Good afternoon, it's Friday the 24th of October 2025, just after
1:00 and welcome to UK Column News.
I'm your host, Mike Robinson, my Co host in studio today, Patrick
Henningson welcomes the programme.
Patrick. Great to be with you, Mike.
And we'll be joined today by Basil Valentine and David
Miller. Now, later in the programme,
we're going to be covering the acquittal of Soldier F over the
killings on Bloody Bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland.
And we'll be looking at the increasing tensions between the
US and Russia. And in fact, we'll have a little
bit at the end about the on the latest from Starmer on digital
ID. But we're going to begin with
censorship and medical censorship, Patrick, and really
censorship of anyone speaking out about Gaza.
Well, this year, three really important stories, huge
precedent, potentially precedent cases here and it's a really a
trifector Mike this week. The 1st is the story of doctor
Ramey Aladwan and she was arrested in her home a few days
ago and then she's being put on double jeopardy with the General
Medical Council trying to basically, well the the Israeli
lobby and pressure groups want to take away her medical
licence, her ability to practise medicine.
The other is the lawyer for Hamas who is representing Hamas
to regarding the prescription label of the group in the UK
courts. His name is Fahad Ansari.
He has also been arrested under the Terrorism Act.
We'll look at his case as well as the fast, we call them fast
jury trials or no jury trials, speed trials with no jury for
all the Palestine action activists who've been arrested
that's going through right now. Let's take a look at all three
of those real briefly, and then we're going to connect with
Basil Valentine for some analysis on this.
But first and foremost here, and by the way, I could only find
this article that had a fair headline.
The main mainstream is just out to destroy this doctor Ramey
Aladwan and this headline British Palestinian NHS doctor
silenced by UK Medical Council after arrest over pro Palestine
comments. But this is the thing, Mike,
when you go to Google here, I typed in her name and I'm
looking for this is what pops up.
They're making the whole stories about her necklace.
She had a #7 around her neck. So the Daily Mail, The Times,
everybody's all over that. And just to scroll through here
and it's anti Semite calling for jihad.
They're going on about her #7 charm or terror charm around her
neck. You can't.
There's the the presser not interested in the issue of free
speech and due process and her basic rights and the fact she's
been put through double jeopardy here now.
She had a hearing yesterday, Mike.
We thought there was going to be a decision, but they've just
kicked the can down the road a bit further and she's going to
have to be put on trial for the exact same thing she was
acquitted for just a few weeks ago and with no new evidence
presented, here she is right outside the steps of the of the
hearing. I'm, I'm basically here again 4
weeks later for the exact same speech that a panel here, an
independent panel said was fine. Just because the Israeli Jewish
lobby has an issue with what I said and the fact that I want,
they don't want the movement. They don't want people to be
able to make the same arguments, to be able to have that freedom
of speech. We pay the General Medical
Council to make sure that we're safe for British patients, not
to make sure that what we say doesn't upset Israel or the
Israeli lobby. We're here.
This is not how our medical regulator and certainly I'm
shocked that the MPs have buckled.
I mean, the MPs have today themselves determined that their
ruling that they made only four weeks ago cannot stand that they
cannot push back against the GMC who are acting on behalf of
Israel. That should worry us all.
That should worry every single British doctor and patient and
citizen. This is independent regulation
being influenced by a foreign hostile entity that just
murdered hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and bond
hospitals, raped doctors to death and kidnapped and tortured
them. Makes a pretty strong argument
there. So they're trying to prevent her
from doing her job because of statements she made, I believe
at a, a, a previous rally regarding Palestine or with
Palestine action or something like this.
So the other case here, Mike, is this one.
We'll bring this up on screen. This is the lawyer who is UK
lawyer representing Hamas over the prescription label here.
His name is Fahad Ansari and this is his his page up at Cage
International. You know they're advocating on
his behalf. He's been detained under the
Terrorism Act and digitally strip searched and he's not
given proper due process or rights in defending himself as
auk qualified lawyer. Here is his statement.
But to kick me out of court, to kick my lawyers out of court at
this point and say we now need to go into.
Clothes and we're going to actually have a conversation
with the judge that you will never know what happened there.
You'll never know the justification, you'll never see
material that is simply unfair. And you ask any child whether
this is fair, they will say this is.
How could that be fair? You didn't hear my side of the
story. But we've.
Become conditioned to accept unfair.
The last 25 years of war and terror has conditioned the
British public to accept secret evidence in our courts, to
accept the an abandonment of the rule of law, to accept people
being arrested for terrorism for holding up placards.
So we have been fighting this for over 2 decades.
Now is not the time to back off. And the fact that all of you
guys are here today really encourages me.
It's not about me. It's not the fact that I'm a
solicitor, I'm a lawyer. The principle is greater than
this. Nobody should be allowed take
your phone at a border without suspicion, without suspicion.
I need to stress that. And do a digital strip search on
you. Under the compulsion that if you
don't comply, you will be convicted of terrorism.
That is not what should be happening and it's not about me.
I need to stress this. It is about all of us and most
fundamentally, it is about Palestine, free Palestine.
And he does have a fundraiser here.
We'll put that up on screen. This is crowd justice.
And he is raising money for his defence on this.
Obviously, Mike, it's such an important issue.
We're talking about basic rights here that actually effects
everybody, including some of our journalistic colleagues who have
been subject to this type of treatment as well.
And the third story will bring this up on screen right now.
This is from Craig Murray's website.
And I just remind people, Craig Murray is one of the greatest
court reporters probably in history for what he's done over
the years, doing the hard work, the yeoman's labour from the
gallery of courtrooms. But here he has 36 minute trials
and no jury. Starmer's fascist mass courts.
What's he talking about here? Well, he's talking about all of
the people who've been arrested for saying they support
Palestine Action, a direct action grassroots group here.
And this is from Murray. The plans are devised by Justice
Michael Snow. He is the epitome of judicial
prejudice. When Julian Assange appeared
before Snow in the first hearing after being dragged from the
embassy, Snow called Assange A narcissist, even though Assange
had said nothing but to confirm his name and had no evidence
that had been led to that arrest.
So, and he goes on here. This is describing the situation
they've Snow's decree 2000 people charged under Section 13
of the Terrorism Act for supporting Palestine action
who's just been recently labelled a terrorist group by
the British government to be tried in batches of five at a
rate of 10 people per day, giving 36 court minutes for each
defendant. This is a farce, says Murray, a
spectacle, a mass show trial. And the 36 minutes includes both
prosecution and defence cases and cross examination.
Pretty incredible, isn't it? So with that, I want to bring on
our guest, Basil Valentine. He is a political analyst based
in the UK. Basil, welcome to the programme.
Let's start in order here, Basil.
Well, the first one is the case of Doctor Ramey Aladwan.
Your your thoughts on how this proceedings have unfolded and
what the implications are. Go ahead, Basil.
Well, after Rami was acquitted by the Medical Tribunal Service
last month, Wes Streeting started bleaching about how he
disagreed with the decision. He has no business to do so
because it's an independent professional body.
And then only last week, Keir Starmer started making noises
about changing legislation to interfere with these independent
professional bodies and their ability to regulate, be it
doctors, lawyers or anybody else.
It so happens that Ramey is a doctor.
But the same may apply to solicitors or, you know, any
other regulated sector or indeed, you know, trade
unionists across the employment spectrum.
Now, the tribunal found last month that Ramey's speech was
protected under the European Convention of Human Rights.
She'd said nothing illegal at all, but yesterday the General
Medical Council claimed that they didn't like the flavour of
what she was saying, which is an interesting thing.
And she was silenced when she attempted to address the panel
as well. Silence there.
And of course Rama is silenced in the corporate media.
Never allowed to present her case on any major network or
anything because of course her case comes across as perfectly
reasonable, humane and humanitarian.
She's a British of Palestinian origin and a direct victim of
genocide. That's the whole point.
That's why she's in Britain in the 1st place and not practising
medicine in Palestine. So the reason why her case has
been heard again is because the so called campaign against anti
semitism lobby the government who bowed to their pressure to
go for this retrial. Now we'll find out in two weeks
time. Basically what they're trying to
do is alter the terms of reference or the way that what
she said was interpreted to somehow the aim of the exercise
find her guilty when the next hearing comes around.
It's absolutely disgraceful and these establishment organs that
sort of claim to represent the rule of law are in fact doing
the quite opposite. They're undermining the rule of
law by undermining due process and independent bodies like the
Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service.
Incidentally, this video, which we can see as well of her
arrest, the police informed the GMC, the General Medical
Council, about this, gave them full details of her arrest.
Even though that the GMC themselves had said to Rome back
in May, in reference to a previous arrest when she was a
supporter of the now prescribed Palestine action, that they, the
GMC, were not interested in mere arrests, only if she was charged
and convicted. And yet that seems now to change
and there is collusion between the police and the GMC, The
theory being that, you know, it's grist to the mill, isn't
it, to say, you know, we've got a wrong in here.
Look, we had to arrest her only earlier this week.
So, you know, no smoke without fire and all that sort of thing.
Even though, of course, the arrest was on grounds that were
largely spurious. It was very much, I think,
designed just to change the optics in advance of this week's
hearing. Yes, a good point.
A lot of people are suspecting the same.
And on the case of Fahad Ansari, we'll bring up this incredible
quote here. This is amazing, he says.
I refuse to participate in a fundamentally unfair process.
He's not going to comply in this legal process, he says.
I cannot trust the system where the British state's allegation,
quote, evidence is kept secret from me, kept secret from my
lawyers and members of the public, and where any attempts
to defend myself would only serve to feed the intelligence
apparatus. This is targeting both me and my
clients. This is not about national
security. It's about using a rigged system
to harass lawyers like me who represent clients the state
dislikes and who would prefer were denied any legal
representation whatsoever. Your thoughts on this case?
This is so important, Basil, because this really comes to the
core of due process and jurisprudence.
Go ahead. You know, Mr Ansari was detained
at the Port of Holyhead on his return from a family holiday in
Ireland and was questioned by the police about his religion,
about his views on Palestine, things like that.
And they took his phone off him, even though it has 15 years
worth of confidential information on it.
And he, because of this, you know, ludicrous misuse of
terrorism legislation is due to be the victim of a truly
Kafkaesque 1984 type procedure where the police will present
evidence to a judge entirely in secret.
Mr Ans neither Mr Ansari nor his legal team are allowed to know
what that evidence is, nor any member of the public or press.
Now, as a counterweight to that special advocate is appointed to
represent Mr Ansari's interests. He is allowed in the court, but
he's not allowed to speak to Mr Ansari or Mr Ansari's legal team
after the evidence has been presented.
I mean, this is absolutely off the chance if, if this sort of
thing went on in Soviet Russia, we would have laughed about how
how ludicrous it was this kind of show trial.
How on earth is somebody supposed to be able to defend
themselves if the evidence presented before them, you know,
they're not, they're not made aware of it.
But of course, Mr Ansari's real crime is that together with the
barrister Frank McGinnis, they are challenging the prescription
of Hamas, including the political wing.
Let's remember that Hamas is not prescribed in the vast majority
of countries around the world where it is regarded as a
legitimate either the legitimate government of Gaza where it was
elected, or at least at the very least a legitimate political
organisation. But after years of lobbying by
the Israel lobby in the UK, it was prescribed as a terrorist
organisation and therefore anybody seeking to represent it
is also in the cross hairs of the UK national security state.
Yes, and just briefly, we just got a few seconds left, but I'll
bring this Justice Snow offhanded comment here.
Basil, bring this up on screen. I'm satisfied that the time is
sufficient. 36 minutes per case in these massive show trials.
I am. I'm not going to give any more
time. Your only remedy is the High
Court. It's a bit harsh, isn't it,
Basil? I mean to say the least.
Well this is absolutely ludicrous and completes this
trifecta of miscarriages of justice in motion.
It's been decided that the defendants of the recent
Palestine action protests who held up innocuous signs saying I
oppose genocide, I support Palestine action.
Yes, the 70 something clergyman, assorted Quakers, peace
campaigners and the rest are to be tried in batches of five at a
time, each defendant given no more than 36 minutes and
crucially only in front of a judge, no jury.
So this is a mass show trial. Again, Soviet S and remains to
be seen whether or not there's a legal challenge to this because
of course we've also got the question of the judicial review
of the prescription of Palestine action that's due to go ahead
after the government was defeated last week.
It's challenge to the judicial review.
The idea is that they want to try and get people convicted
before the ban is overturned because the likelihood is it
will be overturned because it is a misuse of of the Terrorism Act
once again. It's extraordinary.
Basil Valentine, thank you for this analysis.
And we, we will reconnect with you during the extra time after
the programme. So for our viewers, Basil will
be rejoining us after the main news programme.
Thank you very much Basil for that.
OK, now let's move on then to Professor David Miller.
Now he's defending an ongoing case brought by the so called
campaign against anti Semitism for 4X posts which they claim
were menacing. Now just want to show his
crowdfunder on screen here. Apparently not on one of the
major platforms, but we'll come on to this again in a second.
David posted on XA couple of days ago.
I've just won a significant victory against the comically
named Campaign Against Anti Semitism at Westminster
Magistrates Court. The CIA is attempting to mount a
private prosecution against me for sending 4 supposedly
menacing posts on X. But today the judge ruled that
the CIA had withheld significant information with the court when
they had originally applied for the summons against me.
Then I have 28 days to comply with an order to disclose all
relevant communications between their directors, trustees and
staff on the question of whether they were seeking to silence me
or to undermine my Employment Appeal Tribunal, which is
scheduled for next month. So David joins us now to discuss
this. Welcome to the programme, David.
Just give us some more detail on what's happening in the court.
So in my specific case, the the case of the the campaign against
Anti Semitism, which is acting as a private prosecutor to take
me to court for these 4 posts on X which are said to be menacing.
Now I should say, because it's relevant that this is under the
Communications Act of 2003, Section 127, and that's the
exactly the same section which the Metropolitan Police have
charged or are going to charge a Rama.
I'll add one with with some of her posts.
So that's a very interesting development because it shows, I
think the police are more evidence of the police being
pressured by the CAA and taking on really quite ludicrous and
obscure legal powers in an attempt to stop people from
speaking out about the genocide. So that's that's one thing to
note. Now these 4 posts they are
suggesting that what although I called for the maximum
accountability under the law. Of Zionists in this country and
in other countries that what I really meant by that was in my
mind or what I intended to communicate was that that really
that people should find Zionists and or Jews and attack them.
Now, of course, that, that wasn't what was in my mind, that
wasn't what I said. And we will see that when we,
when we, when or if we get to an actual trial.
But the, the, the slight complexity here is that because
they have been, as they've publicly said, monitoring me for
many years, trying to have me sacked for my job at the
University of Bristol. At the time.
They, they paid for students to threaten the university with
legal action and many other things that they've done,
including, of course, reportedly to the police for alleged
crimes, which the police declined to pursue because they
were obviously ludicrous. So all of that information
wasn't given to the court when the court issued the summons
against me. And so the judge in this case
determined that they were. They ought to go back and look
at their files for the extent to which their staff and their
trustees and their directors have been colluding against me.
And we should, we should remark at this point that of course
their trustees and their directors are not a matter of
public record. Unusually for a charity, they
have a dispensation not to release the names of the
trustees. And really very, very unusually
for Companies House, they have a a similar dispensation for their
director. So I don't know who it is that's
prosecuting me. I don't know who the relevant
control in mind and the campaign against anti semitism is.
And so that's all part of our case.
So we, we now have a 28 days for them to release this information
and for us to then go back to court on the date of the 15th of
December, which would have been the first day of the trial.
But the trial has now been pushed back on the 15th of
December. We will deter, we will hear the
case being put by the CAA and by my lawyers.
The CAA are putting in a case that I am a person of
disreputable character. I believe that's the technical
legal term in order they can bring in extra evidence against
me, which is not relevant to the the specific tweets and we are
applying for the case to be simply thrown out because it's a
travesty and a joke. Now, the, the reason that I've
said said said some of that at length is because this is all
part when, when you're talking about the three cases that
Patrick referred to as the trifecta to the, the case
against Farhad Ansari, the case against the people who've been
arrested for supporting power actually, and indeed Doctor
Rama's case. There are also, of course, lots
of other cases as we know. And this is an indication of
just how seriously the British state and the the people who are
pressuring them, IE the the regime in Tel Aviv, take
Palestine solidarity activities in this country.
They are deliberately trying to decapitate the anti Zionist
movement in this country and to silence us, to stop people from
acting, for example, to de de prescribe Hamas or Palestine
action to stop people like me and Doctor Rami and many others
speaking out. Just the other day, I believe on
Monday this week, we had the case of Sarah Wilkinson, who had
been held under draconian house arrest conditions from months
and months. The police had stolen her
passport and I had not even admitted that they had it.
And she was concerned that they were going to, to remand her.
But as it happened, what happened was that she her bail
conditions were lifted, which is good, and her passport was
ordered to be returned to her by the police.
So the judge didn't take any nonsense from the police about
that. So that was a victory.
My case was a victory. Also on Friday, the same day as
my case, we had the the other two victories, which was one the
the decision that the government was not able to appeal the the
digital review application by Palestine Action.
So that will go forward. And we also had the case of the
Instra Precision 10. That's the people who vandalised
the Instra Precision factory, which of course is a subsidiary
of Albert and they won a down grading of their charges.
So what we're seeing here is a massive push by the Israelis and
the Zionists and that they're running dogs in this country.
And we're seeing the courts starting to, to throw out quite
a lot of the ridiculous charges which are being brought, not all
of them. And, but, and that's a process
which will continue. But I think we're starting to
see of the anti Zionist case winning much more effectively.
And I think that's the, that's we will see that with, with
Doctor AMA. Although of course the GMC have
acted atrociously and their attempts to get to stop her
speaking, the fact that they put in some 2 pages of the police's
charges against Doctor AMA entirely irrelevant.
And also, of course, the fact that they're effectively trying
to retry her on the same things which which she was cleared of
just four weeks ago, that that I think will probably will not go
well for them in the end because there's such outrage about them.
And of course, it's all a question of the extent to which
the law protects freedom of speech under, under the European
Convention. And, and of course, like when we
look at that, that legislation, we know that it does protect it
quite significantly. And many of these cases will
fall. But nevertheless, the Zionists
will keep trying to push again and again to have people
silenced and to have them to struck off or taken from their
jobs, like for example, Farhad or Doctor, I'll add 1.
So that's the, that's the, the position we're in at the moment.
We're starting to win but it's not going to be an easy Rd.
And, and David there there's a term in, in British legal
practise called the vexatious litigant.
And often cases are thrown out if the litigant is deemed to be
vexatious. Other words, they're constantly
badgering the court and stove piping cases into the court.
And, and normally the practise would be just to dismiss.
It doesn't have standing it. It is these, these Zionist cases
and the ones that you're being targeted by, are they, are they
in danger of coming under this term, vexatious litigant now?
They are in danger of coming under that.
The question is whether the courts have the the backbone and
the wherewithal to simply reject the nonsense that which they are
being bombarded with. I mean the the, the
organisations which are doing this, the campaign against anti
Semitism, the UK lawyers for Israel, both of them involved in
Doctor Al Adwan's case. I mean, in her case, the the GM
CS legal submissions yesterday pushed back against her defence
team saying that they had been bounced into this by the
Zionists and they said Oh well no, that that's not true.
Our decision to do this was taken before the CAA lodged its
letter before action. So therefore we'd already taken
the decision and they go on to say on the basis of complaints
made by the CAA and the UK lawyers for Israel.
So they were, you know, on the one hand, slight trying to deny
what they actually admitted in the rest of the paragraph.
They have been assaulted by Zionist groups and indeed by the
Zionist assets in government. I'm talking in particular about
where Streeting, who has disgracefully helped to bounce
that this case along. So yeah, we're facing the
possibility of a collapse of these Zionist actions, but but
we're not going to get it just in a very straightforward way.
It's going to be a question of multiple cases of defeat for
them, at which point it will become clear how ridiculous and
overreaching they have been. Yeah.
And that's certainly your comment on that.
Yeah. I mean, yeah.
So, so you know, final question, David, I'm just interested to
know why you think that the courts are willing to, to reject
these claims? Because with the with the state
being so pro Zionist and so pro Israel at the moment, is, is the
judiciary really attempting to show some kind of independence
here? Well, I think that that's that's
the case though. I mean, what you've see with
many of these cases is that they're so outrageous that it's,
they're only, they're only got to the stage that they have by
the fact that the police are effectively in the pockets of
the Zionists. And indeed, as we saw with the,
the GMC case, the, the, the, the person who's made this decision
to refer Doctor Al Adwan to the, the tribunal has, has just
parroted Zionist talking points. But when you get to the, the
level of of the judiciary, even the senior judiciary who may be
sympathetic to Zionism more generally, the it's, it's such a
breach of the the usual procedures that they feel in
some, some cases they have to reject some of these
overreaches. David, thank you very much for
joining us today. It's been a very interesting
conversation, but then thanks to Basil as well.
So, so look, just just to to end this, I just want to show your
crowdfunding page again here. And so let's have a look at this
and I'll just bring the, the amount of money raised so far.
So you're what about 40% towards the goal of 50,000 lbs.
So the the link to this will be in the show notes.
If anybody's able to offer David some support there, that would
be massively appreciated. But thank you very much, David,
for joining us. OK, look, we've got to, we've
got to move on. And so I'm just going to say,
first of all, thank you very much to everybody who is
supporting the UK column and the work that we do.
We do need your support. If you have a look on the front
page of the UK column website here, there is an option to head
over to the support page and the various opportunities or options
to to help us out. If you can't help us
financially, please do help us by sharing any of the material
you find on the website on social media because that helps
us deal with the censorship regime that we are under as
well. Now tonight at 7:00 PM, Charles
and I are speaking the germ once again for our weekly banter
session. I think this is absolutely 18
already. It's quite amazing how quickly
this is going by. So join us for that at 7:00 PM
tonight. ESA Bloomy I was speaking to
earlier in the week and this went out on the live stream at
1:00 PM yesterday. So Dan, another forgotten war.
Very interesting conversation with ESA.
And please, if you haven't seen that yet, do have a look at that
and and let's see and share it if you possibly can as well.
And finally, sticking with the digital ID issue here, another
week in Glasgow and another demonstration tomorrow at
midday, meeting at midday at the bottom of Jamaica St by the
River Clyde near the Crystal Palace pub and Central station.
If you'd like to go and support this group of people that are
out every weekend now to to draw attention to this issue and
please do so. OK now let's move on then to the
the Bloody Sunday issue because yesterday Soldier F was found
not guilty of murder as a result of the killings of civilians in
the Barkside in Londonderry on the 30th of January 1972.
Now we'll just put on screen some an idea of what happened on
the day there was a civil rights March.
But British soldiers of the First Battalion of the Parachute
Regiment opened fire on apparently unarmed civilians
taking part in this civil rights March on the Bogside.
And of course, that's predominantly Catholic area of
Derry. And the March had, as you can
see on screen, well, as you will see in the second, it turned
into a bit of a riot at some point.
Now the parish shot a total of 26 people on the day, thirteen
of whom died. A 14th person died several
months later. This was the highest number of
people killed in a single incident during the 30 years of
the Troubles. But The thing is that the
marchers killed and injured, they were unarmed, but there
were others there as well, including Martin McGuinness and
now the Savile inquiry. And that's not anything to do
with Jimmy Savile. That was the the judicial
inquiry into the Bloody Sunday incident.
They found that McGuinness had been armed with a Thompson
machine gun on the day and though they could not say
definitively that McGuinness had fired the first shot, there had
been witness testimony given to the Savile inquiry that
McGuinness had himself said that he had fired the first shot.
But he who when the Savile Inquiry was taking place, he was
education secretary in Northern Ireland at the time, he
vehemently denied having said that.
The Colonel in charge of the British operation that day said
on the day as part of this ITN report that you're seeing on
screen at the moment that there were three shooters and that
that's why the Paris opened fire.
The Salvo inquiry rejected that account when it was repeated at
the inquiry because of lack of evidence.
But just to give an idea of of what happened, we have a little
another little bit of video here that we want to just show.
So let's have a look at this. The organisers of this civil
rights March promised that they would be non violent.
The army have said throughout the day that they hope to use
minimum force. But three hours after the
procession began, this has ended up as dusk comes onto the
Bogside as the worst ever confrontation between the army
and the Catholic people of the Kragen and Bogside We.
Do not tie back for the moment unless you identify politics.
Don't know what your thoughts are so far.
Well, and just obviously the amount of time that's passed and
how long this has been litigated is quite an extraordinary thing
in itself. Absolutely.
But I want to direct your attention to two articles
published by John Waters on his sub stack.
He didn't write these, but he has published them.
And the first one is this one. Sorry, we'll go back to that
one. The I've mentioned this one
before how British intelligence planned the Irish Troubles of
1968 to 1998 and used Provo fake patriots to achieve the
ruination of Ireland. The conclusion of this article
says that Curious Facts includes an Englishman and probably MI 5
+ 6 agent becoming the first Provisional IRA Chief of Staff
in 1969 to 73 and Martin McGuinness being the Provisional
IRA second in command in Derry on Bloody Sunday, aged only 21
in January 1972. Goes on to say that in May 2006,
about eight years after the Good Friday Agreement, ex British FRU
agent Ian Hurst alleged that McGinnis was, was and remained a
British MI 6 agent code named J 118.
And he goes on to say that the only logical explanation is that
MI 5, MI 6 created the Provisional IRA in December
1969. It's a civilian targeting
offshoot from the more sensible strictly military official IRA
and deployed it as a controlled opposition to study new
terrorist warfare methods and better prepare it's Zionist War
on Terror already planned from circa 1960.
I Part 2 of this article has now been published, headlined.
Well you can see on screen the Para MI 6 Conspiracy Part 2 and
it. In it the writer talks about the
compartmentalised cell structure of the Provisional IRA, which
quotes made it semi hierarchical or semi autonomous.
But this only made the British regime more intent on
infiltrating all levels of Para, not just the top as shown below.
They he goes on to say that you're afraid of view the
Provisional IRA as either just extensively penetrated by MI 5
and MI 6 or else as a full agency of MI 5 or MI 6.
The power was linked to drug running and the Bank of England
was its main vehicle to launder drug profits over 1 billion of
over £1 billion. All the evidence proves beyond
doubt that MI 5 and 6 ran both sides of the Irish trouble
troubles in of 1968 to 98 and kept them going for an
incredible 30 years. Today the Irish people are split
into two main factions or schools of thought, but 70% of
people believe that power was a full agency of MI five and six
since its inception in December 1969.
About 30% believe that PARA and Sinn Fein were merely undermined
by MI 5 and 6 blackmail spies and agents.
And so just it's a great example I think of of how gangs and
counter gangs are created, how they're used, how they're
manipulated and so on. I'm just going to bring on
screen Kitson's book again. We've mentioned it the last time
we talked about this, gangs and counter gangs.
And you know the the in this he's arguing that when
insurgents enjoy the support or at least acquiescence of
population, that conventional military tactics aren't
sufficient. And therefore he's talking about
a system of intelligence gathering, infiltration,
deception, turning insurgents or sympathisers into trackers and
informers, creating pseudo gangs and insurgent groups, and
conducting psychological and covert operations on
populations. That book is quite historical in
context because it's talking about Mau.
Activities. And rebellion and so on.
There was another book, Kenya, yes, if we just bring this back
on screen. The other book which is more
analytical about the actual techniques themselves is this
one, Low Intensity Operations, Subversion, Insurgency and
Peacekeeping. I just strongly recommend that
people read both of those. Well, these many will argue,
Mike, these are the blueprints for al Qaeda, for how to design
and operate al Qaeda cells. False flags are a big part of
that deception and a big part of those stage provocation.
So false flags, propaganda, all of these things, spreading lies
about 40 beheaded babies, that sort of thing.
This is all part of that practise.
So it required reading gangs and counter gangs and low intensity
operations. You know, if you, you look at
history and you discount the Mike, the role of the state in
covert operations and subterfuge, it's a totally
different version of history. And, and constantly our
establishment, our education system, our media, our
politicians want to strip out the role of clandestine agencies
in Western countries. And if you do that, you get a
completely different narrative. And that's the narrative that's
foisted upon us constantly. But you you'll be more well
equipped to understand these things if you read books like
this. Absolutely.
Now let's move on to Israel. And well, they held a vote in
the Knesset. What was the vote about Patrick?
No press coverage for this one, Mike.
We'll bring this up on screen. Surprise, surprise, you probably
haven't heard about it because everybody's blanked it in the
Western mainstream media. Israeli parliament advances bill
to annex the occupied West Bank. Isn't this the same occupied
West Bank? Trump said.
That'll never happen. It's never going to happen.
I won't let it happen. Well, it's looks like it's
happening, but JD Vance is basically caught on his back
heels here, and I think people should look in and see if he's
doing OK this week. Here's Vance responding to this.
When I asked about it, somebody told me that it was a political
stunt, that it had no practical significance.
It was purely symbolic. I mean, look, if it was a
political stunt, it was a very stupid political stunt, and I
personally take some insult to it.
The West Bank is not going to be annexed by Israel.
The policy of the Trump administration is that the West
Bank will not be annexed by Israel.
That will continue to be our policy.
And if people want to take symbolic votes, they can do
that. But but we certainly weren't
happy about it. Do you think Israel cares what
JD Vance thinks about annexing the West Bank?
Or Trump, for that matter. Or carpet bombing Gaza or
ethnically cleansing Gaza. They don't care, obviously.
So they're living in a delusional fantasy land there in
Washington. But we'll keep an eye on that
story. Yes, indeed.
OK, let's move on to Trump and Putin and Ukraine and so on.
So Donald Trump announced on the 16th of October that he and
Vladimir Putin would meet in Budapest in Hungary within two
weeks or so for his second summit.
That's following the summit that we reported on a few weeks ago.
The announcement came the same day he met with Zelensky in
Washington. And Trump claimed that that
meeting was very cordial. Was it Patrick?
Well, I don't know. I don't know, but certainly it
hasn't been a follow up meeting. So maybe it wasn't, maybe it
was. Who knows?
Right. Well, indeed.
So anyway, this appears to have created immediate panic amongst
European leaders and within a couple of days NATO Secretary
General Mark Ruta appeared in Washington to discuss quotes
NATO's support for securing an end to the war in Ukraine and a
just and lasting peace. Well, we know that that's a lie.
But anyway, it sort of highlighted the role that NATO
plays in providing, or at least he was attempting to highlight
the role that NATO plays in providing military assistance to
Ukraine that supports the Ukraine's ability to defend
itself and deter against future, future aggression.
This is the kind of language that they use.
And so this includes, of course, aid through the prioritised
Ukraine requirements list, through which US equipment
funded by NATO is supplied to Ukraine.
I Rudder said that his NATO colleagues, quote, want to help
Trump bring peace between Ukraine and Russia.
I suspect that's another lie, But let's just have a quick look
at how he wanted to help. Mr. President.
Can you tell us a little bit about?
Why you're elevating? Sanctions against Russia right
now? What's the?
I just felt it was time. Waited a long time.
I thought that we'd go long before the Middle East.
Would you have a timeline? For.
When you think the. Story is going to be over.
Because of your leadership, you can't have it in war.
It's hard to have a timeline, you know?
What the president is doing today with the sanctions is
putting more pressure, of course, on both parts, in this
case on Russia. It's all about changing the
calculus. Making sure that Putin
understands that the president's vision this weekend of having a
ceasefire stop where they are, as you literally said, that this
has to be. Step one now.
And for him to really accept that vision and to come to the
table. Yeah, OK.
Well, look, we, we, we've got a bit of a pre emptive comment
there about sanctions. We'll come on to that in a
second. But no sooner had that meeting
happened with Ruta absolutely encouraging more support for
Ukraine and the continuation of the war, effectively no sooner
at that meeting happened and Trump announced we cancelled the
meeting with President Putin. It just didn't feel right to me.
It didn't feel like we were going to get to the place we
wanted to get. So I cancelled it.
And then he said a bit under, you know, a bit less
convincingly, but we'll do it in the future.
Well, will they? That remains to be seen.
So this was despite telling the press just 24 hours previously
that he had not cancelled his plan to meet with Putin but
would announce something in the next two days.
So he certainly announced something, but it wasn't what he
was suggesting he was going to announce.
Well, I didn't check the press releases this morning, Mike.
He could have changed his mind by this morning, but maybe by
Monday he'll flip flop again. This is how Trump is working.
Absolutely. But as we just heard in the
video clip, also announced while Ruto was there are the new
sanctions against Russia. Now, it's true that sanctions,
excuse me, the sanctions that have been, that are basically
announced almost daily now have been pretty ineffective so far.
But Patrick, maybe these have teeth because they're
sanctioning Russia's two largest oil producers directly, that's
Rosneft and Lukoil. And between them, they export
3.1 million barrels of oil per day.
And the biggest customers of these companies are China and
India. So what are your thoughts on?
That well, this is serious. That's that's between Rosneft
and Luko. That's 5% of the global oil
output. This is a huge amount and prices
also, well as you as we'll show on screen here, prices have
spiked immediately on the announcement of sanctions.
So that's a significant 5% rise that's running around $5 a
barrel or something, who knows. But, but I think right now it's
interesting like we look at the oil markets that Brent crude
even with this price spike is trading at $66 per barrel.
This is not particularly high in in comparison to previous years,
but it's interesting. Well, we'll come back to what
Russia thinks about this in a moment.
But well, President Putin, his defiant, this is Reuters here,
defiant after Trump sanctions Russian oil companies over
Ukraine. And yes, he's talking, as you
mentioned, Mike, Luke oil and Rosneft here.
These are the big hitters in the Russian oil industry.
And here's what Putin said, particularly regarding Trump's
threats and the sanctions. He's saying this is of course an
attempt to put pressure on Russia, but no self respecting
country and no self respecting people ever decides anything
under pressure. And we've spoken about this game
theory and sanctions previously, haven't we?
It never works. You cannot, you cannot get, you
cannot change the behaviour of a target country if there is an
implicit threat of aggression down the road.
So there's no good faith in negotiation so that you're not
going to change Russia's behaviour.
What it will do probably might just cause turmoil in the global
economy. It might even further raise the
price of oil and I'll show you who benefits from that in a
minute. But this is serious though.
Look at this. This is China, China's state oil
major suspend purchases of Russian oil due to sanctions.
Now this is a major thing for Russia.
It's definitely going to cause tightening in the short term and
it doesn't end there. Russia at war faces double
trade, Trump ultimatum and a hit to oil sales to India.
So if the big players, as you said, Mike, China and India.
But what's interesting, and Russia says, Mike, that, you
know, experts are saying that the the rise in oil prices is
expected, that guess who said this?
Amos Huxstein said that Russia will recover its losses because
of the rise in global price. So it's they're going to end up
with the same amount of money potentially by the end of this.
That's Amos Huxstein, Biden's oil advisor and Middle East
envoy for Trump saying that. So, you know, be that as it may.
Well, look, Trump was asked about you talked about Putin's
response there a second ago. Trump was asked about that.
So let's just have a listen to his response, President.
Thank you, President. President Putin basically said
today that Russia is immune from U.S. sanctions.
He said that it would not impact the Russian economy in any
serious way. Is he?
Wrong. I'm glad he feels that way.
That's good. I'll let you know about it in
six months from now. OK, let's see.
Let's see how it all works out. So how do you think it's all
going to work out? Well, Trump's confident that
it's all going to fall apart in six months and he can do a
victory lap and declare that he's a he is a stable genius
that we all suspect that he was. We'll see.
We'll see how how sanctions done against Russia over the last.
Well, they they've done very well for Russia.
It hasn't hurt Russia in the least, has it?
So I don't know, would you bet against Russia with their record
of busting sanctions in the last four years?
I wouldn't. Well, yeah, indeed.
Well, to to make matters worse and, and what I know you, you're
probably going to describe as a Nord Stream moment in a second,
Patrick, in parallel with all of this, oil refineries in Romania
and Hungary were blown up, apparently by saboteurs because
both of them process Russian oil.
That's Hungary and Romania. Ukraine is being blamed just
like Nord Stream. But remember, Trump and Putin's
meeting were supposed to be in Budapest.
But I'm sure that's all just a coincidence.
Well, certainly Carol Dmitriev here is suggesting that it's not
a coincidence. He was tweeting this out a
couple of days ago. Hungary under the attack for
working on a peace summit. Question mark.
I think that is a good question to ask.
Yeah. And it's just coming.
This is also coming on the heels of the attack on the DRSBA
pipelines, which were attacked just what, last month or the
weeks before And those were those, the pipelines carrying
oil product to to Hungary and to Slovakia and of course, Ukraine
being the culprit here. The details of this are in the
stunning analysis here by Freddie Ponton at 21st Century
Wire. Hungary and Romania refinery
fires. Sabotage or negligence?
Well, it looks like it's pointing towards negligence and
he's saying that this is basically like the Nordstrom
sabotage. Pretty much the same play there.
And is it Ukraine, is it NATO, Is it British special forces?
We don't know. We might find out at some point.
But on the Nord Stream, it's so convenient that this happens
exactly the moment that Germany raises an an Interpol, probably
an Interpol or Red Notice for this Ukrainian saboteur of Nord
Stream, allegedly in Poland. And Poland basically does
doesn't want to extradite him to Germany.
Those are two EU countries. So Poland's basically said stuff
it to Germany and letting this guy go.
So I personally, Mike, my feeling is this is the Ukrainian
divers story is a red herring story of four bow tops that the
fact that NATO did the Nordstrom sabotage over the course of
three drills that that summer and fall of 2022.
But this conveniently puts this one right under the rug.
It's just incredible how they have managed to engineer this
one. So it's it just as Nordstrom is
just being completely deep sixed right now on ice, then they go
and hit all these other refineries and pipelines.
So I mean, come on, there's there's, there's a lot more
going on here. We'll get to the bottom of it
eventually. It'll be a shame if some damning
evidence surfaced about Nordstrom over the next six
months. So that would be so unfortunate.
But anyway, we'll keep our eyes on it.
Okay, where does that take us then?
Well, well, this takes us back to Hungary.
And look at this, Victor Orbans coming out swinging on this.
He tweeted this out here yesterday, the day of the
Budapest Peace March, Largest peace March in Europe, right
right there in Hungary today we send a message to the whole
world. Hungary says no to war.
We will not die for Ukraine. Wow, strong words.
We're not send our children to the slaughterhouse at Brussels
command. And just this is one of the
images that came up there translated here is we won't die
for Ukraine. That's from that peace rally
right there. Here's Viktor Orban giving a
speech afterwards at the at the rallying point.
Listen closely. He is evoking very strong
historic European themes. Watch.
The largest political force of Hungary.
My name what you claim at Mexala, Charlotte, Brucelle,
Edignam, Tuta, El Fogloni, Budapest that most name of the
as a Marshall Emilio Ember Odo ES mega chair.
It's very strong words, yes. So he's evoking World War One
and World War 2, and basically, do you see any other European
leaders making that sort of strong statement against a war?
He's right on the front line as well.
Isn't it interesting? All of the hawkish voices are
coming from far afield. Find that interest.
He won't be baking any friends in Brussels, as he said in that
you know it's. It's he doesn't have any left
anyway. Well, that's true.
He's got nothing to lose. So Viktor Orban and I have to
give him credit for taking the lead on this.
It's quite, quite an amazing story.
Well, look, we've mentioned earlier that the potential of
Trump meeting Putin for a second time was causing panic in
Europe. Well, here's another example of
it. But, well, admittedly, this is a
Bloomberg report and they're citing the usual unnamed sources
or at least people familiar with the matter.
So they said that Ukraine and Europe have prepared a 12 point
peace plan that's going to roll out any territorial concessions
to Russia. It is imitating to some degree
Trump's board of peace for Gaza because they're calling it a
peace board. And it'll include a peace board,
which they expect Trump to also chair, by the way.
And they plan on sending a contingent to Washington this
week, I guess, to meet with Trump.
And it's it's apparently includes A ceasefire along the
current front lines. Ukraine would get security
guarantees. We're back to the security
guarantee. Boots on the ground thing.
European military providing peacekeeper role of some kind
and fast tracked EU accession. Wasn't EU accession one of the
problems that Russia had? Not well, not necessarily.
I mean it, it probably would be now, but it was mainly the NATO
issue. But, you know, does the EU want
to inherit this basket case, this, this orphaned, truncated,
orphaned rump state? I don't know.
I'm not sure. Peace Board, Mike, this, this
sounds like this kind of in absentia.
They've just formalised the propaganda talking points into a
new board organisation. Hey, look, they might put Tony
Blair in charge of it. How could it go wrong?
Yeah. Then it'll really be successful.
Yeah, I'd say put Blair in charge of this peace board.
Yeah, Anyway, they're saying that that Russia, Crimea, the
the area of Crimea that that Russia is, is considered itself
Russian since 2014. Also, Lukansk, Donetsk, Kirsten
and Zapor, Asia would not be recognised as Russian under this
and Russia and Ukraine would have to negotiate quotes, the
governance of occupied territories.
And so they're attempting to bring this term in.
Where have we heard that before? So they're attempting to sort of
demonise this in some way, it seems by using language like
occupied territories. There's been hypocrisy in that,
I I think. There is, but you know, the
international law that it, it depends how many countries
recognise the new state. So they're they're trying to
basically put it into the same category as Kosovozen.
Kosovo is not recognised by Serbia as a state.
It's a NATO created state that was created at the barrel of a
gun. OK, it's a, it's a pseudo state
created by NATO, but it's not recognised by all its neighbours
and not recognised by all countries in the world.
But I think probably more people will recognise eventually Crimea
and the new territories. Well, Russia recognises it.
That's probably the most consequential, you know, because
it's part of the Russian Federation.
But Russian allies will may end up recognising them as well.
But they have the right to self determination under a UN Article
1 I believe, and the right to self defence when they were
being attacked by the Ukrainian military under Petro Poroshenko
and Zelensky. And that's UN Article 51.
So does the UN Charter apply to everybody on this planet or only
people the US and NATO wanted to apply to?
That's that's kind of a fundamental question.
I think it's supposed to be the former and in reality it's it's
the latter. But look, this this so called
peace plan, it's, it's designed to fail.
It seems to me it's designed to fail.
But of course, it's just like is going on in Gaza at the moment,
also designed to feel ultimately.
When they have a new Gaza humanitarian organisation coming
in that they wanted to, which is the same as the old one, right,
basically, and and Trump wants to put boots on the ground and
in Gaza that that I can't imagine what could possibly go
wrong there. Sounds like such a great idea.
Yeah, indeed. OK, well, look, let's let's
finish today on the issue of digital ID, because earlier
today the our illustrious lovely leader, Keir Starmer, the man
that we all love to respect and and we'll really be enthusiastic
vote for him next time around. He pushed out a little video
clip this morning to tell us how great it is.
Let's let's have a look at this. So I'm in Brighton today, this
is Barclays Bank and I've been talking to customers about
Digital ID and they're really enthusiastic.
It'll have your basic information on it for everything
other than proving you've got a right to work.
It won't be mandatory. You don't have to have it, but
you can't have it. You can use it for anything that
requires identification and there are lots of things if you
want to rent, for example, if you want to apply for a
mortgage, if you want to get your child into primary school,
there's a catchment area and you've got to show where you
live. Proving who you are, what your
date of birth is. We'll just be able to be done
with Du Kaleidic. They're really up for it.
I think once you understand just how much easier it'll make life,
so many more people will be too. So Patrick, I don't know if you
noticed, but what was missing from that little video clip?
Well, anybody that he was speaking to, there was no
comment from any. They didn't get any comment from
anybody telling us how great this was.
We have to take his word for it that everybody in there thought
it was a great, a great thing. But I thought it was interesting
they held it at Barclays Bank because Barclays, the most pro
Zionist bank with close links to Israel in the UK.
So that may be just a coincidence, but I don't know if
you noticed the lie there as well.
Or at least someone was lying because when when he pushed Lisa
Nandy out to promote this thing on the day that it was
announced, she said it would be mandatory for everyone in the UK
to have. It wouldn't be mandatory for
them to show it if they were a British citizen.
It was only if you're a foreign national that would be mandatory
to show it in the event that you were being asked for employment
status and so on. But in that little video clip,
he said it wouldn't be mandatory if you're a British citizen.
So is it that he just doesn't know what's going on, or are
they just not really certain what the policy is?
Playing fast and loose, really, with the policy, Mike being a
little bit vague and arbitrary. He said something interesting
though. You need it to.
It'll be great if you're going from neighbourhood to
neighbourhood to prove that you live somewhere.
Kind of reminds. Me of letting me see your
papers? Yes, it really does, and that's
why people are against it. What happened to British common
law? Is that no longer a thing?
That has not been a thing for quite some time now.
I think the fact that juries are not being allowed on the 26
minute trials is is a perfect example of how common law is
thrown in the bin quite some time ago.
Sending a precedent there we'll talk about that with Basil
Valentine after during extra about you know about this model
of these speed speed dating show trials yes that they're they're
trying to without juries that they're trying to pioneer here
that's what it looks like to me a a beta test for for.
Bigger dissent, Absolutely. Absolutely.
I mean, not that if they put them in prison, they've got
anywhere to put them, but that's a whole other issue that I'm
sure they'll resolve some other way.
But look, we're going to leave it there for today.
I'm going to say thank you very much to everybody that's been
watching. Thanks to David Miller, the
Basil Valentine to Patrick. Of course, we will be back in a
couple of minutes here for UK column, member for UK column
News Extra. Otherwise, Germ tonight at 7:00
PM. Don't miss it and have a great
weekend. We'll see you 1:00 PM as usual
on Monday. See you then.
Bye bye.