Good afternoon. It's Friday the 13th of December
2024. Unlucky for some.
Welcome to UK column news. I'm your host Mike Robinson
joining me today in the studio, Brian Gerrish.
And by video link we have Debbie Evans and Mark Anderson and a
special guest later on in the programme.
Now we're going to get straight on here with the fantastic news
that of course we have this massive backlog in the just
justice system at the moment. So 73,000 cases in the backlog,
all in the queue waiting to be dealt with.
And that's double the levels pre pandemic in inverted commas.
Now of course the so-called pandemic is the excuse for this,
but it's not the only one. That's not the only reason.
Because in 2019 the British regime of the day decided to cut
court sitting days and of course that made matters already bad.
And then the so-called pandemic made matters even worse.
So that by 2021 and 2022 they had uncapped the number of days
that judges were allowed to sit to try to deal with the
situation. But of course the the damage was
already done by that. And then following the pandemic,
there was the barrister strike. This was involving criminal
barristers who wanted better pay through the legal aid scheme.
And of course government of the day wouldn't give them what they
wanted. So that made matters even worse.
And of course, in the meantime, there are even more cases
because of course there are more people in the country because
the British regime has increased, but also the British
regime has increased the number of police on the streets.
That's resulted in more arrests, but they haven't increased the
number of barristers, They haven't increased the number of
judges and they haven't increased the amount of court
time. So we shouldn't be making any
mistake about this. This is another engineered
crisis, and the scale of it is pretty astronomical there.
This is driving public demands for a fix.
And we're doing that by abusing victims even further and victims
of serious crime even further by, for example, rape cases, for
example, taking four years to even come to court.
I mean, that's just obscene. That's obscene, Mike.
And then we have the family court hearings where there is no
justice for many families whatsoever.
Indeed. So of course they're going to
fix this problem, aren't they? And who are they going to bring
to fix the problem? Well, it is of course Lord Brian
Leveson, well known in the country because of the Leveson
inquiry into the British press. But of course a couple of years
ago, in fact, in fact it was 2015, it was immediately after
the Leveson inquiry. He was looking at efficiencies
in the court system even then. So this is something that's been
going on for 10 years at the very least, and something that
he was aware of, something that successive governments have been
aware of and so on. But he was looking at digital
court reform at that time. But what's the target this time?
Well, the target is the jury and this is what they want to see in
courts, empty jury chairs. We don't need juries in the UK,
we don't ever want juries in the UK.
And so that's one of the proposals.
And the way that they're going to implement this is that at the
moment, of course, we have magistrates courts, which are
there to deal with supposedly the most insignificant criminal
activity, and magistrates having just been allowed to increase
their sentences up to a year. So that's any criminal activity
that might be subject to sanction of a year in prison.
And we've got the crime court, which sees more serious crimes,
and those would be generally heard in front of a jury.
So one of the things that Levison is talking about, or
they're trying to encourage Levison to look at, is the
potential of putting a 1/3 tier in between those two, which
would be heard in front of a judge and two magistrates.
And those of course, would not have juries.
So more and more or jury trials be having the juries removed and
just judges and. Again, I'll add Mike.
And of course, this is the family court system where you
effectively have the Star Chamber with just a judge, no
jury, usually no press. So the precedent where they want
to go is the family court is the family courts and that's where
the children are taken away from their families and nobody can do
anything about it because of judge rules.
Right, and the other thing that Levison will be looking at is
increasing magistrates powers even further to give them the
ability to sentence for longer than a year and maybe do away
with this mid tier court system altogether and just put that all
into the Magistrates Court. Now, the fact is that of course,
this is nothing whatever to do with speeding up justice.
This is only this is only about attacking the idea of juries.
And well, This is why, because, you know, there are no prison
spaces for the backlog and no intention of creating sufficient
prison spaces for the backlog. So although they're talking
about building more prisons and well, not they're not building
them fast enough, they're not building enough of them in order
to meet the needs of this so-called backlog.
So if they speed up the justices puts even more pressure on the
on the prison system. So they're not going to be able
to put them in prison anyway. This is not about, uh, you know,
getting rid of a backlog. This is about creating a problem
in order to provide a solution. And the solution is getting rid
of juries. And why are they attacking
juries? Well, because juries.
This is a fundamental constitutional protection in
this country. Juries have the power to
overrule bad law through the process called jury
nullification. And of course, if you create a
middle tier of courts which don't have juries and only have
judges, judges will not consider over ruling parliamentary
sovereignty and inverted commas. They will simply rule based on
the law. And the problem there is what we
also make the point that judges never tell theories about jury
nullification. So what is happening here is
that more and more protections of an out of control dictatorial
government are being removed from the people by the removal
of juries. And this is really important.
And the other thing to note here in the whole digit, sorry,
digitization of the court system process that Levison started in
2015, I'll just highlight this from the Law Society algorithm
use in the criminal justice system report, because this is
always in the background, the use of using AI and algorithms
to help make judicial decisions. And this takes it even to a
worse state. And this was what the Law
Society was saying in 2019, but it's something we got to
consider when we're talking about this.
They can make law enforcement and the administration of
justice more efficient and consistent.
That's the use of algorithms, but using algorithms without
questioning them or explaining them to the public could lead to
decisions that threaten human rights and undermine public
trust in the justice system. The direction of travel here,
Brian, is really horrendous. Well, absolutely, because one of
the things that an algorithm isn't going to have is any form
of empathy or compassion. So if you want to know what AI
is going to bring, it's going to be ruthless, draconian justice.
That's what it's going to bring. No.
Juries, No. Juries, yeah.
Debbie, let's come to you then and the question of mRNA.
Yes, indeed. Good afternoon everyone, lovely
to be here and it's a very cold afternoon here in Cornwall, but
I want to warm you up with June Raines words as if I could on
the last MHRA board meeting that has not yet been published on
YouTube, she said, and I quote, there's more work on mRNA
platform technology, not just for cancer vaccines, but for
personalized medicines and guidance which will be out there
for public consultation quite soon.
The efforts to drive forward innovation are moving ahead
quite strongly. Also, Ed Dowd in a recent
interview estimated that globally there have been between
7.3 and 15,000,000 deaths from the COVID-19 injection and 29 to
60 million disabled, with another 500 to 900 million
vaccine injured. And still they're ramping up
mRNA. So I want to take you back to a
report that we did on the UK column News 31st of May 2024,
where we talked about Kathleen Carico, who was the joint winner
of the Nobel Prize with Professor Drew Weissmann.
So please go and have a look at that because I want to take a
look at Professor Drew Weissmann.
Here's the press release that was released from the Nobel
Prize announcing the award to both of them for their work in
enabling development of effective mRNA vaccines for
COVID-19. So let's look at Professor Drew
Weissmann. Let's look at the Pearlman
School of Medicine because he's there, pictured in the middle.
I've just arrowed him there. Not a very big picture.
So we'll blow his picture up. Here's a larger frame of him and
you can see that he is the professor of vaccine research
and Infections Disease Division. He's got so many awards.
I would have to Scroll down for at least probably a minute for
you to see all of the awards that he's received.
And purely by chance, a few days ago I happened to catch Live the
Future of Health, the Nobel Week Dialogue 2024 lecture.
This was held in Stockholm. And, and who was attending?
Well, none other than Professor Drew Weissman.
And I was very interested to hear what he was having to say.
How long did it actually take from the release of the sequence
to making the vaccine? Because there was a race on.
Let's listen. So you developed with, with
Katie Carico the, the mRNA vaccine for COVID-19.
And that's built on, on decades of research on mRNA.
But how long, how long did it take you like for, to, to create
the actual vaccine for, for COVID-19?
So honestly, it took about 15 minutes to design the vaccine
once the sequence was released. But we made a bunch of different
variants because we weren't sure which one would work best.
But the you know, the the advantage of RNA is you just
need the sequence. And once you've got the
sequence, you can make a vaccine.
You just need the sequence. We made a bunch of variants.
So let's look at the Professor Weissmann's laboratory.
And here it is. Welcome to Professor Weissmann's
laboratory. And you can see that the sign on
the front Drew Weissmann's lab rocks.
But what does it do? What does it actually do?
So the next slide will tell you rate really very briefly that
it's that studies nucleoside modified mRNA and lipid
nanoparticles, LNP therapeutics. But how big is this lab?
How big has it got? Let's listen.
Thing on that, you know, your, your lab, it's, it's
astonishing, astonishing how many diseases you're working on
right now. I think in the last year your
lab tripled in size. Could you give us a few examples
of the, of what you're working on?
The diseases you're yes. So we think of virus vaccines as
there are easy ones and there are difficult ones.
So HCV, influenza, HIV, malaria, TB are difficult.
But we've gone beyond just standard infectious disease
vaccines. We're working on vaccines for
autoimmune diseases, vaccines that turn off specific immune
responses. We're working on in vivo gene
therapies. So what that means is instead of
taking cells out of a person's body, which is difficult and
expensive, we do the gene therapy in the body.
We direct the lipid nanoparticles to the bone marrow
stem cells or the liver or the heart or whatever organ you're
treating, and you deliver cast 9 gene editing that can fix the
genetic defects. So my dream five years from now
hopefully is to go somewhere, probably in Africa, but anywhere
in the world with an igloo cooler full of RNA LNPS that
will cure sickle cell anemia with a single injection.
And I think that's possible. Gene therapy therapeutics using
RNA is in the body. You just give the RNALNPS and
they do the work in the body and that's critical.
So I don't know, gentlemen, I'm sure you're going to want to
comment on this because this this video was only literally it
was broadcast a couple of days ago.
So this is right up to date. But before I let you comment,
there's more, there's one more video clip.
And I want you to take pay special attention to pan
vaccines. And also he didn't really answer
the question of what was coming through his laboratory that had
tripled in size. And I want you to take notice of
avian flu, perhaps you're going to, you're going to hear, you're
going to hear cattle milk mentioned perhaps as well.
So for this final clip from Professor Drew Weissman, have a
listen and take note. Things from your website on, on
some of the other things you're working on HIV, herpes, Lyme's
disease, avian flu, norovirus, Ebola, and you're also working
then on, on your AI tools as well to help with, with
discovery. It's and, and this, this idea of
pan vaccines too. Do you want to say something
about the the idea there of the vaccines for multiple diseases?
Yes. So if we look at pandemics, most
viral pandemics have been caused by influenza and coronaviruses.
The issues with both of those is they have animal reservoirs and
we never know what the next transfer crossover is going to
be. So for influenza, we see bird
flu is now infecting cattle and cattle milk.
We see coronaviruses are constantly crossing over.
So instead of making a new vaccine every time a virus
crosses over, our idea is that we make a pan vaccine, one that
treats all influenza viruses. So no matter what crosses over
from a bird, from a pig, from a chicken, from whatever, people
will be protected. And the same with coronaviruses.
We make a vaccine that protects against all coronaviruses
capable of crossing over from bats.
Then one vaccine either treats the next infection or prevents
it from ever happening. So there you have it.
Are you feeling confident? I'm not.
Over to you, gentlemen. Well, Debbie, my first question
is how did the humanity survive over the last 50-60 thousand
years with all these coronaviruses constantly
crossing over from every possible animal species?
The entire human species should have been wiped out donkeys ago
without mRNA vaccination. A. 100%, Mike.
And that's how ridiculous and how dangerous this is becoming.
But there's going to be more about mRNA coming up later in
the programme. Thank you, Debbie.
OK, I'm recovering from that segment.
I actually said I thought the man was mad while the video was
going on. Of course, the audience couldn't
hear that, but I thought he was utterly mad.
Academically, he's probably extremely bright, but is he mad?
In my opinion, yes. Well, more madness in the world
because Syria has fallen, but everybody now is shifted onto
the next target. And of course the next target is
Iran. That's where we need the
bloodshed. So the BBC is leading the
charge. Here's the headline.
We're next for Iran now that it's axis of resistance is
shattered. This is a very long interactive
article which I'm not going to go into, but it's very glossy.
But I'm going to put on the top that you can just read the Glee
as the BBC is ramping up the anti Iran propaganda.
This is the journalist Caroline Hawley.
Now, she is a very, very experienced Middle East
correspondent. She's written lots of articles.
But look at how she begins here. Amid the shattered glass and
trampled flags, posters of Iran's supreme leader lie ripped
on the floor of the Iranian embassy in Damascus.
There are torn pictures, too, of the former leader of Lebanon's
Hezbollah movement, Hassan, as Ralla, who was killed in an
Israeli air strike in Beirut in September.
She is lapping it up. And of course, the whole purpose
of this article is to ramp up the idea of war and bloodshed
with Iran. But I'm saying to the public
today, when I read this article, something caught my eye.
And it just, it just acted as a focal point for saying this lady
was deceiving the public. So let's just have a look at the
key quote. We'll just bring that on screen.
All the dominoes have been falling, says James Jeffrey, a
former U.S. diplomat and deputy national security advisor who
now works at the non partisan Wilson Centre think tank.
Now, is this a lie? I don't know.
Or are we actually being led to believe that this experienced
BBC journalist does not know what non partisan means?
Let's listen to the Wilson Center talking about themselves
and we'll see how non partisan they are.
What's important to? Us and the way that we approach
our work is that people can. Come here from around the world,
from both sides of the political aisle.
There's a lot of talk about developing consensus.
I'm actually not. Interested in consensus?
I'm interested in constructive disagreement.
You have to mobilize ideas and debates.
So that. People.
Can sort through them and figure out what the right answers are
and figure out the best policy that serves America's interests
around the world. So to the viewers and listeners,
did you get it? What they are about is what is
best for America's interests. There's nothing non partisan
about it. This is absolutely for America's
interests and anything that gets in the way of Americans
interests is going to be invaded or trampled into the ground.
So for the BBC to be telling us that their article is formed
around non partisan opinion is just outrageous.
But it goes on. Let's pop her back on screen.
This was another little one that caught my eye.
We know that Iran spent 30 to $50 billion in Syria, says
Doctor Salam Bakhil, director of the Middle East and North Africa
programme at the think tank Chatham House.
So here she. Is up to the same tricks.
Because to suggest that Chatham House is independent, to me at
least, is just utterly incredible.
Because if you go to their website it talks about their
policies, their three cent sorry, their three 2nd century
goals to enable and build peaceful, sustainable, inclusive
societies. But if we get into the real meat
of the BBC going back to 2012, we see this lady, she has done a
lot of work for the BBC here. She's just described as a Iran
analyst. But is she just an independent
analyst in forming BBC readers? Well, actually when you get to
the bottom, you discover that she's an Iran analyst with the
Brookings Institution in Washington and a former US State
Department policy adviser. So BBC, not independent, we're
talking about women like this lady.
And I'm going to say what is she?
Victoria Nuland too, Mike, possibly.
But she's a woman on a lifetime mission to crush Iran for under
the boot of US interests. And if you have a look at some
of the policy documents, we get an instant look into what
they're really doing. U.S. policy towards Iran missed
opportunities and path forwards. I won't give you the detail.
Let's just pull out the key bits because it's talking about
together with new American efforts to ramp up pressure on
Iran, pressure breakdown, regime change.
And if I come in, in another one here, the aim, she doesn't say
us, but it is US diplomacy. The aim of US diplomacy is to
advance US interests, not to make friends or endorse enemies.
So we don't want to make friends in the world.
We're just going to follow the interests and if we get on to
this paper by the Brookings Institute, which he's been
involved with, let's look at the title here, which path to Persia
options for a new American strategy towards Iran?
Well, what are they talking about?
We only need to look in the contents because if we get into
this, we've got the diplomatic options.
We know what those are Americans best interests because we've
just covered that persuasion and engagement.
But if we go down here going all the way the military options,
this is invasion airstrikes or perhaps we just leave it to BB
and the Israelis to do the slaughter for the Americans in
in order to get their best interests in.
Here's the second part of the of the contents.
And if we bring this in, we've got the velvet revolution.
This is the iron fist in the velvet glove getting in and
encouraging an uprising inside the country.
This is subversion. This is what BBC Media Action
has been involved in over many years.
And if we go through, it goes on to containment, except the
unacceptable just containing Iran.
But ultimately they're talking about crafting.
Let's just bring that down. Crafting and integrated Iran
policy connecting all those options.
So think about that and what the BBC is really peddling to you,
which is regime change to benefit the Americans.
Their words, not mine. Let's just have a look at what a
former head of MI 6 had to say about those nice, friendly
rebels in Syria. We are always optimistic about
these things, but sometimes it turns out we've exchanged bad
for worse. What's your estimate?
I mean, from what we know of HTS, do you believe the sort of
transition from being an al Qaeda affiliate into being what
some people are calling a genuine liberation movement?
Well, I, I, I think Phil is right to be cautious about this.
But when I was chief of MI 6/10/12 years ago, we looked at
all these Syrian opposition groups and, and classified them
into those that we could support and those who will be on the
pale and too close to al Qaeda. And Tahrir Ashram was definitely
in the latter category. But I think Abu Mohammed Al
Jolani, the the leader, has made great efforts over the last 10
years to distance himself from those terrorist groups and
certainly. The actions we've seen of Tahrir
Isham over the last last two weeks has been those of a
liberation movement, not of a terrorist organization.
So there's the man really declaring it as it is, the
British working in the background to use terrorists to
break down Syria, and now the target is Iran with exactly the
same tactics. And if anybody thinks that
there's a word of truth coming out of that man's mouth, just
watch Wednesday's news programme if you didn't see it, because
we'll show you just what those lovely people at Terra Al Sham
have been doing over the last couple of weeks.
And it's not, I warn you now, it's not pleasant.
Mark, let's welcome you to the program and U.S. policy now with
respect to deportation. What?
What's going on? Good day everyone.
You might recall last week, Mike, I reported that the State
of Texas Land office is donating or offering just over 1400 acres
of land right along the Texas Mexican border in the four
county area in which I live, the Rio Grande Valley, Starr County
to be exact. Now we're following up this week
with rumblings that there's kind of battle lines being drawn
between so-called blue sanctuary cities and the incoming Trump
administration. I got a hold of the Northwest
Side GOP club. I talked to its one of its
leaders last night, Doctor Dave Nayak.
So I've got some first hand information mixed in here.
This slide here shows that they welcomed the incoming borders
are Tom Holman to a program December 9th.
Of course, Mr. Holman spoke to that group.
He's been nominated by Trump to head Immigration and Customs
Enforcement within the DHS. And we'll go on.
This is a little bit about the Northwest Side group.
We the people of the Northwest Side are an organization of
politically active individuals, individual, excuse me, primarily
from of course, the Northwest side of Chicago and neighboring
suburbs. We provide a united and powerful
voice and force for change that believes life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness are superior to increase regulation,
waste and corruption. And it says at the bottom, an
important part, this club inspires both thought and action
to get things right politically, fiscally, socially and
culturally. So there are very goal oriented
group. Here's some quotes from Mr.
Holman from that presentation. One of them, we're going to
start right here in Chicago. If you're Chicago mayor, which
is Brandon Johnson doesn't want to help, he can step aside.
So Mr. Holman has some powerful words, but if he impedes us, if
he knowingly harbors or conceals an illegal alien, I will
prosecute him. Mr. Holman seems to be
promising. He went on to say in this next
slide, January 21st, you're going to look for a lot of ICE
agents in your city, that being Chicago, looking for criminals
and gang members. Count on it, It will happen.
Now we got to keep in mind Mr. Holman is subject to being
having his nomination for that position confirm.
But now we have a short video from the program.
This is an exclusive. I got it from Doctor Dave Nayak
just last night. So this will give you more
flavor. As U.S. citizens, we are tasked
to defend our Constitution and to protect the.
Rule of law. You know, there's this saying a
goal without a plan is just a wish.
And I've been wishing that our communities would be safer,
especially here in Chicago and Illinois.
Folks, let me tell you, borders are Tom Holman is the man with
that plan to make America safe again.
Chicago's in trouble because your mayor sucks and your
governor sucks. And we're going to start right
here in Chicago, IL. Now if she, if your Chicago
mayor don't, doesn't want to help so you can step aside.
But if he impedes us, if he know any harbors and conceals an
illegal alien, I will prosecute them.
So as you can see, there's some tough words going down and
there's a lot of a lot of activity and a lot of
contemplation of what's being said by Mr. Holman from these
mayors in Chicago and elsewhere. Now this the next slide is from
the Chicago Republican Party of with of which with which the
Northwest Side group is affiliated.
This is back from November 2nd. It gives some interesting
background and developments that are leading up to what just
happened for Mr. Holman's speech.
Chicago Republicans, the City Council was strong armed in a
certain respect. Today's special meeting of the
City Council. This was around November 1st or
so. To consider placing sanctuary
cities, sanctuary city status on a Chicago exclusive referendum
ballot in the 2024 primary election was nothing short of a
disgrace to the Johnson administration and its
Democratic allies. First Democrats in Springfield,
the state capitol, put every possible piece of pressure on
Chicago Alderman to stop the meeting.
Once that failed and a quorum was present, local socialists
used every tactic possible on site, right down to shutting off
the lice in the City Council chamber.
And we'll move on. It kind of gives you an idea of
just how cantankerous things are.
Getting quorum calls, a delay tactic that forces A roll call
of the Alderman and parliamentary arguments by Mayor
Johnson's floor leader, 35th Ward Alderman Carlos Ramirez
Rosa stalled the initial proceedings for hours.
But the desire of attending Alderman to let the people
decide the sanctuary city issued by referendum appeared to be
unstoppable. But then the lice went out and
after someone threw a switch, only the emergency lighting was
available, preventing this council meeting from continuing.
So it was adjourned. And we'll go on from there.
Jeff Fielder with the Chicago Republicans, the executive
director was quoted as saying it felt like a South American junta
was intervening, intervening to stop democracy.
He went on to. And then the policy director for
the Chicago GOP, Chris Myers, went on to say it's ironic that
so many illegal aliens crossing our border come from Nicaragua
and Venezuela, fleeing from authoritarian socialist regimes,
only to come to Chicago where American leftists are trying to
establish the same kind of thing, A rather ironic thing in
Mr. Meyer's estimation. And Chicago Mayor Brandon
Johnson, meanwhile, has been defying Trump's borders are and
his threat to these sanctuary cities.
We will not bend, Mr. Johnson has been quoted as saying by CBS
Austin. But putting the slides aside for
just a moment, I'm looking to some notes.
I just spoke to Doctor Dave Nayak of the Northwest Side GOP
last night. He shared some interesting
things that I don't have slides for this just in you might say
there are 50,000 illegals in Chicago over the last four years
in Chicago alone, 5 and that's costing the city of Chicago $500
million in recent expenses. And the cost statewide in
Illinois are three, is $3 billion.
And the issues have to do with safety, public safety, sex
trafficking and the flow of the dangerous drug fentanyl.
And get this one, 400,000 children.
In terms of the overall flow over the southern border, some
400,000 children are unaccounted for.
We do not know their whereabouts and some other interesting facts
from my conversation with Doctor Dave Nack, the main three goals
he says are seal the border, stop, catch and release and find
all these unaccounted for children, which it is believed
are victims of the sex trade, among other things.
There seems to be no digital record.
There's no way of of of ascertaining the whereabouts of
these hundreds of thousands of children.
And one of the things that Doctor Dave Nayak shared,
though, guys, is that the the announcements by Mr. Holman at
the December 9 program of the Northwest GOP and the
announcements of president-elect Trump in the estimation of the
local Republicans in Chicago. Yeah, these, these things are
softening the views somewhat of the Chicago mayor of the the
governor of Illinois, JB Pritzker, for whom the JB
Pritzker, the Pritzker Forum for Global Cities in Chicago by the
Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
That's named after the Pritzker family.
But evidently Pritzker's views and the Chicago mayor's views
are softening somewhat. They're looking at being a
little bit more cooperative with the Trump administration.
Of course, that remains to be seen, but we're still seeing a
lot of of rebellious kind of rhetoric like that.
And of the slides I have left, I won't say too much.
This next one about New York. Meanwhile, in the state of New
York, the New Yorkers for Immigrant Justice have been
protesting the moves by New York officials to take the hotels
that have been completely occupied by illegal aliens and
evict them. Because it's beginning to cost
the state of New York and New York City.
It's costing them not just millions, but billions of
dollars getting into the B word in terms of statewide cost of
harboring and housing such an unusual, unusually high number
of illegal aliens. Because we have to keep in mind,
that's the bottom line. The number of them is so high.
But anyway, that's kind of what's happening in New York.
We have a couple lists here. I don't need to read a lot of
the donors, but we have the Rockefeller Brothers Fund that's
behind that. New York organizations that
that's protesting the people getting kicked out of the
hotels. We have the Ford Foundation, we
have a bunch, a bunch of others. We have the Pinkerton
Foundation, JP Morgan Chase and many other elitist and elitist
connected organizations that are fighting the Trump
administration along many lines. And we can skip over that Fox
News slide. There's one last slide from New
York State Alderman Matt Slater. I'll just read that.
It's a real concern, real concern for my constituents.
If people are protesting the fact that we're finally getting
real about illegal immigration, they should open their doors and
welcome these people in, he means, into their own homes if
they're so concerned. But taxpayers should not be
fronting billions of dollars. Again, that's statewide in New
York to incentivize those who are breaking our laws.
So that that pretty much winds it up.
But the battle lines are being drawn.
But we'll see if their positions will soften over the next few
weeks. So back to you guys.
Thanks, Mark. OK, let's move on.
If you like what the UK column does, you'd like to support us,
then support that UK columnist place to go.
There are options to help us there.
You make a donation, join as a member and of course if you do
join as a member, that gives you access to extra, the forums and
so on. You can pick something up at the
UK column shop or you could pick something up from Clive to
carl.com. We get a small percentage of the
of every purchase, but it doesn't cost you any more to do
that. A couple of things from the shop
if you'd like to, to get those for Christmas, but please share
everything that you see on our website that's of interest to
you if you possibly can, because that helps us a great deal as
well. Now on Sunday, another reminder,
final reminder in fact, of the second annual David Ray Griffin
Lecture. Dr. Madhavaseti speaking as the
main keynote speaker on that is he is a fantastic speaker and I,
I find him hugely engaging in previous events.
So please join us at 6:00 PM until 8:00 PM on Sunday evening
for that in the usual places. And well, we're delighted to say
that the petition to ensure diagnosis and treatment for
people suffering from adverse COVID-19 vaccine side effects
reached its 10,000 signature target.
So we will wait to see what the Welsh Government says about
holding a debate on that. And no doubt Debbie will have
more to say on that. An extra Brian.
Let's move on then, to BBC Media Action.
I'm afraid we have to mention the BBC, the UK call them
utterly unique in warning over a great many years about this
pernicious so-called charity. It's a political charity,
however that works. But if you take a look at what
BBC Media Action is up to today, well, we've got something really
incredible that's come in because basically we are working
with 100 million people in need around the world.
Just to clarify, that's BBC Media Action You're.
Doing that, yeah, BBBBC Media Action.
And what they're saying is that of course they're impartial,
impactful, and trustworthy. So what is this organization
actually doing? Let's have a look at this little
video clip. We live in the age of
information. Humanity is more connected and
interconnected than ever before. Soon, most people will have
access to the Internet via mobile phone, with the whole
world at their fingertips. But this is also the age of
disinformation. It threatens human rights and
democracy, acts as a catalyst for conflict, poses risks to our
health. It leads people to lose faith in
science, in democratic institutions, and in the media.
So how can people know what information they can trust?
Someone called like these vaccines.
They are talking about the vaccine.
It's a sign of the. Beast.
Or something. Initially I was thinking the
same line with the same guy. We targeted 133 practicing
journalists to be trained. These are people to create
content for the generality of the populace.
Before the BBC Media Action training I would say I had no
real major information about Discovery, but after the
training and all that I feel like I have a.
Duty to know what to say. The importance of correct
information and access to correct information as
understandable to the target audience cannot be over.
So we we have it there. This is iron fist in the velvet
glove. This is the BBC getting in
training, telling young people what to think, telling them that
the truth is what the BBC says and then they go and grab
colleagues. And so this subversion spreads
throughout their countries. BBC Media Action couldn't have
put it simpler there. But of course, they can only do
what they're doing with huge amounts of money.
And, you know, they're busy. They're pushing COVID now into
Africa and on into a continent that was barely touched by
COVID, didn't have any vaccines, didn't have any excess
mortality, you know, absolutely nothing compared to 1st world
countries that that were subject to lockdowns and vaccination and
all this kind of stuff. So, so quite incredible.
But if you want to know how much money BBC Media Action is
getting from the Foreign Commonwealth Office, for
example, have a look at fcdospending.ukcolumn.org and
all the informations there, along with all the information
of how much money the Foreign Office is sending to a whole
bunch of other organisations and institutions.
And well, now that this information is up to date,
final, you know, following the intervention, the Information
Commissioner, we can probably say, well, a rough calculation
if you're looking for a £20 billion black hole since 2022,
you might find it on the front page of that website if you go
and have a look. Yeah.
So ultimately millions, billions of pounds disappearing into
these overseas projects, undeclared.
Of course it's undeclared because this money is being used
to subvert nation states. Now let's move on to the tragic
story of Sara Sharif. Now it is a tragic story and the
tragedy can't be overestimated. Murdered by her father despite
his violent behaviour being well understood by the authorities.
Now the Children Children's Commissioner Rachel D'souza,
well she has had something to say about the death of of Sarah
and and what should be done to make sure that this can never
happen again. I mean, look, there are three or
four things that I think could be done now that could make a
real difference. One, I think one of the chilling
things about this case was when hearing the Sarah Shari's father
leave that message saying I, um, legally punished Sarah and she's
dead. We need now, you know, in the
21st century to remove the reasonable chastisement clause
towards children in assault law. Children need to have the same
rights as adults to not be beaten.
Secondly, Sara was known to services to be at risk from
before her birth, and yet she found herself living with a
father who was a who had known history of violence and her case
was closed after being reported. And it seems that a weak data
sharing is is part of the reason for that.
And we need now to bring in and the children and well-being Bill
is coming in a unique identifier for every child and proper data
sharing. It's not good enough not to be
sharing data. I think there's another thing
that we can do here that needs to happen straight away, which
is we need an elective home, home education register.
So the reason she's calling for an elective home education
register is because Sarah was apparently taken out of school
and that was what ultimately resulted in her tragic death.
But Rachel went on to say that if any if there's any suggestion
of domestic abuse, it for any children that have been taken
out of school and are being homeschooled.
If there's any suggestion of domestic abuse that parents
should lose the right to homeschool at that point.
But the question of a unique to fire for every child, what are
we going to do? Are we going to microchip them
next? Well, of course, children
actually do have records going through schools at the moment.
This is just one example of a system that many, many, if not
most schools are using around the country and that's C Palms.
This is all about promoting the comprehensive safety of every
student so they help schools uphold and enhance their student
well-being initiatives. It's completely customizable.
The software also helps lessen burden on staff managing
administrative tasks, allowing schools to gain efficiency.
So if a child does anything that a teacher doesn't agree with,
and it might be expressing a view that the teacher doesn't
agree with, that goes on as AC palm record.
But it might include childhood child abuse interventions,
attendance, persistent absence, more things.
And of course they are already working with social services in
the council's to make sure that those organisations have access
to this data and this data follows the school right through
their or follows the child right through their school career
right up to adulthood. So but on the issue of
microchipping, well of course we have seen this at least us being
softened up for this idea for quite a number of years.
So this is from the metro. Should you microchip your child?
We asked an expert. Here is a BCC research human
microchipping that benefits and disadvantages.
Here is sub stack post why microchipping your child is a
must. Here's the Daily Mail, the
stomach churning, the terrifying incident that means I'd
microchip my children in a heartbeat, writes Claire Foge.
So this is something which is absolutely being promoted, as
hard as it can be at the moment. And again, another failure to
protect a child. Because of course, what we see
constantly, Brian, is children that need protection not getting
the protection, children that don't need protection being
taken from the parents and sold on the open market of adoption.
And being abused in the system which the state says it's to
care for the children. This is utterly obscene and
Rachel needs taking to book over a belief system because it's
woefully inadequate to the realities of the abuse of
children in UK. More on that due course.
Mark, back to you. And what's Pfizer been up to?
Like usual, very questionable activities.
Of course, we have to keep in mind what Debbie reported today
from that mRNA scientist. And we have to keep in mind that
they're going to try probably to push another pandemic type
scenario before too long. The bird flu still hangs in the
background, but here just a little over a month ago,
Pfizer's accused of hiding a contraceptives brain tumor link
according to Bloomberg Law. Pfizer Incorporated failed to
warn patients it's alleged that it's injectable contraceptive
drug apo Provera can increase the risk of developing brain
tumors. This new lawsuit is alleging.
Quote, For several decades, the manufacturers and sellers of
Depo Provera and it's authorized generic and generic analogs had
a responsibility to investigate whether the medication could
contribute to the growth of brain tumors.
And that's according to the complaint filed in the US
District Court for the Central District of California.
That's Dvorak versus Pfizer Incorporated for the record.
There's a link there that shows you how to look at the lawsuit.
Plaintiff Taylor Dvorak alleged that researchers have found
Depot Provera and similar progesterone medications have
been linked to a greater incidence of brain tumors called
intracranial meningioma. She's seeking damages on her
failure to warn defective design, negligence,
misrepresentation, and breach of warranty claims against the
pharmaceutical giant. And if this is interesting, that
complaint comes in the wake of a handful of substantially similar
lawsuits filed in other federal courts in California and Indiana
in recent weeks. And this is the company shooting
back. Depo Provera has been an FDA
approved medication for more than 30 years.
It has been a safe and effective treatment option for millions of
patients during that time. Pfizer, the company, will
vigorously defend these lawsuits, a spokesman said.
A little bit more of the American label for Depot Provera
still makes no mention of the increased risk to patients of
developing intracranial meningiomas, even though the EU
and UK now list meningioma under the medications warning section.
And that's according to Dvorak's complaint.
Dvorak, the plaintiff and Dvorak issued a 2024 study published in
the British Medical Journal that said the prolonged use of
medications like Depo Provera were found to significantly
increase the risk of developing that meningioma cancer.
So there's some British outlets involved.
This is from the British Medical Journal, just a posting.
People can look at the use of progestigens and the risk of
intracranial manning Joma, the national case control study from
the BMJ. And from there we have just a
screenshot of the actual lawsuit, the actual document in
court. People can get the case number
from there. There's contacts and the US
National Institutes of Health citing the British American, the
British Medical Journal, Excuse me.
And this is 20 years ago now we've got a little history to
think about 20 years ago, May 2004, Pfizer, the world's
largest drug maker, it's still pretty much is pled guilty on
the 13th of May of that year to numerous civil and criminal
charges for illegally promoting the off label use of gabapentin,
which is for like Parkinson's and other things.
It has agreed to pay $240 million a criminal fine and 152
million to state and federal healthcare programs.
That fine was the second largest given in the industry.
Meanwhile, off label sales of gabapentin continued to soar at
that time despite evidence that the drug is not effective for
some of the problems it's used to treat.
And now we have 15 years ago on the next slide, we have to
remember this, all this trust has been put into Pfizer.
It was during the development of the mRNA vaccines.
They were the leading company during the COVID ocracy, during
the so-called pandemic. And 15 years ago, need we be
reminded Pfizer had to pay 2.3 billion for fraudulent
marketing. The American pharmaceutical
giant and its subsidiary Upjohn had agreed to pay 2.3 billion.
They did so the largest healthcare fraud settlement in
the history of the US Department of Justice to resolve criminal
and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain
pharmaceutical products. And that was the the
anti-inflammatory drug Bextra at that time.
So this is 20 years ago and 15 years ago, Pfizer lost both
cases, some of the largest settlements in U.S. history in
both cases. And now they're in court again
for this possible cancer link. And yet they're on deck to
possibly produce more mRNA vaccines should another pandemic
arise. It just shows you how carefully
we have to look at the CVS of these companies.
And it's amazing Pfizer has garnered so much trust when you
look at the history and now the current situation.
So that's it for now guys. Back to you.
Thank you. Thank you, Mark, and well,
Debbie and I need to welcome Cheryl Grainger to the programme
as well. But Debbie, what have you got on
the latest? Right.
Well, thank you. And yes, I'm absolutely
delighted that we're joined by Cheryl today because we told you
a little while ago, a couple of weeks ago that there was going
to be a first level tribunal against the MHRA that Cheryl has
trail blazed herself. It's literally been a one woman
mission. So she's going to come and give
us an update on that. She's also going to give us some
stats because there's all sorts of things that's breaking around
social media with regards to releases of Freedom of
Information. So she's going to be updating us
on that. And also she had a little
adventure and went to Parliament yesterday.
So we're going to be hearing about that.
Cheryl, thank you so much for coming.
Thank you for joining us. Give us an update on the First
Level Tribunal that you and I both went to last week.
Hi everybody. Thanks very much for having me
back to report that we didn't get anywhere.
Yeah, basically it's been postponed, but it was quite an
interesting exercise. So this is my yellow card
vaccine monitor where they were monitoring 2500 pregnant ladies
and I wanted the information on the results of that monitor.
So the appeal was held on the 3rd of December and the judge
was crossed because we haven't or she got all the information
in the bundle that she was supposed to have.
Not down to me. I did everything I was supposed
to do in the time I was supposed to do it.
And eventually having talked to us, she went away to consider
everything and she came back and she said the tribunal recognises
the very important issues to be determined and that they need to
be dealt with justly, which is why she's actually moved to the
20th of February 2025. So we can have a whole day to
discuss this. She also said the tribunal
acknowledges the very significant public public
interest in the public having information about the safety
vaccinations. And the whole thing is now going
to revolve around what's called a Scott schedule, which means
the 9 questions that I wrote, I get listed and they, the MHRA,
tell me their answers and then I go back and tell me what I think
to those answers. And that forms the basis of the
day's hearing. That was in February, so I think
I'm able to use my same witnesses because I asked for
them to come along as well. So I have people backing me and
I have people who can attend like Debbie.
So that is hopefully something that we'll be prepared for come
February. So that really is an update on
the Tribune yesterday. Keeping going with me MHRA
comments I went to support Estimat Bay who was going to
have a backbench debate on the performance of the MHRA and to
start off with I was told it was going to start about one O clock
and then when I was on my way I thought it was probably going to
start about 3 O clock. So I put off going in a bit
later and I'd only been on the train about 10 minutes when I
found out that it was actually going to be postponed.
So again, another discussion on the MHRA is about to be
postponed. And the interesting thing was
they squashed in Three Men stereo.
So that was one on building homes, one on qualifications
reform and one on 10 year prison capacity.
So they were squashed in and then there was a general debate
that was on an independent review into the treatment of
LGBT veterans and there were 22 MPs that were involved in that.
And when I spoke to Estimate Base team, there were only 7 MPs
that were going to speak up at hers.
So perhaps it's something that I can ask, perhaps people can
approach our MP and see if they will be interested in attending
the new debate once it becomes available, the day that that's
going to be held on. I just wanted to come back and
stress for the audience what what utterly fantastic work that
you have done because of course before you got going there was
nothing happening. There was no, there was no real
leverage to get the MHRA to answer for what it had and had
not done and you have kick started that.
I wondered whether the tribunal would get to the point where
simply the the judge worked against you and closed it down
within that tribunal. So I know you may feel a little
bit down, but it seems to me that the questions that the
judge asked were actually pretty pertinent.
It was reasonable to say you can get all that detailed
information and analysis through in a three hour hearing.
That's utterly ridiculous. So your hard work has now
leveraged it, leveraged it into a much longer period.
This thing is beginning to break surface.
And if, if we say it was going to happen as a debate in
Parliament, they've had to close that down as well because
they're so frightened at the subject.
You know, don't underestimate what you've done.
You've taken the lid off this thing.
What needs to happen now, I think, is that we need to get
public support. And I'm looking at very much at
our audience in behind you to demand that this thing gets the
hearing, which it's deserved. You've got the wedge into the
crack in the wall and The thing is now to hammer that wedge in.
So I'm going to say to you, well done.
Well, thanks very much. I mean, at the end of the day,
they'll both probably happen now about the same time.
So one will help the other I would have thought.
But as I say, if people can actually approach their end and
get more than 7 MPs to back this look at the performance of the
MHRAI, think that will be very valuable to show that there is
interest in this particular subject.
So I'll leave that with people. So I mean, just finally we got
information that the CHM, the Committee on Human Medicines,
which advises the MHRA and medical officers and is chaired
by Debbie's favorite professor, Sir Munir Per Muhammad, and the
committee had been very quiet on their minutes.
But now they're actually published the minutes and we can
get to see the minutes of their discussions before the vaccines
were released, which is quite interesting.
So to start off with, the first one I went to was the end of the
27th of November and I looked at 6 minutes to start off with and
it ranged from about 80 people, people taking part in this to
about 5050 odd 54 people. How the heck you're on a
committee that's got that number of people on it, I've no idea.
Can I just have the slide up Mike please?
There you go. Thank you.
So so basically this just sums up some of the things that I
picked up on. They argued about the lack, lack
of benefits in the under 50s. There was one person who said
that there's no point in using them under 50, but it went
through past infection was not considered to be a risk because
they'd look to what other vaccines did.
So that was fine. They mentioned the process one
process 2. So that was actually discussed.
They were very much aware that it was a different process for
making for clinical trials and for actually putting out for
Commission to the public. They went on and on about the
particulate effects. So the particle size that was
seen in the trials discussed, they discussed this is called
EJO 553, which is the infamous batch that led to a lot of side
effects. And there were 13 times the
amount of lymphadopathy compared with clinical trials.
And that again was because of particulate debris and also the
integrity of the mRNA. So the stability wasn't right.
They knew about patients that all of this would bring to
immunogenicity. They basically had talked about
hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis and perhaps reaction to PEG.
And then they also knew, which was incredible to see it in
black, that the distribution site was extensive.
And this is before it was launched.
And there was lack of data on severe cases of COVID elderly.
And they were also discussing asymptomatic cases and whether
that was a thing. And then the Moderna information
that was looking at animal reproductive toxicology as a
basis for looking at use in pregnancy and breastfeeding.
So there's many more things that can be picked up, I'm sure, but
I'll have to look at more of these.
It's there now that information and people can go and look at
this vaccine benefit risk expert working group, what a name,
which is a quality ad hoc group, the Internet and look for
themselves. Yeah.
I mean, I think just to finish this, we'll talk a bit more
about this an extra, but but the the admission of distribution
from the injection site being extensive that that is huge
actually. And yeah, we will talk more
about that an extra. I think we're out of time.
We're out of time, but I I'll just say once again, Cheryl,
what what you've done is fantastic.
And of course Debbie got stuck in, although well, years ago now
with those MHRA board meetings, which started to to get the
information to the surface. So The thing is just now to keep
going. And no, they're not going to
roll over and give in easily. It's going to be a battle.
But the key bit is to get the truth out.
Yeah, absolutely. Well, look, we've got to leave
it there for today. Thank you very much to Mark, to
Debbie, to Cheryl and to Brian. Of course, we will see in a few
minutes if you're UK column member for some extra.
Otherwise, have a great weekend and we'll see you again on
Monday. Bye bye.