Good afternoon. It's Friday the 7th of November 2025, just after 1:00. Welcome to UK called News. I'm your host Mike Robinson and joining me by video link today are Charles Mallett and Mark Anderson.
Welcome to the program both. Now, later in the program, we're going to be looking at facial recognition and so-called talking street signs in the UK, calls to further tackle disinformation internationally and hysteria over raw milk and beef, but we'll be talking about that a little bit later. We're going to begin with COP 30, which I suppose in some respects is a related topic. But anyway, Agenda 2030 was trending on X today and Darren of Plymouth here in his ex post
sums things up pretty well. The worst people on the planet, he says, have travelled to Brazil and private jets to discuss how they can stop us plebs from ever doing the same. Climate change is a scam. Well, that's what he said. But let's have a look at a couple of the worst people, as he put it. The time for partnership. Protection and progress is now. We know what is at stake. We know what must be done, and we know that no country, no community, no individual can do it alone.
Let us use these inspiring surroundings here in the heart of the Amazon to rise to meet this moment, not with hesitation, but with courage. Let us honour the leadership of those who have long protected the planet, Indigenous peoples and local communities and walk forwards together. This here at COP 30 is our moment. Let us not waste it. Our children and grandchildren are watching and hoping. So Prince William there, the father, the the the son, following in the footsteps of
the father. Now, in February this year was the deadline for countries to submit their updated national climate plans. But out of the 197 countries, only 13 met that initial deadline. The UK was one of them. 64 countries have now submitted their their plans in time for the conference. But countries which the complaints are off the scale, countries representing 70% of what are described as global emissions, have not made their plans public at this point.
So that would be the reason for all the whining about the United States, China and India and the media over the last day or two. And The upshot of all this, Starmer says, is that consensus is gone. Many will view that as a positive development. But whether or not we consider that positive, what we can say is that this is perhaps yet another explanation for why there seems to be so much panic in Western elites in particular, and why we're staring down the
barrel of ever more chaos. Charles, I don't know if you've got thoughts on that. Yeah, Well, I think good afternoon, Mike. And and indeed everybody else. Yes. First of all, with St. Prince William, there's sort of echoes of 1970 and Prince Charles as he then was being brought into this arena, basically telling everybody that they're going to have to pay for the decisions that he and those surrounding him are going to
make. And I think exactly what you described, you know, the the whinging that goes on about countries supposedly not meeting targets that they probably never even set themselves in the 1st place. A lot of this is actually consolidated into a document that the UN Environment Programme has released just this week, and they of course base an awful lot of it on modelling. It's called Off Target, which is about right.
Certainly one might hope that the plans are off target, but I think that that might be more read into the the title of the report itself. And they they predicate absolutely everything on so-called modelling and they're talking about limiting overshoot to .3 of a degree Celsius. So I think, you know, there is a lot to think about with this.
And the other thing that I would go back to in terms of the very sketchy science that's supposed to underpin all this is the graph that I have shown before, and we'll continue to do so from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, showing the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide in parts per million over the course of a five year period. I mean, this graph does actually go back considerably longer than that, but but at this scale, it articulates exactly that.
The levels of carbon dioxide go up and down in a very, very regular pattern every year. Now how can one explain that if you're basing the whole climate change model on anthropogenic or man made emissions? And I think my contention is that you simply cannot do that. Now of course the relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature is or maybe linked, but just not the way in which it's being explained.
This of course will be well hidden at COP 30, but I think the the messaging that's been going on around the fringes is interesting. China and India are obviously going in for some Flack, but I mean China, if there's any sincerity about it, hasn't pledged to get to net zero until 2060 and India not till 2070. Absolutely no. A lot of the, the pushback on on carp and so on has, you know, expressed sentiments very similar to Darren and Plymouth
at the beginning there. But I noticed a lot of the commentary attempting to, to present this as being some kind of left, right thing. So for example, one person was tweeting out John Kerry and and talking about the number of cars and houses and so on that that John Kerry has and saying, of course this is a leftist attitude, but that's in a sense falling into the trap. It's it's absolutely falling into the trap. Of course it is.
I mean, ultimately, like with all these issues where there is supposedly a division between left and right, the fundamental truth is that everybody's been lied to. So in picking what you consider to be a side, you really are falling into exactly that trap. I think what is interesting is the way in which the so-called climate lobby has aligned itself
on the Israel Palestine issue. And that that has absolutely muddied the waters in terms of people deciding whether they really are in the right camp or not. And it just, it just goes to show how people are manipulated because there there appears to be this requirement to adhere to the group that you sort of originally belonged to. And I think that's all. Been very confused by this. Indeed, thanks for that, Charles.
Now, Mark, let's come welcome you to the programme and related in a in a sense we're going to have a look at the China's concept paper on global governance. Indeed, good day everyone. I was looking at the recent Asian and APEC economic summits that just wound up all the dealing, and I came across the Global Governance Initiative. And on the 24th of September, not with a great amount of fanfare, the UN held a climate summit.
And at that summit, Zi Jinping, the leader of China, gave a presentation on this Global Governance Initiative, or GGI. And this first slide shows it's right from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of China. 80 years ago, based on the bitter lessons of the two world wars, the international community decided to establish the UN, commencing a brand new practice in global governance, Zi told the climate
summit audience. GGI is designed to synchronize with several other far reaching plans, including China's Global Development, Security and Civilization Initiative. So there's four legs to the stool in this basically.
Now moving on from there, I'll explain it a little further and then we can analyze it. The global governance initiative and the underpinning of it is the basic norms of international relations based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter have made historic contributions, they say, to maintaining World Peace and development emphasis here. But the current international landscape is undergoing changes and turbulence. The UN and multilateralism are
being challenged. The deficit in global governance continues to grow. A deficit in global governance. So at face value, at least, it seems like China's leader is very concerned that globalism is losing its stick. It's it doesn't have any traction anymore. And that's that. Again, on the surface, that
seems to be what he's saying. And the China, especially based on the climate issue, needs to take the lead to be the pace guard, to be the tip of the spear to make sure the Paris climate agreement happens and gets implemented. This is the way that China is talking now. We have a quote from a Chinese commentator. In fact, a couple quotes, a Mr. Pan Dang. Oh, wait, wait, we have this. I'm sorry. We, we do have one other slide that explains a little more of
the planks of this. I beg your pardon? Global governance initiative, international institutions, China is saying have 3 deficiencies. First, serious under representation of the global S 2nd, erosion of authoritativeness. The purposes and principles of the UN Charter have not been effectively observed. Again, they beat. They think globalism is weakening. Things are not getting implemented. They're going to die in the vine unless somebody intervenes.
China's saying it wants to be that intervention. Third, urgent need for greater effectiveness. The implementation of the UN 20-30 Agenda for Sustainable Development is seriously lagging behind, with the main issues being climate change in the digital divide. Of course, that includes the 17 sustainable development goals. China is all in on that, at least rhetorically speaking.
That's what they're saying. Now, moving on, we do have that commentator who commented for China diplomacy, Pan Deng, and he had this to say. At a time when multilateralism is challenged and global goals implementation is lagging, China is framing its climate policy as a case study on how to translate vision into action. So they they really want to make
this tangible. And the GGI content paper, Mr. Deng went on to say, notes that the UN 2030 agendas implementation is seriously lagging behind. China's climate strategy appears to be a direct answer to this challenge. So at least, at least rhetorically, at least, what China's leadership is having to say, Mike, this is what's coming out. China wants to kind of intervene and really be at the front of the vanguard to try and implement what it sees as a lagging global governance agenda.
Now back to you. Yeah. Well, look, Mark, what I would say about that is I think it's important that we don't sort of project our own agendas onto what China and the global S are thinking and doing with respect to to the global goals and so on.
I think we can talk about this an extra a lot more, but I think that we've got to always keep in mind that the global goals have represent different things to between the so-called first world countries who are, you know, using them as a mechanism of control and technocracy mainly.
And the global S that is actually mainly still focused on whether they've got food to eat and whether they are providing educations and so on. So, so, and I think it's very important that we always look at what countries are doing. So, you know, China and India are being censured at the moment by the COP 30 crowd for not not cooperating to the degree that is expected by Western ours in particular.
And they, they are continuing as you know to, to build infrastructure and build go far infrastructure and in some cases which is absolutely goes against the the sort of net zero policy that we hear about from our own governments. So, Charles, have you got any thoughts on this? Yeah. Well, I think it just comes down
to pragmatism. I mean, you think of one of the major issues, of course, that has dominated the headlines amongst these countries this year has been Trump's sort of pinball approach to tariffs and how to secure trade deals. Now, if that means that you have to say you're going to do something to conform to a particular, a sort of an apparent ideological goal that's been set out as as part of a sort of globalist policy in order to secure a trade deal,
then then you'll do that. I mean, like you say, it's, it's the actions that count and not the words. Whether or not they do actually go through and fulfil any of these obligations or sort of declarations, it remains to be seen, seems extremely unlikely. But I think just on a pragmatic level, to say that you're going to to do it to appear to be one of the club it is, is both politically and and economically expedient. Any final thoughts, Mark? Yeah, that, that's very good perspective.
China is possibly using a a kind of tactical thing here at Dialectical process to secure what it wants to say, what it needs to say to secure the deals in the best way it can. Trump supposedly tone down some of the tariffs against China when he met October 30th with Xi Jinping in Korea as they wound up as Trump wound up this 22 part summit, ASEAN and APEC. So yeah, this kind of Wheeling and dealing and the compromise involved makes perfect sense. OK.
Thank you, Charles. Let's move on then to the UK and what's the latest on the facial recognition roll out? Well, we'll get to that, but but via fireworks, which of course is, well fireworks certainly a feature of this time of year over this week and this weekend. And alongside that sort of the predictable complaints about noise entirely justified in some situations, but in a, in a debate in the in the Commons the
other day. So Alan Campbell MP had this to say about fireworks, or at least he used fireworks to speak about the Crime and Policing Bill. Just going through the Houses of Parliament the minute saying that our Crime and policing Bill, which is currently in the Lords, will give the police greater powers to get persistent antisocial offenders off our streets whatever the time of year.
Now, the reason he said that is because there is specific provision within the bill as it stands about fireworks. But the point to be drawn out of this is it's terrifically subjective as to what exactly constitutes antisocial behaviour
and who gets to decide that. But to continue on the sort of Home Affairs theme and indeed the Crime and Policing Bill, we look at the way the government's effectively selling it to us, which is with an announcement just this week about child prostitution convictions being expunged. And they're putting this forward as a new story in order to divert attention from the other things that are contained within the child, within the Crime and Policing Bill.
But essentially this goes back to what may know and indeed at the time should have been regarded as completely wrongful convictions of people who were vulnerable, underage, pushed into prostitution and ended up being convicted. But that's to be done away with by the Crime and Policing Bill. What that hides is some of the other things that are in the bill, and we're just going to have a look at a couple of things in order to articulate what I mean by that.
The first of these which I've spoken about before are respect orders and again we get to the subjectivity of it because they, they, they are contingent upon the court being satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has engaged in or threatens to engage in antisocial behaviour. So straight away thought crime. But in actual fact, when we consider it not actually crime at all, antisocial behaviour in itself does not constitute crime.
However, once a respect order has been slapped down upon somebody so they they may be either prohibited from or mandated to conduct certain behaviours, we are then in a position where people can be criminalised for not adhering to the respect order itself. And the other thing which does pertain specifically to facial recognition, which I'll come onto is the the so-called offence of concealing an your
identity. Now the the two elements to this which are requisite are that it must happen in a public place, that is, that is in a locality designated, and I've abbreviated that. But basically police may decide regardless of what anybody on the ground might be intending, but they may decide whether or not people in an area constitute A protest. If they do decide that, they designate it as an area and therefore it it becomes an offence to cover your face in that situation.
And indeed the second part of it fairly obvious, but it says using an item that conceals their identity or another person's identity. Now why would that be? Well, we'll come on to that via the Home Office. And indeed, the way the Home Office is putting out the rhetoric about how it's clamping down on illegal immigration and they're talking about immigration enforcement with a whole load of announcements. They're putting out on on Twitter, just a bit of a slideshow of those at the
moment. But the, the significant thing that comes out of this, which again is a document that's come out this week, is the Immigration Enforcement Live Facial Ricket recognition policy document.
And contained within that is a summary of what they're aiming to do, which is to say that immigration enforcement with Border Force and police partners will run an overt time limited live facial recognition proof of concept as Auk port in late 2025 focused on identifying and locating persons returning in breach of a deportation order for law enforcement purposes. Now they aim in in that text to be explicit that it's concerned only with immigration and people who are reaching deportation
orders. But actually there might be rather more to it than that. Now we're just going to look at the legal basis for this because the document produced at the same time that the legal mandate. And I think the key bit of text that drops out of this is that in order to use live facial recognition, immigration enforcement will rely upon implied powers from the Immigration Act 1971. So in effect, there is no legal mandate for it. That's written down in law.
They are saying that the Act of 1971 grants them the powers they need in order to do this. And just to go into what they say, the primary aim is that they're suggesting that the primary aim will be a law enforcement purpose. Now inherent in that is the suggestion that there is a secondary or indeed tertiary aim. Now, they don't articulate exactly what that is and that's why it bears scrutiny that we're going to give it now, which is going to, of course, the equality impact assessment.
No government document is complete without one of these and in that they say that live facial recognition technology uses biometric data to identify or locate individuals of interest. It does. It does this by making a biometric comparison between subjects in the cameras field of vision and a pre loaded database of persons who are of interest. Now that takes us right back to the subjective nature of the idea of antisocial behaviour as it's put forward in the Crime and Policing Bill.
And indeed therefore who might be considered to be a person of interest, especially when we consider that saying the primary aim of this facial recognition proof of concept at a port. Of course, there may well be other elements to this trial run that are going to pertain to more widespread use of facial recognition. And we've seen with the suggestion of digital ID that it would be mandated as a a method of combating illegal migration. How many things can effectively
be hung on this notion that. That legal or sorry, illegal migration is the biggest nut that needs to be cracked in this country. And I'll just close this off by by pointing you toward the Information Commissioner's Office and the method by which, first of all, you can have your information scrubbed off the system, or indeed the system can be clogged up by submitting what are called subject access requests. And there's there'll be a link
to this in the show notes. And and I think really this is a, you know, something that does need to be taken very seriously, but it does need to be fought. And I, you know, it would appear to be the case. The system absolutely can be overwhelmed if enough people push back against it by demanding that their data is released. I mean, Mike, I don't know if you've got any thoughts on that
particular issue. Well, I mean, taking your, your point about the how long, how many times they can flog the same horse with, with the migrant issue. Just on, on the BB CS PM programme last night as I was driving home, Evan Davis strikes again because he was, he, he was shocked by the fact that two guys had been accidentally released from, from prison, that one of them was migrant who had overstayed his welcome, who has now actually been rearrested by
the way. But Evan Davis''s response was, or maybe we need some digital ID for, for prisoners. And, and so, you know, this, this, it's, it's quite incredible how every, every opportunity they get, we, we are pushing this, this agenda. But look, let's, let's just move
on with this topic. And, and in a related issue, then we have this from the Environment Agency and Kent County Council, because they've launched what they're describing as interactive signage across Folkestone to help residents and business prepare for flash flooding.
They say that flash flooding is dangerous and can happen very quickly and with stating effects, and knowing what to do in a flood can significantly reduce the risk to life, property and possessions because we've had major deaths in this country, haven't we, from flash flooding over the last 20 years? But anyway, the signs are provided by this organization, Hello Lamppost, and they describe this as a two way communication platform accessible via a mobile phone.
Now they were calling them. They were calling them talking signs. They don't actually talk. Actually, it turns out you've got a you've got to use your mobile phone. It's a bit like that AI thing that we were talking about a couple of weeks ago. And so basically you scan the QR code and that then allows you to take part in an AI conversation with, with the website or whatever it is that that that is is.
But if we put that that that graphic back on screen again for a second, I just want to sort of look at the countries that this a particular organization is active in, so Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Sweden, France, Kazakhstan, India, Japan, Singapore and I think Australia as well. So so hello lamp post. Keep an eye out for that and make sure you scan all those QR codes and get involved in the AI conversation as often as you possibly can.
I hope everybody recognises that that Charles that comment was dripping in sarcasm. Yes, I, I would imagine that they probably do, but I'm, I'm just thinking there's going to be quite a sort of vector when we get told that there's not enough energy to use the lamp post because it's all gone to AI. Or indeed, the lamp post has got so many surveillance cameras on them. They have either slapped or been cut down by the blade runners.
So it's going to be interesting, an interesting one to see it play out. Yes, indeed. OK, let's let's move on. Thank you Charles, let's move on then. If you like what the UK column does, we do need your ongoing financial support. If you can possibly help us out financially, please click on the button on the front page of the UK column website. We do, as I say, need your support.
Thanks to everybody that is. But if you can't support us financially, then please do share this programme or anything else you find on the On the UK column website with as many people as possible. Now tonight at 7:00 PM, Jeremy speaking to to me and to Charles for the another episode of weekly banter at 7:00 PM tonight. Don't miss it. And then at 9:00 PM, Carlsa is speaking to a westerner who lives in China who is has cycled 5000 kilometres across Xinjiang. This is quite a discussion and
please join him at 9 for that. Now yesterday, Neil Oliver was speaking to Sandy Adams and that discussion is now on the UK column website as on demand version. If you haven't seen it, it's an interesting conversation. Do the do share it if you can as well. And a new article on the UK column website today from Doctor Marwa Osmond. And this is entitled Golden Lines, the UAE, Sudan's blood gold and China's quad
facilitation. This is another challenging conversation, particularly for people that are pro bricks for sure. But it's something that we do need to talk a little bit more about. And on Sunday at 77 PM, Part 3 of 1000 words, including the reveal of the picture. Final reveal of the picture is going to be for members only on the UK column website. That's part three with James Delingpole. So join us for that. We have two digital ID events
going on that we want to talk about. 1 is in Crook in Marketplace on Saturday it starts at 12:30 and Diane Rasmussen will be speaking one of the speakers there. And then on Saturday as well at 12:00 PM the usual Glasgow Digital ID demonstration will be taking place at the bottom of Jabaka Street by the River Clyde near the Crystal Palace pub in Central Station. Do go and support everybody that's involved in those campaigns if you possibly can.
OK, let's move on to the issue of disinformation. And well, Letitia Lunen, who is from the UK mission to the United Nations, gave a speech to the UN 4th Committee on Information Integrity a couple of days ago. Now, this is the kind of thing that we would generally give a good ignoring to, but in this case she did a fairly good job of summarising the disinformation industrial complex which the UK imposes on its own population and which the UK wants to see exported to all nations.
So I thought we would just look through a couple of the things that she had to say. So first of all, she said for the world to come together to tackle global challenges, we rely on accurate information. There is no hope for peace if the facts of conflict are obscured. So let's just translate that. So there's no hope that the UK will continue to to, well, stop fermenting wars. And that's unless we can get control of the narrative.
Sorry. They're saying that that they won't continue fermenting the wars unless they're going to continue to get control of the narrative. They can mess that up quite badly. But anyway, you get the point. She then went on to say that member states have a responsibility to protect the integrity of the United Nations as a source of trusted information. And she then complained bitterly about Russia claiming that Russia used the Security Council as a platform for disinformation.
Well, has it? I don't think so. They may have used the Security Council as a platform for information that Britain doesn't want them to use it as a platform for, but that's a different thing, she said. We have a responsibility to tackle disinformation which undermines the UN SCORE mission to protect peace and security like Britain ever respected that idea. And she said the UK will defend information integrity.
Our Online Safety Act requires companies to crack down on illegal disinformation and remove harmful content from their platforms. And you'll notice that this is yet another instance where the idea of legal but harmful comes right back again. So it's not just about removing what they consider to be illegal content, but also content that they find harmful to their particular narrative. So she went on. We continue to work with our closest allies, including through the G7 rapid response
mechanism. Now, remember, the G7 rapid response mechanism was something which Theresa May brought in. And the idea is that the G7 countries have a common narrative which they then spread through their controlled mainstream media outlets. And she said that this would be used to to expose and disrupt foreign information operations globally, but not just foreign information operations, also anybody opposing their narratives in their own countries. She said we must act to protect
independent journalism. By independent journalism, she means mainstream journalism and this notion that it's somehow still independent, which it isn't because it's totally beholden to government money these days. More journalists, she went on to say, were killed last year and than in any other year since the Committee to protect Journalists began collecting data, making it the deadliest record deadliest
year on record. Well, of course, the reason for that is Israel, which she supports and arms at least her the government she works for supports and arms. And although she did mention Gaza in the next paragraph, that doesn't change the the basic fact that she is quite happy to ignore the fact that that she is helping with the killings of those journalists she was talking about in the 1st place by working for the the regime that that's doing it.
She she goes went on to say the UK remains a committed advocate for journalists safety and protection as a Co founder for the Immediate Freedom Coalition. So this is the Immediate Freedom Coalition's website. It's a partnership of countries working together to promote media freedom at home and abroad. And again, if we just look at the countries involved in this, it is this is all completely Western aligned. It is just yet what another part of the complex to control narratives and so on.
But not to let Russia off the hook necessarily here because to be clear, it's not the case that Russia does no wrong. And this tweet is definitely a disinformation of a kind because this is Putin advisor Carol Dmitriev.
And he's not wrong in accusing the British regime of having a desire to go after Elon Musk. He's nonetheless promoting the whole civil war agenda in the UK with this tweet, which perhaps they are not terribly unhappy to see that type of chaos in the UK. We talk about more of that bit more about that in Extra as well.
But just to finish off, since we've mentioned Elon Musk on Wednesday, we're talking about the potential that he was going to get a $1 trillion pay packet that has now apparently been voted for with 75% of the shareholders voting for it. So, Charles, I don't know what your thoughts are on that, but you know, we were talking on Wednesday about the fact that this is effectively putting a huge bung in the hands of somebody who's going to use it for political purposes.
Well, absolutely. And, and really, it's not money that he should be entitled to, I would put it, because of course, the vast majority of those funds, wherever indeed they come from, are either created out of thin air or indeed come from taxpayer money through some channel or another.
But, but I think just to draw out of the shareholder meeting the absolute absurdity of it is if it isn't absurd enough to be suggesting that somebody should have a trillion dollars, we'll just look at one of the absolute brain waves he's had about his cars and do do, and actually right now the, you know, the versions, you know, the cars are a little strict about keeping
your eyes on the road. And but I'm confident that in the next month or two, we should we, we, we're going to look closely at the safety statistics, but we will allow you to text and drive essentially. So. What could possibly go wrong? I mean, my surprise really is the response to the audience. I can't really see why everyone was quite so delighted. Anyway, we'll just finish off by one of the stunts on the stage, which was to produce a robot and make it dance.
Now, I don't know what dancing lessons cost these days, but you'd think with a trillion dollars in your back pocket, you might be able to do slightly better than Elon Musk is is doing here. So I thought it'd be nice to just just look at his his moves on screen. But I mean, the whole thing is quite frankly ridiculous. And I think, as though, you know, it is a serious subject in in many respects, but I think it's entirely appropriate to lampoon the more absurd elements of it.
Yes, thank you, Charles. OK, let's move on then to international affairs again and and war, I suppose is the focus of the next few minutes. But let's start, Mark, with the passing of Dick Cheney. Yes, the globalism graveyard is
growing. Ladies and gentlemen, the passing of Zubigny Burzynski and David Rockefeller, 2017, subsequently, of course, Henry Kissinger, and now another dark Lord, maybe somewhat comparable to Mr. Mandelson or Mr. Blair, Dick Cheney has passed the architect of the post 911 response, the military hegemony of the United States. And, of course, we're not dancing on his grave, but, you know, condolences to his survivors and all that.
He, you know, is a human being. But he got himself into the maelstrom of power and it's troubling legacy to reflect on. On 9/11, Vice President Cheney, or was he actually president in effect, was a central figure in coordinating the government's immediate response from the White House's underground command center. We'll recall in the aftermath he became the primary architect of the US War on Terror, which significantly expanded presidential power and US Intel
OPS. But Cheney gave the later aborted shoot down order, notably of the fourth plane, Flight 93, and his expansive view of presidential authority was called the Unitary Executive Theory. Of course, Flight 93 supposedly crashed into a relatively small hole in Shanksville, PA, for which there was no wreckage, A literal impossibility for a jet that size. Moving on, we'll explain this a little further and reflect on his torturous policies. Let's put this up there.
Along with legal counsel David Addington, Cheney emphasis was instrumental in crafting policies that authorized harsh interrogation methods, including waterboarding. Lots of charges of torture at the time. He consistently pushed intelligence agencies to link Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda and WMDS to justify military action. As you recall, guys. And while these claims were later debunked, Cheney was a major force behind that military
action itself. And that was, of course, the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq was March of 2003, shock and awe, a terrible reign of terror and bombing. Many, many priceless artifacts were destroyed or disappeared. And Afghanistan became, at least in time duration, America's longest war, with so little, at least visibly, to show for it. Now, this next slide is just for
illustration. Fast forward to 2011, ten years after 911, and Cheney and Rumsfeld appeared at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Washington. DCI just happened to be there with my wife Angie, and we were photographing and covering the event. And first of all, Dick Cheney was introduced as a surprise guest at C PAC. Now keep in mind that C PAC was where Ron Paul was still running for president his second time. The first time was O 8.
The second time was 2012 and Ron Paul was winning or coming in very well on the straw polls at the well known C PAC conference. So there was a large Ron Paul contingent. They're very constitutional, very skeptical of what happened in 911 according to the government story. So they introduced Cheney as a surprise guest, and he got as many boos as he did. Cheers. In other words, jeers and cheers.
But then Cheney gives the Defender of the Constitution Award to another surprise guest, Donald Rumsfeld, another dark character regarding 911. The place erupted into absolute pandemonium. The Ron Paul people were so livid they couldn't contain themselves and one guy was so angry and so beside himself that they had to escort him out. At least they felt they did. So the Ron Paul people were absolutely appalled at these kind of power brokers being honored as defenders of the Constitution.
A very important personal story to share. Now, Mr. Cheney has a story to share here too. It's kind of self-explanatory. That same year, probably at that same time, when he was in DC speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations. In this case, let's listen to what he had to say about his attitude toward Wyoming voters. A quick background is Cheney was a House member before he was a chief of staff under George the Dimmer, and he also served in
the Pentagon and other offices. So this is referring to when he was a congressman. Let's go with this. Well, Les, Pete, I want to thank you all for the warm welcome today. I see a lot of old friends in the room, and it's good to be back at the Council on Foreign Relations. As Pete mentioned, I been a member for a long time and was actually a director for some period of time. I never mentioned that when I was campaigning for re election back home in Wyoming.
But yeah, the Wyoming being a very conservative state and pretty well informed, I'd say the voters were pretty keen on his CFR involvement and not real happy about it. But another power broker has gone to that think tank in the sky, ladies and gentlemen. And so that that's enough for now. We can, of course, reflect a little more on extra if you'd like. So back to you, Mike. Absolutely, thank you very much for for that Mark. Now let's come back to Europe at
least. And well, the Franco British defense relationship is strengthening in all areas of cooperation, according to the French minister, the French war minister, Sorry, Catherine. Ultra British warmonger John Healey was in Norway on Wednesday for the latest meeting of the so-called coalition of of the Willing. And while he was there, he met with Votran.
And here they are on screen to sign what is described as a road map that serves to make ever stronger interoperability between our two armies within the framework of the Lancaster House treaties. Now for anybody that doesn't know. The Lancaster House treaties were signed in 2010. It was almost the first thing, I think it was actually literally the first thing that David Cameron as Prime Minister and Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister did as in the coalition government.
And this brought the UK into bilateral defence pact with the French for 50 years. And well, it's this is kind of what it what it looks like. We've got the Lancaster House treaties in 2010. These have now been upgraded in the last day, but we've also got the 2018 Sandhurst Treaties and I described this in this graphic as the Franco British war
machine. But of course this is only part of the picture because that all forms 1/3 or one side of the triangle between France, Germany and Britain, which is effectively known these days as the E3. And this is the key driver for European defence at the moment. Now at the same meeting, Healy also met with the other nine nations of the so-called coalition of the Willing and they all signed an enhanced partnership with Ukraine. Healy said that this was a clear signal to Putin.
Your aggression will be met with our strength. So there you go. The meeting follows the conclusion last week of the of Terrassus, which is the Joint Expeditionary Force's largest and most significant military activity in its 11 year history. They said.
After two months of intensive operations across the Nordic Baltic region, EU KS leadership in the Joint Expeditionary Force and the ability to rapidly deploy alongside allies if needed makes Britain secure at home and strong abroad, underpitting this government's plan for change. Their their language is fantastic.
So anyway, that took place during September and October and more than 1700 British personnel from all three branches of the armed forces were taking part and it was involving, were taking part across Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and the Baltic Sea. But good news everyone, because Ajax is the world's first truly digital armoured fighting vehicle. This is the British Army's new armoured fighting vehicle and it's just achieved initial
operating capability. I'm going to ask Charles about this in a second. It is the most advanced medium weight armored vehicle in the world, they say. So look, let's just get an idea from this little video clip. What what that's all about. S #3 William, please. Firstly, I know is when getting on the Ajax is just how easy it makes it for you. The tech is just so much higher. It's so much better than any other vehicle I've been on.
So there's a variety of sensors, visual otherwise all around the vehicle that help you in the turret and ultimately just help you be more lethal. Certain systems are incredible. Being able to see up to 8 kilometers buys me so much time as a commander to be able to look at what's in front of me and gain a better assessment of what's actually in front of me and. Pass that up. So it's more accurate, more time to deliver that information as
well. Everyone feels informed because they've all got good situational awareness given to us by the sensors. And all that. Information they can give to me allows me to do my job better. So what do you think, Charles? I mean you talked about this was a September last year. What are your thoughts? Yeah, it was, well, I think it was September, October and the, the thrust of that report was how incredibly beset by problems this had been and how they'd covered it up.
And actually there was quite significant safety issues with crew members from I think it was sound and indeed possibly even radiation from within, within the vehicles. Yeah, great. All very well until it breaks and then you're absolutely stuffed. And, and I think with any of these procurement projects, particularly on armoured vehicles, by the time it actually rolls into service and therefore full operating
capability, it's out of date. And so in, in effect, if you're going to if you're going to move away from from analogue, which is something that you can always hope to be able to fix in a, you know, in a situation under pressure, you do not have that luxury with digital, once it breaks, it breaks.
That is it. And I think this is the problem with any, you know, whatever trials they've put it through, I would be fairly sure they will not have received incoming rounds onto those vehicles and then seeing how the kit works. Absolutely, yes. I think that I think we could be
fairly sort of that. But finally, just on the war front, I wanted to remind everyone what is driving the war agenda because the mentality which is driving it is well represented by Lindsey Graham. And let's just have a quick look at this comment that he made recently. So I just want to say I feel good about the Republican Party. I feel good about where we're going as a nation. We're killing all the right people and we're cutting your
taxes. Killing all the right people and cutting your taxes, you couldn't do better than that. Now he went on to say that a coalition of Republicans, some Baptists, some Jewish. We organize ourselves around principles that we love and we cherish. We love individual freedom. We love entrepreneurship, we love capitalism, we love Israel, We love the idea of Israel. We love the struggle they've been involved in. We understand that Israel is a friend of America to the better
end. We understand that God blesses those who bless Israel. Charles, very, very briefly. This man, to my mind, is clearly ill, but so's actually quite a lot of the United States. Well, I suppose I can't necessarily back that up with any substantial evidence because I'm not there and I haven't sort of been on a on a tour, but I think it's it's a reasonable sort of position to take.
And actually, this is something that I would encourage people to listen to the germ warfare banter session on because this is we do, we do go into this to a certain extent insofar as the, the adherence to an ideology is concerned. And how, you know how he can stand up and believe at the same time that he's Christian and that he's killing all the right people. He's perfectly staggering. But he's, he's not alone. He's absolutely not alone in thinking that. No, indeed, indeed, no.
Let's come back to the UK then. And and farming and health and food and so on. What? What's been the latest developments around milk and
beef? Yeah, a number of things have happened, as they tend to do at the same time, which makes it interesting, not least because a year or so ago there was a lot of fuss created over what was being described as a feed additive, which was a designed as a methane suppressant called Beauvaire. Now those concerns were well articulated, but of course were described as being conspiracy theories and propaganda and all the rest of it.
And we've now got Farmers Weekly this just this week saying that the Beauvaire maker is defending their products after Danish farmer fears. And that headline is backed up by the The Nordic Times saying that a Danish farmer raises the alarm and Beauvaire is making my cow sick. Now, of course, the problem with anything like this is that social media tends to go wild and it's very hard to understand exactly what may or may not be going on.
So I got in touch directly with the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration, but I must say responded almost immediately. So my thanks to Mikkel and I hope hope that he can pass on to Defra exactly how to deal with these sorts of things and that that may trickle down to other British government departments.
But nonetheless, what they say in their statement in Denmark is that we are very aware that some herd owners have reported animals showing signs of illness after being fed with Beauvaire. So they're not denying it. They're not trying to squash the story immediately. They say that they're monitoring the situation. They then go on, of course, as they would to say that the that the feed additive itself has undergone a long and thorough approval process.
But they said that it was the agricultural sector that tested Beauvera for an extended period before, and this is the critical part, before it became mandatory to use methane reducing feed. Now it should be noted that that that mandatory period only started in October. So this is very new news and indeed the reaction to it, if indeed this is a reaction to it, has of course taken place over a very short period of time.
And then they described the sector's own studies not showing any signs that the cows became ill or experienced reduced well-being. Well, I wonder why that might be. And I don't mean to sound too cynical, but the way in which these things work, whether it be drugs for humans, feed additives for humans or I'm sorry for animals, the process is ineffectively the same, which is that the scrutiny is provided by the people who are standing to make money from it in the first place.
It's not a sensible, it's never going to produce a sensible outcome. But the Food Administration have commissioned a report which is going to be conducted by our House university. And I think the other important part to bring out here is that they do say the legislation contains an exemption clause that has existed since the beginning of the scheme. If the person responsible for the herd assesses that a cow to show signs of metabolic disorder, the cow may be exempted from feeding.
And effectively they go on in that vein saying that if your whole, if you've got concerns about your whole herd, you are exempted. Now, I think it's a very important point to make in that frankly, why, if those are the potential outcomes, would farmers comply? And that's where we go back to the exemption clause applying to the person who's responsible for the herd.
Because I can't be certain speaking here now, whether that means the person who is actually tending that herd every day or whether there's a deal regarding a corporation, whether in fact it's the corporation upon whose behalf that work is being done, whether they maintain control of the herd and would therefore refuse to stop the Beauver feed additive. So, so there's a grey arrow. But but you know, things are
happening. Now, if this is news to you, what I would recommend is that you go to the UK column website and you look at Doctor Mike Williams's article from last year talking about the insurance and outs of feed additive itself. Is Beauver safe and effective? And of course, what this all pertains to is methane. So what a coincidence that just last week the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero put out the UK Methane Action Plan.
And the very first sentence I would say is on pretty shaky ground, saying methane is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. And they put in this a graph which they say illustrates the issue.
And if you if you are watching, you'll see that there's a yellow strip at the top of the graph, which basically hasn't got any smaller in quantity over the years that are documented in fact saying that agriculture is responsible in the UK 48% of emissions and therefore all agriculture is to be targeted in order to be able to reduce this. Now again, going back to UK column content that contextualises this.
Neil Harrison wrote a very, very good article this summer called The Bison and the Bias. And there'll be links to all this in the show notes. But Neil's point in summary is that if hundreds of thousands and millions of wild animals with essentially the same ruminant systems roamed the earth centuries ago and more than why is it a problem to have got rid of all those and have cows now? So that but it obviously goes into a lot more detail.
So I really would encourage that you do have a look at that. Now, what's this related to of course, the production of milk. And I spoke about Blue tongue earlier in the week and the withdrawal period for administering a drug and essentially any harm that can come to people who might be eating beef or indeed taking milk from cows that have
received both air. So here we go and look at BBC Sport, who are in a terrible fluster because a very well known Norwegian footballer who plays for Manchester City called Erling Harland, it turns out he drinks raw milk. And this has created great problems for BBC and indeed the mainstream media. And they've parroted out the Food Standard Agency, saying that, you know, harmful bacteria
and it's all deadly risk. And it's banned in Scotland and it can only be sold at the farm gate and all the usual rhetoric surrounding it. But the critical part is the man himself. And we're just going to have a quick look at a video of Harland going shopping. I'm super happy. Have you got milk? Yeah. Good do. You know what? Else we've got beef, we've got Tom Hawks. Now look at that. So how many can I get? Because we need to be fair with
the others. Well, I have to say the Tomahawks probably are a harder sell because they're a little bit more expensive, obviously. OK I'll I'll take them 3 then. I like fatty steak the most. Rib eye tomahawk obviously. One of my favorite is short ribs, the. Milk. We need a little bit of this in milk. Super food as well. It's good for us. It's good for our stomach. It's good for our skin, good for our bones and muscles. That's why I drink it. Do you want honey?
Home 123. You want honey as well? 4 honey. I have it at home. Yeah. So 4 honey. Yeah. I'm super happy. I expected only milk and we went out with a lot of steak. Milk and honey. Perfect. So not necessarily a classic piece of cinema, but the main point of it is that he is a 25 year old with an enormous following and that went out on his YouTube channel and it's slightly too small to see but the he has over 700. Sorry, over 800,000, nearly 900,000 followers on YouTube.
And that video has been viewed nearly 7,000,000 times, which does create a problem for the establishment and that's reinforced by data from Google Trends and you can see it well released. If you can't see the screen, there's a graph which shows the date of that video coming out 23rd of October. And there's a massive spike in
searches for raw milk. Now, of course, the fundamental problem with raw milk is that it enables the farmer, because of the legislation, to have a direct relation with the customer. And therefore it cuts out to a large extent, Food Standards Agency. It cuts out Defra, it cuts out subsidy and it cuts out all the elements of control that were put in place in order to manage the farming sector. And this is exactly why milk pasteurisation was pushed quite so hard.
So it'll be no great surprise to learn that in the very long career that the third Lord Rothschild had in the House of Lords, he only spoke on 2 occasions. 1 was about Palestine and the other was about raw milk and the dangers of pasteurisation. I've just pulled out a very small quote from a long speech he gave in 1946 about this, saying that he was referring to the opponents of pasteurisation and many people who have fallen victims to their propaganda.
How very ironic. And I just finish off by saying if you if this is something you want to know more about and do look at the excellent interview with John Cook from a couple of years ago called Raw Truth, Unadul, Unadulterated Milk and Food Security. And I just round off by saying I'm actually off to see John this afternoon to pick up a job. Lot of raw milk. A job lot? I don't think so. Thank you very much, Charles. Thank you for that. Right.
But let's come back to you, Mark, and we'll end then with the latest fair porn from the various health establishments with respect to M Pox. Yes, Mike, you were talking earlier about Xi Jinping and the Global Governance Initiative maybe being sort of disingenuous, contradicting China's policies. Well, we see some of that dodgy
stuff going on here now. Here's a recent headline, 28 October Daily Mail urgent warning over rising deadlier impacts cases in Europe and US as UK officials fear the virus may be spreading undetected. So people might not be showing symptoms and it's going past from one person to another and not being detected. But here's the BBCA day earlier. What is mpox and why are cases rising in Europe now? This is a little bit maybe lesser known.
UK health officials are encouraging gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men to make sure they are vaccinated against mpox, as a strain called clade 1B shows early signs of local spread in some European countries. This sexual component to this maybe isn't so widely known.
I'm saying the UK Health Security Agency is aware of small numbers of cases of this impact strain formerly called monkey pox in Spain, Italy, Portugal, Netherlands and the US. So that's sort of the nature of it. They're saying even though Auk column, we question the nature or even existence of viruses at times. Now when you get to The Who, that's when things get interesting. This next slide, The Who has rescinded the public health emergency of international concern about M pox.
The bottom slide we've seen before on the column, that's from August of 2024 when The Who Director General Tadros declared M pox outbreak a public health emergency of international concern. That's the level they need to get to before they can declare A pandemic or as they declare A
pandemic. Now, one, one other thing on that slide, Mike, the the top part of that says, however, that the extension of standing recommendations for impacts were subsequently issued by the Director general of WHO. So in other words, they rescinded the public health emergency of international concern and they're sticking with the previous standing recommendations. So it sounds like they're backing down, but are they now?
James Raguski had this to say. The pandemic agreement, the pandemic agreement negotiations, he calls it the pandemic agreement BS or PABS, which actually stands for something else. The negotiations held Monday and Tuesday, that's this past Monday and Tuesday only reinforced what's always, always been abundantly clear. These negotiations are not about health. They are about money and profits.
And when I looked at the document that rescinded that public health emergency and read through it and it was quite long, it showed that even though they've rescinded that public health emergency declaration, they're actually pushing very hard to get all the vaccine delivery systems in place and all the infrastructure. So when a pandemic is declared, they can get the vaccines, the mRNA injections, whatever they want to any country they want pretty much.
So while they while The Who seems to be backing down, they're putting the infrastructure in place for maximum profits, like Mr. Raguski is saying, Mike. And then that last slide was just the a really reiteration of the upcoming schedule. It shows the the upcoming meetings of the working group and let's just show that real quick. The N3 through 7, the international government intergovernmental working group agenda just got done with that part of it.
Then they'll meet early December, middle February, latter March, and finally the 79th World Health Assembly in Geneva in May. And they still have not actually ratified or put into force the pandemic treaty. Like I've said, they're trying to make it look like it's adopted and enforce or almost enforce and it's not.
So not all, not all hope is lost in terms of preventing another pandemic, but they are trying to put the infrastructure in place while they seem to be backing down or toning it down. So again, it requires total vigilance here. So back to you. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. Thank you for that. And look, we'll just end on a on a slightly humorous note now I'm going to say I'm not entirely certain whether this is AI generator or not. I don't think it matters.
It, it, it makes an interesting point. And and so we should just enjoy the, the humour in it. But this is Ursula von der Leyen. Well, it, it should be reasonably self-explanatory for, for people that are just listening. Well, I'll just mention what happens in it afterwards, but let's watch this first. Thank.
You. Thank you very much for receiving me and first of all to those who scream and yell, hear so loud they can be happy that they are in a free country like Finland where the free speech is a right where they have not any restriction. If they would be in Moscow, they would be in jail in 2 minutes. Thanks God we have democracy. So Charles I just by saying I hope that's real because as the guy gets frogged, frog March off off by the police as she's
talking about freedom of speech. I just thought that was beautiful. Absolutely priceless. What a great note to end on. Yeah, absolutely. OK. Well, look, Charles, Mark, thank you very much for today and thanks to everybody that's watched. We will be back in a few minutes time for some UK column news extra. If you're a member, please stick on the live stream and, and we'll have we'll we'll see you there.
If you're not a member, please consider joining and joining us for extra each time we do a news programme. But in the meantime, don't forget Germ tonight at 7:00 PM Cars at 9:00. We'll be back on Monday, 1:00 PM. As usual, have a great weekend and we'll see you then. Bye bye.