Good afternoon. It's just gone. 1:00 on
Wednesday the 13th of August 2025.
Welcome to UK column News. I'm your host, Charles Mallett.
I'm joined by a returned Mike Robinson.
Welcome to the programme, Mike. Thank you.
And via live link we have Patrick Henningson and Sandy
Adams. So welcome to the programme
both. Now as always, a lot to fit into
the programme, but we'll be dealing with the issues relating
to the changes in the criminal justice system, looking at how
the sky is to become further infested with drones, all in the
name of progress of course. A further and detailed look at
the latest with regard to the Online Safety Act 2023, as well
as an update on the situation in Lebanon and following Friday's
news, the latest on the Putin, Trump will they won't they
situation as well as sources of funding for the wokery pervading
the country. In addition, we will look at the
push for vaccination for all animals everywhere, for
everything and indeed plans for another proposed gigafactory.
But what we're going to start with today is the latest
situation from Gaza and indeed the killing of several Al
Jazeera journalists by the IDF, for which we will go straight to
Patrick Henningsen. Patrick.
You know, this is a a very important story.
Certainly it's nothing new. We've been watching journalists
being killed in Gaza for the last almost going on two years
now. Won't be long till October 2025
rolls around. But just to look at the Al
Jazeera report, Taj on this, obviously they were talking
about their journalist, their media team members here, Anas Al
Sharif, very highly regarded award winning journalist was
killed as well as I think in total, technically 5 journalists
and two other people were in this strike.
They were in a tent set up outside Al Shifa Hospital, which
had already been bombed and occupied and attacked by the
Israelis numerous times since October 7th.
And this, there's something about this story that has really
captured, I think, the attention of people in the West, as public
opinion is already shifting against Israel, where the
Western mainstream is starting to acknowledge that there's
something going on here that is historic and needs to be brought
to an end as quickly as possible.
We're talking about the violence, the killing, and what
can only be described according to international courts of
justice and others, as a genocide.
But here's a video posted by Anise and his team just before,
you know, just hours or days before they were killed by the
Israelis in this strike. But we'll roll this video and
and listen to what he says the. It may have been an older video
previously around the time of the alleged short, short lived
ceasefire, but the they're clearly marked as press and and
what we're seeing in the reporting now, we'll show you
evidence to that effect that they were targeted.
And there were warnings from the committee to protect journalists
as well as from other organisations, including the U
NS own rapporteur on this particular issue.
So there were multiple Reporters Without Borders, other
organisations that the Israel, the Israelis were running a
smear campaign against Denise, branding him as Hamas, as a
Hamas journalist and so forth. So they're basically justifying
the killing of this journalist. Now let's look at the New York
Times coverage on this. And this is important to point
out how they frame this year. And if we look at what, what,
what to know about Al Jazeera, the broadcaster targeted by
Israel. And, and if we just look at the
author on this, and this isn't just in this case, this is
really for the New York Times across the board, Efrat Livni
for cut her teeth with the Jerusalem Report, an absolute
partisan on this issue and how she's framing it is, you know,
is, is basically Al Jazeera is having to defend themselves in
the opening paragraphs of this report.
Al Jazeera said the strike killed five of its journalists
and denied Israeli claims that its reporters have ties to
Hamas. And and she goes on to to
basically it's almost like has to make the case to defend.
Al Jazeera needs to vindicate itself and prove that it's not
these reporters aren't terrorists or affiliated with
terrorists. It's unbelievable.
And we'll show you what happens when you put the shoe on the
other foot. But here, here is the numbers.
And if you look at this, Israel's killing more
journalists than any time ever in history.
These are this is from Brown University, Ivy League school in
the United States. Look at all those wars first
from right, from the left hand side, World War One and two, I
think less than 100 journalists. Korean War in 1950 to 53 or you
know, less than 30. Vietnam slightly more, you know,
60-70 than Yugoslavia, a little bit less, 40 something.
Afghanistan up towards 70 you could say.
Ukraine minuscule, they're less, you know, less than 30.
And then we have Gaza 2023 to 2020, five, 238 plus that
doesn't count. Cameraman, in some cases,
drivers, people who are in support teams to the
journalists. And mind you, no Western
journalists are allowed to report in there.
So what's actually going on here?
Israel is preparing a ground invasion into Gaza.
They do not want anybody documenting what is about to
happen. But this has been the policy
straight through. They don't even let their own
journalists in there, by the way.
And so now they're killing all of the stringers that work for
global mainstream media as they have with UN workers and so
forth. So that that that seems to be
what the policy is here. Now, let's look at this piece by
Jonathan Cook. And this is just a stunning
piece of journalism by, by by Jonathan who who we've remarked
before, award winning journalist, OK, the BBC helped
kill Anas Al Sharif. It's reporting will kill more
journalists. And the point here, let's let's,
let's look at what's said here by the BBC, OK?
This is what they're saying they're positing in the report.
There's a question of proportionality says the beep is
just, is it justified to kill 5 journalists when you were only
targeting one? Think about that for a minute.
The way this is being framed is so insidious by the BBC.
And here's what Jonathan Cook says in his analysis.
This is just a brilliant article, by the way, and I
encourage everybody to go read it.
But he said, imagine that Israel finally allows Western
journalists into Gaza after blocking their entry for nearly
two years. A team of five familiar BBC
faces covering the region set up shop in Gaza and work out of an
improvised studio inside the enclave, like a tent at Al Shifa
hospital in this case. And he goes on.
And then news breaks that their studio had been hit by an
Israeli strike and all 5 killed. Jeremy Bowen, Lisa Doucette,
Yolande Nell, Lucy Williamson and John Donnison, the author of
this particular piece that Cook is critiquing.
Now just imagine the uproar. What would be the reaction from
the West? And here, here's what the
reaction would be. So is Jonathan Cook saying.
In short, the British government and a servile BBC that
regurgitates its positions have the blood of Al Sharif and
Gaza's other journalists directly on their hands.
They helped kill him, and in reporting his murder, they're
ensuring that more journalists in Gaza will be murdered in the
days, weeks and months to come. And the analysis goes on to just
show how insidious this terrorist label can be that's
just applied so arbitrarily by Israel and by extension by the
British and the US and European governments to basically justify
killing pretty much anybody that is insinuated as being connected
to Hamas. You have to remember Hamas is
the elected government. They're they're in charge of the
administration of Gaza from the beginning of this crisis.
So anybody that used to be a press officer for the Hamas
government prior to October 7th, OK.
It's and he makes the argument this would be no different if
Britain is implicated in war crimes in assisting Israel in
the genocide. Then all the BBC people that
work for a state broadcaster for a government that's simply
implicated in in a major war crime.
Then what are they at that point?
Are they terrorists as well? Or the BBC could, could somebody
say, well, they're, they're they're linked to the British
government there and British government's guilty of genocide
or a go. The journalists are, you know,
fair game. That's the argument Cook's
making. And it's quite a it's quite a
shocking and compelling argument.
And again, just just to go back to the article here, go to
Jonathan Cook's sub stack and do subscribe.
I'm a subscriber to Jonathan and, and, and read this.
This is just an amazing piece. He does amazing work.
But this is just something else. Now look at this, OK, this is
the national in Scotland, UK spy plane over Gaza as Israel killed
journalists. So the the implication here is,
is, is the UK government involved in their overflights
which take off from RAF Equatorial in Cyprus and then
supplying all the information and data over to Israel?
We know about the Lavender AI applications and how they're
used to track and target individuals, including
journalists. Is that what happened here?
Well, here's Matt Kennard and he's been reporting on this and
done excellent work on this particular subject here on X UK
government never wanted you to see this.
They spent 20 months concealing flight paths of RAF spy missions
over Gaza on behalf of Israel, but they recently contracted it
out to AUS company. The new pilot soon forgot to
turn off his transponder. The evidence for a war crimes
trial right here. And that's it folks.
I mean, there's enough evidence here to lodge a serious legal
challenge on this basis to all these governments, particularly
the US and the UK on this issue. And, and we, we've compiled a
lot of the documentation of this, including PDF documents
and so forth. So if you want a deep dive, go
to 21st century y.com and ask Al Sharif.
Unyielding voice for Palestinian justice will not be silenced.
And that's up there on our website.
So I do encourage people to go there for more details.
And, and I hope this is the, this is one of those stories
that's going to change people's attitudes on this who've been on
the fence on this issue. Let.
Let's hope so. Yeah, Patrick, thank you for
that. And I just want to briefly
demonstrate the sheer hypocrisy of the UK regime, particularly
if it as you suggest and as others are suggesting, they were
directly involved in this operation.
So let me just bring this on screen because when it was set
up by a previous, although sorry, it was set up by a
previous regime. Sorry.
Let's go back. The National Committees for the
Safety of Journalists, Sorry, I'm getting this wrong at the
moment. Let's here we go.
The National Committee for the Safety of Journalists, I should
say, still exists. It's currently headed up by Jess
Phillips MP, Minister for Safeguarding and Violence
against women and girls in the Home Office.
And yes, OK, I hear you all saying, but that's only for the
protection of UK journalists and there's a certain amount of
hypocrisy and that in itself. But if we head over here, you
got a sneak preview of it to the House of Lords Library.
We can talk about the Media Freedom Coalition, also set up
by the UK government. And it is a part of a group of
51 countries that the British regime LED, which advocates for
media freedom, the safety of journalists and holding,
specifically holding those who harm journalists to account.
So is the UK going to hold itself to account here?
I don't think so. Israel's not part of the media
freedom coalition as we might expect, but the UK is absolutely
still a member. So, Patrick, very briefly, I
mean, what are your thoughts on that?
Well, first of all, the Media Freedom Coalition, I think this
was promoted by at the Time Lord Ahmed from not mistaken a few
years ago, Amal Clooney. This is when Jeremy Hunt, I
believe, was the secretary at the time.
And they did this while Julian Assange was incarcerated in a in
a maximum security prison. Belmarsh, that one of the
world's most decorated journalists was being held
without any charge, basically without any legal due process
arbitrarily and eventually got out.
But that's when they launched that.
While they put as they locked up Assange, they launched the Media
Freedom campaign. And I spoke about that publicly
at the time and others did as well, just to point out the
sheer hypocrisy of it. Talk about a double standard.
It's not even worth commenting on.
So, I mean, you just have to look at the record of these
governments who are pushing these.
These are just public relations, you know, things to put out to
make it look like they're friendly to the press.
But in at the end of the day, when it comes to national
security and hardcore geopolitics, all this stuff goes
right out the window. Yeah.
And Charles, you know, anybody that's in the British media that
thinks that if they're abroad, they're in any way, so they're
any way safe. They're naive.
They are. Although I think another thing
that's worth pointing out, following on from what Jonathan
Cook's been saying, which is absolutely right to to bring out
is the incredible inconsistency with what was happening in
Syria. In particular, Jeremy Bowen's
sort of glad handing of Jelani Al Sharar, who of course until
that point was reckoned to be the head of a terrorist
organisation, yet the BBC were there actively promoting him.
So that the the inconsistencies and the hypocrisy just is, is
really boundless. But as you say, Patrick, one
would hope it would be a turning point.
But I mean, how many times we said that before?
Indeed. Yeah, now what we will do is
come back to these shores and look at the subject of Home
Affairs and the criminal justice system because the past couple
of weeks has seen a deluge of edicts, so called policy changes
and the obvious deployment of smokes and mirrors.
Consultation is out on updating the operations and response
guidance for police and it runs until the 14th of October.
And I thought I would just draw your attention to the fact that
it includes terrorist attacks, severe weather emergencies and
major public events where something has gone wrong.
Now, in an effort to deal with situations that might be
perceived to have gone wrong or are about to go wrong, the Home
Secretary has been busy announcing the roll out of 10
new vans for seven new police forces that are going to be
carrying out live facial recognition.
Now she talks about it like there's absolutely nothing wrong
with this and there are no consequences.
But of course there absolutely are.
It was been described in in the statement that they will operate
according to strict rules which ensure that they are only
deployed when there is specific intelligence and the College of
Policing has guidance on how the technology should be used.
I would put it that on the balance of probability, it's
very unlikely to turn out that way.
The College of Policing guidance on live facial recognition
states that each face that is found is mapped by software
taking measurements of facial features, such as the distance
between the eyes and the length of the jawline to create a
unique set of biometric data. So there's no ambiguity.
This absolutely does represent a harvesting of harvesting process
of metric data. Now at this point, therefore, I
would point you towards the Information Commissioner because
it is pointed out on his website that you may make a subject
access request and I quote the right of access alter also
entitles the requester to a copy of their personal information
when you use biometric recognition systems.
So this is the deployer of the facial recognition system.
This includes personal information such as a biometric
sample, as well as any biometric data such as a biometric
template. So the system I would say, as it
currently stands, would be unable to cope with a large
volume of subject access requests.
And there'll be a link to all of this in the show notes.
So I think from a journalistic perspective, UK could be very
interested in any reports that might come in of the way in
which subject access requests that you might put in concerning
live facial recognition are dealt with.
And this could be a considerable method by which the system can
be challenged. Now, on a very much related
note, there's been a change put forward by Ministry of Justice
and they're describing it as to restrict sex offenders from
entering geographical zones. Now this is in effect
geofencing, which is the process of monitoring an individual by
GPS to ensure that they do not move on the bounds of such an
area. But it seems from what they're
saying these areas could be made to be very small, which of
course conditions people into considering that justice has
never really been served. And I would say that it looks
like it's normalising confinement by these sorts of
remote systems. Linked again to this and tied
into the ever quoted plan for change is the much vaunted plan
to deport immediately. But This is why I refer to smoke
and mirrors because section 32 of the Border 2007 deals with
exactly this issue, deportation of foreign criminals.
And subsections four and five talk about the purpose of, for
the purpose of the Immigration Act 1971.
The deportation of a foreign criminal is conducive to the
public good and the Secretary of State must make a deportation
order in respect of a foreign criminal.
So this is something that's being dressed up as a new policy
or new bit of law. In fact, it's not.
It's a failure to act on the law that was already in place.
Now a statement also on deportation, pointing to what
the immigration white Paper will do, As though this really is a
silver bullet by Shabana Mahmoud.
And again, using disingenuous language every time as they've
sort of made it up in the 1st place.
But to harness or to continue to harness the emotive subject of
racial and ethnic tensions, the National Police Chiefs Council
have put out guidance saying that they're going to consider
disclosing the ethnicity and nationality of suspects when
they are charged in high profile and sensitive investigations.
Now this of course relates back to the events immediately after
the attacks in Southport last year, at which point it was
deemed that it could have been expedient to peace had the
police actually put details out in relation to ethnicity.
Of course, this is being misreported because we're only
talking about this happening at the point of charge, and indeed
police still retain control of. Decision making process that
there's every chance that it continue, it could continue to
be carried out in such a way that absolutely does fuel the
fire for what they're calling disinformation.
Now with Palestine Action arrests in mind, I've just draw
attention to the Crime and Policing Bill which is currently
going through Houses of Parliament now.
And section 10 of course talks about the offence of trespassing
with the intent to to conduct a criminal offence which would
carry a sentence, a maximum sentence of only three months.
Now, hypothetically speaking, had the Palestine Action Bryce
Norton activists been stopped short of painting the aircraft
that they did subsequently paint, they would not be a
prescribed organisation today. So I would say it presents an
obvious issue when considering the different outcomes and it
would look as though it would open the door to pressure on
police to allow an intended crime to go ahead because the
consequences would be more severe.
And just as a closing note, just to point you towards the what's
called the AI plan for justice. And here we have the issue of
pre crime absolutely writ large, which is saying that they're
going to be driving the responsible adoption of AI to
enable people to deliver world leading public services.
What they really mean is just handing over control of
absolutely everything to a computer and not experiencing
any comeback. They talk about a violent
predictor, analysing different factors.
This is concerning violence in prisons.
So in effect just handing all responsibility, all control to
the system and indeed it covers the wider justice system.
But of course, the main point to fall out of it is that whilst it
says that it's not going to take away from what judges do as
people and indeed cites several other bodies, prosecutors and
whatnot, It does not make any reference to juries, of course.
So I will wrap that up there. And now we are going to go to
Sandy on what might be perceived as a slightly related issue,
which is that of drones. Yes, it, it certainly is related
and also with facial recognition and GDPR and everything else
that goes with all the stuff you've been talking about.
Because Pricewaterhouse Cooper have published their 3.0 Skies
without limits. They they had a 2.0 in 2023 and
this paints a picture of drones that are ready to transform the
UK economy. Price for tyres Cooper aiming to
have 900,000 of the skies by 20-30.
I think they're behind, to be honest with their with their
predictions, but nevertheless, that's, that's their intention
and it's paving the way for unprecedented surveillance along
with it. So we, you know, it's powered by
advanced AI and it's quietly eroding our privacy protections.
The Civil Aviation Authority are making provision for this for
drone flight up to about 500 feet.
I think it's 4 to 500 feet. And Amazon have now got
contracts to do their deliveries with drones.
So that's going to knock out a whole load of delivery drivers
and jobs in the UK. And they say that this is going
to promote jobs. I, I can't see it somehow.
Price Waterhouse Cooper's latest study shows major break
breakthroughs. Drones are now flying beyond
visual of sight for many monitoring purposes.
Agricultural drones are spraying crops and mapping farmland and
promoting agrotech. And they're, they're being used
in, in surveying and all sorts of things, which I, you know, I
think there's a valid use for drones.
I'm not saying there isn't. But the, the, the issue is
there's a, it's the quantity of them and that they will be
surveilling us at the same time. So, you know, for industry, it
may be a, you know, progress, but for the people, it could be
a big red flag. Every one of these Jones can be
fitted with high resolution cameras, thermal sensors and
even facial AI recognition. Once that infrastructure's in
the air, it's only a matter of time before it's used to track
people, which I'm sure it will be.
And there's obviously the the GDDPR question, which is the U
KS main data protective law. It comes under pressure because
in theory GDPR says that you can't collect personal data
without consent or a clear legal basis.
But in practise, drones can gather all this information
without you even knowing what's going on.
So faces on a streetcar, number plates, movements linked to home
addresses. Combine that with AI and drones,
you know you, they see you and they can identify you and they
can predict your behaviour and cross reference you with other
databases. So, you know, the the AIG level
analysis drones become mobile data harvesters in effect.
So, you know, we've got there are issues here with the drones.
You know, it it reports and celebrates growing public
acceptance. This this paper does saying over
70% of industry stakeholders now see the perception as green.
But the more we normalise these drones it the easier it becomes
for governments and corporations to run permanent aerial
surveillance. That's the problem.
And I, I think that really, you know, we're not far from a, a
scenario where drones linked to AI command centres can track
individuals in, in real time. So the industry says drones can
deliver medicines faster, inspect power line safely and
monitor the environment more effectively.
But once, once it's all in place, they could become part of
an always on surveillance grid, which is really worrying.
So that's it really. They're, they're developing them
at breakneck spree speed. And before the drones make that
decision for us, you know, are we going to do something about
it? Thank.
You again subject access requests.
That seems to be a reasonable option for completely helping
deal with this. Yeah, if one can work out where
to direct them, of course. And I think the other, the other
thing to point out, which I referred to a few months ago was
if we're to be told about the threat of drain swarms on the
continent, how are we to perceive whether or not a drone
is friendly or a threat? And I think that might be coming
into play now whether or not you're a member of UK column.
I hope that you are making best use of the website, but if
you're not, we'll have a quick look at where you can go to find
out what you need. And indeed, at the top right of
the homepage is a search function, which I would
encourage you to use. I would also make sure that you
use the sections and indeed take a look at the comment because
there is absolutely enormous amounts of information there and
a great place to start whatever it is you might be researching.
If you are not yet a member, but then please consider joining us
on the front page is a great big button saying click here and
we'd love to have you on board as a monthly, a annual or indeed
a lifetime member. Now in terms of what's going out
in the near future, we've got Germ talking to Carl Zarr who
you will be familiar with. That's on at 7:00 this evening.
And then, Sandy, just a quick bit on Peter Taylor, who you've
just recorded an interview with. Yes, Peter Taylor was, he was
aun environmental scientist and he, he realised whilst he was
working for many, many years, he, he, he was in the ecology
movement. He realised that there was a
different agenda coming in and he realised that that climate
change was an issue and he wrote a book called Chill and he was
vilified for it. So it's his story really of, of
of what happened after he wrote the book.
Chill. Super.
Thank you very much. And that's going out at 1:00
tomorrow on the UK Column website.
Now coming up, we've got the Hope Freedom Festival, which UK
Column will be at. So please make sure you get
tickets there and use the discount code UKC 2 zero.
And then Patrick, very briefly on the Rebel tent this year.
Yeah, this is going to be a a powerful line up, a beautiful
days festival just outside Exeter.
That's this weekend, Friday, Saturday, Sunday.
And Craig Murray, David Miller, myself moderating some of the
panels, Matt Canner, Yard Loki, Chris Williamson, ASA Winstanley
and of course Jackie Walker and Zara Sultana from the new
political party with Jeremy Corbyn.
So it's going to be amazing Rebel Tent this year at
Beautiful Days. So if anybody's going to be at
the festival, of which they'll be many, come up on the top of
the hill and check us out. And if there's any tickets left,
just get in touch with their website and see if there's any
availability. But should be pretty powerful.
Fantastic. Thanks Patrick.
So do get along to that if you can.
And then a reminder that our the first speaker we've announced is
Andrew Wakefield for our on location event in York Saturday
the 18th of October. There are tickets left, so
please don't delay, but also remember that you will have the
access to the pro the film, Andrew Wakefield's film Protocol
7. Should you buy a ticket, There
are only 150 tickets left for the in person event, but plenty
obviously on the live stream. So please make sure that you do
consider joining us for that. We'd we'd absolutely love to see
you and it will be a phenomenal event.
Now I said that we're going to be looking at online safety, so
I'm going to hand over to Mike for the latest on that and
indeed the ACT concerning it. Thank you, Charles Wright.
So on the 22nd and 23rd of July, the High Court in London heard a
legal challenge brought by the Wikimedia Foundation against the
Categorisation Regulation of regulations of the Online Safety
Act. Now the Wikimedia Foundation
says it shares the UK government's commitment to
promoting online environments where everyone can safely
participate. But they're complaining that
that the fact that they are likely to be made a so called
category one organisation under the ACT and that would quote
undermine the privacy and safety of Wikipedia's volunteer
contributors, expose the encyclopaedia to manipulation
and vandalism, and divert essential resources from
protecting people and improving Wikipedia.
For example, they say, the Foundation would be required to
verify the identity of many Wikipedia contributors,
undermining the privacy that is central to keeping Wikipedia
volunteers safe. In addition to being able to
accept being exceptionally burdensome.
Burdensome. This requirement, which requires
just one of several category One demands that would expose
contributors to data breaches, stalking, lawsuits, or even
imprisonment by authoritarian regimes.
So in other words, they're not happy that the age verification
requirements would expose the identity of Phillip Cross.
Perhaps, and I want to be clear here, as much as I believe that
Wikipedia is completely compromised and is as far from
an objective as it can get, they are correct to raise these
concerns. And I would very much like to
know the identity of Philip Cross as much as anyone else
who's been on the receiving end of his propaganda.
But they were absolutely correct to take this to court.
So I'm certain that everyone, or sorry, I'll rephrase that, I'm
certain that very few will be surprised that on Monday this
week, the High Court dismissed the Wikimedia Foundation's court
case. And but not without caveats,
because according to the statement from the Wikimedia
Front Foundation, the judge recognised the significant value
of Wikipedia as safety. It's safety for users, as well
as the damages that wrongly assigned Online Safety Act
categorizations and duties would have on the human rights of
Wikipedia's volunteer contributors, they say.
The court stressed. They say that it does not give
Ofcom the step the and the Secretary of State a green green
light to implement a regime that would significantly impede
Wikipedia's operations. And they said that they could
face legal repercussions if they fail to protect Wikipedia and
the rights of its users. In order to achieve that
outcome, the judge suggested that Ofcom may need to find
particularly flexible interpretation of the rules in
question, or that the rules themselves may need amendment in
Parliament. Now, we should know that the
first category categorization decisions from Ofcom are
expected later in the summer. So this is not a done deal yet,
and perhaps this court case will still have an effect on that
decision. But of course, the justification
for all this is keeping children safe.
This is a lie which gov.uk repeats for everything that it's
doing. And my question then is why are
they talking about this approach when the bigger risk to children
is adults accessing sites and children and those adults posing
as children themselves? Just to reinforce this, the
National Crime Agency estimates that there are between 550,000
and 850,000 people in the UK who pose a sexual risk to children
as of 2024. And so I want to then highlight
the US based National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children
because they have recently published their latest cyber tip
line report covering up to 2024. And they noted that last year
they received 400, sorry, 546,000 reports from tech firms
of adults across the world soliciting children.
That's a 192% increase from 2023.
And I think that's probably more to do with the fact that these
are being reported much more often more than anything else.
And it's probably the tip of the iceberg.
Now around 9600 of these reports came from the UK in the first
six months of 2024 with Snap Snapchat reporting far more
concerning material to this organisation than the other
platforms. And this is, as I say, the tip
of an iceberg since it's this is only covering incidents that are
reported and not incident incidences that have gone past
being unreported. And yet Ofcom apparently doesn't
see this as an urgent priority. And in a statement to me from
Ofcom, their media team explained that quotes the use of
age assurance should also make it harder for adults to pose as
children, given age cheques must be highly effective at
determining whether a user is an adult or a child.
That's disingenuous because later on in the same statement,
they go on to say our approach to highly effective age
assurance is that services should treat users as a child
and apply the the default protections unless they've gone
through an age check and been determined to be over 18.
And I mean, I shouldn't be the only one that sees disparity
here. All of Ofcom's rhetoric on this,
including at the recent age assurance live event, which they
ran, is about verifying that people are over 18, not under.
And they claim so. They're suggesting that in doing
that they can protect children that are under 18.
It doesn't work that way because mostly platforms are checking
for being over 18. They're not checking people that
are are supposedly under 18 and they're not asking people on
child oriented websites. They're not asking children to
verify their age that they are under 18.
That's not part of the the current programme.
So anyway, they claim to have anti grooming measures in place
and but as the NCMEC report demonstrated, if those measures
exist at all, they're highly ineffective.
But don't worry, Ofcom is quotes currently consulting on further
strengthening these anti grooming measures by proposing
that platforms should you just reuse robust AIDS cheques to
underpin measures they take to protect children from grooming.
End Quote. So I'm just going to say it
again, the Online Safety Act, the entire regime needs to be
repealed and Ofcom needs to be disbanded.
And we're glad to see that the petition is now up to 518,656 as
of 10:00 this morning. It's slowing down, but we did.
We need to keep the momentum up in this.
The whole issue needs to go back to Square 1A.
New conversation needs to happen, Charles, around this
whole censorship industrial complex, which has been built.
And then just to end this segment, Speaking of digital ID,
because that's basically what we've been speaking about,
Companies House, which hasn't given a damn about the accuracy
of their database records in the last 180 years, has suddenly
decided to demand ID verification for all company
directors. And Charles, my question is, why
now? Quite.
Yeah. Well, I mean, you know the
question that can be applied to absolutely all these things that
are demanding similar. It's absolutely nothing to do
with the requirement for company directors, that's for sure.
But no, I think I mean, very good point there with the
specifically with regard to the, you know, all the organisations
that are affected by the Online Safety Act and Wikipedia in
particular 91 comes to mind. And there's just this absolute
failure for people to recognise that it does actually present a
threat to everybody, regardless of your position on the
spectrum. Let's say now something we'll
talk about an extra I'm sure Patrick, we said that we would
give an update on the situation in Lebanon and we'll we'll go to
you now for your, your take on the latest there.
Sure. And we, what we believe is just
from what's been happening politically, Lebanon is on the
cusp of exploding and right now tremendous threat of a civil war
breaking out. And I say civil war in sort of
quotes because the last protracted civil war, so called
civil war in Lebanon was really orchestrated by external powers,
namely the United States and Israel.
And so I think we can more or less expect the same thing here.
What you need to understand about this is that the US is, is
trying to pose a Hobson's choice to Lebanon that it's, it's
either disarm Hezbollah, OK, And obviously they're doing this on
the behest of Israel or face a bloody civil war.
So those are the two choices that the US is trying to through
their operatives in in government and so forth and with
all of their diplomatic power. So that's, that's what's
happening. And The Who, who will take
advantage of of this situation. Jolani regime in Syria are
poised to move into the north of Lebanon.
And then we have Israel poised to perhaps, you know, do a
scorched earth campaign in South Lebanon and invade again and
look at what they've done to Gaza.
So you can imagine any threats of Hezbollah in this
neighbourhood or that village or whatever and you and they would
have full justification to bomb it into the stone ages.
And so you could have a repeat of the previous Lebanese quote,
civil war. But this would be a much more
violent and much more intense. And the United States has just
built a fortress on the hill north of Beirut, an embassy the
likes of which no one has ever seen before.
And why have they done that? Why?
Why is that facility in place? It's right in a pro American
stronghold north of Beirut. So they that's their fall back
plan is a civil war in Lebanon. And by doing that to end any
armed resistance in the vicinity of Israel.
So just wanted to point that out now that the the brainchild
behind this the the emissary agree, if you will, from
Washington is Tom Barack. He was originally appointed as
ambassador to Turkey, but he's really the kind of wit cough
with a brain in in the background, but very nefarious.
He is of of Lebanese background, we're told.
But what he is trying to orchestrate here is so
insidious. So I mean, do keep an eye on
this situation. There's more to be said, of
course, with more time, perhaps another programme.
Patrick, just very briefly, I mean, do you see this being run
in a similar way that the so called civil war in Syria was?
Very different, very different. The the factions are much more
hardened. You know, after the last civil
war. What you have is a collection of
warlords that have their own sort of fiefdoms, the Lebanese
Forces, Christian Marianites, the Amal Hezbollah and all these
different groups have have have kind of the Druze have a kind of
power sharing agreement where the central government's very
weak in Lebanon as a result. And so you will see in more
intense sectarian fighting, but you'll have a more, much more
intense military strikes by Israel.
The United States will be involved militarily as well.
And then Jolani and the Wahhabist Wahhabis moving in to
Lebanon in the north. I mean, they really want to set
people against each other along Sunni, Shiite and Christian
lines, pro US, anti US, pro Israeli, anti Israeli.
So it, it, it has the potential to be really, really a, a
bloodbath. And but it it is may take a
while to percolate 6 to 6 to 12 months even.
But the odds of Hezbollah disarming, I'm not sure if they
want to after seeing what's happened when other people have
disarmed or after what happened to Syria.
As you say, Mike, in that sense, it would be similar.
They, they took out all of Syria's military installations
in 72 hours when Jelani took over in Damascus in December of
2024. So what, what?
What would save the Hezbollah in South Lebanon from the wrath of
Israel in the US if they disarmed?
Nobody would. Or the wrath of Jelani and his
Wahhabi ISIS. You know, brigades coming over
the border, nothing to save them from a massacre.
So. Yeah.
Thanks, Patrick. Again, of course, the United
States and Russia very much implicated throughout with
everything you're referring to in Syria.
And you were talking about Trump and Putin with regard to Ukraine
on Friday. What's the update on that?
Well, the big meeting supposedly on Friday and what, what you
need to pay attention to here is the fact that while this is
gaining headlines, OK, what what has actually changed where,
where, what, what, what new policies have the US
articulated? Have you heard anything from the
Trump administration? Anything new, any better insight
or understanding of this issue, the causes of the conflict?
You hear nothing. So I, I think you can expect
that there's going to be no breakthroughs.
Russia doesn't doesn't have to make any concessions.
I don't believe they will. the United States has no leverage.
So the US is buying time. The question is, what are they
buying time for? Another sneak attack, perhaps
like with the Istanbul negotiations just a few months
ago, a sneak attack that came and, and Trump can't guarantee
he can't guarantee Zelensky is going to sign on to any deal and
the hard right in Ukraine. He can't guarantee the Europeans
are going to abide by any agreements, even in principle,
nor the UK, the UK and Europe, they, they have other plans for
Ukraine. So does the Lenski.
They want to keep this conflict going, that's clear.
So what's going to be achieved in Alaska?
My prediction is very little, But what's Russia doing?
Russia is potentially playing the US in their by their own
game, in a game of chess that Trump may very well find himself
checkmated by default because Russia is in the ascendancy
militarily on the ground. They're making advances and they
could easily throw the Ukrainian political situation into chaos
by playing along with this Trump gambit.
And so Trump might think he's getting something out of this,
some movement towards, you know, better ratings for resolving
Ukrainian conflict. But Russia could very well be
sending the Ukrainian and the the US political position into a
tailspin here, and we'll be there to mop up the mess the way
that they see fit. So we'll see what happens.
Thanks very much, Patrick, and we'll see how that plays out.
Jane, also very much worth pointing out, there can be no
guarantees, no switching subject.
You're all you're able to bring to mind whether you're listening
or watching various woke policies.
But the persistent question is where does the funding come
from? And Sandy is going to be dealing
with some of this, I know. Thank you.
Thank you, Charles. Yes, I mean, I've been looking
into this as, as have others and I'll mention them later on
because they have to be credited for some of this research.
But it would seem that the, the UK, our taxpayer is funding some
of some of the woke NGOs and charities that are, that are,
are, are, are literally, I mean, I, you know, I'm looking at it
as ideological subversion. I mean, it's, you can't describe
it as anything less. So one of the main NGOs in this
is, is the UK Research and Innovation.
And underneath them are nine other NGOs and charities that,
that, that they feed into and, and are receiving government
funding and charitable funding. But it's all a little bit
woolly. We know that it is is taxpayer
funding but and, and, and how much is is charitable funding
we're not sure, but certainly things like the Arts Council of
England and Soho Theatre. The funding level of the Arts
Council England distributes around 445,000,000 a year with
Soho Theatre receiving 2 million and they they put on theatre
performances like 52 monologues for young transsexuals and it
shows them urging the audience members to check their privilege
at the door. As you know this is this is
quite controversial really. And then you've got to academic
and cultural research 811,000 for a study on the
sustainability of Romany gypsy lifestyle. 1.5 million for
research into white centricity of folk music, multiple other
grants such as coloniality studies and feminist rituals,
witches casting spells and porcelain as a critique of white
supremacy. Those are all flagged for
taxpayer funding. And, you know, we've, we've got
to, to look at this and, and I've got a, a slide here of the
direct, you know, it's, it's diverse Diversity, equity and
inclusion, of course, is all part of the mix.
And they've got these sort of memes of, of how they, how they
feel that, you know, they need to promote all this stuff and
it's very niche. I mean, I'm, I'm going to go
into how niche it is and it gets very, very niche, I can assure
you. Now we're looking at the, the,
this one, which is the gay porn. It's the Europe that gay porn
built 1945 to 2000. Now this man, he's he, he's got
a research project. He received funding from the
Arts and Arts and Humanities Research Council, which is under
the UK Research Council and he he got funding for eight nearly
nearly 1,000,000. It's 841,830 lbs.
And he says I'm a queer cultural theorist of of the body.
My research draws from queer studies and media studies,
visual culture and cultural studies to investigate the ways
in which the queer body has been produced, policed and contested
as political, political site of creative and effective sexual
world making in modern and contemporary cultures.
Now, if that isn't a bit of a word salad, I don't know what
is, but he received a heck of a lot of money to go and and study
this in in Holland. He's currently the honorary
professor in Art History and Visual Culture at the University
of Exeter and Professor of Gender Studies and chair of Sex,
Media and Sex Cultures at Lingnoping University in Sweden.
And his monograph is Bareback porn, Porous masculinities,
Queer futures, and the Ethics of gay pig, gay pig masculinities,
whatever that is, I've no idea and I don't really want to know,
to be honest. So all of this is, is, is, is
coming out of, of, of funding. And do the British taxpayers
know about this? And would they agree with it if
they did? And they've got things like
pregnant men and international exploration of trans male.
This academic project, listed via the UK's Research councils,
explores how laws and policies affect the health and needs and
experiences of trans men, especially around pregnancy,
healthcare interactions and reproductive decisions.
So we're looking at a lot of money here that's, that's
sloshing around. And those, those NGOs that are
underneath the UK Research Institute, apparently it's about
900,000 of them. You know, 900 million is, is, is
going into these projects now. We've also got the Galatea, the
Galatea Theatre production, which was John Lily's play in
LBGTQ focus performance, which was again, it was a council
funded, Arts Council funded project, the Diversalariums and
it's centering on marginalised communities in the contemporary
performance of early modern plays, focusing on Shakespeare
being a little bit too white and well not they said pale and
male, I think they called it. And this is what the Emma
Franklin who is the she was the director of Galatea.
She says as LBGTQ people, our histories are often erased or
confounded to fit the narrative of sif sis normalised
patriarchal society. A play like Galatea should
radically alter our attitude towards queer identity today.
Now you know, this isn't, you know, this isn't designed to to
trans bash or gay bash, but we have to look at how niche this
is and how how much people would actually agree to all this.
Now, somebody who's doing a lot of research into this is a lady
called Charlotte Gill. Now I'm going to to to mention
her because she has done a big deep dive into it.
Do go to her sub SEC and support her.
She's and she says there's lots of them, but they're the main
the charities and the main drivers of open borders.
There's lots of them and they're incestuous and self
perpetuating. Private and state funds are
problems. Some charities end up directly
receiving taxpayer funding, EG being funded by taxpayer funded
charities. It's a racket and I think this
really doesn't deserve scrutiny. And we've got also another,
another sub stacker is Lewis Blackpool and he's doing a big
deep dive. He's done lots of fo is into,
into things like the Paul Hamlin Foundation, which is a, which is
a taxpayer funding. And they, they sort of mingle
with hope not hate. And he's put in loads of FO is
into who is funding the, the, the, the Home Office bringing in
of, of migrants. And I think that's really worth
looking at. He's, he's doing a lot of work
and I'd like to cite him as well because he's spending a lot of
time doing that. And, and he's looked and he's
found all these different, if we take get the next slide, yeah,
he's found, I think it's about 14 different charities that are
funding the the whole migration project and they all need
scrutinising and looking at. Yeah, um, and yes, we're, we're
looking at the, the UN refugee agency, the migrant help and
cities of sanctuary. And I'm not saying that migrants
shouldn't get help, they should. But at the moment it's volume
and, and, and speed that's coming through.
And we have to look at the, the, this ideological subversion
that's going on because they, they all both UKRI and sanctuary
cities. Look, they use our theory of
change and it, they, it's a change agent sort of model.
And what I really would like to, to, to link it up to is the fact
that, you know, it, this all goes back to the Frankfurt
School and the Jewish intellectuals who made the 19,
you know, made the 1960s. And I'd like to quote Yuri
Besnamanov, who was the most amazing guy.
I don't think he's, he's not alive anymore.
But anyway, he was a he was a former KGB spy, but he spoke
lots of words of wisdom and also warning.
Ideological subversions are a process which is legitimate,
open and overt. If I could have that up game,
that slide. Because, yeah, it takes 15 to 20
years to demoralise a nation. The important thing is to keep
them in a state of ignorance. Once society is demoralised,
facts no longer matter to them. And I have to agree with him.
And, you know, are we paying for for our own demise?
And I think it needs scrutiny, definitely.
Absolutely. Right, Sandy, it does.
And thank you very much for that.
Patrick, if I may just invite you to comment quickly,
particularly given the remarks of Yuri Besmanov quoted there.
Well, I mean, it's that's a famous viral video that he did
on television in the 19 early 1980s.
I think like that. I think it's important to point
out Yuri Besmanov also worked. He did anti Soviet propaganda
for the CIA. So you also have to look at it
in that context is what he said. You know, it, it's been
repurposed in today's, you know, I guess alternative media Meilu
as anti globalist or something like that.
But what he did the work he did with the Canadian government via
the CIA and for the CIA, the CIA exfiltrated him by the way, from
the Soviet Union as a quote defector.
But he did a lot of things for America in this sort of service
of propaganda. That's that was more or less his
career function for a long time, as well as being a a member of
the John Birch Society. So and just pointing that out
just to contextualise him and you know the statements he's
making at the time. Thanks, Patrick.
Yeah, point very much worth making and also if if anyone
hasn't seen any of the the interview that President of did
give, it's widely available on all the video platforms.
So do do look that up. Now I'm sticking with the theme
of investment and how it coincides with fear.
I am going to talk a little bit about Blue Tongue, about which
there are increasing amounts coming from the Animal Plant
Health Agency and Defra. And particularly they've just
sent out an email to their stakeholders talking about
important changes to the restrictions in place in Wales.
Now specifically this is talking about vaccinated animals with
the BTV 3 serotype having been able, or at least granted the
ability to attend English markets within 20 kilometres of
the Welsh order. They're also keen to point out
that, quote, contrary to popular belief, where animals test
positive for BTV 3, neither the premises or the animal are put
under restrictions, so keepers are urged to report suspicion
immediately. I'll go on to explain why I
think that is. Now the the narrative is tightly
controlled when it comes to the emergence of disease and indeed
the government have just republished the guidance on how
infected infections emerge, giving you absolutely no room to
doubt that between 60 and 80% of emerging infections are derived
from animal sources. We must fear the animals and
that these infections have been emerging for thousands of years
as interactions between humans, animals and their environments
have increased and change. So bear that in mind.
Also bear that in mind when considering the Perbrite
Institute, which of course is where an awful lot of this leads
back to and it's very close relationship with not just the
Animal and Plant Health Agency, but as shown on screen, the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation. And I will just walk you through
the steps for investment yielding dividends.
We see here from the Perbrite Institute that they've had a
vaccine, veterinary vaccine, innovation and manufacturing to
improve animal health. Now, what they're really talking
about is being supported by the Gates Foundation.
This goes back to 2023. And to make it absolutely clear
how the corruption in this particular story runs, we're
just going to listen to a clip of Bill Gates speaking about
this. I have played it before but it's
always worth a listen. Invested $10 billion in
vaccinations over the last two decades and you figured out the
return on investment for that, And it kind of stunned me.
Can you walk us through the math?
Well, it's pretty. Impressive that when you take
these vaccines, get them to be very inexpensive by making big
volume commitments. Have that right relationship
with the private sector. Get the delivery system.
So they're really getting the coverage out there.
You literally saved millions of lives.
And 20 years ago when we created these new multilateral
organisations, Gabi for the vaccines, Global Fund for HIV,
TB and Malaria, we didn't know they'd be successful.
They've gone through lots of challenges about making sure the
money gets there, making sure the efficiency is right.
But as we look at upcoming replenishments for those, and
we've got so much distractions politically that the
international needs like this could get eclipsed if we're not
careful. You know, we see a phenomenal
track record. It's been 100 billion overall
that the world's put in. Our foundation is a bit more
than 10 billion, but we feel there's been over a 20 to 1
return. So if you just look at the
economic benefits, that's a pretty strong number compared to
anything else. Here we are 21 return and a
great big grin. As you said it, as I said prior
to the clip, corruption, there's absolutely no other word that
should be used to describe it. And of course we go to 2024 to
see what happens if we've got the Purbright Institute talking
about accelerating global vaccine development.
Now the most recent update within the last week is that
there's now a partnership to advance mRNA vaccines for
livestock. And again, I I point you towards
the fact that there are of course many more vaccines given
to animals than there are humans.
Now, part of the problem people like.
Ian Brown who of course has a relationship not just with Herb
Rice Institute, but formerly worked for APHA and indeed he
has been involved with the World Animal Health Organisation and
indeed the Food and Agriculture Organisation, both of which are
funded by by GATE. So that there is absolute cross
pollination and the site Weybridge and Purbright are only
12 miles apart. So absolutely hand in glove one
might say. Now this, as I said, does shift
the focus away from slaughter on suspicion and I point you
towards the vaccine guidance and in particular the market
authorization. Just a reminder that these
vaccines were authorised under exceptional circumstances.
So of course we're moving away from slaughter on suspicion
because we are able to vaccinate everything and it's a driver of
great profits and of course comes with much greater element
of control and surveillance. Now on a related note, in terms
of the lack of due care and attention, I would just point
you to some of the scaremongering that's going on
from the BBC and indeed the government about chikungunya
supposedly delivered by mosquitoes.
And indeed a warning just now that they've had to withdraw a
vaccine following very rare fatal reactions, which will
sound very familiar. But don't worry because the
vaccine will be available on the UK market from the 18th of June
2025 S never mind those very rare fatal reactions.
Is there any need to worry? And indeed are people going to
talk it up? This is the European Centre for
Disease Prevention and Control, which talks about 90 related
deaths across the worldwide reporting system for
chikungunya. But of course, given those
statistics, why on earth would anyone be considering taking a
pharmaceutical product against it now related to this in that
mosquitoes are reckoned to breed in areas of stagnant water.
The National Drought Group talking about addressing
nationally significant water shortfall and they've got a
piece on how to save water at home.
I made reference to this becoming possibly jeopardised
given that the colonial administrations have indeed
prohibited people from collecting water decades ago.
And indeed the Chinese authorities reported to be doing
the same thing. But what you can do to save
water is to delete all the emails and pictures and that is
absolutely true. This is off the government
website this morning under the It's your fault again heading.
So that's the that's the direction that we seem to be
going in. But we're building data centres.
We are, we are building data centres as reported on many,
many times and I'm pleased to say that Sandy now is able to
direct us towards a project in Somerset that seems to be
underway at the moment. Sandy.
Yes, I mean, it's been, it's been built for for the last two
years or three years actually, I think it, it started quite a
while ago and it's called gravity and it's a smart campus.
It's a major giga factory and they want to create a battery,
you know, sort of it's a battery factory.
And I'm going to link it also into the mining the, the
Cornwall mining company, the lithium mining company, because
the lithium for this gigafactory is going to be coming mainly
from Cornwall, obviously from abroad as well.
But they're getting the Cornwall mining sorted.
So it's it's quite, it's quite interesting.
So let's run that that video about this giga.
It's like a smart city. Yeah, if we can run that please.
Oh, OK then next. Yeah.
That is it, you know, No batteries, no transition, no
lithium, no batteries. All our modern devices, electric
cars, laptops, mobile phones all need batteries.
Lithium batteries. At the moment the UK imports
100% of it's lithium. Here in the UK, and particularly
here in Cornwall, we have the capacity to produce 50,000
tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent every year, which is
more than half of what the UK needs.
We're not actually extracting the lithium that exists here on
our doorstep, we're importing it and that needs to change.
Cornish Lithium have the objective of producing lithium
in a sustainable fashion. We have two ways of doing it.
One is repurposing what's already there at an existing
China clay quarry and the other is to extract lithium from
geothermal waters. We have a revolutionary way of
extracting lithium. We've managed to achieve what
we've achieved because we've got a world class team and cutting
edge technology. Every tonne that we can produce
here down in Cornwall, it means we're displacing A tonne that
would otherwise need to be imported.
Cornish Lithium is putting Cornwall on the map for lithium
extraction. We are leading a modern day
renaissance of Cornwall's 4000 year history of extracting
minerals to develop a product which is essential to the energy
transition. Yes, that's the Cornish Lithium
mining company and prior to that it was the tin and copper mining
company. So it does seem interesting that
that oil, gas and coal bad lithium is really good, even
though it's highly toxic. And in order to get this lithium
to the Giga factory in in Somerset, in Bridgewater,
they're going to have to cross 3 counties with it to get it
there. So there, I'm sure there are
safety concerns with that. So if we can look at the gravity
video now, which is the smart city that they're building in
Bridgewater? Yeah, Sandy, you need to, you
need to explain this because. Oh, right, OK, sorry.
Yeah, it's anyway, here it is. It's Bridgewater in its
proximity to Bristol and Exeter International Airports.
Now they've already expanded Bristol Airport hugely and
they've they're going to put a railway into this site.
It's just like a smart city with massive connectivity.
It's 616 acres of Somerset countryside and here it, here it
is, it's, it's got marketing suites, it's got people can live
there, they work there, there's gyms, there's nurseries, there's
just about everything you could want.
And there's the train that takes you in from London or wherever
you have to come from. Or it could be another country.
And local development is 1.1 million at the moment and
they're going to create 7500 jobs.
And they've got dark fibre connectivity, opportunities for
sustainable transport. Everything is electric and
probably automated. And nobody, yeah, nobody's kind
of driving these things. And it's a it is a complete
smart city that's been built on the doorstep here.
So what, what will happen? They're way behind their their
scheduled dates of completion. So maybe it'll never happen, but
it's it's in the making. Thank you very much, Sandy.
And of course, an energy transition that nobody has yet
sufficiently justified. But we'll talk about that more,
not just an extra, but forever after.
I dare say no, just to give you a short teaser.
We'll hope you're going to hang around for extra.
But Wilsey reports this time from a Freedom Festival in
Lesters, which is a very quick look at a clip of that.
And we'll play more in extra I want.
To. Love you baby.
There are some more more to come there on Extra.
Now we're just going to close out the programme by reminding
you that although we at UK Column do take every care to get
everything absolutely right, sometimes it doesn't quite go
according to plan. So what we're going to do is
cast our eyes back to a year ago and see how the news programme
began as it was then. Yeah, I don't even know what the
bloody day is now. 14th Get it wrong, we can.
Not yet. 14th. Yeah, all day.
All right, good afternoon. Today is the 14th of October
2024. We are 20 minutes past one and
welcome to this special edition of UK called News.
We had some technical problems. Right.
Hang on, it's August. You said October.
Sorry, I think that just might be 11 confusion too far.
That's the technical issue. We've we've shot, we've shot
into the future by too much that's really trying to get
back. Let's just go and straight
myself. Oh, God, this isn't.
We should absolutely play this bit good, right?
I didn't even spot it. Yeah.
Well done. So just to clarify, we should
point out that was that was what happened this news programme one
year ago, yes, when I went on holiday.
OK, yes, point, point taken. Absolutely right.
Anyway, what I will say is thank you very much to Mike for
bringing the studio with me. Thank you to Patrick and to
Sandy for joining. I'm sorry we have run over, but
Please remember that we have got the interview with Carl Czar
going out the German warfare platform tonight and indeed
Sandy's interview with Peter Taylor at 1:00 tomorrow.
So if you are able to join us for extra in a few minutes as a
member, please do so. Otherwise we will look forward
to seeing you at 1:00 on Friday. Thanks very much.
Bye bye. Bye.