, it's very much qualified by the manner in which the legal system has actually addressed it and in fact the specific concerns raised have very much not been addressed.

More than that, in listening to what Air said, they've actually been substantively dismissed, which shows both the government and the judiciary which refuses to respond to the issue at hand. Now whilst there is no doubt that Community Action has prompted the Council to act, though one may ask what was right about the planning situation back in April, since when they've failed to do anything now, as the Jarvis interview demonstrates, it further begs the question of

what now? And of course, is there the potential for even less suitable accommodation being found for young men who are already here? So the public imagination in relation to this has been captured and as you may be aware, in what appears to be an organic campaign to fly the flags of Saint George and of the Union all over the place. And this is well underway, well supported. But I would say that we would do well to consider how the use of flags has been weaponized in recent years.

And here are just some of those which have split communities right down in the middle. And if you're only listening, I've shown the NHS rainbow, Black Lives Matter, Pride, Progress and the Palestinian flag, of course, before the Union Flag and the Cross of Saint George. Now they're described as an initiative of national fervour

and patriotism. There is huge potential for divisive action and serious manipulation of the emotions of the population and, as this video shows, running silently in the background, the aggressive removal of Palestinian flags in order that they be seen to be replaced with British ones.

So the very public order issue that Nigel Farage has been speaking about can absolutely be triggered by the conflation of a sense of national pride with apparent anger at communities which are perceived to be not British. Now also, just as the case, just as was the case in the wake of Southport, this will pit people against the police rather than against those manipulating the system in the 1st place. And here's an example of exactly that taking effect.

Hey, they're throwing digs. Hey, he's going up that that flag is going to the top of that lamp post. Go on. He's getting up here. He's going. He's got up. Yay, yay. Go on, Bellai. Fucking running the soulful boys. Go on, Bellai. Yeah. My apologies, I think there was a certain amount of colourful language in the background there, but it just illustrates that this is already a situation of aggro with the police.

And here we have Robert Jenrick committing criminal damage, of course, as he perhaps unwittingly Stokes racial tensions here, hanging the Union flag on a lamppost. Now whilst he might be considered at best naive, there's no doubt that others know exactly what they're doing. And the reason I describe it in this way is that the flag campaign is called Operation Raise the Colours and has been started, or at least claimed to be by this man Andy Saxon as you

see in the top left. He's supported by Urban Scoop, a pro Israel and very much anti Islam film production company. And they're here promoting a campaign to save Tommy, Tommy Robinson of course with Rebel News and known Zionist affiliated organisation. So some of the response to this campaign has been alive to the dangers of the manipulation and the unfortunate likelihood of this demonising in particular anyone perceived as Muslim or Asian.

This tweet there saying this is raise the colours in practise. It's not pride, not heritage, it's intimidation, racism and hatred dressed up as patriotism. And this video, in effect, proves the point that this person is trying to make. It's not a country. Yeah, for your future, for your. Future. Sweetheart, all these ragged Palestinians. Get up.

It's very easy to see how a campaign that may be perceived by many as a as a noble and and indeed fairly straightforward campaign could actually very easily be subverted. Now, Urban Scoop further promotes the idea that the Quran is in fact condoning acts of violence. And it's at this point that I would cite David Miller's most recent article on the UK column website. And I am pleased to say that David joins us on the news

programme today now. So David, welcome to UK Column News. Just to get started with what I've just said in mind in a way in in the way in which Islam may be regarded by some and indeed how it's been manipulated on the shores. If you could just tell us a little bit about your article please.

Well, I mean, the article is an in depth investigation based on leaked internal government documents, which tries to look at the way in which the British government, in particular the Home Office and its Homeland Security Group, which is an intelligence agency within the Home Office, has engaged in effectively astroturfing a whole number of different Muslim groups as part of their effort to effectively domesticate Islam and especially to respond to the threat which they perceived as

coming from Islam. After the success or the the the the size of the anti Iraq war demonstrations in 2002 and three and four. So the government's response to that was to try and say, well, we want to change Islam.

Islam shouldn't be engaged in, Muslim shouldn't be engaged in criticising government or foreign policy, especially over the war in Iraq, but also in relation to the question of Palestine. And so that the, the reason that they've done this and they've asked reserved a huge number of Muslim groups is to try and suggest that that Muslims are British patriots and that it's wrong and indeed extremist for Muslims to oppose Western wars. So of course that's been a long

term campaign of affairs. And what they've done effectively is that the the commissioned APR firm to set up a whole number of different Muslim organisations or to work with existing non Muslim organisations whereby the government would write the messages that these Muslim organisations would give out. And and these these messages would be given to the PR firm and the PR firm given to the

Muslim organisations. So that sometimes the Muslim organisations didn't even know that it was British intelligence officials who were actually writing their key messages.

So the investigation really is an intent to show how that process worked and how the government was able to keep this secret, keep secret the idea that that what's usually secret their their involvement in it. And so of course what they did there was they wrote a whole series of contracts with the PR firm which which in very great detail showed that the how the operation worked such that they would be create this new office which was called the Hub. And Muslim organisations would

be brought into the Hub as if it was a pro bono free a community relations organisation. Actually it was run directly by this PR firm. And secretly in the Hub, this this office there would be PR firm staff. And secretly there were also 2 British intelligence officers sitting in the backroom making sure that they checked and and cleared every message which went out.

So this is a quite elaborate attempt to manipulate the Muslim community and to and actually to also manipulate non Muslims in this country into effectively not supporting the anti war movement and the movement for Palestinian rights.

That's that's the purpose of it. David, I suppose my first question would be, is there any evidence to suggest that aside from not supporting the anti war movement that there's been any effort to manipulate opinions about each demographic as it were, so Muslims versus other communities in the UK and particularly the white community versus Muslims? Well the the idea is to try and destroy the possibility of white people and non white people coming together to oppose UK

foreign policy. And the reason that they wanted to do that was of course they saw that there was a unity in 2002 three and four between aspects of the conscious Muslim community and the left and the anti war movement and that frightened elements of British intelligence. So this whole effort has been to try and split that asunder and to make it clear that that Muslims should first of all, Muslims shouldn't support the anti war movement, they

shouldn't oppose Western wars. They should be, they should adorn themselves with the Union flag, which is one of the key themes of one of these campaigns. And also that they wanted to split the Muslims apart from, from from white left groups, if you like. And part of part of the effort, therefore, was to say that there are these good Muslims who are the community groups working with them, although they didn't say they were with them.

And there are these bad Muslims and these are the Muslim extremists. And so they try to show that people, the Muslims who were, who are conscious and who are saying we don't want to kill a million Iraqis, We don't want to participate in the genocide in Palestine. They were tried, they tried to smear them as being extremists, as being what they were called jihadis, etcetera.

Now, of course, this is at the same time, exactly the same time as, as actually the British government was supporting Al Qaeda and similar groups in Syria. And we've seen of course, the effects of that in the coming to power of the Jwani government in Syria in in recent months.

So there's like there's a deep malaise inside the intelligence services such that they are both, on the one hand, supporting people they call extremists, on the other hand smearing honest Muslims who oppose Western government policy as being extremists. And 3rd, thirdly, trying to wrap some elements of the Muslim community in the Union flag. And I think that's a profoundly mistaken approach.

And David, you know, when we look at the, the types of types of organisations that you talk about in your, in your article, we've obviously got the research information Communications unit. We've got, you know, reference to the, the old information research department within the Foreign Office, which of course we know has been succeeded by the counter disinformation media development programme in the Foreign Office.

And then later on in the article you, you are talking about Breakthrough Media Network, now known as the Zinc Network Limited. And so we've got parallels here between what's going on with the manipulation of the Islamic narrative, but also the manipulation of the Russian narrative. And, and so it's it's pretty

cynical in both cases. Well, yes, I mean, the, the the stuff that you're talking about, the counter disinformation unit, of course is run by MR6 and by a guy called and the Andy Price.

And of course he he was involved in running the the integrity initiative, which you've covered on your show before, which of course was an anti Russian thing, part of the whole Russia gate furago of nonsense, which was created and which has now actually been exposed by the Trump administration just in the last few days by Tulsi Gabbard. So, yeah, that's part of the

same thing. This is the anti Russian stuff which of course is in favour of the the adventures in Ukraine and of supporting Zelensky and indeed the the neo Nazis who support Zelensky at the same time as trying to to target those who who were against the Iraq war or who are are against the genocide in Gaza. Now this is a set a set of organisations which are closely related to the intelligence

agencies. As I mentioned, Riku, the organisation you you mentioned there which is effective with today's Information Research Department, is part of the Homeland Security Group, which is a British intelligence agency inside the Home Office and comes under effectively the rubric of MI 5. The organisation you refer to Counter Disinformation Unit comes under the aegis of MI 6, which of course was key to the the propaganda operations in

Syria where they've employed a whole number of people to promote effectively Al Qaeda in Syria against the government of Bashar al Assad. So this is a deep cynicism inside. British intelligence and inside, inside the strategy of British government. And what we're trying to do here is to show how that works, to illustrate to people that that these people are not honest and that they are engaged in a, in a huge apparatus of deception. And we should point out that this is Part 1 of 2.

Is that right? Yes. So in Part 2 what I will do is I mean this. The first part is a long article and it goes into great detail from the leaked documents with all the contracts, etcetera. And in Part 2, what I will go on to do is to look at the specific organisations that work very closely with British intelligence, and there's quite, quite a number of them, but I'll look in depth about four or five of them.

David, thank you very much. Just to just to finish off, have you got any thoughts on on the general situation in the UK at the moment and how you think this might pan out? Well, I think it's extremely worrying. We having a huge escalation in Islamophobia. You mentioned Tommy Robinson and Rebel Media.

They are. And of course I've done investigations of Robinson's background and his alliance with the science movement and the funding that he's had from the very beginning of the English Defence League from the Zionist movement. I think there's a great need to disinter some of what's happening with just in the way that you started to do there with the flag. I mean, the whole question of of remigration as a concept, where

does that come from? It clearly is linked to earlier Zionist themes about, for example, the concept of Arabia, which was popularised by a woman called using a pen name Bat your her real name is as she say, a Lipman who is a former Mossad operative. Her and her husband operated in Morocco for the Mossad. And so there's a need to look at look at the links there are between the, the Zionist movement and this current activity. Like in the film that you just played.

Of course, one of the key indications that there's a, a Zionist connection is the fact that they're taking down what was it. They called it Islamic terrorist flags, like the flag of Palestine. Now as an indication of the way in which the the Zionists are involved, deeply involved with the far right in this country in a way which people haven't understood, perhaps they understand that this is are involved with the neo con think tanks and with the pushing Islamophobia and all of that.

But they're deeply involved in the far right, as we've shown with, for example, Tommy Robinson. And that's something I think which requires much more research work. And I'm glad to see that you've started to do some of that. David, thank you very much for joining us today. That's been that's been really useful and we'll look forward to the second part and having you back on in the very near future. Thank you.

Thanks David. And of course, there'll be a link to the article referenced in the show notes.

Now with David in mind and indeed the legal situation that he's been through with Bristol University, just to finish off this piece, it is perfectly remarkable that the Wall Street Journal has printed an an open letter from Charles Kushner, who is father of Jared Kushner, Donald Trump's son in And this is particularly to suggest that France has reached a tipping point in terms of anti Semitism. And it actually concerns the phrase in today's world, anti Zionism is anti semitism, plain

and simple. So this is the the United States ambassador to France has been in the chair but a month telling France how it is. So one wonders whether there is to be some sort of a split, at least cosmetically between the United States and European countries. But we won't hold our breath necessarily. And I would just finish off this report by reminding you that ultimately the goal of the migration or indeed anti migration narrative is digital identity.

And this is where the Labour Together Ritz card idea will come to into its own. Which leads us on to Mike taking us into the next report. As I say, the Brit card here

saying that it's concerning people without permission to live here and there should be a mandatory universal national identity credential. So there we have it. OK, let's just have a look then changing topics slightly on the censorship narrative because the legacy media continues to show for censorship and digital ID. And this Sky article then is typical. Digital ID is great, they say, because a pornography viewing has plummeted in the UK.

And well, we talked a little bit about this last week as well. But the narrative continues, the headlines continue. Sky attempts to lower the success of the online safety Axe Edge verification roll out by speak. Speaking to some teenagers at the Youth club in Warrington, you seem to be suggesting they feel much cleaner since the new

regime was put in place. And to quote Ryan, who's 17, we're told he said that the Internet was a very, very malicious place and described frequently seeing inappropriate content. Just one month on, he says this algorithm now seems to be tamed, although he still describes the Internet as malicious. And they published this graph to

show what has happened. And although they do pay lip service to VPN use, there's no analysis of whether or not there's any real decline in pornography use in the UK or whether it's just masked by VPN use, at which it is, of course. Now here is Proton VPN, and they've published one graph here which shows exactly what's going on. And other VPN providers are reporting similar increases, and these increases have continued since July.

So clearly, you know, the VPN use is masking activity as people recognise what the government has actually done here and they're wanting to therefore hide what they're doing on the Internet. The fact that the investigators investigatory powers legislation requires Internet service providers to maintain metadata and records of every website that we visit seems to have passed most people by over the last few years. And it's taken this piece of legislation to get to get the point across.

And I'm going to be talking a bit more about that in Extra. But in the meantime, in the United States, the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, has written to platform chief executives to warn them that compliance with the Online Safety Act may leave them open to prosecution in the US.

So FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson said that restricting access to content for American users to comply with foreign legal requirements might amount to a violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive commercial practises. He cited the E US Digital Services Act and the U KS Online Safety Act, as well as reports of British efforts to gain access to encrypted Apple iCloud data, as examples of measures that could put companies at risk

under U.S. law. He invited company leaders to meet with his office to discuss how they intend to balance demands from international regulators while continuing, he says, to fulfil their legal obligations in the United States. And on the digital ID front itself, the global roll out continues.

So biometric update here is reporting that Nigeria's National Identity Management Commission must make sure it issues at least 59 million national identification numbers by December the 31st, 2026. Now, this is an objective of the the ID Authority is pursuing in line with revised terms for the Nigerian Identity for Development project. It's an initiative funded by the World Bank alongside the French Development Agency and the European Investment Bank to the

tune of around $430 million. Now, Barometric Biometric Update cites a report by Tech Cabal which says that they need to issue at least 3.3 million of these new identification numbers every month between now and the end of the project, which is 3 times the current rollout rate. And so that is probably unlikely to happen. But Biometric Update also reports that Sri Lanka is in a similar boat.

In this case, they intend to integrate the Sri Lanka Unique Digital ID project with the Electronic National Identity Card project, assigning unique ID numbers, centralising various types of IDs and capturing data like birth certificates and tax identification. And finally on this topic for today, the future Marketing Insights website takes a look at the size of digital of the digital ID market over the next

few years. The digital identity services market is predicted to grow from 28 1/2 billion U.S. dollars in 2025 to 86 1/2 billion U.S. dollars by 2035. And they provide us with a nice graph for that. The leading segment in digital identity services market in 2025 is identity verification and so called know your customer, which of course is related to the banks. It's something that we're all subject to.

And the top key players in this, they consider the the likes of Nexus, LEXIS, Nexus Risk Solutions, Experian, Truly, Trulio, Jumio, Onfido, Mitac Systems, IDEMIA, Thalas, I prove GBG and so a mixture of social credit companies in the West here and military industrial complex in there. So I don't know what else to say about that. But this agenda rolls on a pace, and it looks like it's, you know, it's clearly a global effort.

It is, but I think we would be well advised to cast our eyes towards Nigeria in six months time and see how they're doing because if uptake has been anything like it was for the central bank digital currency, it's going to be a disaster. So I think that's what we have to hope for. Now moving on, last week you'll recall that Sandy gave a report

on still birth and indeed still what we were called stillborn baby payments in Australia. Now, the situation has evolved somewhat since then, but just before we have a look at that, we'll go to Sandy for a very brief synopsis as to what she was reporting last week. Thanks, Charles. Yes, I, I came across this last week and the, it looks as though the, the Australian government are kind of covertly encouraging incentivising women to have abortions, late term abortions

20 weeks plus. And they, they're giving them an initial payment of 4200 or $300. And then after that, because the baby is killed in utero, they are given birth to a stillborn child. And because it's a stillborn child, there is another payment that they can get, which is $22,000 for a parental leave, um, payment so that they can, uh, for, for grieving for, for up to 18 months.

So that is the, the, the way that it's, it's and, and services Australia are encouraging women to, to take these payments and giving them all the apparatus to do so, all the forms to fill in. And what's happened really is that midwives are getting very, midwives and doctors and nurses are getting very, very stressed because they have to, because

the paperwork is crucial. It is literally saying, yes, you have got a stillborn child, you're entitled to this, even though they have who willingly aborted their child. So all the it's down to the paperwork basically is if the paperwork is there and it's been signed off by, by the by the medical profession who are having to do that. Otherwise they lose their jobs and they're traumatised by it, then the payments go through. Thanks Andy.

And and this has caused sufficient stink, quite rightly, for a question to have been asked in the Australian Parliament, which we'll just have a look at. This is from Pauline Hanson. Why is it made to women who deliberately abort a baby, Minister?

This policy risks creating a financial incentive for late term abortion where Australian women can terminate a pregnancy order to the day before birth, they can terminate a pregnancy up to the day before birth, allowing women to receive a lump sum payment and access to paid parental leave of up to $22,754. Why is the Albanese government funding the murder of healthy babies, some left to die in a kidney ditch for up to five

hours, so that. Was the question and the minister, who had the unenviable task of responding, said this. The Gallagher Well, the answer to that question is the same as to my earlier question. There are laws in this country around termination of pregnancy. They are laws that are regulated by the States and territories, and I support those laws. I one of the reasons I got into politics was to ensure that women had the right to make choices about their own

reproductive health. I accept that some people disagree with with my views on that and with laws in States and territories that that provide the regulatory arrangements around that. Now, in relation to the stillborn baby payment, as I said, and as it relates to other payments including PPL, evidence is required. Documentation is required before those payments are made in the

relationship. In relation to the stillborn baby payment, that includes certification from someone attending the birth, a health professional attending the birth, that the birth was of a stillborn child. That is the documentation that's made or required in order to receive that payment. She was absolutely trying to evade the question and UK column got in touch with Services Australia directly and they too absolutely tried to evade the

question. They sent a statement saying it was attributable and in that text said that government recognises the tragic loss and trauma of still birth. They said a medical professional is responsible for determining if the definition of a stillborn baby is met for the purposes of

the stillborn baby payment. And that is at the crux of this because of course, if the the way in which a foetus is extracted after being terminated constitutes still still birth as far as the medical professional is concerned, then indeed the system may be manipulated. Then Services Australia go on to say that claims are assessed on the basis of evidence and documented documentation provided by a medical

professional. A medical professional is responsible for considering the cause of death. So in other words, Services Australia, they're washing their hands of any further investigation into the matter as to exactly what it was that the medical professional had written

up and why. And then they go on to say, as though to cast one's attention elsewhere, they say for circumstances that are not a still birth, such as termination of pregnancy supports are available through Services Australia, including counselling and support to connect with local services. By which they mean if it's been written up as a termination rather than an abortion, sorry than a than a still birth. So Services Australia very much

avoiding the question here. And indeed they refused on a follow up enquiry, they absolutely refused to answer any further questions about this. They exactly as Sandy reports, they are without doubt incentivising late term abortions by the waving of money for exactly this this type of procedure. Now moving on UK column is a

phenomenal research resource and I hope you are able to use the website to its greatest effect, whether or not you're a member by searching first for it, making sure that you're looking through all the various sections and indeed going down to the comment on the home page. If you would like to join us as a member, the front page, we'll guide you through that whether you'd like to do it on a monthly, annual, or indeed

lifetime basis. Now, the interview that went out yesterday was Diane Rasmussen Mcaddy speaking to Louise Payton on holistic health. So please do go back and listen to that's gone, that's gone out Well, and just up now is an article by Jobst at Land Group, which is on evil power and

artificial intelligence. You may have read Jobst articles to date on AI and Indeed. This is very, very incisive, but of course makes that distinction between what is or is not possible in relation to the human programming side of it. And then we've got coming up tonight, Germ talking to Carl Zarr on Trump making India great again this time. And then going out tomorrow at 1:00 in the afternoon. I am speaking to Alex Thompson on a question of faith.

And in particular, why did the Church of England go wrong? We only had 60 minutes, but we covered a fair amount of grounds. I really would encourage you to listen to that. And in terms of in terms of what's coming up, we are still very much looking forward to seeing you in person, we hope at our event in York where we have

Andrew Wakefield speaking. And indeed you will have access to his film Protocol 7, whether or not you join us in person or via the live stream now, as well as Andrew Wakefield, test lorry will be there and a great volume of the tickets have gone already. So please don't delay too long in committing to that. And just a reminder, there will also be a good social event in the evening. So we really hope to see you there. And if you can't make it, do please join us on the live

stream to that. Now this takes us up to the the subject of biosurveillance, which Mike is going to describe

a bit more about. Yes, indeed. So a new programme to evaluate wastewater monitoring could be used to detect a wider range of dangerous pathogens was launched today by the UK Health Security Agency. Sorry, their words, not mine. They say they will assess the use of cutting edge technologies to improve the U KS ability to detect and identify the genetic material of various viruses in wastewater, tracking how the amount of virus detected changes

over time. And they say that this builds on the U KS existing wastewater surveillance for polio and if successful, could develop the U KS capability to detect dangerous diseases such as Crimean Congo hemorrhagic fever, a severe disease. These are their words, pandemic in Africa, the Balkans, the Middle East and parts of Asia that has never before been targeted in wastewater testing. So I'm sure you're impressed. It goes on.

The programme will also explore the potential of these technologies to create an early warning system for pathogens such as mpox, West Nile virus and Lhasa, which could in future enable the UK to detect and take faster action on outbreaks which their words, as we saw in the COVID-19 pandemic, is vital for an effective response. So try not to laugh. I appreciate this is a comedy section of the programme.

But anyway, if we remember back to 2020, the exact same story was coming out of the British regime then, this time from Defra, the Environment Agency and Joint Bio Security Centre, because the UKHSA didn't exist yet. So what did they say? They said the project has already worked successfully in an area in the southwest of England where sewage sampling data showed a spike in coronavirus material despite relatively low numbers of people

seeking tests. And then we got a quote here from George Eustice, who said at the time, this is a significant step forward in giving us a clear idea of infection rates both nationally and locally, particularly in areas where there may be large numbers of people who aren't showing any symptoms and therefore aren't seeking tests.

And then the report at the time said that the programme was first announced in June. This would be 20/20/2020 has now proven that fragments of genetic material from the virus can be detected in wastewater. So Charles, I, I don't know what you think of that, but but I find it highly impressive. I'm afraid to say I really don't think very much of it. Yeah, sarcasm over. Yeah, I'm sorry. It is. I'm all out.

But yes, I mean, no doubt they'll keep banging that particular drum or splashing it or whatever one does with it. But yes, it sounds like complete nonsense. Sandy, on that theme, I suppose considering all these things are related and the control mechanism that is Agenda 2030,

what are your thoughts on that right now? Well, I'm, you know, I'm, I'm just about to speak really about how 2030 is really the, the nub of everything. Everything really radiates out from from 2030. And I, I did a talk at a festival a few weeks ago called the Dirt Girt Dog Festival in, in Somerset. Girt means big. So it's a big dog festival. It's on some, it's on, it's anyway, it's on the the Gert dog of Langport, which is a, an effigy in the land.

And, and anyway, a lot of people enjoyed seeing this and the way I broke it down and said, oh, you know, this actually makes sense because it's like joining the dots. There's so many things going wrong in our world and it kind of brings it all back. And you know, you see where it's all radiating from. So my first slide is really a kind of a visual of that. Now you can't see it very well

here because it's quite small. But in the, in the centre is Agenda 2030. And I will explain all these other ones radiating dating out because all of it is linked. And 2030 Agenda 2030, which was, which was brought about in 2015 by, uh, it originated from Agenda 21. It became 20/13/2015 at the Vatican, uh, by President Obama where the 17 goals were launched. So umm, the next slide is umm, really about the, the control framework and how that, that works.

We've got umm, one of the branches is DEI mandates enforcing ideological compliance in workplaces, education and government, undermining meritocracy and creating division. And then we've got net 0 policies, costly energy transitions that dismantle rebar, reliable infrastructure, raise living costs and energy costs and give over the energy control to global actors. And then we've got mass migration, overloading housing and services, changing demographics rapidly and eroding

national cohesion. Yeah, we, we've got a lot of these that are tax on farming land, rewilding, carbon offsets that drive farmers out of business and reduce domestic food security, ESG. We've got environmental and social governance contracts for businesses which will dictate corporate policy via environmental and social scorecards and the sidelines profit and market choice.

We've got BNG which is, you know, biodiversity net gain, which is a really big one on scoring and literally commodifying agriculture and nature. So the next one is digital ID systems, again, centralised databases, you know, enable surveillance and control. We've got the C40 cities with devolution, with the transfer of power from Westminster to the the smart cities and what that

means bypassing local democracy. We've got CBDC's and financial centralisation, programmable money and education reform and indoctrination, replacing knowledge with ideology, global citizenship, training and climate and social activism. And the next one is obviously the NHS. That's another arm of it. Digitising and centralising health data, enabling predictive surveillance and global health

governance. Property rights, erosion, 15 minute cities, mobility restrictions and surveillance, infrastructure, facial recognition, AI monitoring, predictive policing. And then there's the last one is I think it's the water resource one. Anyway, we've got yeah, water resource control, privatising and rationalising resources under environmental quotas, which is what you were talking about earlier. Charles banning private collection in some cases.

International treaty overrides, cultural deconstruction, monopoly consolidation, destroying small and medium sized businesses again, umm, and data mining, umm, uh, you know, and, and data mining in schools and impact investing all the, you know, the, the children in schools, data mining them. So this all comes back to the 17 sustainable goals. And uh, though each one of those is, is, is instrumental in the destruction of everything as we know it.

Umm, and I just sort of go into it a little bit deeper just with two of those goals, umm, what they really mean. And I'm going to take two that are really related to food. We've got no, no poverty and 0 hunger. So let's start with no poverty. Yeah, it's, it's gold #1 poverty alleviation and social protection. So the UN solution is AI enabled digital footprints for credit and mobile money access, blockchain identity solutions to enable economic identities for all.

And it's a like a levelling up of the, of communities. And really what it means is to make everyone equally poor Ubi with all with fixed amounts of carbon credits and digital footprints that are all sort of feeding into this data mining

facility that they're creating. And the next one is I think we've got, yeah, end hunger, UN access to food, improved nutrition and food production, low cost GMO mass produce, food production by Monsanto, which is now Bayer synthetic food proteins, insect proteins, no meat, AI sensors and blockchain to eliminate waste loss in food value, everything that we, we

really have. But the real meaning of that is to push everything into into fake meat in mass food production and all that kind of stuff that we we know is happening. But this is where it puts it all into one place. These are the two goals that cover that. And that's, that's really, I just wanted to put it all in one place. Agenda 2030 is really the the nub of everything that that is is happening to us right now. Yes.

And I think to the UK column audience that's extremely clear, but it is extraordinary the degree to which the perhaps the majority of people are still not alive to this. So of course, this is very much a message that we do need to continue to put out there. Now with those two last points in mind in terms of apparently ending poverty and apparently

ending hunger, although of course not energy is very relevant to this because increasingly it takes up ground that could otherwise produce food. But what is the latest? Well, the latest is that today the energy regulator Ofgem has announced a 2% rise of the energy price cap for the period covering October to December 2025. Now this is more than expected and it means a household using a typical amount of energy will pay £1755 a year, which is £35 more than the current cost cap.

But if we look how the energy price cap has changed over time, we can see that energy prices have been pretty much normalised or high energy prices, sorry have been pretty much normalised

since the so called pandemic. And although the so called energy price guarantee made it seem like government stepped in to protect people from the excesses of the wholesale energy markets, in reality they did no such thing because while we didn't end up paying directly in our bills, the energy company still got paid and every taxpayer footed the bill. So remember that the energy cap sets the maximum price for each unit of energy, but not the total bill, which depends very

much on how much energy we use. So this I quoted figure of 1755 per year is only indicative. The question remains, why are energy prices so high in the UK? Could it perhaps be to do with renewables and net zero? So let's bring this on screen then. This is Deidre Helm because he's saying yes in a comment piece that he published yesterday. Why is the price of electricity so high, he asks.

It's a puzzle, he says, because excessive successive politicians, Blair, Cameron, May, Johnson and now Starmer and Miliband, lots of lobbyists have told us we should have expected quite the opposite, cheap energy to be achieved by getting out of fossil fuels first exit coal, then bear down in gas. And a new year of cheap wind and solar would give the UK low absolute and relative electricity prices. And he concludes by saying quotes.

It's hard to sorry. It's hard to conclude other than the Secretary of State is deluded when he champions the 2030 net zero target as a route to lower cost of energy through ever cheaper renewables. It's time to be honest about the costs of the net zero target. Now Charles, I don't know what your thoughts are, but I would say diluted is not the word I would use wilfully. Lying is much more likely I

think. Absolutely, and and this is borne out in fact, in that the, there are demands both within and without the sector for further subsidisation of this very form of energy in order that the price is artificially reduced in order to create the impression that exactly this is happening, that it is becoming cheaper to use and cheaper than the more reliable traditional alternatives. So yes, absolutely. I, I think, you know, you're

totally right. And the other point I would make is actually in terms of the cost. The other side of it of course is industry. And this is something that's come up or flared up a few times this year, specifically with regard to steel, where the government again is making out as though it's trying to preserve the steel industry in the United Kingdom.

And this is not exclusive to steel, of course, but industry in general is absolutely penalised on the enormous costs of energy that it is having to pay directly as a result result of what you're what you're talking about right now. We'll, we'll go directly to a specific example now because Sandy, you have news for us on the development in Somerset. Yes, I this came to me, I read a magazine called The Leveller, which is a, a Somerset magazine. And this isn't an isolated

thing. I mean the unfortunately this is happening all over our country. An 80 acre solar farm is planned to be put up near Somerton. And you know it's Sam, it says here after it, you know it. It will apparently provide 40 years of power. And they said after 40 years, the site will be decommissioned and returned to its current

state and arable use. Now, interestingly, I mean, that's, that's the extent of it. The, the, the, the map there, it's a huge, I mean, it's 80 acres and this is happening all over our country and it's taking the land out of food production for 30 to 40 years. And a lot of it, I mean, we've, we're talking thousands and thousands of acres and we're talking livestock here. Most of the land that, that the solar farm, they call them farms, which is funny because

they're not farms at all. They're anti farms and they're being taken out. Food production is being taken out Now. I looked at the, the, the, the, oh, there's another, another issue that it, it says it will be restored to, to its former, former state, but that it also is questionable because I did some, some work on on risk assessments. And if solar panels are damaged in fire or severe storms or landfill crushing, the toxic compounds like cadmium and other trace minerals do leach into the

ground. And even, you know, beyond chemistry, you've got soil compaction, loss of farmland, habitat changes and herbicides used to control, you know, herbicides used to control vegetation underneath. And actually, you cannot graze animals alongside the panels because the farmers can't get insurance because the animals nibble the wires. So that is not an option. So it's taking out a lot of livestock grazing.

That's what I'm trying, the point I'm trying to make now, I looked at the National Planning Policy Framework document, which is really quite comprehensive. And what I've realised is, is if you actually put a search into that and you look at, you look at the word food, food does not come up up into it. Food production is simply not there. And well, there's 4, but they're talking about all sorts of food takeaways and food outlets. There's no food security

mentioned in this document. So it's it's quite interesting that food security hasn't is not in the equation. It's all about in they talk about environmentalism. It's not even environmentalism. It's anti environmentalism because it destroys, uh, landscapes. So, umm, int interesting, uh, you know, interesting stuff there. Now the, the next slide, please, is all about, yeah, umm, the infrastructure, the, this, this is the, the 13 protective security infrastructures that we

have in this country. And food is one of them. And so this needs to be protected. We've got energy, water, food, transport, health, emergency services, government, defence, finance, telecommunications, space, nuclear, civil, nuclear and chemicals. So food is, is to be protected, but in no way is it in any of these documents from, from the government.

We've got the UK Food security report, but if you open that up, there's nothing really much about food security for, for, for the yeah, it's, it's global food production they're talking about. Most of the time it's all about global. It's not about UK food security. So I did look at things like, you know, meat production.

They did have a little bit on that, which was interesting because beef production, it's the top one and that went down very slightly because of obviously various animal health food scares, you know, and health scares like BSE and foot and mouth and all those things. And then you've got 2, two other diagrams there, which is I think that's chicken and and pork, which went down because of the same thing. And also decarbonisation of meat processing plants.

Lambs tended to stay pretty stable, but and eggs went down as well. So we're everything as far as meat and dairy is going down very slowly, but this will impact more the more solar farms we have because they'll be taken out of production and that's the whole idea. And the next slide I think is the C40 cities. Yeah, the C40 cities slide which actually says that, you know, they're the progressive target for 2030 is 16 kilogrammes of

meat per person per year. And actually the ambitious target is 0 kilogrammes meat consumption. Now we, no, they're not hitting their targets because you know, 20-30 is, you know, we've got five years. Are they going to make that happen? Five years, no meat production at all, probably their try and

that's what they're doing. So at the moment farmers are being incentivized to give up their land to renewable energy such as solar, wind and housing, rewilding non food production businesses and this will reduce production significantly. So there's consideration for food security, which is currently at only about 60% and it's declining. Our food production is declining. So if we weren't able to access imports, what will we do?

We've got loads of solar panels that are making money for big, big investors, but and, and, and wind farms, but not, not, not the people. So if you do want to oppose this planning application, do try, I, I think you, you can go on to

planning application. That is the I'll put this in the show notes and there's a planning application number or or or code and, and unfortunately Somerset have spent 12 weeks now they're not answering their phones, they're not answering emails because they've got a backlog of planning applications. What a surprise.

And so they've closed down shop. So whether this will be slid in under the radar without people being able to oppose it, I don't know Now I'm going to look at quickly biodiversity net gain because a lot of people don't understand what it is. And again, there's another, there's another UK government guidance on it by diversity net gain.

And this is a way of creating a financial instrument for Land Management people, big corporations to make money out as a financial instrument out of the land, financialisation of nature and all the banks and the corporations make the money, not us. So here, here's a sort of idiot's guide to it if you like. And so long as you, you actually there's a net loss if you just you, you, you just build and then there's a, there's no net loss if you build and you add a

few trees. And then with this one, you get net gain because you, you're not depleting the countryside and you're building and you're putting more trees up. So it's all about building and trees, not about food. And that's, that's really quite interesting in that, uh, so who

needs to think about BNG? And we're looking at BNG really, uh, it refers to the core groups and BNG, its developers, developers will be, umm, required to submit BIOS biodiversity net gain, umm, so that it, it creates a, a, an income and that's all it is. It's a big income for, for various sectors like land managers, big corporations and, and, and banks basically. So all of those make loads of money out of biodiversity net gain.

It is a financial instrument and we don't we, you know, it takes away our food production. It doesn't do it Andy. Many scams running concurrently though. And you're quite right on the biodiversity net gain. Of course, the other thing to point out is that there's no requirement to have replaced before you destroy. So in fact, there's in effect there's always an enormous lag which has never really taken into account because it really concerns intent, which of course it shouldn't.

I think the other thing to point out is the, as you quite rightly did, the absolute con about suggestion that livestock would be able to graze in areas that there are solar panels, which of course might in certain situations be feasible. But you can't cut the grass if you want to in order to keep it for hay or any of those sorts of things. And again, the food security report that you refer.

Referred to is something that the Labour government have absolutely put the brakes on, having had a commitment written down in law to continue to update it. They have absolutely failed in that department, one assumes, because they do not want to report the true state of affairs, even if they know what that is. Now we are going to move on to deal with what I've described as

the relationship between public health, or at least as it's described, propaganda and media, especially film. Now, the drought situation as reported by the Environment Agency is shown on the screen now. But in effect, this suggests that almost half of England is in what is called drought, with the large quantity of it in a situation of prolonged dry weather, with only a few regions, interestingly the Southeast and the Southwest,

regarded as being normal. So the alarmist rhetoric is not exactly borne out by the latest data from the Environment Agency. But that hasn't stopped certain individuals, or indeed organisations, from capitalising on the the sort of feeling of panic. And this is the London, the Mayor of London's organisation here talking about London cool spaces.

So suggesting that due to climate issues and the necessity for water in hot weather and all the rest of it, they have set up London Cool spaces, which no doubt you can access via an app or something similar. The reason I cite this is because Sadiq Khan has a form where this is concerned.

This is him on stage with Matt Damon, the founder of what's called water.org can't therefore making a pledge to connect London's activities to those of Damon and his worldwide sort of campaign and organisation front page. The website here described as advancing the global conversation. Of course, that means that among the global partners are of course, UN, Water, Water Aid, World Economic Forum and a number of other usual suspects.

Now, the reason I cite Damon in particular andwater.org is because he too has form where propaganda is concerned and indeed especially the leveraging of celebrity. So we're going to look back to 2011 now. And an interview with Matt Damon after he had released the film Contagion among them. But right now, our best defence has been social distancing, no handshaking, staying home when you're sick, washing your hands frequently. Let me bring in Alan Crumwood into this debate as well.

Alan's a freelance journalist. He was the first to track the Schinkel Busman video. Alan, today on Twitter you wrote that the truth about this virus is being kept from the world by the CDC, by the World Health Organisation, to allow friends of the current administration to benefit from it both financially and physically. There are therapies we know are effective right now, like forsythia, and they don't even

appear on the CDC website. On your blog you also wrote that the World Health Organisation is somehow in bed with pharmaceutical. Companies, because they are. That just stands to gain from this. They're working hand in glove. What do you think? About the politics behind contagion and other pathogens, where the government might, on the side of caution, not tell everybody till, you know, maybe it's too late. Like it could be. Going on right now, we don't

know. Well, I mean, I think the media would be a big part too, because because how that was framed to people would would dictate really what what the outcome might be. I mean, because it's not really about necessarily the virus itself. It's about our reaction to it. And, you know, if you look at like anthrax, like, what, two people died and we shut down the airline industry, you know, that that panic is potentially a lot more lethal than than than the actual virus or could be all

right now. So just to clarify that first of all, that was 2011 and secondly, the first part of that clip was actually film. Now we go back to look at Londons cool spaces because we need to have a look at the all important message which pops up after you've accessed the page and it says when the weather is hot you can take simple actions to protect your health and the health of others. Of course the NHS luckily has tips for how to achieve this.

But now we're going to go back to Matt Damon, who spoke there in 2011, and this is what he had to say at the behest of Columbia University in 2020. And if you know anybody over the age of 55 or anyone who has any kind of pre existing conditions, this is a lot more serious for them. So you can literally save their life just by staying away from each other. You can actually sit on the couch or in a chair like I'm doing and watch TV and save a life at the same time. You can work from home.

You can use social media to communicate. You can save a few more. Now is the time to spend all the time you want staring at your phone or your tablet. And if anybody gives you a hard time about it, tell them not to bother you because you are saving lives. Just make sure that you tell them that from six feet away. So there we go, the the incredible symbiotic relationship between the propaganda and the film

industries. I don't know whether you have any comment in particular on Matt Damon or what he said. We'll keep it for extra. Yeah, we'll keep it for extra. OK, Well, in which case what we'll do is we'll finish off on very much related topic. But it would appear that the the latest news is that the Monty Python team appear to have been hired by the UK Health Security Agency in order to manage their heat health alert programme. So I will read it out because it

says please. Please complete the form below to register to receive both Heat Health Alerts and Cold Health Alerts. The alerts are year round with the core HHA season running from the 1st of June to the 30th September and the cold heat season running from the 1st of November to the 31st of March. The Weather Health Alerting System, which is managed by UKHSA in partnership with the Met Office, underpins the adverse Weather and Health Plan,

which brings together and builds on the previous heat wave Plan for England, first published in 2004, and the Cold Weather Plan for England, first published in 2011. Users will be able to specify which region they wish to receive alerts for, with the ability to be notified for one region only or multiple regions as required by the user.

Should a period sorry, should a period of heat or cold occur that meets alerting criteria outside of the core alerting periods, an extraordinary alert will be issued. So there we have it. You know where to go in times of peril if it gets too hot, too cold, or none of the above. No, don't forget Germ and cars are going out this evening. I'll be speaking to Alex Thompson at 1:00 tomorrow. If you are a member, please stay on for extra. And if you're not a member, please consider joining us.

Otherwise, we will look forward to seeing you at 1:00 on Friday. And Many thanks to Mike and Sandy and indeed Professor David Miller for joining me on the programme. Goodbye, bye. Bye.