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