Good afternoon, it's Friday the 31st of October 2025, just after
1:00. Welcome to UK Call News.
I'm your host Mike Robinson, my Co host in the studio today,
Patrick Henningson. Welcome to the programme,
Patrick. Great to be with you, Mike.
And we're joined today by Mark Anderson, as usual on Friday.
Now, later in the programme, we're going to be looking at the
latest censorship news. We're going to be looking at
Trump in Asia and his threats of nuclear proliferation and the
latest on Russian oil sanctions. But we have to really begin
today with the former Grand Old Duke of York, who as we know a
couple of weeks ago was stripped of that title and has now been
stripped of the princely title that he has.
So if we put it on screen here, there is somehow from the grave,
somebody whispering in his ear there.
I'm not sure what's going on. But anyway, the royal family
claims to have announced that Prince Andrew is no longer
Prince Andrew. He's been stripped of his
princely title and is now going to be known as Andrew
Mountbatten Windsor. So let's see what the statement
said. It's said that His Majesty has
today initiated a formal process to remove the style title in
honours of Prince Andrew. Prince Andrew will now be known
as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. His lease on Royal Lodge has the
date provided him with legal protection to continue in
residence. It went on to say sorry and
formal notice has now been served to surrender the lease
and he will move to alternative private accommodation, I believe
to be paid for by the King personally.
These censures are deemed necessary notwithstanding the
fact that he continues to deny the allegations against them.
Their Majesties wish to make it clear that their thoughts and
utmost sympathies have been and will remain with the victims and
survivors of all forms of abuse. And my question, Patrick, is
really because I believe that when there's Full disclosure
about the now King's previous relationship with Jimmy Savile,
that we, you know, that that last paragraph of the statement
might have some, you know, status or standing to it.
But I I've absolutely questioned whether their first thoughts are
with victims of abuse at all. That's Sir Jimmy Savile OBE
absolutely order the British Empire.
Was he not the same Jimmy Savile that was Prince Charles social
secretary kept the diary for Prince at the time is the same.
Savile as that headline in LBC that we just showed a second
ago, we could put that back on screen, says Prince Charles beg
Jimmy Salva for help with royal public relations, secret letters
reveal so. They seem to be very close.
They were, they were clearly very close and many, many
questions about that relationship, which is never
actually if they've never been answered.
Charles is lucky he didn't have to give up his title and style
back then back. Then indeed, but but look at it,
it's the question is, well, first of all, we get before we
get to the question, let's just point this out because strangely
there's no announcement on the royal family website of this
situation, no announcement there.
No, no announcement on the on the ex profile that this has
happened. So this this statement has been
issued, I guess via the BBC primarily here, so nothing there
at all. But lots of people in social
media are calling this a scam because they're pointing out
that there's been no act of Parliament or letter patent
issued. But if we paid attention to what
the statement said, it said that a formal process has been
initiated. So we really have to wait and
see what the mechanism for this is going to be at the end of the
day. But my question, Patrick, is I
think this is what we need to discuss now is why now?
Why at this particular moment? Now, a couple of possibilities
here. 1 is that this is an effort to draw a line under
royal family connections to Epstein or Epstein however you
pronounce his name. I see some people are starting
to pronounce it the other way that now.
But anyway, there's another possibility and that is that
they're prepared to sacrifice the past in Andrew in order to
keep pressure on the present. And by that I mean Donald Trump,
because at least one commentator I heard talking about this this
morning claimed to be proud to be British today because the
royal family is cleaning house while the United States is in
complete denial. So the question is, is this
about Trump? If we just put that back on
screen in the United States, the pressure on Trump is starting to
build just at the right moment, apparently because this is a
headline here. Cracks emerging in Republican
loyalty to Trump as Epstein bomb is about to drop.
And we've got more here. The Epstein curse continues to
loom large from Spiegel International.
They're they're reflecting the fact that this is starting to
build in the United States. This is MSNBC, their
commentator, Lawrence Trump is using the government shutdown to
shut down the Epstein files. And so the question, Patrick,
is, is this about Trump actually?
And, and is it a coincidence this pressure is building up
even higher than it has been in recent months over there, just
at the time that this event happens over here?
Well, I, I think it I think it really was even higher than it
is now arguably in in June and July.
And that's when the White House issued this and Pam Bondi, the
attorney General issued this formal denial that this was even
a scandal and there's no black book.
And that's when Charlie Kirk and when came under significant
pressure and other MAGA organisations came under
pressure because there was a split, because Trump campaigned
on the Epstein files, made it a big centrepiece that oh, we're
going to release the files, my presidency is going to be
transparent and all of a sudden you have a cover up basically,
and then denials. And that caused a split and
these MAGA organisations were haemorrhaging support and
membership because of that. And that's one of the things
that I think also forced Charlie Kirk into that sort of position
where he was questioning this undying loyalty to Israel and
not be able to question Israel because of Epstein, Epstein's
connection with Israel. So I mean, so this has been
building up for a while. It's it's it's been building up
all summer, in fact. And now we have an opportunity
where you have some contrast now between the British and the
American side on this. OK.
But since you bring the Israeli connections in here, we should
it. I'm not ruling out the
possibility that it could also be about former Israeli Prime
Minister Ahud Barack. So we just put this on screen.
Virginia Guthrie accused him of raping her and choking her on
multiple occasions in court documents.
Now, Barrack of course, denies these allegations.
But obviously there's there's really connection here as well.
And in fact, you know that there is a connection to just about
the entire globalist billionaire class as far as I can see.
And really so the question underlying all this, is this an
attempt by the royal family to draw a line under it, or is it
is it an attempt to divert from other things or is it an attempt
to to put pressure on Trump? It may be all of.
Those, it could be all of those. I mean, this isn't just any
Israeli. That's Ehud Barack, former
Israeli Prime Minister, former head of Israeli intelligence,
pretty pretty central figure there and best friends with Jeff
Epstein photographed coming out of his New York Manhattan
mansion and so forth. So I mean, this is this is not
just anybody. So that's why I think they're
potentially explosive there on that side at the time when
support for Israel's is haemorrhaging in the in America,
I think among Democrats, support for Israel's polling and single
digits, single digits, when has that ever happened in the United
States? Good.
Question. Yeah, OK, well, look, let's
welcome Mark to the programme. And Mark, let's come back on to
the issue of of Venezuela. G'day, gentlemen and viewers.
Yeah, the, of course, the mainstream press organs have
been ablaze with headlines about a major troop, troop build up in
the lower Caribbean area. And that would involve, of
course, turning up the heat against Venezuela, against that
regime, as Trump calls them. And I was looking through
various sources trying to find something pretty objective and
not go to the New York Times and not go to the Pentagon or
whatever. And the this slide shows the
University of Southern California Dornsyth, one of
their more active branches in the USC system, the College of
Arts and Letters and Jeffrey Fields October 29 published this
article entitled Trump's anti Venezuela actions lack strategy,
lack justifiable targets and lack legal authorization.
President Trump okayed a naval build up in the Caribbean,
strikes on boats in international waters and covert
OPS in Venezuela, says Jeffrey. Without a discernible strategy
or objective, of course the president and the the military
is not going to always announce its objectives and strategies or
they're going to give you a wag the dog type scenarios.
But nevertheless, some pretty strong points being made by
that, by that source. And that source added the
following, stressing that there's no evidence, the Trump
administration claimed without evidence that the boats were
carrying illegal drugs. 14 boats that the administration alleged
were being operated by drug traffickers have been struck,
reportedly killing 43 people. On 24 October, the
administration, Trump administration began A
substantial military buildup in that region.
The Pentagon moved the aircraft carrier Gerald Ford there and
some of its strike group along with several other naval ships
to that area and moved F35 fighter jets to Puerto Rico.
And this is being called, get this, the largest US naval
deployment in that area since the Cuban Missile crisis.
So a very significant events going on there with lots of
potential ramifications. But that's a pretty good account
overall that is not partisan to outline what's going on there.
Smart we were talking about on on Wednesday's programme,
Patrick, of course the question of drugs is never too far away
from this region and and the question of whether what this is
really about. Is it about the oil in Venezuela
or the rarest in Venezuela? Or is it about the fact that
Chavez and and Maduro have been pushing back against the drug
drug trade, which of course the United States Deep State has
been deeply involved in for decades?
Well, let's just go by what the what the president himself, what
the administration is hanging this on and they're hanging the
whole thing on allegations that Venezuela is a narco state.
So, I mean, the more you dig into this, it's it's very, very
much becoming like a WMDS in Iraq type rabbit hole where
there's no actual evidence of the accusations being made.
But let's look at the big picture.
We'll bring this up on screen here.
This is from the Washington Post.
Trump merges the war on drugs with the War on Terror in the
Venezuela showdown. Now, if you survey the US media,
especially on the right wing side, there's all sorts of
conspiracy theories. These are these are nothing new
in the Newsmax and one American news in Fox world that somehow
Hezbollah is working with the cartels.
This is from like Marco Rubio himself working with the cartels
to do what I don't know, ship drugs and ruin the lives of
American teenagers. Who knows?
But so, and Hamas has got sleeper cells in Mexico and al
Qaeda and ISIS or have got sleeper sales in Mexico.
They found a Quran somewhere in the desert by the Arizona
border. This is normal sort of fodder.
But Trump is basically formalising this year and they
have a number of hacked journalists that are pushing
this stuff out on social media and so forth.
All these sleepers. Laura Loomer is one of them
who's in this kind of an Israeli influencer, Israeli American or
whatever. I'm not sure what where she
where she's from or what her loyalty is, but nonetheless.
So this is the narrative that they're they're they're bringing
in here. So these are the two worst
things of the Clinton administration and the and the
Bush neocons, the War on Terror and the war on drugs.
Trump has managed to put them together fantastic.
So and, and behind him is in Marco Rubio, who seems to have
his own personal vendetta against all Latin American
governments that don't lean far right.
And he's made it his career as a senator to sort of take the lead
on that. Somehow he thinks it somehow he
knows more than anybody about what where Latin America is,
what it should be and how to bring down these governments.
And then behind him is a Fox News weekend host named Pete
Hegseth, who somehow gifted the head of the Defence Department.
But that's the disturbing trend there.
So let's let's go to this video here now on on the issue of the
drug accusation, Mike, is is there any legs to that?
Is there any legs to that? Let's listen to Trump and then
let's listen to a 60 minutes report from 1993.
Roll this. Why did you authorise the CIA to
go into Venezuela? We have a lot of drugs coming in
from Venezuela. A tonne of cocaine, pure cocaine
worth hundreds of millions, is smuggled into the United States.
Sound familiar? Not the way this tonne of
cocaine got here. According to what the former
head of the Drug Enforcement Administration told Mike
Wallace, this drug shipment got here courtesy of what he calls
drug trafficking by the CIA in partnership with the Venezuelan
National Guard. Now we understand what you're
saying. A tonne of cocaine was smuggled
into the United States of America by the Venezuelan
National Guard. Well, they in cooperation with
the CIA. That's what that's exactly what
appears to have happened. Until last month, Judge Robert
Bonner was the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the
DEA, and Judge Bonner explained to us that only the head of the
DEA is authorised to approve the transportation of any illegal
narcotics like cocaine into this country, even if the CIA is
bringing it in. Let.
Me put it this way, Mike, if this has not been approved by
DEA or an appropriate law enforcement authority in the
United States, then it's illegal.
It's called drug trafficking. It's called drug smuggling.
So what you're saying, in effect, is the CIA broke the
law, Simple as that. I don't think there's any other
way you can rationalise around it.
Back in the 1980's, the CIA was mandated.
So, Mike, so they're taking Colombian cocaine and
trafficking it through Venezuela, and then the CIA and
the DEA would then bring it into the United States and it would
end up on the streets of America.
That was in the early 90s. Now something happened in
Venezuela. Hugo Chavez became president and
that was the end of that. No more drug trafficking using
the National Guard as mules for the Central Intelligence Agency
in the DEA. So the biggest drug traffickers
in the Western Hemisphere are the CIA and the DEA working in
collaboration with the cartels. So where's Trump coming up with
this? And we only have to look at the
work of the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Gary Webb,
the late Gary Webb, the great Gary Webb over his Alliance
series is historic. And this basically documents how
the CIA brought crack cocaine onto the streets of Los Angeles
and major U.S. cities. And then to to blame and
demonise the African American community and also just to sort
of destroy it ultimately. And so that was fleshed out in
the 1990s. So I mean that it's interesting.
There's a few other elements to this, I think, but that's,
that's what happened. And Nicolas Maduro carries is on
that same legacy of Chavez and if anything Venezuela is an anti
narco state. So how on earth can any of these
accusations stick without any evidence?
That's the big question here. Just before you move on from
Gary Webb, we should just remind everybody, of course he
committed suicide and inverted commas by shooting himself twice
in the head, which is. From behind with a shotgun
something. Practically important.
It was a handgun, but it was practical, A practical
impossibility and if if not a total impossibility, And I'm
just going to say that that in the months leading up to his
death, I was on a mailing list that he was part of.
And you know, obviously I never met him.
I never spoke to him in person, but he did not seem to be at the
point of suicide in any of the communications that I saw no
with that group. No, and in the late Robert Perry
also worked with him on on these same stories and Robert in
effect was support supported in a bit of a mentor for him.
Robert had told me that as well in an interview which we
published before he passed away a few years ago.
Right. The great Robert Perry,
investigative journalist, founder of Consortium News, Yes.
But let's look at look at this because here's where it gets
interesting. So then it's not enough to
demonise Venezuela. Trump is now imposing sanctions
on Colombian President Petro or Gustavo Petro.
Now, Colombia was the number one US ally, okay, 4th, 3rd or 4th
largest recipient of U.S. military aid and but they had a
right wing government and so obviously very friendly with
Washington and very supportive. And there's another connection
here, not just the United States.
Why all of a sudden are they demonising Colombia?
It's strange, but maybe not. Let's look at listen to this
video very closely. This is President Petro at the
UN General Assembly just last month.
And this is what he said about a very close friend and ally of
the United States. Go ahead and roll this.
First and foremost, we need to stop the genocide in Gaza.
Humanity cannot allow single day more of this genocide or for the
genocidal Netanyahu and his allies in Europe and the United
States to continue. The United Nations must uphold
the decisions of the international Court of Justice.
International law is the basis of civilization and united for
peace for Palestine. We should establish A
peacekeeping force to to protect where it's not.
Not blue helmets. There's no what we need is a
powerful army of countries that do not accept genocide.
That is why I invite nations of the world and their peoples,
more than most importantly as a integral part of humanity, to
bring together weapons and armies and to defend Palestine.
He's calling for more than peacekeepers there.
He said no blue helmets. We need to bring armed forces in
from other countries to defend Palestine.
That's a bridge too far for for Israel.
So they've clearly putting pressure on Washington to
basically move on Colombia. I think this is a major issue
and it I wonder why. What else about Colombia and
Israel? There's some history there.
Look at this. OK.
There's a very good, very well researched article here by the
way. Security and context.
Colombia shifts everything. Military ties moving away from
decades of Israeli sponsored violence in Colombia.
What's this all about? What?
What's Israel's business in Colombia for the last 25 years?
Kind of interesting, isn't it? What were they doing there?
It turns out Israel was selling loads of billions in fact, of
weapons to Colombia. OK.
And the other thing they were doing, they were training the
radical far right paramilitary forces that were fighting the
FARC in Colombia, OK, trained by the Israelis.
And these were known as death squads, OK Didn't get a lot of
bad press in America because they're allied with America at
the time, right? So isn't that interesting?
And there's other things, there's allegations potentially
of Israeli military involved in, who knows, maybe some some of
the drug trade, maybe some import export activity into the
Middle East and Europe, who knows.
There's a lot of accusations flying around on this.
But Israel's deeply involved in Colombia, but not under Gustavo
Petro, you see. So we see this split in policy
and all of the sudden they're demonised.
I find it to be more than a coincidence.
And here is Venezuela, just to remind people on the Venezuelan
side, Venezuelan president says Palestine is the most just cause
for humanity. On the day of solidarity with
Palestinian people, he's wearing the scarf there.
That's Maduro. How many world leaders will wear
a Palestinian scarf at a major state rally in Venezuela?
This is normal. So this is another reason.
So by the way, 2009, the first country to recognise a
Palestinian state in the Western Hemisphere was Venezuela.
So this is nothing new. It's it's been a tradition from
Chavez all the way through to Maduro.
So it's just funny that they're being singled out with all sorts
of fake allegations of substantiated allegations of
Venezuela being a narco state, when in fact, as we said, Mike,
the biggest drug traffickers in the hemisphere are the DEA, the
Drug Enforcement Agency of the United States and the CIA.
Traditionally, that's documented fact, as we showed.
OK, well, let's move on then to Donald Trump in Korea with
President Xi Jinping. They've met in South Korea.
Well, the question is what happened?
Did did Trump Kiev again in terms of trade?
Because the tariffs on China are now around 20%, which is lower
than some of what the US calls their allies.
In exchange for China buying soybeans, Trump got rid of the
fentanyl tariff. He suspended the targeted
sanctions on Chinese shipping. He suspended the BIS 50% rule
targeting China, China's semiconductor companies.
And this is a rule which says that if AUS subsidiary company
is owned 50% or more by entities on the BIS entity list or
military end user list. So in other words, Chinese
companies, they own 50% or more of of the US subsidiary than
those subsidiaries would be subjected to the same trade
restrictions as the parent companies.
In exchange for all this, then China will roll back rare earth
export control imposed after the 6th of October.
But any export control before October is still in place.
So still no rare earths for the United States.
But so I'm going to say thank you very much to Carl Zafra for
that breakdown of what happened there.
But anyway, the Dutch government is now going to feel very silly
for this situation, this story. This is Nexperia, which is a, a,
a semiconductor company and this was done on behalf of Trump's.
Basically, the Dutch government took control of Nexperia from
its Chinese owner, Wing Tech Technology on the 30th of
September after the the Dutch arm claimed that the Chinese
unit had supplied the They were not supposed to be supplying
local customers in China with semiconductors, but they were.
They were doing that and more to the point, the Dutch company.
The Dutch company was stipulating that distributors
would need to settled these deals in in dollars rather than
one and and they were being settled in yuan.
So anyway that this caused the Dutch government to step in and
take over the thing. And well, the question is, are
is China going to make an example out of out of the Dutch
government or the Dutch for this?
So with the Dutch are nationalising that.
They effectively took control of it.
Yes, that's exactly what the Germans are planning to do with
Rosneft of affiliates in Germany nationalising.
So it's taking these state assets of Russia and the private
assets of Rastaf and nationalising under the German
aegis. So not only did they take
control of the company, they then tried to send diktats to
the to the Chinese arm and and of course that just didn't fly.
So and and then finally on this, of course, the question is that
all the companies that changed supply chains and pulled out of
China because of the previous or the trade regime up until just
now, they're going to be losing money.
As a result, so when Trump had his quote liberation day, right,
a lot of people were like getting ahead of the game and
thinking, well, we need to basically cut supply chains with
these sort of hostile nations like China, right, and suit to
great expense, right? And all of a sudden.
It seems it seems to be back on again so.
It's back on again, so they lost a lot of money.
Yeah. So, I mean, who knows how this
is going to turn out. The the problem is that no
sooner had that meeting, you could look at the meeting in
itself, in and of itself in a positive light.
But no sooner at that meeting happened.
And the next thing was Trump is saying, oh, well, China, China's
rebuilding this nuclear building, a nuclear arsenal
here. We've got to start testing
nuclear weapons happens again. And Mark, I don't know what your
thoughts are on that, but but Trump's, the independent was
saying that Trump's comments on nuclear test testing up and
decades of U.S. policy. What?
What are your thoughts? Well, my initial thoughts and we
can show that independent headline as I'm talking, my
initial thoughts are of course Trump's comments in and of
themselves are not going to up and anything actually changing
U.S. policy and at least planning or carrying out renewed
nuclear testing that would definitely upend decades of U.S.
policy. This subhead in that story says
Trump has suggested the US will restart nuclear weapons testing,
a move again saying that they're saying that it up ends decades
of American policy. It reminds me of Ronald Reagan
who also was a peace through strength guy and there was a lot
of Sabre rattling during his president presidency, but that's
typically all it amounts to is Sabre rattling.
At any rate, theatomicarchive.com turned out
to be a pretty objective source on this, and I have a chart here
that I found that puts things in pretty good perspective.
There's been a total of 2056 nuclear tests since 1945, and
the US has been responsible for about half of those.
Or 1030 seven, 115 from Russia, the United Kingdom a mere 45.
France 210. China also 45I3 and Pakistan 2
and North Korea 6. And right around the early 90s,
testing began to fall off a lot. And by the time you got to the
early 2000s, there's no record of any known nuclear tests.
But atomicarchive.com also had this to say.
Just for clarification, since the first nuclear test explosion
on 16 July 1945, of course that was the Trinity test by
Oppenheimer, at least eight nations have detonated 2056
nuclear test explosions at dozens of test sites, including
Lapnor and China, the atolls of the Pacific.
Lots of exposure to radiation, of course, in the Bikini Atoll,
Nevada, Algeria, where French conducted its first nuclear
device, A WA where the UK exploded nuclear weapons, and
the southern Atlantic across Russia and elsewhere.
And I remember during my nuke activist days, in my early
journalist days, I was sort of a nuke activist.
And there was a book that came out then when the US was doing
open air testing. And the book was called The Day
We Bombed Utah. And it spoke of nuclear fallout
coming down on cities and towns in Utah and spikes in cases of
cancer. And so the open air testing that
the US did in the 50s was especially dangerous.
And that's why they moved it underground.
I think if memory serves, we have one more slide on this at
any rate. And yes, no, I maybe we're done.
At any rate, I think that's sufficient.
But that's kind of a picture of who's been doing the testing and
how many. And so it would be a very, you
know, dramatic and sharp move to go back to that after all that's
been done and after the relative lack now of testing ever since
the early 2000s. So back to you guys.
Yeah, absolutely. And and I mean the other thing
to talk about here Mark is, is sorry Patrick, I'll bring you in
at this point. The the removal of the
withdrawal of various countries from non proliferation treaties.
I mean 2002 the United States left the the ABM, the.
Ballistic. Missile Treaty.
And that was sort of seen as a trigger that started 20 years of
erosion of nuclear arms control. 2018 Of course, Trump pulled out
of the JCP away. And although that didn't
directly cause Russia to suspend new starters CCTBT, it certainly
contributed to that. But also opened up the door with
aggression against Iran, which ended up with a war this past
summer. Absolutely.
And then of course, 2019 Internet Intermediate Range
Nuclear Forces Treaty that the US withdrew from 2023 as Russia
removed themselves from the New START and from the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. And so, you know, this is this
is a trend which has been developing for quite some time,
but we're now starting to see us getting pretty close to pretty
dangerous territory if we're starting to test again.
Yeah. And by the way, Russia removing
itself from those agreements, we're basically mirroring the
United States, basically not not fulfilling their obligations.
And Russia suspended its obligations, right.
But it's obviously being spun in the media a certain way.
But yeah. And the other thing is, by the
way, we were talking about testing.
So this is how Israel got around the issue of how does Israel
with a secret nuclear arsenal, test its weapons?
Well, the French did it for them in Bikini Atoll in the South
Pacific and in the Saharan Desert in Algeria.
That explains why the French number that Mark just showed was
was quite as high as it was. Yeah, and we showed the data for
that. Freddie Ponton, journalist from
France, did a great job of breaking a lot of that down on
on reports that we did on 21st Century Wire.
But isn't that amazing how Israel managed to sidestep that
huge problem is how do you test a secret nuclear arsenal?
Well, let's just let's just look at this then, because the
Telegraph a couple of days ago was reporting that Britain must
look at sharing nuclear weapons with Germany to counter the
critical threat posed by Russia, of course.
And this is according to British defence chiefs.
Now they're saying that that this includes, by the way,
George Robertson, the former head of NATO, who was the man
who's just written the defence review on behalf of the British,
the Starmer regime. So, so they're they're basically
saying that the UK needs to open talks with Berlin over what
they're describing as a fresh defence pact.
Germany, they say, is already in quote, strategic discussions
with Paris over how the French could provide potential
protection in in the form of its own nuclear deterrent.
Mertz apparently is very keen to speak to Starmer about Britain
getting involved in this as well.
Now this is really important because of course we've been
talking about the development of the European defence capability
for a long time now. But the core of this has been
the Franco British axis until more recently when Germany
started joining that. So, you know, from a from a
defence pushing a defence narrative, Britain and France
have been pushing that. The political union narrative,
of course, in the EU has mainly been France and Germany.
So it makes sense to get everybody together.
In an axis. In an axis, an axis of evil, I
would even go as far as to say, but but this, this France,
Britain, Germany axis is also expresses itself in the form of
the E3, which is this grouping that's now sort of driving
defence and foreign policy within the EU.
So. But Britain of course left the
EU so. You know, well, no, it's
extraordinary. Well, not quite.
But you know what's extraordinary about this is
Frederick Mertz. Not very popular in Germany?
Not very popular. It's debatable whether he will
survive the next round of elections for his party of the
Coalition, Macron. To say he's unpopular is a
massive understatement, right? And then there's Keir Starmer.
So you have 3 unpopular, hugely unpopular leaders that are
ruling or governing by threads and they're doing this major
paradigm shift in the European security architecture that is
basically nuclear proliferation. Yeah.
But we've always got to remember that this is not their policy.
They're they're merely enacting it.
This is this is a deep state policy that's been in operation
for This is just the culmination of something that's been running
for a long time. Sure it is, but still they're
the ones who are going to basically put it in motion or
sign for it on behalf of the electorate.
Yeah, but we don't have any say no in any of that.
And, and you know, for the, the US, this is not good news.
If you don't want another nuclear variable in Europe,
it's, it's enough. But in the Cold War, Mike, there
was a balance in the bipolar distribution.
There was a balance between the United States and the Soviet
Union. It they sort of cancelled each
other out in the old doctrine. But you add a third actor.
Do you trust some of these European actors that they'll be
rational? I don't trust some of the
British actors that they'll be rational.
They're insane. I don't necessarily trust the US
under the current administration, but I do I trust
the USA lot more because they have a a long pedigree, as do
the Russians in having this kind of long standing count
cancelling each other out bipolar arrangement.
But Europe has a a great tradition in starting massive
wars and basically trying to wipe each other out.
This has happened a number of times in the last 150 years.
So I mean, I'm just saying I'm a little sceptical.
Absolutely. Now, sticking with defence, just
briefly, what's going on with the media and and the Department
of War in the United States? This this is from last week.
OK, And this should really shock people.
Journalists turn in their access badges and after a row with the
Pentagon over new reporting rules, basically Pete Hagseth
again, a Fox News weekend host that Trump gave or Israel told
Trump to hire him as defence secretary.
He's basically saying that all the media outlets have to run
their reporting through his office for approval.
So any reporting on the DoD, which is now called the
Department of War, OK, has to run through the Pentagon's Sorry
to. Say this again, but this is real
Nazi Germany stuff. Yeah.
I mean, if China does this, they'll say, oh, there's no
transparency, It's not democratic.
If Russia does it, they'd say the same thing.
But in America, I mean, seriously, this is like going
against the 1st Amendment. So again, this is a pattern of
the Trump administration undermining the US Constitution,
freedom of the press. And so let's take a closer look
at that. Let's bring this up.
So this is the response. So the war departments have
replaced AP and obviously there's there's this is this is
going into the courts, by the way.
So this could change. But as of last week, the new
media outlets for the Department of War were Lindell TV.
That's Mike Lindell. He sells pillows and slippers on
cable. The Gateway Pundit, not really
the best website in terms of hard news and defence and
geopolitics. The Post Millennial, they
specialise in anti woke articles and going after trans and LGBT
in Portland. That's their mainstay.
What do they know about geopolitics and defence policy?
Not much. Human Events.
That's Jack Posobiak, that's MAGA.
It's basically a MAGA website. And then the National Pulse,
that's Raheem Kasim I think and again, very MAGA.
OK, so I mean, are, are they going to be critical with
anything the US is doing and starting wars around the world?
Any of these MAGA outlets, websites, basically these are
websites. So listen, the mainstream media,
for all its faults, they do have people on staff who do this for
a living their whole career. And if if if they are going to
call out the US government or the president or something like
that, or at least get accountability, there's a higher
chance they'll be able to do it than the Gateway Pundit.
So I'm just saying this is a really shocking development.
And I think people should. But there was more.
Oh, there's more. Sorry, there's one more.
Let me see. There's another.
Yeah. The list also includes Turning
Point USA is media brand front lines.
I never heard of that. Don't know what it is.
Influencer Tim Pools, Tim Cast. That's a YouTube channel and the
sub stack based newsletter called the Washington Reporter.
These are guests are paragons of journalism.
What can we say? Maybe, maybe we should apply for
for a pass. I'm probably not going to get
it. They don't like anybody who's
critical of Trump, doesn't like any media outlets critical of
him and will deny them access. So this is like what's going on?
So pretty incredible. OK, OK, then let's keep an eye
on that. OK, If you like what the UK
column does, you'd like to support us, please have a look
at the website. There are options to help us out
if you have a look at that section on on screen at the
moment. If you can't support us
financially then please do share material that you see on the
website and help us beat the censorship regime in the UK and
elsewhere. Now tonight at 7:00 PM, Charles
and I, as usual, are speaking to Jerem for the Weekly Banter.
Join us for that. And then at 9, Carl Zhao is
speaking to Doctor Warwick Paul on the unravelling of Trump's
trade war. And this is focusing on the
Trump she visit. So have a look at that.
At 9:00 PM tonight, a reminder of the interview between me and
Jose Biomorgi, the Venezuelan ambassador to Lebanon and Syria
yesterday that went out yesterday.
It's now on the website on Demand if you want to have a
look at that. It covers a lot of some of the
topics that we spoke about in the Venezuelan segment today,
but we're hearing it from from the horses mouth as it were.
And certainly he absolutely is putting quite a lot of the
responsibility for what's going on at Marco Rubio's door.
And well, we can talk about that a bit more in extra.
Now, I want to highlight an article which is going to cause
people, some people, some difficulty, but I'm just going
to say it's worth reading. It is fantastic.
Islam is not the enemy of Christianity.
This is an Arab Christian perspective.
This is from someone in the Middle East who is an Arab
Christian and just wanted to put her perspective.
On the relationship between Islam and Christianity, or at
least how it should be. And but as I say, it might cause
some cognitive dissonance in in some people.
And if it does well, I've just urge you to to consider what's
being said. Just take a step back and
consider it because it's worth consideration.
Yeah, sometimes a shock to some people in the West to know that
there are actual Christians living in Palestine peacefully
with Muslims and in Lebanon and Syria as well.
Maybe not with the current Syrian regime, which is AUS
backed terrorist leader, but before that under the Assad
government, all denominations living in harmony with each
other mostly anyway in Iraq as well.
It's the same in Iraq. So I know that comes as a shock.
Yes, Christians in the Holy Land, Arab Christians, but it's
true. We, we testified.
This is a fact. They've been there for thousands
of years or no, we're not Christians.
Well, 2000. Yes.
So, but anyway, now the 1000 Words podcast that went out last
week, the second part of that is going out on Sunday at 7:00 PM
is James Delingpole is being painted by Jake Fern.
And of course they're having discussions on on, I think this
week they're focusing on the things that brought James
Dillingpole from where he was to where he is today.
So this is a bit more about his how he has his opinions have
evolved since he was. His demising conversion from
from the Telegraph to where he is now, it's probably
fascinating. Absolutely.
Now that's for members only, so, but do join us for that. 7:00 PM
on Sunday. And finally, a reminder of
tomorrow, the digital ID protests in Edinburgh. 1:00 PM
The Mound Princess St in Edinburgh.
If you can possibly get along for that, please do go and
support those guys because this is a topic which of course, is
very close to many, many people's hearts.
So as much support as possible would be fantastic.
Now, Patrick, let's move on then to the issue of Russian oil
exports and sanctions and so on. Well, it's an interesting topic.
We were going to have a a guest international lawyer, Arnold
Devolo, join us. There were connection issues,
big tech issues between the East and the West right now because
of sanctions. So we'll we'll.
Find a work around for that and we'll we'll speak to him again.
We'll bring him on in future, but but but nonetheless, let's
bring this up. So this is the big question.
Will Trump sanctions against Russia make a dent in in their
oil exports? You know, basically how how
serious is this? And just to there they are now,
I guess all the goodwill from Anchorage is expended and now
we're at with economic new levels of economic war.
So what what Trump's trying to do here, Mike, is extract some
kind of concessions from Russia in terms of getting them to
agree to freeze the conflict in Ukraine as an example.
So this does have a lot to do with what's happening on the
battlefield in Ukraine right now.
The question is how serious is they've sanctioned Russia to
high heaven since 2014. In fact, after the Russia after
Crimea reunited with the Russian Federation or an A Russia
annexed it, depending on which perspective you take.
And then after the Ukraine conflict kicked off in February
2022, another another level of sanctioning.
So what could, what could the West possibly do to Russia that
would really hurt it if Russia has weathered the storm and and
is out competing Europe in terms of GDP growth and economic
performance? Well is but is this really a
checkmate? Well, let's take a look.
And just to to review, this is something we mentioned earlier
here. We're talking about these two
major producers, Rosneff and Luke Oil, which comprise of 5%
of the global oil trade, which is significant.
This might not sound like a lot 5%, but it is a 20th of the
global oil trade. So it is a lot, but China is
halting oil purchases from these companies.
That's massive. Before China was basically still
training and basically sidestepped any threats.
And India, same. So these are three main founding
BRICS countries, Russia, China and India.
So has Trump done a major move here, a checkmate, if you will,
against bricks and against Russia?
Well, Mike, the the consensus is this is going to hurt Russia in
the short term for sure. And what's interesting is in
November, I think the end of November is, is the deadline
where Luke Oil, which has facilities all over the world.
And these can be now seized under kind of, you know, eminent
domain under these sanctions. So they're now trying to sell
all of their facilities and properties in the next three
weeks and they're going for nothing basically.
So that's what that's what those are the reports that we've got
out of Russia. So they're basically if it
whatever is not basically liquidated, but by I think
November 17th right around there, then it's basically they
they can lose them. What does international law say
about this? Is this, is this legitimate what
the United States doing? Absolutely.
It's not by this should go into some kind of a forum like, you
know, the UN General Assembly or the Security Council or some
kind of arbitration. So it's completely against
international law. And the and especially at a time
when the US doesn't want to come to any political settlement over
Ukraine, they want to settle it on the battlefield.
The Europeans want to settle on the battlefield and then they're
waging economic warfare against against Russia and then
sanctioning anyone who's buying Russian oil.
So that's also secondary. Sanctions are absolutely in
violation of international law. So Hungary wants a waiver there
will probably get a waiver. Same with Slovakia and a number
of other countries. Germany's got a waiver for
Rosneft and Germany. They still rely on Russia and
Germany's, as we said, they're going to seize, possibly sees
and nationalise those Russian Rosneft refineries and so forth
in Germany because that's the only way around it is to steal
it and nationalise it. So this is kind of crazy what's
going on here. I.
Mean should Russia not view that as an act of war?
It it is wars have been started over over this in the past.
In fact, this is arguably one of the reasons why Japan attacked
Pearl Harbour in 1941 was they were being strangled and shut
off from the global markets by the Americans and the British.
So they, they, they, it was really kind of a pre emptive
move to hit the US bases in, in Hawaii and Pearl Harbour.
There's more to it than that. But so the, the questions that
this raises, Mike, is OPEC, how's OPEC going to respond?
Is OPEC going to increase production to keep the price of
oil down? Because what the US don't want
is a spike in oil prices because that's going to create problems
economically for Trump and for the West, but also it's going to
benefit Russia because according to Russian experts, just a
slight increase in price will make up for the lost trade.
You see. So I mean that that those are
the sort of variables that we're dealing with here.
And so it is interesting. And you know what else is
interesting is the Rosa Tom is the nuclear yeah, provider for
Russia. They're exempt from all
sanctions globally. They've got a they've got a
white waiver for every every everyone relies on them around
the world. They do a full end to end
solution from uranium to clean up to facilities to build the
facilities, maintain the facilities to fantastic company,
which is mostly, I believe state owned.
They have a complete waiver and Japan is basically ignoring any
threats of sanctions. They buy a lot of LNG from
Russia. The Sakhalin site is a joint
venture between the Japanese and the Russian government And Japan
saying no, we're we're we're keeping our relationship with
Russia. They don't buy a lot of oil from
Russia and Japan. They get it from other places.
They only get a small percentage from Russia.
So Japan is basically not affected by this at all and is
pushing back against any pressure not to buy Russian
liquefied natural gas. So that's interesting.
So Asia is, it'll be interesting to see what direction this goes,
how China and Russia will adapt on this and we might see some
changes in the structure of the Russian.
These companies could become nationalised in Russia itself
and it becomes much more difficult to sanction if these
are state owned companies. So last question Patrick,
because on this bearing in mind that the so called Glo Global S
is the global majority, why, why isn't there much more of a sort
of an international outcry about this?
I, I don't know per per SE, no, I think there's just so many
terror. There's tariff wars and
sanctions. the US is basically using tariffs as sanctions to
punish people for not behaving the way they want or not
submitting to whatever the, the weekly DIC tats are, which are
constantly changing from the Trump administration.
So there's a lot of chaos, I think, and there's a lot of
noise and hysteria going on right now.
So trying to get a consolidated response to what the US is doing
here is going to be difficult, OK?
Everyone's just trying to survive in this economy.
So I mean, there's a lot of problems with that.
So I think personally, in the long term, I think in the short
term, the, the sanctions against Russia, these particular ones
are going to hurt Russia in the short term.
And you're going to see probably Q 4/20/26 that that that's when
you'll start, start to see on the balance sheet what sort of
effect this has. But I've been speaking to
experts in Russia, Mike, on this and they said that this Ukraine
war is going to be done by Q4 of 2026.
When I say done, we, we're talking about Odessa, Kharkiv,
Dinapia, Petrosk, and these sort of key regions that they're
fighting over right now, which geopolitically change the whole,
you know, viewpoint of this conflict.
For NATO, that means basically they're done.
NATO's southern flank is finished.
If if that's the case, they're really pushing Russia's hand.
Because if, if this is going to create pain in Russia, Mike, and
that's going to create political pressure for Putin and this
government, then it they're incentivizing Russia to move
quicker and harder in Ukraine. And so what's that?
Is that going to elicit an aggressive response from Europe?
Is this how we're going to get war?
That's a legitimate question as well, yeah.
Absolutely. OK, let's come back to the UK
then. And online safety, because
Sunday was the Online Safety Act's second birthday.
We should all have been celebrating.
I hope everyone was celebrating. We appreciate my sarcasm there.
But anyway, Ofcoms Group director for Online Safety
Oliver Griffith said that real change is happening.
We've laid the foundations for a safer life online.
Do you feel safer online, Patrick?
Yeah, OK, he said. He said tech platforms now have
clear legal duties to protect people, especially children,
from legal and harmful, from illegal and harmful content.
Now, this is important because the concept of legal but harmful
content never really went away. So we have to look a bit behind
what he was saying there. Anyway, Ofcom announced that
they're going to publish a report detailing their progress
to creating a censorship industrial.
Sorry, I've completely forgotten the word that's going to be
published in December. Anyway, here's Ofcom's head DM,
Melanie Doss, because she's written to the chairs of the
Communications and Digital Select Committee and also the
Science, Innovation and Technology Committee to claim
all kinds of success so far. She said the most visible and
significant change so far has been the introduction of age
cheques across online pornography sites.
Another sites hosting primary priority content as defined in
the ACT to prevent under eighteens from being able to
access this content. So I mean, this is, this is
absolutely her position. But of course this business of
under eighteens being able to access content, well that might
be the case, but it does nothing to prevent those over 18 from
posing as under eighteens on sites that target children.
So it should come as no surprise then that the first imprisonment
under the Online Safety Act is of an adult who abused a 17 year
old and caused her to self harm. This is presented as a huge
success for the Online Safety Act, but in fact it's another
failure. The ACT did and does nothing to
prevent this type of abuse and the crimes committed by this
person were already illegal. So this this prosecution could
have been on the basis of already existing legislation.
Child abuse and causing self harm were not legal before the
Online Safety Act. So the claim that this is some
kind of success is complete and utter nonsense.
But anyway, in the meantime, the war of words between Wikipedia
and the UK regime continues because Wikipedia is also
subject to the age verification requirements that the
pornography sites are. And this is upsetting Jimmy
Wales because the best Deep state editors of the planet's
greatest propaganda machine wish to remain anonymous.
And Jimmy wants them to remain anonymous.
He wants them to be able to remain anonymous.
But Starmer's saying no to that. And so that fight is continuing.
Well, so intelligence agencies are battling the government
absolutely on this. On this yes, professional
trolls. In the EU then, LinkedIn has
been ramping up its censorship regime and the European
Commission has been forced to deny that it had anything to do
with so that the censorship had anything to do with the Digital
Services Act, which is the EU's equivalent to the Online Safety
Act. That's a pretty lame excuse
because of course LinkedIn and all the platforms are responding
to the legislative framework they find themselves in,
primarily because LinkedIn doesn't really have any skin in
the game as far as advertising is concerned.
So they're not worried about content that that may put
advertisers off as such. So this is mainly about the the
the Digital Services Act and the Online Safety Act, but I just
wanted to to end this topic with this article.
This was rubbished originally published a couple of months ago
on the conversation website, but the Cobb Courier here.
The Cobb Courier is a local website in the United States has
just republished this and the headline is Self Censorship and
the Spiral of Silence. Why Americans are less likely to
publicly voice their opinions on political issues.
And it talks about people self censoring because people are
being driven to extreme positions as a result of current
events and and people are therefore afraid to speak out
because of the abuse they received from people on the
other end of the political spectrum.
And so what's being described here is that the polarisation of
opinion is in and of itself a mechanism of censorship.
You know, because the divide and conquer policy, in other words,
is a gift that keeps on giving. If people want to, you know, I'm
going to suggest here that if people want to resist policies
they disagree with, maybe we should be engaging people that
we, you know, the people that we disagree with in a way which
sort of enables conversations rather than rather than, well,
what is sort of digital bloodshed as we see on on X and
other platforms at the moment. But I think I thought that was a
pretty insightful article, because there is no question
that is people's opinions move to the extremes.
It gets harder for them to express them without ending it,
ending up in just a massive war. Yeah, in my experience
personally engaging with other Americans on on just my germane
political conversations is there's a huge gap between what
people know or think they know and what's actually true.
And some for some people, you can't get over the conversation
that they don't. They believe Michelle Obama is a
man basically. And and and they're just stuck
on that. They believe all sorts of
things. But so you can't really have an
intelligent political conversation that's, you know,
of course, that's just my opinion that Michelle Obama is a
biological female. But people have been
radicalised. I couldn't possibly comment.
They've been radicalised on this stuff, so you it is kind of
frustrating. And because of that it's
affected. Both sides will not talk to each
other basically. So if you're intelligent, you
want to have a intellectual conversation somewhere in the
middle. You're not welcome.
You're not. Welcome.
That's the case. And so conversations aren't
happening. But in the meantime, Speaking of
conversations, at least an attempt to stop conversations
happening, what's the latest on the doctors that are being
censored? What's Auk story here?
And we'll bring this image up on screen.
So this is this is UK Israeli censorship.
Let's just call it what it is. This is here Doctor Ramey Ladwan
and she they're attempting to revoke her licence to practise
medicine get her struck from the the General Medical Council on
this year and the the coverage on this is just unbelievable.
So we go to the to the right. This is the Telegraph NH Doctor
Who celebrated Hamas October 7th attack knows how they put that
in single quotes. Is is arrested and they put it
in single quotes. So this is an accusation
probably from, I don't know, an Israeli lobby or a Jewish lobby
organisation. They put it in single quotes.
It's highly libellous and defamatory.
Cause clearly she wasn't celebrating October 7th.
But the Telegraph are playing bit cute with that one by
putting in single quotes. And now on the left world
socialist website defending her UK government backed persecution
of anti genocide medic Dr Rahme, a large 1 continues.
You see the difference between the media coverage, but the the
the entire mainstream in Britain is railing against her.
So you know, if you if you're if you're into the underdog and you
don't trust the establishment, then maybe you should consider
what side you're taking on this. But here's here's what's
happened to her since she has been released.
She says this is on her ex account.
A few days ago I'm effectively on a form of house arrest, my
bail conditions for lawful speech, a July talk she gave and
three posts on X. She's banned from any public
demonstration or event in London relating to Palestine or Israel.
Curfew to live and sleep at a specific address.
Must notify a detective if she is to leave home for more than
48 hours. Yesterday, the chair of the
tribunal cut her off from reading, fought one sentence.
The GMC had also specifically requested that I am not to
speak, says Doctor Aladwan. This is what the political
persecution of a doctor looks like in Britain today.
Pretty, pretty amazing House arrest for tweets.
So all all the people on the right that were railing and Elon
Musk and JD Vance about people being, you know, arrested or
door knocked by the police for tweets.
None of those people on the so called conservatives are coming
to her rescue because they don't like the fact that she is
defending Palestinians. So is and she herself is from
the Levant, if I'm not mistaken. So yeah, she's I believe
Jordanian, of Jordanian Palestinian descent.
So she's talking about her people effectively, but yet this
is criminalised speech. So we're all the free speech
warriors on the right. Are you going to defend her on
principle or not because Israel's involved in the issue?
No, is apparently the case. Yeah, indeed.
Mark, let's come back to you then to end and just bring us a
little bit more on what the White House has been saying
about Gaza. Well, this just then, you might
say, Mike, you had asked me to look this up and everything I
looked up was about a week, week and a half old regarding White
House negotiators Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff.
This is from Politico. 20 October.
Those two guys returned to the Middle East and met with Prime
Minister Netanyahu and Israel after a weekend where the
ceasefire at that time looked increasingly in danger as Israel
launched a wave of strikes on targets in Gaza around October
19, which Palestinian authorities said killed dozens
of people, including children, after two Israeli troops, I
would say, allegedly were killed by militants.
Hamas said it was not responsible for the attack on
those soldiers. So there's, of course, a lot of
concern about wanting to make Gaza a real estate Mecca in the
wake of all this tragedy. And these negotiators are, you
know, working around a ceasefire that really never was.
And it truly is a, a disheartening and tragic thing
to see with Israel getting away with so many crimes, Internet
breaking, breaking international law, and as we mentioned
earlier, escaping the the overall chronicling and
archiving of data on nuclear weapons tests when they have a
nuclear arsenal they've had for a long time.
And yet it's been kept unofficial.
And that that really adds insult to injury after as to what
Israel's been doing in Gaza. So I didn't have a lot of time
to look into this in detail, but I think that puts a good ending
on today's show, kind of sums things up.
Well, of course, Witkoff and so on, they were seen on camera
recently causing each other, Kushner and Witkoff causing each
other a little bit of embarrassment.
What? What was going on there?
We'll go to that in a second. They had the interview of 60
Minutes and Leslie Stahl, really embarrassing, actually.
We'll show that clip in a minute.
But Israel's basically pioneering a new concept here,
Mike. It's a temporarily permanent
ceasefire. The temporarily permanent
ceasefire. And I might add, under
international law, Israeli soldiers I, the IDF or IOF,
depending on which acronym you use, they have no rights under
international law in as illegal occupiers in Gaza.
Just saying the fact that that their safety is somehow a part
of any negotiation or or ceasefire agreement is patently
ridiculous. But unfortunately, you're
dealing with a perennial violator of multiple UN
resolutions over the last 80 years.
But so, so this is clip. Watch this clip and watch the
reaction from Jared Kushner when the 60 Minutes host asks Steve
Witkoff and Steve Witkoff seems to give away play the entire
game on this and just Kushner is panicking, visibly dishevelled.
Watch this. You're builders, you've been in
real estate. Tell us more about the plan and
how much it's going to cost. Where's the money going to come
from and who's going to award the contracts?
I think it's going to cost a lot of money.
What's a lot of money? You know, the estimates are in
the $50 billion range. It might be a little bit less,
it might be a little bit more. I happen to think that that's
not a lot of money in that region.
You have governments that are going to jump on in.
Middle East countries are going to provide the money.
Yeah. What?
You'll see European participation and so forth.
The beginning of this plan is how to get it going.
That's what me and what me and Jared work on all the time.
The money raising, we think is the easy part, but it's the
master plan and we're working with a group of people who have
been working on master plans for the last two years.
So there are plans already. We have plans already.
We have a master plan already. And by the way, and Jared's been
pushing this and we're working together on it, and I think if
the world saw the progress so far, they'd be pretty impressed.
Well, it's always good to end the programme on the comedy
moment, Patrick. But that, you know, in a sense
it's a comedy moment because clearly Kushner was extremely
embarrassed by that. But but you know, what we're
actually looking at, we should always keep in mind is
thousands, 100, you know, 10s of thousands, hundreds of thousands
of people, basically a population decimated to make
room for this master plan. Yeah, yeah.
And, and he's been working on it for Jared's been working on for
two years since October 7th. And Steve Witkoff gave it away.
The delboy, the delboy of diplomacy.
Steve Witkoff gave the game away.
And that's what it's all about. Trump tweeted out this Gaza
Riviera thing with this gaudy AI video back at the beginning of
his term in February. And that was just kind of like a
big FUI think to the Palestinians and to the
international community on this. And there you go.
These two shysters, a couple of crooks, a couple of criminals
and their bosses running a protection racket, who is, I
don't know who their boss is. Which cabinet do they work for,
the Israeli cabinet or the American governments cabinet?
This is an open question that we don't actually know the answer
to the British at this point. Maybe, maybe, maybe there's a
Union Jack inside, Jared. Designer suit.
Well, we'll leave. We'll leave it on that thought.
So look, we'll be back. In a couple of minutes, if
you're UK column member for some news extra, join us for that if
you can. Otherwise, don't forget Jerem at
7 and 2nd Rd Podcast at 9:00. Join us at 1:00 PM on Monday as
usual and hope everyone has a great weekend.
In the meantime, thanks for joining us.
Bye bye.