Good afternoon. It's Wednesday the 11th of June
just after 1:00. Welcome to UK Call News.
I'm your host, Mike Robinson. My Co host today is Charles
Mallett. Welcome to the program, Charles.
Thank you, Mike. And joining us via Live Link,
our researcher and activist Sandy Adams and journalist and
peace campaigner Vanessa Bailey. Today we're looking at proposals
for digital ID and how it's being sold to us.
Charles and I have been doing a lot of research on this and
there's a lot to discuss. We'll also be talking about
defence and the food industry. And sticking with the issue of
ID, Sandy will be looking at the increasing use of facial
recognition in the UK, in UK supermarkets.
And she's also talking about the origins of a new film which some
of you may have seen already called The Agenda.
And of course, Vanessa joins us live from Lebanon.
She will be covering demands for resignations from the Foreign
Office and Israel's funding and arming of ISIS, allegedly.
So, uh, Charles, let's begin with digital ID because the
British government, uh, has decided that, uh, we all need
one. They have, yes, yet again.
But there's going to be a lot to get through.
But we'll start with going back a little bit.
So just over a year ago, the Starmer regime came to
government and the momentum for a national digital identity has
gathered more and more energy. Looking at the Plan for Change,
last year's manifesto, it's clear that there's no mandate to
do so because of course digital ID was never mentioned.
But instead the policy has been driven by a Trojan horse in the
form of a countermeasure against uncontrolled migration.
In April, a group of Labour MPs wrote an open letter declaring
the need to secure our borders and that the time has come for
what they call an ambitious digital ID programme.
So the clamour for greater control over immigration
coincides with the release of end of year figures from the
Office for National Statistics indicating that net migration
into the UK has dropped by half. Although one thing the ONS is
unlikely to be accused of his accuracy.
These figures are provisional and they're all sorts of
caveats, like the omission of the numbers of asylum seekers,
for example. Last month, in what was a very
obvious ploy to set the conditions for a universal
digital ID, the government published a white paper on
immigration, at the core of which was a control mechanism on
which they say they are pinning all their hopes.
They say we will strengthen border security by rolling out
digital identity for all overseas citizens through the
implementation of E visas and new systems for checking visa
compliance, replacing the former biometric residence permit
cards. Now the latest volley has been
fired by Labour Together, a think tank which is inextricably
linked with the Starmer camp, most obviously because of the
current chief of staff at Downing St.
Morgan McSweeney, who has jumped directly from Labour Together
into Starmer's inner circle back in 2020.
In the executive summary, they state that 1,000,000 people live
in the UK without permission to do so, undermining Britain's
social contract and sense of Fair play.
They go on to say that this is how a mandatory universal
national identity credential, they're calling it Brit Card,
can help Britain control illegal migration and secure its orders.
Now, platitudes are, of course, tossed out to appease the
reader. Quote, this is your country, you
have a right to be here. This will make your life easier.
It is at the heart of the social contract.
And it goes on in that sort of vein.
Now, in light of the perhaps inaccurate figures from the ONS,
this might seem like quite the sledgehammer to crack this
particular nut, as it's only explicit in its remit to deal
with less than 1% of the UK population.
Moreover, it appears to break with the line on digital ID
until now, which is set out by the Office for Digital
Identities and Attributes, which is categoric in stating that
this kind of ID would not be mandatory and therefore not
universal. Now, as a demonstration of how
this kind of drift occurs, it is worth looking back to the words
of Boris Johnson on the subject of identity.
Back in 2004, he said if I'm ever asked on the streets of
London or in any other venue, public or private, to produce my
ID card as evidence that I am who I say I am, when I have done
nothing wrong and when I'm simply ambling along and
breathing God's fresh air like any other freeborn Englishman,
then I will take that card out of my wallet and physically eat
it in the presence of whatever emanation of the State has
demanded that I produce it. And then, of course, we have the
legislation from 2006, which was repealed by the Identity
Documents Act 2010, which declares that no ID cards are to
be issued by the Secretary of State at any time on or after
the day on which this Act is passed.
So somehow this has not been considered in all of the back
and forth and the propagandising.
Instead, the government has been pushing the nation with on a
persistent basis, with the actual delivery coming via
stealth. And whilst it may be accurate to
say that digital identity is not mandatory, it's perfectly clear
that there are now a range of processes for which this is a
prerequisite. It also looks like another
instance in which the rise of reform has been turned to the
advantage of the Labour Party, here of course capitalising on
the theme of tough action on migration, thus capturing votes
at the same time as convincing people that joining an ID scheme
really will be convenient and secure.
Now, the Brit Card document is opaque on the subject of
enforcement. There are many references to it,
but no explanation as to how it will be achieved.
And further, it's not at all clear how such a scheme could be
made, could be made mandatory, or in what other ways a digital
ID would affect the lives of those signed up to it.
There's certainly no reference to the right to a private life
as enshrined in Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
And the reality of course, is that it's only ever been about
surveillance, control and money. Now the recent analysis from the
sector would appear to reinforce this.
Nearly 300 companies are acting in this space and they generated
over £2 billion in the year 2023 to 2024 with 888,000 sorry,
888,000 million gross value added and over 10,000 and full
time equivalent employees. Now given the use of migration
as the vehicle to drive this forward, it should seem ironic
that only 75% of these are headquartered in the UK and that
3034% of those, the digital identity firms have a physical
presence in international markets.
So, so much for migration in effect, or at least overseas
issues now. Finally, when 1 looks at how
digital ID has been used to date, it's perfectly clear that
the greater part of its use is related to a transactional
arrangement rather than for any of the given reasons.
This is precisely the same as with the COVID jab, which many
people took in order to be able to fly or continue to work,
rather than for health reasons. This chart here shows that the
primary reason for uptake is, believe it or not, to access
access online gaming or gambling accounts.
And with regard to reusable ID, only 8% of this application
concerns what's called proving the right to work or live in the
UKI know Mike's got plenty more to say on this, but there really
is a lot to cover and I dare say, well go over it in in
further detail in extra too. Just a quick correction, that's
888 million, not 888,000 billion, of course.
That's true, because that's not a number.
Yes, indeed. OK, thanks Charles.
Now I thought it would be good to look at the mainstream sales
job that the on the issue of digital ID here.
So here's Polly Tonby and the Guardian.
And she's suggesting that the Brit Card Project would cut down
on bureaucracy, help guard our borders and prove Labour has
pride in digital identity. Now, correct me if I'm wrong,
Charles, but Britain's identity has been based for quite some
time on the idea that ID cards of any kind are the kind of
thing we might have seen in the Nazi in Nazi Germany, and so
have been opposed by multiple generations.
Twenby even recognizes this. She wrote Papers Please.
Those words strike terror in 1000 war movies.
Stasi or Gestapo officers are a breed apart from the unarmed
plot who demand no ID cards from a free British people.
So when the government contemplates a universal ID, it
sends instinctive twitches down some spines.
And my question is, do they think enough of the generations
who remember this have died? And so time to press ahead?
I suspect that's possibly the case.
Or is this part of the preparations for the next war?
That might be the case as well. Then we have Andrew Orlovsky
writing in the Telegraph. He believes the digital ID cards
be could be Starburst poll tax, referring to Thatcher's original
attempt at local taxes which resulted in just about everyone
coming out onto the streets in protest.
And he says here, but there are two serious problems and they're
set out, they're set on a collision course.
First, Brit Card will be mandatory so we'll be forced to
use it or go off grid entirely. Second, and this should alarm us
all, Labour Together proposes that Brit Card will use the
government's one login digital identity service, which is
mentioned 13 times in the proposal.
This has become an expensive and sprawling government IT project
that has engaged hundreds of contractors and cost taxpayers
over £300 million. What we know about it is very
troubling. Concerns have been raised about
the security of the project at the deepest levels of the state.
When we create a one login account, it hoovers up our
personal identification documents.
This ID becomes the key that unlocks other government
services. So an insecure system has
serious consequences. It not only puts individuals at
risk of identity theft and impersonation, but also makes
defrauding the government much easier.
End Quote Now Bloomberg here then points out the digital ID
of all kinds is here with a report on Sam Altman's eyeball
scanning Orb devices that Charles reported on a few weeks
ago. And they say that starting this
week, people in London will be able to scan their eyes using
Tools for Humanity's proprietary Orb device, the company said in
statement on Monday. And the service will roll roll
out to Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff, Belfast and Glasgow in
the coming months. Then we had Apple, who held
their WWDC keynote presentation on Monday and describe to
describe the latest features they'll roll out this year and
across their platforms, including expanded support for
digital ID. And I'll end by drawing
everyone's attention to Big Brother Watch's campaign to get
the Starmer regime to drop the hole insanity.
Rebecca Vincent here, interim director of Big Brother Watch
said make no mistake, the new digital ID proposal reportedly
being considered by the government is another plan for a
mandatory universal ID under a new guys.
The so-called Brit card would fundamentally change everyone's
relationship with the state, moving us towards a papers
please society, citing that phrase again and putting a
burden on all law abiding people to prove our right to be here.
This would mark a severe departure from Britain's long
and proud history resisting mandatory ID.
But the debate about digital ID isn't really about migration,
it's about access to and control of everyone's data.
We urge Downing St. to reject this Brit Card proposal and find
alternative solutions to improving government deficiency
that do not March the country towards a mandatory universal ID
or otherwise trample the privacy rights of the entire population.
Well, OK, the place to start with any campaign in this issue
surely would have been the Data Use and Access Bill, which
Charles has mentioned already. But it's too late to engage on
that now because it's going through its final stages in
Parliament and it's right on the verge of royal assent.
So, you know, this is all-encompassing legislation and
it's it's just, it's incredible how much this enables, but that
is the basis of everything that's going on in this area.
It absolutely is, and I think it speaks volumes that the only
sales points or sales pitches concern absolutely everything
but the merits of the system. It's either for going on
computer games or gambling, or it's for migration, at least
figures that concern only 1% or less of the population.
Or it's for something entirely spurious that there is quite
clearly not sufficient information or substance to be
able to sell it properly. And I think they, you know, it's
known that if they tried that, that absolutely wouldn't work.
People would reject it wholesale.
If there's no need, no point. And we just just as a final
point on this piece of legislation, it is an enabling
act and it enables, as I say, such a broad use of our
individual data. It really should have been
campaigned much more stringently against from the beginning.
But anyway, let's move on then and welcome Sandy to the
programme. And a related topic, Sandy,
because you've been looking at the issue of facial recognition.
Yes, thank you, Mike. Yeah, again, It's, it's, it's
privacy. Asda has come under fire for
trialling live facial recognition cameras in its
supermarkets, prompting a formal legal complaint from civil
liberties group Big Brother Watch.
Yeah, again, they're, they've got their work cut out at the
moment. The privacy watchdog argues that
the retailer's use of biometric surveillance is unlawful and
infringes on the data rights of millions of shoppers.
Asda's trial began in March across 5 stores in Greater
Manchester. Using technology developed by UK
start up Face Tech. The system scans customers faces
against a watch list of alleged offenders compiled by the
retailer. If no match is found, the data
is reportedly deleted immediately.
Critics say the move sets a dangerous precedent.
Big Brother Watch describes the system as a high risk intrusion
into personal privacy. Likening it to turning everyday
shoppers into suspects, as does trial, is deeply
disproportionate and chilling, said Madeline Stone, the group's
senior advocacy officer. Warning of a broader trend of
unchecked biometric surveillance spreading across UK policing and
private sectors. The complaint argues that
widespread deployment of LFR could have a profound impact on
the data rights of 10s of millions of people, and urges
regulators and government to step in before the technology
becomes normalised. The controversy reflects a
broader public unease over facial recognition in the UK
aid. the ADA Lovely Lace Institute has also issued
warnings saying that LFR is being rolled out in a
legislative void. The group says current UK laws
are fragmented and inadequate to regulate such invasive
technologies and called for urgent legal reform.
The scale of biometric surveillance in the UK is
growing fast. A joint investigation by the
Guardian and Liberty Investigates found nearly 5
million faces were being scanned by police in 2023 alone,
resulting in over 600 arrests. Now LFI is being trialled not
only in supermarkets but also in sports venues and High Street
chains like Budgens and Sports Direct.
Most retail use use cases, especially for marketing,
surveillance or general customer tracking, are unlikely to meet
these standards and would likely be ruled unlawful if tested in
court. So I noticed that my local home
bargain store were using live facial recognition.
They alert customers with a small notice on the entrance
that frankly, most people wouldn't see, saying it was for
your safety. Your facial recognition data is
captured when you enter the store.
If it doesn't match their banned list, it's supposedly deleted
automatically. But how can you be sure?
This requires a boycott of Home Bargains and any store that's
rolling out this technology without consent.
This is a recording of me challenging the manager at Home
Bargains. Oh, hello.
Sorry, I just started trying to say because you've got facial
recognition, haven't you? Yes.
What happens if you don't want your face?
It's because it's automatic as you walk in, isn't it?
Yeah. So what can one do about that?
Because it's, it's actually against my privacy to record my
face without doesn't or anything.
So what it does is when you come in, it scans it and then it
checks it goes to a database because like, and if it doesn't
match someone who's banned, then it just wipes it back off again.
So it just scans for people who are banned for like stealing and
inappropriate behaviour and stuff like that.
So can you, can you request that your face isn't scanned because
you're an automatic thing? Yeah, in Astra at recently
because it's actually it is against your previously yours to
scan your face without permission.
And so I mean, I, I, I will be kind to your head office about
just because it is against GBWD PR, although you say it isn't,
it actually is, is so from bargains.
I know, I know that there was, I know other companies that do it.
I know it doesn't make it right. But thank you very much for your
information. OK, bye.
Bye. Yeah, it doesn't make it right
just because everyone's doing it.
And this is what this is the battle we have, you know, so
that's, that's the way they look at it.
If if we've told you we're doing it and everyone's doing it, it's
OK. And it's not, it's not OK.
Now, Sandy, of course they do. They have put up the notice on
the door. So assuming you see that notice
and read it, no matter how small the text might be, they would
argue therefore that, you know, you have effectively contracted
with them by walking through that door and given them your
consent. So, so the issue's got to be
that, uh, you know, as you say, a boycott of, of organisations
that are doing this is really what needs to be considered.
Yeah. And Big Brother Watch are saying
it's it's actually is a, is a is a is a breach of privacy.
So that would have to go through the courts, I guess.
Yeah. But in the meantime, boycott,
Yeah. Yes, OK.
Thank you, Sandy. Thank you for that.
Vanessa. Let me welcome you to the
programme then. And well, the this is related to
Gaza of course, and the Middle East, but the Foreign,
Commonwealth and Development Office have decided that if you
are not happy with government policy then maybe that's tough.
Yeah, And I, I want to remind everyone, as in Charles's
report, this is your country when it comes down to digital
ID, but it obviously clearly doesn't come down to it being
your country when it comes to any dissent against government
policy. So this was a report, it's been
widely reported across all mainstream media.
But this is in Politico. UK officials say civil servants
concerned about British support for Israel can resign.
So just taking from the article, 300 staff from the FSTO, the
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, wrote to
David Lammy saying the UK had contributed to the erosion of
global norms by failing to take action against Israel.
And they went on to point out, and this is very similar to what
happened at the BBC. They also noted with concern
efforts to screen out questions about Gaza in all staff meeting
sessions and urged ministers to publish legal advice and
potentially suspend arm sales. I mean, of course I would argue
arm sales have been claimed to have already been suspended, but
we know perfectly well that they haven't.
Only specific parts have been nominally suspended.
So who responded to this? First of all, Ollie Robbins,
who's the UK Foreign Office permanent Under Secretary, so
advisor to the government. If your disagreement with any
aspect of government policy or action is profound, your
ultimate recourse is to resign from the civil service.
This is an honourable course. So absolutely no, you know,
concept of discussion or taking people's points on board. 300 is
a relatively high number of civil servants who've come
forward. Quick look at who Olly Robbins
is. He was managing director of
Goldman Sachs 2019 to 2023. So for five years he led
international negotiations on G85 lies, intelligence alliance,
Brexit and he advised 4 prime ministers, including during the
financial crash of 2008. And just very quickly to look at
Goldman Sachs's role in in supporting Israel since October
the 7th. This is a investigation by Bank
Track 7, underwriters of war bonds instrumental in enabling
Israel's assault on Gaza, new research finds.
This is very recently published. And let's have a look at who
heads that list. Of course, guess what?
Goldman Sachs, by far the largest institution listed,
having underwritten more than $7 billion in Israeli war bonds
since October the 7th. But it also includes the Bank of
America, Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, Barclays and JP Morgan
Chase. And I think City is up on that
list also. And then Nick Dyer, who was the
other second permanent Under Secretary to go back at the
civil servants, and this is taken from the article, they
warned civil servants that while there was no problem having
criticisms of government policy, their job was to deliver the
policies of the government of the day wholeheartedly.
And for me, I don't know how you feel, but there's a sort of
subliminal threat in that statement that if they don't
wholeheartedly support government policy, of course
they can resign or they can be pushed out.
Nick Dyer and Olly Robbins have been supporting wholeheartedly
UK efforts to go to war with Russia and Ukraine.
This was from April the 17th on on X at Nick Dyer's account.
Last week I visited Kiev to reaffirm the UK's unwavering
commitment to Ukraine, speak to our partners inside and outside
government and spend time with staff at UK and Ukraine.
Very similar wording, of course, to the statements they make
about their unequivocal support for Israel.
And we did recently do an interview at UK column with Ben
Rubin and Doctor David Miller on the connections between Ukraine
and Israel. So I would recommend that people
take a look at that. And of course this goes back to
the over 100 BBC staff accused the network of pro Israel bias
in their Gaza coverage. And of course we can't really
divorce the BBC from government itself.
And so it's interesting that there is mutiny both within the
BBC and within the government itself.
And then this is basically from the Middle East or the minister
for the Middle East yesterday, Israel and the occupied
territories, Minister for the Middle East statement, statement
to Parliament on UK sanctions on Israeli government ministers
Itima Ben Gavir and Bezalel Smotrich, who of course are
considered to be the furthest right extremist members of
Netanyahu's government who have been, let's say, at least
encouraging the Reformation of the former Israeli terrorist
factions, Ergun and Stan, under the control of Bengavir in the
occupied territories. Bengavir has effectively been
arming the extremist settler factions and obviously they've
been leading consistent attacks against Palestinian farms and
property. And of course, we know that the
annexation of the West Bank is continuing in line with the
continuing genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.
So what did Hamish Falconer have to say?
It's a very long statement. People couldn't go and read it
themselves. But I just took a couple of
points. So he's saying This is why we've
pledged 101 million to the Palestinian people this year,
quite who those Palestinian people are.
He doesn't clarify why we are working to strengthen and reform
the Palestinian Authority. Of course, the Palestinian
Authority under the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas is known to be
nothing more than a stooge working on behalf of the Zionist
regime and actually punishing their own Palestinian resistance
against the consistent Zionist ethnic cleansing in all areas of
Palestine. And he says that we are clear
that Hamas must release hostages.
Of course, again, no mention of the 9000 plus hostages taken by
Israel since October the 7th and existing prisoners in Zionist
jails that are being raped and tortured and physically abused
on an hourly basis, many of them of course dying in imprisonment
from starvation and torture. So he's clear that Hamas must
release hostages, but no mention of the Zionist held hostages and
that Hamas must have no role whatsoever in Palestinian
governance. Now this is connected to my next
report on what's happening in Gaza.
But it's clear that the British government is defending the
United Kingdom of Israel over and above British citizens, in
my opinion. Vanessa, let me ask you a quick
question. If you were working for the
British Civil Service and you felt that you were being asked
to do things which were counter to your personal morality, would
you resign? Well, no, I I would kick up a
fuss which I guess these 300 civil servants have attempted to
do and effectively are not being listened to in the fact that in
staff meetings Gaza is not even being allowed to be brought up.
I mean, I think that there should be and there is scope
under legislation, I'm guessing, for the civil servants to take
action against the government for not heeding their concerns
over British government policy. Yeah, brilliant.
It's, it is an astonishing line to take.
And I think the Foreign Office to double down on this is, is
inexcusable really, especially at the same time as even the
head of the ICRC in the region is describing the flagrant
abuses of international humanitarian law and the
complete disregard for the Geneva Convention.
So for the Foreign Office to take this line seems entirely
tone deaf, for want of a better phrase.
I mean, I think it's much more to talk about, but it seems a
disgraceful way to treat people with entirely legitimate and
legitimised concerns. Absolutely OK.
If you like what the UK column does, you would like to support
us and the place to go is support.ukcolumn.org, there are
options there to help us out, including making a donation,
joining as a member. And if you do join as a member,
of course, you get access to members only content.
So such as UK column News Extra, which immediately follows this
program. You could support us by picking
something up at the UK column shop or if you want to buy
something from Clive to carl.com, if you use the link on
this page, we do get a small Commission for everything that
you buy, although it doesn't cost you anymore.
And I just want to say once again, a massive thank you to
everybody, everybody that does support us in this way.
And also a thank you to anybody that does support us by sharing
our material because of course, although share links are
provided on the on the pages that are on the UK column
website, it is increasingly difficult for us to get content
shared on social media. And your help is absolutely
needed. Now tonight at 7:00 PM, Jerem
will be speaking to Zoe Harcombe.
And this is everything they tell you about Diet is Wrong.
Fascinating discussion. Yeah, it.
Absolutely is just flies in the face of all the conventional
wisdom, particularly that was pumped out by the government,
all the nonsense such as 5A day and don't eat meat.
And she will, she will set the record straight.
So really worth listening to. OK. 7:00 PM tonight in the usual
places, including ukcolumn.org/live and then
tomorrow at 1:00 PM also in the usual places.
Brian is speaking to Vicky Ashe now.
This interview is with a survivor of abuse so please be
aware that watching this could be triggering.
However, it is an overwhelmingly positive interview so do join
Brian at 1:00 PM for that. The interview that went out one
yesterday with Gemma Cooper on reflections on the day with
mothers separated from their children, that is up on the UK
column website as an on demand version.
If you want to have a look at that, please do.
And Charles, the next on location event date for
Everybody's Diary Saturday the 18th of October.
Yeah. It's we'll be there before we
know it and we are very excited about it with good reason having
had an event in Bristol and indeed Cheltenham this year.
And these in person events absolutely are the way to go.
But I think mainly for now it's important to say that we've got
a theme which is going to be health and therefore, of course,
considering what Zoe Harkin has to say is really pertinent.
But it'll be a terrific gathering this time in the north
of England. So hopefully an accessible place
being York for people, perhaps even from north of the border.
And we're delighted to say that the venue's fantastic.
It'll take cash, there'll be a chance for a social in the
evening and indeed there'll be contributions from UK column
presenters throughout the day. So really, really exciting event
on the horizon and there'll be more details and the detail with
regard to tickets in due course. And finally a an announcement
about tonight, June the 11th 7:15 for 7:30 hailings future
This is talking about haven't borough council leader
councillor full Monday he'll be speaking haven't chief planning
officer and your haven't borough councillors and so on.
Do head along to that if you want to get involved in local
politics in that part of the world.
Now, Sandy, let me welcome you back to the program.
And just just over 2 weeks ago, we met with Mark Sharman and
Phil from Oracle Films to look at their new documentary.
What were your thoughts? Yeah, I mean, it's, it's been
long-awaited and it's it's called The Agenda, Their Vision,
Our Future. And it was premiered on YouTube
Rumble and X last Wednesday. If you haven't seen it yet, it's
well worth sitting down for an evening with friends and
watching it. It is one hour, 15 minutes long,
but it's excellent. It's it's almost like a feature
film, excellent in quality and sound and vision.
Now, I just wanted to share a brief story about how the idea
of this film came about. Really.
Glastonbury is an interesting place and it's said to be the
sacred ground, in my experience, is also both a mirror and a
magnifying glass. It often reflects the greater
battle between light and dark playing out across the earth,
and sometimes from this place, truth breaks through the ether
and reverberates around the world, and I've witnessed that
happen twice. Weirdly this film was one of
those moments. After a council meeting about
Net 0 and 15 minute cities which astonishingly went viral in
March of 2023, we challenged the council to the Great Net Zero
debate at the Town Hall on the 7th of July which was live
streamed by UK column Thank You. Unbeknownst to me, Mark and
Patricia Sharman were in the audience and after the event
they asked if I would help them with a film about Agenda 2030.
I agreed and I gave them all I had on the subject and pointed
them towards a few people who were already doing excellent
work in that area and inspired me, Patrick Woods, Rosa Corey,
Alan Jabi and more. Mark and Patricia and Phil
Wiseman from Oracle Films ran with it and the project just
grew and grew. It was a real learning curve for
them too. But after two years of extremely
hard work, the result is nothing short of a masterpiece.
It's amazing some people feel it hasn't gone deep enough.
And yes, we all know there are deeper layers and other
scenarios not dealt with in the film.
However, delving too deeply may result in losing the engagement
of your audience. This film effectively helps
those new to understanding the links between climate, COVID and
technocratic control and to to make sense of the current events
that are going on in our world. The deeper truths, I'm sure,
will come later. As I said earlier, you can find
the film on Oracle Films X or Rumble YouTube.
Sadly, we're interrupting it with ads every few minutes.
And that was YouTube, not Oracle Films, by the way, so it's
probably best to to view it on Rumble or X if if you don't pay
for not having ads. So let's have a look at that
trailer. The last to control other human
beings is a story as old as time.
There's a very strong drift in the direction of globalization,
of the ultimate centralization of control in the hands of
unelected officials at super national organizations.
They want all of the resources of the world in their pocket.
The bigger. Picture is that an attempt is
underway now to collapse liberal democracy and replace it with
global technocracy. This.
Is a coup. They're saying we can control
with rules. We don't need currency anymore.
It's like an inverted prison. You are supposedly free to roam
about, but everything you want to access is behind lock and
key. The.
Potential for social control is gigantic and potentially
irreversible. They plan to commandeer land,
reduce farming and radically change the food we eat,
transform the supply of electricity and then dictate how
we use it, and replace currency with a system of credits.
All three strategies are built on the premise of a climate
crisis caused by carbon dioxide. I do.
Not think there's a climate crisis.
And I based that on all the evidence and the climate data
sets that we build to answer questions just like that.
The government is very clear that they want a catastrophic.
Story There is no single science paper that proves conclusively
that. Humans.
Control all or most of the global climate.
Europe's. Mad dash towards net 0 is.
To the economic suicide politicians are purposely
impoverishing ordinary people purposely deindustrialized in
Europe, it's just. Tremendous amount of damage in
the name of saving the planet. It does make you ask what is it
we're actually saving if we're paving it over?
I think what we're dealing with here is actually a global war on
agriculture. When you look at how many farms
are selling out, we're walking into food shortages.
If I. Can switch everybody from real
food to pharma food. Then 100% of the agriculture
industry can go through my publicly traded stocks and I
have complete control. This is the biggest public
relations scam in the history of the world, but it's far more
than that. It's a blueprint.
It is the action plan all. Life on Earth is going to be
radically changed everything. Will be monitored the
environmental consequences of every human action the general.
Population cannot fathom the psychopathy of the vision that
they're facing once. The digital ID is in place.
It's game over for humanity. So Sandy, it is a fantastic film
and we absolutely recommend everybody watches it.
Yeah, yeah. No, it's, it really is great for
people who it's beautifully produced and for people who
really need to join the dots. And there's a lot of them.
You know, this has the capacity to really wake up millions of
people all over the world and, and, and, and start their
journey into really understanding what's going on.
And I think they've done an amazing job.
I really do. Yeah.
Thank you. So, so the message from us is
absolutely share it now. Let's move on then.
NATO head Mark Rutter was in the UK on Monday.
He visited Chatham House where he delivered a speech on
building a better NATO. He welcomed Keir Starmer's
strategic defence review for its NATO first orientation and he
said he was really impressed by Starmer's plans.
He he was asked if the UK should increase taxes even further to
fund the rearmament programme. So let's have a listen to what
he had to say. Well.
It's not up to me to decide, of course, how.
Countries pay the bill. I mean, what I know is that if
we want to keep our societies safe and and look, if you if you
do not do this, if you would not go to the. 5%, including the 3 +
5, the 3.5% core defence spending.
You could still have the National Health Service or in
other countries their health systems, the pension system,
etcetera. But you'd better learn to speak
Russian. So if that didn't have you in
stitches, I'm not quite sure what will.
But you know, what's he saying here?
If we want to keep our society safe, I wasn't sure that.
I mean, this is a narrative that we keep hearing, particularly
since COVID. The government is here to keep
society safe. He went on to say we will build
a better needle, one that's stronger, fairer and more lethal
so we can continue to keep our people safe and our adversaries
at Bay. And this is the same narrative,
exactly the same narrative as from the Strategic Defence
Review. Is this the role of government
or or NATO for that matter? Anyway, according to Ruta, it's
all about the supposed Russia threat.
Russia could be ready to use military force, he said, against
NATO within five years, five years.
He went on to say. Let's not kid ourselves, we're
all on the eastern flank now. The new generation of Russian
missiles travel at many times the speed of sound.
The distance between European capitals is only a matter of
minutes. It's there's no longer east or
West, there's just NATO. Now, of course, we don't need to
concern ourselves with the fact ourselves, with the fact that
NATO is more than 1000 kilometres closer to Moscow than
it was during the Cold War, and that Russians have been warning
for decades about what that would mean.
But Rudda also mentioned China. Which he said is also
modernizing and expanding it's military at breakneck speed and
so on. I mean, it just went on like
this for the whole presentation. Now As for what NATO, the
alliance itself needs, it needs a 400% increase in air and
missile defence, millions more artillery shells, a doubling of
logistics, supply, transportation and medical
support capabilities, more jet fighters and tanks, drones, long
range missile systems and so on. It is clear, he said, if we do
not invest more, our collective defence is not credible.
Spending more is not about pleasing an audience of one,
it's about protecting 1 billion people.
And so the question then is how is this going to be paid for?
Well, let's have a listen. The facts are clearly.
There that Russia is able. Within five years to to mount a
credible attack against NATO territory if we do not now start
to take these decisions. And then of course is the issue
how to finance that? Well, that's up to national
politicians, and they're always I.
Mean when I was in politics, you were three sources to do this
from. 1 is taxation, another is savings elsewhere, and the third
one is a higher deficit. I mean, in the end, politics is
making choices in scarcity. This is why you why you choose
your politicians and then a centre left politician will be
make different choices from a centre right politician.
But OK, that's, that's that's up to the national government.
But my my point is we've got to do it.
Facts are clearly. So he was definitely
encouraging, he was definitely encouraging Starmer to increase
taxes. But, you know, deficit spending,
we've seen recently the removal of limitations on deficit
spending in in Germany. And this is increasingly going
to be something that we're we're looking at more and more debt.
I would imagine that the speculators are getting very
excited, you know, at the thought of what all this is
going to mean for stock prices and defense contractors, as you
pointed out last week, Charles. But in the meantime there's been
some pushback around Europe. The Madrid Assembly against
rearmament and militarisation, a coalition of more than 70 groups
held a rally in Madrid on Saturday against the E US
rearmament drive. There were about 68,000 people
on the streets. It was the largest anti war
protest in Spain for quite some time and to quote them they said
we view with concern and anger the war mongering drift that EU
leaders and governments have embarked upon trying to drag the
peoples of the continent into it.
The hidden objective behind the tangle of media intoxication is,
after having pledged our productive economy into deep
crisis, to justify to the public a huge transfer of public funds
to the death industry. And so they ran with slogans
along the lines of no to war budgets, notary armament, no to
the militarisation of society and the economy, military
spending for social purposes. They instill fear on us and sell
us, quote, security. And they're buying on the money
with with most of that anyway. Now the E us promotion of the
so-called 72 hour Survival kit was given as the best example of
of this kind of thing. And as I said, this was a
coalition of groups. They all agreed on the anti war
message. Many groups chanted and carried
banners calling for the NATO, for NATO bases to be thrown out
of Spain, Although reportedly not everyone was quite on the
same page on the NATO question. But nonetheless, they got
together to run this. And just to to finish this
segment, we'll mention this article here.
This is from the Guardian. Britain has escalated the global
nuclear arms race and it's bringing us closer to
Armageddon. This is Simon Tisdale absolutely
making this point very strongly, that the strategic defence
review is an act of insanity and we need to go then finally to
Lord Robertson, the key author himself, who's absolutely now
suggesting that Britons must be prepared to fight for their
country. I don't think so, George.
No, I mean, I wouldn't think so either.
And, and that seems to be borne out by the feedback we've had
sort of across the board and also looking at what Luke
Pollard, Armed Forces Minister, announced the other day in terms
of dropping, absolutely dropping the standards for entry into the
armed forces. So it's it's not looking good.
And I think also to just go back to the Guardian article, it's
interesting to see that probably for one of the few times in
recorded history, the Guardians have to be on the same page as
the Russian administration in in deeming the UK as responsible
for war mongering and war mongering.
Yes. Indeed, Vanessa, let's come back
to you. Welcome back and let's talk
about the latest from Israel and Gaza.
Yeah, well, shot, Cora. There are reports that Israel,
or rather Netanyahu's regime, is funding ISIS in Gaza to attempt
to overthrow Hamas or to at least muddy the water.
Of course, Israel was also admitted to having funded and
armed the various groups of fighting to overthrow the Syrian
government, and those included ISIS and al Qaeda.
So here it is. Avigdor Lieberman, a coup uses
Netanyahu of arming ISIS linked militias in Gaza.
The PM's office offers no denial.
And then let's see exactly what Lieberman said on a Can TV
interview that I put that in. The Zionist regime was in
quotes. Transferring weapons to a group
of thugs and criminals to identify with ISIS on the orders
of the Prime Minister. So let's have a look at who this
group is. Very quickly.
Abu Yasser Shabab is the leader, a resident of Rafa in southern
Gaza. Declared formation of a new
armed force which identifies very much with ISIS ideology,
operating under the Palestinian legitimacy.
Allegedly that received the blessing of the Palestinian
Authority leadership. So let's go back to the fact
that the British government has been recently working hard to
develop collaboration with the Palestinian Authority.
So is the British government effectively by default also
supporting ISIS that is collaborating with the PA in
Gaza? A question that should be raised
potentially with the British government itself.
Netanyahu has come back and actually confirmed that Israel
is arming effectively ISIS. He determines them to be clans
in Gaza to fight Hamas after Lieberman's allegations.
So effectively they have admitted it.
And what did his office actually say in this article in the
Jerusalem Post? These statements must be a
glaring red line for anyone. So that in other words, they're
attacking Lieberman, outing them for anyone who cares about the
security of the state. They harm first and foremost our
soldiers and put hostages at risk.
Israel's interest is to protect soldiers by using whatever means
possible. So a very sort of convoluted
statement there put out by Netanyahu to try and defend the
fact that he is, well, claiming to be fighting terrorists in
Gaza. He's actually now funding an
arming terrorists in Gaza to fight terrorists in Gaza.
I mean, you can't sort of make this stuff up.
And recently there was a video circulating on social media in
the last two days which show the ISIS factions opening fire on
the aid cues, which of course is a lure.
It's a trap to bring out the young men from the remaining
so-called safe zones in Gaza that of course are not safe
zones at all. They're being routinely bombed
and then basically to open fire on them.
So the IDF now doesn't have to do it.
It can rely now on ISIS, as it did in Syria, to run its war
against the resistance in Gaza. So let's just have a look at the
video. So.
It's not enough that they're deliberately starving Gazans
while bombing them, burning them alive, using weaponized aid
against them, and now bringing in terrorist factions that, you
know, the West is condemning in Syria, allegedly.
While of course, they are also funding and arming them to carry
out strikes against young men that are going to gather aid for
their families out of desperation.
I mean, it's, I don't know, this entire situation just seems to
descend into greater and greater sadism and humiliation of the
Palestinian people. Silence from the anybody that's,
you know, helping to promote the Israeli cause.
Vanessa on on the issue of of the working with yet another
extremist faction. Yeah, I mean absolute silence.
Nothing from the worst, but it's business as normal apparently
and and civil servants are not allowed to object.
Yes, incredible. Charles, let's move over to you
then. And well, we've been covering
the issue of the Holocaust Memorial Bill and the the
government's desire to build a new memorial towards the
Holocaust in the centre of London for quite some time.
What's the latest on that? Well.
As of today it goes to the report stage in the House of
Lords and this will enable us to give a further insight into the
intense politicisation of the issue and the apparent
desperation which successive governments have tried to push
through. An initiative was importantly
rejected by the planning authority and for very sound
reasons. Now, the latest development is
that the Co chairs of the Holocaust Foundation have been
sending out letters to garner support for the proposed
memorial. And some of these are very much
worth mentioning because of who they've gone to and and the
language used. Now, it's fair to say, I think
that some of the language used in that letter is strong.
In particular, quote, the United Kingdom is a leader in the
global response to Holocaust denial and distortion.
The uniqueness of the Holocaust must be preserved in memory.
There are too many countries attempting to rinse their
history through the Holocaust. Interest groups hijack the
language of genocide for petty and sometimes sinister reasons.
End Quote. Now of course in this fairly
long letter, they're very cautious to avoid any of the
issues of the direct controversy such as the destruction of
Victoria Tower Gardens or indeed the planning process, which has
been an enduring and so far unsuccessful issue.
They're they're certainly not shy of making best use in terms
of an opportunistic sense of the conflict in Gaza in order to
expedite their cause. And as part of the amendments
for the report, stage 1 says that there's a clause to be
inserted saying the sole purpose of any learning centre must be
the provision of education about the genocide of the Jews and
anti-Semitism. Now also going into looking at
the letters and the recipients and the responses, it, it, when
one considers sort of independence and due process, I
think it should be of concern. There's been interaction with
the Metropolitan Police Service who really should be remaining
independent of any such decision making.
But nonetheless there's a reply in there from Matt Jukes, who's
now deputy Commissioner. And he concludes by saying
overall, although security arrangements will need to be
extensive, we consider that the proximity to Parliament brings
as many benefits as risks from a security perspective.
And he goes on and say he looks forward to passing it further
with you. Now, it's a curious statement to
end on in that if there are security considerations, how can
that be a benefit? How can it be said to be
bringing benefits? Of course, this is political
language which is very much unbecoming of Metropolitan
Police Service. This is reinforced by John
Stevens, who's commissioner back in 2002, thousand and five.
And he talks about public access and safety concerns and
maintaining public access to the gardens during and after
construction. Now he's, he effectively
undermines the whole process by talking about security
arrangements being in line with those of to other public
buildings in Westminster. So we're talking about bag
checking, scanning at an entrance pavilion, which totally
distorts the purpose of the gardens and indeed people need
to book tickets and and all the rest of it.
Now the the other thing to point out is that at the Imperial War
Museum just over the river, there are of course the existing
Holocaust galleries. And here we see on the map the
proximity to one another less than a mile apart.
Again, undermining this as being a location and also put forward
in the amendments very significantly with regard to
planning is that they're to consider for the first time
alternative locations for security purposes.
They're also to consider alternative designs and
something that's going to be more sympathetic perhaps.
And also if there's a case for saying they might have overblown
the anti-Semitism angle in that now because security is deemed
to be such a strong consideration that this site
might be considered to be too dangerous.
But but mainly they need approval from the Historic
Buildings and Monuments Commission for England and
indeed UNESCO before anything can go ahead.
And significantly, that it must not adversely affect any other
memorial or the setting of such memorials in Victoria Tower
Gardens. And indeed the integrity of the
Victoria Tower Gardens as a green space dedicated to the
well-being of local people in perpetuity, which was what was
set in legislation in 1900 and has been ridden roughshod over
now. Therefore, I would conclude by
referring to the parks, the Royal Parks Authority, which of
course are talking about the Victoria Tower Gardens, hosting
A stunning range of sculptures that celebrate freedom.
And essentially the central purpose here is that the gardens
were designed for a particular purpose, and there's no doubt
the Holocaust Memorial subverts those purposes entirely.
So, given these conditions and the amendments, it should be
impossible to see how this can proceed, but we will follow it
nonetheless. Thank you, Charles Sandy.
Let's then come back to Glastonbury for a second and,
well, the Glastonbury Festival has some strange medical advice.
Yes, once again it's Glastonbury season and they seem to be
buying into the big pharma narrative again.
They've done this before. Today, Glastonbury Festival
girls are being urged to make sure they're vaccinated against
measles before heading to Worthy Farm.
The UK health Security Agency. The UKHSA is warning the highly
infectious illness is circulating across the country
and my numbers in the West to southwest and London.
It says measles is easy to catch in environments like festivals
or travelling. As Gloucester ME gets underway
in just under two weeks time on the 25th of June, health experts
say people need to be aware of the health risks so they can
enjoy the event safely, Doctor Alistair Wood, Consultant Health
Protection at UK Health Security Agency Southwest, said.
We want festival goers to enjoy their time at Glastonbury and
other festivals this year. Being aware of the current
health risks will help those attending joy there enjoy their
time as much as possible. Measles is circulating across
the country and festivals are the perfect place for measles to
spread. If you're not fully vaccinated
against measles, mumps and rubella, please contact your GP
to see if you can get an appointment before coming to the
festival. Unbelievable.
There we go. Yes, what can we say?
They keep banging this drum, don't they?
They absolutely do. But it's a drum that yields
loads of money, so keep banging it, absolutely.
OK. Well, look, we'll end then today
with animal health. And well, in fact, we're not
really talking about animal health because we're talking
about slaughtering of animals. Here we are.
But the but the overall issue being that of animal welfare
which the government makes great claims to care about.
And on Monday there was a debate in response to a petition which
had received over 100,000 signatures and the title was to
ban non stun slaughter in the UK.
Now this should have led into a discussion about animal rights
but in fact the reality was rather different because, and
this is not to criticise the starter of the petition, but it
turned into a rather divisive debate, more concerned with
people than practices. The current law of course states
that in both commercial and home slaughter settings there is a
religious exemption in that this mostly affects the Jewish and
Muslim faiths in that non stunned slaughter may be carried
out for these religious purposes.
Now the debate drifted somewhat from animal welfare and it it
what was significant was it was really a case of balancing some
areas of what are regarded as animal welfare against what was
being described as the expression of religious freedom.
Now as pointed out by the RSPCA, the percentages concerned are
small with the exception of sheep.
And if you can't see the screen, there's about 2.8% of chickens
nation nationwide and 1.9% of cattle, but nearly 30% of the
total amount of sheep slaughtered in this manner.
So the the the issue kept returning to Judaism and indeed
Islam and therefore the people involved.
There are lots of contributions from Jewish and Muslim MPs
putting forward their case, but what did drop out of it was of
course the fact that the government really pays lip
service to animal welfare in the wider context.
So there was no no broadening of the debate, as indeed there
should be 1 might say, about the Treatment of Animals in life, in
commercial farming and indeed in death, because of course the
majority of the vast majority of animals are not killed in this
manner. But there are certainly problems
within the system. The other thing, again not
discussed at all, was slaughter on suspicion, which we've
covered a lot with regard to bird flu and the number of birds
have been destroyed with techniques such as expanding
nunch and fame or indeed gassing.
So this is this is all part of the sort of rather confusing
agenda as to whether we should or shouldn't eat meat and
whether we should or shouldn't be afraid of animals, something
that seems to be encouraged and discouraged by government.
At the same time. We've cast our minds back to the
potential COVID cat cull picture of the cat outside Downing St.
back in 2022, I think it was. And then again just to when one
considers whether or not, you know, these things can happen.
This is Hilda Keane's book The Great Cat and Dog Massacre,
which was about the pre emptive destruction of nearly 1/4 of a
million pets from 1939, based on what turned out to be a
completely false premise. Now this is something I'd like
to go into rather more next week with the.
The state of abattoirs, and indeed more general piece on
animal welfare, because that was the one point this debate really
did not touch upon. It was much more concerned with
who rather than how. Yes, thank you, Charles.
Let's Yeah, Thanks, Charles. Right.
I'll just you're having trouble with numbers today, 3/4 of a
million, not 1/4 of a million. OK, well, thank goodness you're
here. Yeah.
All right. We're going to leave it there
for today. Thank you, Charles.
Thank you, Vanessa, and thank you, Sandy.
We'll be back in a few minutes. If you're UK column member for
some UK column news Extra, if you're not a member, please
consider joining us. We do need your continued
financial support. And again, thank you very much
to everybody that is a member. And we'll see you in a few
minutes for extra, enjoying the interviews tonight with Jeremy
and tomorrow with Brian. And we'll see you on Friday at
1:00 PM as usual. See you then.
Bye. Bye.