Well, hello. And it's really wonderful to be
back at this tremendous event. And I'd also like to say a big
thank you to everybody that's in the marquee this morning.
It's wonderful to see you. And I think we're going to have
a very interesting little news slot today because there's
clearly some interesting things happening in the world.
But I should start off by saying good morning, today is the 29th
of June. It is 1115.
Welcome to UK column news. My name is Brian Gerrish.
I'm your host and I have with me Mike Robinson.
I have Patrick Henningson, I have Charles Mallett and
somewhere she's disappeared is Sandy Adams.
So a big I think we're allowed a round of applause today for all
the effort. Now I've got to be very careful
because we've only got a 50 minute slot.
We've always got a lot to talk about, so I have to be careful I
don't chew up my slot with too much chat to you, but I think a
little bit is necessary. You will notice I'm wearing a
tie. Now, this is out of great
respect to all of you, but it's also a little bit of a joke
that's been going on for a number of years because Ian
Crane from Alternative View, who used to put on fantastic events,
would always tell me off for wearing a tie because he said it
was a sign of being held as a puppet by the establishment.
And I said, yes, that's true. But on the other hand, if you
want to win people over, sometimes it's happy to just
reflect a little bit about how they are.
So I stayed wearing a tie because a big target for us is
to get into the professions in order to convince people who are
basically, they think they're doing good jobs, maybe as a
doctor or maybe inside the police or maybe inside the legal
circles. Can we win them over?
And I believe that sometimes if you look right, people will talk
to you. So I decided today standards
matter and I'd, I'd put on a tie.
So really it's, it's a bit of fun and it's out of respect to
you now. I the festival is utterly
brilliant. It's been lovely to chat to
everybody. We've had some really deep
conversations. We've done some little
recordings, we've heard some personal stories, we've heard
sad things and we've heard happy things as usual.
But our interaction with you guys has been really, really
exciting. The only thing I've been
slightly disappointed at is that although I've been all around
the camp, I have not found Marianna Spring and and I think
it's pretty poor that once again, she's not given us the
courtesy of turning up to have a proper debate about what's going
on in the world. So I think before I just do my
quick new slot, it would be appropriate to do a substantial
Boo for the BBC. Shall we do that Boo?
OK, right now I'm going to start off with a little picture.
And the caption, if you can't read it, is no better place than
a church hall. And what's the significance of
this picture? Well, earlier in the week I was
able to go to a a public meeting.
It was called Big Community and it was held in this little
church hall. And the subject was about the
future expansion of Plymouth. So more or less, well, for a lot
of people out of the blue, what's what's come out is that
there's going to be substantial changes to the way local
government works. But don't worry because your
opinion counts. OK, So this is where it took
place. There was limited space inside.
And the Plymouth City Council team who were present said to
me, well, this was the the only place we could get.
And so the numbers that can take place in the big conversation
are small. So if we take a look inside,
I've blinked out faces because I didn't think it was fair to put
up some of the local people. But what's taking place is that
they're sat at tables and at each table there are two
facilitators from the local council.
And what those facilitators were doing, using a sheet which said
official sensitive, was guiding the conversation from those
local people. And what Plymouth City Council
wanted was the local people in this particular parish.
But there are others to tell Plymouth City Council what they
wanted out of life. What do they expect with bus
service? What were the health provisions
like? What was schooling like?
And then Plymouth City Council's taking this information to put
it into their proposal to government that they are going
to take over the peripheral parishes around Plymouth in
order to increase the population of Plymouth as a city from about
260,000 to 300,000. Now I found this a very
interesting exercise because what did all the what the local
people want to do? They wanted to talk to the
council in order to find out what the council's plans were.
What are you thinking as a council?
Do you want to take over our rural areas?
Do you want to concrete it over? And of course, they never got an
answer because the facilitators always try to drag the
conversation, the big conversation back to where the
where the City Council wanted it to go.
So this is real news because this only happened in the last
couple of days. But the reason this is so
significant is it demonstrates the new control techniques which
the government is using in order to give you a voice at local
level, but to control what your voice says.
So this was I, I was immersed in stuff I've been reading about
and I decided that I should ask some questions.
And I, the the chief executive was there, Tracy and I went to
speak to her separately. I didn't speak in front of the
audience, but I said I don't think you've been very honest
because you're not telling the people what your plans are.
And of course, during the evening when I was able to speak
to some more of the organisers, what rapidly came out is they're
not thinking about 300,000, they're thinking about 350,000.
They're thinking about 500,000 by 2070.
And when I hear a City Council talking about its need to expand
on that scale, to me this is Soviet policy.
This is how the five year and the greater plans in the Soviet
Union were compiled. So although this event was
labelled as devolution, what you're actually seeing is
control coming down to the lowest level.
Now, I just put a positive in here because when I started to
challenge and there were many of the people there who were
starting to challenge the whole setup and the whole questioning,
the City Council became very nervous.
And in fact, the chief executive was clearly very stressed that I
was there. And there may be reasons for
that, but tough, I live there. So a good message for all of you
is if you ever think that you as an individual or a small
community within a parish council, if you ever think you
don't matter, you absolutely do matter.
They are terrified of ordinary people standing up to be
counted. And one of the key things you
can say is no. So even though this is a massive
plan, let's just bring it up on the screen.
This is the minister, Jim McMahon, who was minister of
State, Housing, Communities and local government.
He's one of the guys behind it. Even though they say this is
about devolution, this is making people have more power at the
local level, what it is actually doing is bringing control to the
local level. So the government says strategic
oversight of English local and regional government structures.
It talks about local government finance because all of the city
councils and the big unitary authorities are bankrupt or
close to it. And it's also talking about
combined authorities with mayors.
And if you follow this policy through, when Ben Rubin on the
UK columns been doing some really fantastic stuff on this,
he is describing the parallel of parallel system of government
that is already set up. It's not being considered, it's
in place. And this is going to involve big
communities manipulated, as I've shown you, making policy while
actually supporting government policy instead of any form of
representation through a parish council to a District Council to
a County Council. All that is going and this new
control mechanism is coming in. So the village hall is reality,
which I've shown you, but these are the sorts of people driving
the policy, local government reorganisation policy and
programme updates. So I'm going to encourage you
all to get on the Internet, go to gov.uk and see and read what
it's talking about because I'm going to suggest we need to stop
this and very quickly because of the power that they are going to
exert down to community level. So this is a bit more of the the
background. I'm saying that devolution
equals greater control. And I don't think I'm too far
away. And and how is it sold to
people? Well, it's a vision often comes
up, doesn't it? We have a vision for a simpler
local government structures. So it's all sold on positives.
We are introducing a new system of government.
It's simpler, you can trust it. It's going to make cost savings.
And this means that that money can be spent on looking after
elderly people. It's all sold on Utopia in the
future, but the mechanics of it is very, very deep.
So I'm probably there for time. And I know that was a very quick
UK column slot, but I want to just really reinforce with you
that if you're somebody who realises there's something
really nasty building itself in this country, we're losing,
we're losing freedoms, we're losing free speech.
We're we've got ID cards, we've got this control structure
coming in. The thing they are most
frightened of is people at local level just saying no.
And parish councils often mocked because of the vicar of Dibley
and all that. Actually, parish councils, when
they stick their heels in can make big waves and if we get
enough local people doing it, this will start to shake because
the big conversation had to come to the parish council level for
them to get this legitimacy for them to do what they want to do,
which is a Soviet style system of government.
I'm going to end there. Who is going to come on?
Mike, Thank you very much. And I'm not wearing a tie
because for some people it doesn't help.
Yesterday was Armed Forces Day. Did everybody know that Armed
Forces Day comes at the end of Armed Forces Week, which is.
But anyway, John Healey there was very excited about it.
I was interested in the language used in this tweet today the
nation unites do feel united around the war agenda and so on.
Are you you all? Yes.
And this is going to make Britain secure at home and
abroad. And the reason I thought that
language is significant is because if you've been watching
the UK column for a while, you'll know that a number of
years ago in one of the defence papers that the government
published, I can't remember which one, they talked about the
integrated operating concept. And this was very much
presenting the idea that it's no longer home, is no longer
perceived as a safe place. It is just as dangerous as being
abroad for the military. And this is because government
is recognising that what they're doing is garnering a certain
amount of opposition and, and they're they're increasingly
concerned about the, the degree of opposition and how that might
express itself in the in the future.
So being secure at home and abroad is something that I think
we should take a positive message from because government
is feeling insecure at home and that is for good reason.
But oh sorry, that should have played.
Why is it not playing well anyway, there was a video clip
here which unfortunately doesn't look like it's going to play,
but it was very impressive. It was very impressive because
the this is was a piece of Ministry of Defence propaganda.
It was very impressive because at the end they showed the Red
Arrows and the Red Arrows are still being presented as being
some kind of great sort of what's the, what's the, the
word, the, the representative of the British military and so on.
This is the Red Arrows that can barely put 9 aircraft in the sky
at the moment because because they're all end of, you know,
off their shelf life, They're all end of service.
And, and they're having to, they're having to, to take parts
from operational aircraft to try and keep the Red Arrows flying.
And in fact, the Red Arrows are likely to be gone in the next
couple of years. Now we saw headlines in the last
few weeks about the potential of this Russian designed aircraft
being used for the Red Arrows in the naughty distant future.
I'll leave it there right now. Let's change topics a little bit
because Ed Miliband was pushing this out what dates a couple of
days ago. Then we're determined to make
the UK the sustainable finance capital of the world, right?
The net zero, the net zero agenda is collapsing around our
feet, but they're still determined to try to push this.
Now the question in my mind was why?
Why? Why is he announcing this now,
plans for the UK to become sustainable finance capital
capital of the world? There's the sort of main graphic
there with lots of pound signs as if that gives it value.
This is what it's about. This is if you look in the top
left hand, I realise it's small, but if you look at the top left
hand corner there, that's the City of London Corporation logo
and it it's the global city apparently.
And this this report Scaling Transition Finance came out I
think in December last year. And it basically is recognising
the fact that if you remember back to COP 26 and the Prince
Charles was part of that, of course, now King, but the main
man was Mark Carney, the carnage Carney, sorry, who of course is
the current Canadian Prime Minister.
And he promoted this sustainable finance initiative called G
fans. The G stood for Glasgow because
it was that's where COP 26 was since the start of the year,
because Trump has something to do with this.
But this process began before that it it was already starting
to collapse under its own own weight with with financial
institutions leaving and really not interested in it whatsoever.
So this is an act of desperation on behalf of the City of London
and the British government to try to reinvigorate this idea of
net zero finance because it really it's just a, a, a finance
game. It's, it's not really about, as
everybody will be aware in this, in this room, it's not really
about climate change and, and carbon dioxide and this kind of
nonsense. It's, it's just about money.
And so again, we should be taking positives out of this
because their, their scheme isn't working, it's collapsing
and they're trying to step in and, and fix the thing.
And so I just wanted to bring that one forward as well, right.
Yesterday, Kate Shamrani in her talk, if you were listening, was
talking about organ transplants and and the sort of the way that
the organ transplant industry has been gone.
So this is a bit of a darker segment, this bit.
But I just wanted to to say to everybody, if you haven't read
this article called No Time to Die by Doctor Mike Williams on
the UK column website, do have a look at it.
Because it, it basically is covering much of what Kate was
talking about yesterday. And the fact that really
recommending that if you aren't comfortable with the situation
with organ donations, it it, it would be good.
And it's never too late to opt out of that.
Now there is a website for this, an organ donation website
registering your decision about whether to opt out.
Now. I just also wanted to make the
point here that of course, if you remember back to the
covidocracy, the Coronavirus Act, there was another opt out
that's available to us, to us through the NHS is, is the
ability to opt out of data sharing and so on.
But under the Coronavirus Act, because it was supposedly
emergency legislation, that opt out was effectively suspended.
So, so just if you feel like opting out of this, opt out of
it. But just keep in mind that we
may need to keep, be aware of what government is doing and
make sure that we, we maintain that opt out and that, that
there's no attempt at any point in the future to sort of, well,
actually, we, we need this because the point, the point
that Kate was making at her presentation yesterday was that
much of the organs that are taken from people are being used
for scientific research in inverted commas.
And they're not always being used for the benefit of others.
So whether you're prepared to make that decision to, to, to
donate organs on the basis of, of doing something which is good
and for somebody else, that's not always the case.
So just keep that in mind. I'm just sorry, Patrick's here.
Let me just see, I think maybe. Oh, right.
And then just finally, as you know, we've been fighting
YouTube for quite some time, right?
And just for anybody that hasn't isn't aware, we got kicked off
YouTube in 2021 for covering a story of a man who was injured
by the coronavirus vaccines and was very seriously ill in
hospital. And YouTube decided that was
just a step too far. They kicked us off.
They, the Daily Mail then covered the same story about
four weeks later with no consequences whatsoever.
And and then we've sort of been in this fight with YouTube ever
since. Now we are in the process of
doing some work legally on this and we're not going to say any
more about that at the moment, but I just wanted to to bring
you up to date with where we are with YouTube because this is
fascinating. I used the same account that our
YouTube channel had been on to set up a, a, a new channel,
which was just about serious. So it wasn't anything to do with
with medical things and so on. And we had about four videos on
that. It was taken down.
And this I just wanted to show you what they sent me because it
says here, hi Mike. We've reviewed your content and
found it severe or repeated violations of a community
guidelines. It didn't specify which
community guidelines were alleged to have broken in this
case. Because of this, we have removed
your channel from YouTube. We know this is probably very
upsetting news. They're always worried that
you're upset by this, right? But it's our job to make sure
that YouTube is a safe place for all.
If we think the channel's severe, and you know, I'm not
going to even bother with the rest of that.
But if it's the next, if it's the next paragraph that really
got me. Your existing YouTube channels,
new channels you create or acquire, and channels in which
you are repeatedly or prominently featured will be
terminated if you circumvent a strike, restriction or previous
termination. So in other words, if another
channel decides to feature the UK column, their channel will be
shut down. This is this is quite, this is a
step beyond what we've seen before.
Now, this is quite ironic because YouTube has allegedly,
they say, moved back on the restrictions.
And in fact, they they released a statement a few weeks ago
saying that that particularly with regard to health
information, that they were going to just not be quite as
draconian as they have been in the past.
It's nonsense. It's just going on as as hard.
In fact, it's worse situation than it's ever been.
So anyway, we are taking the fight to YouTube and that is
something that we'll be speaking publicly about much more in the
not too distant future. So keep an eye on that.
I think that is me. Yes, it is.
So now let's over to Charles then.
We are totally delighted that you are here, not just because
you've come to see us and we can talk to you and look you in the
eye, but also because this is one in the eye for the state who
would far prefer that we weren't doing this and weren't talking
to each other. And that goes for all of you lot
at home as well. Now you've answered my first
question, which was going to be about attendance at last year's
festival. I know the answer to that one.
So my next question is going to be, are you a member of the
commercial media here to report about this event?
This is your chance to answer that question honestly and
display some sense of integrity. Is anybody here falling into
that category and going to put their hand up?
They are being asked by UK column.
OK, we'll have that as a no. And the reason I ask is because
last year, rather tantalisingly, we can't see it, but I can have
a grand reveal in just a second. There was a piece in the Times
immediately succeeding this event which described it as
Glastonbury for conspiracy theorists.
I'm not quite sure who comes out of that worse, but it it was
written by some, some young. Oh, hang on.
Oh, gosh, OK, there is a gremlin.
That's a that is a terrific pity.
But anyway, oh, I see some something totally different's
come so that's nice. But the the point of it was that
somebody came here last year to write about this event in a very
obviously defamatory. There we go, this man here.
Now you may have seen him last year, but you might not have
recognised him. We've had our in house artist
draw up an impression of what we think he looked like last year.
As I say, we can't be totally sure, but the point is that he
didn't have the backbone to just come and talk to people and tell
them that he was a Times journalist.
Instead, he he wanted to snipe from the sidelines.
And this is inconsistent with some of the messaging that comes
out from the mainstream. And I take you back to a that
you can't probably tell from the tone, but it is a, a very
cleverly multicultural photograph of a couple who are
having difficulty talking about what they're describing as
theories and how we should all really be friends.
And if that's the case, then why can't people come and talk
openly about the things that they do actually want to talk
about? And of course, it's a rhetorical
question because I know the answer.
And that is in order to be able to create division and suggest
that there are people out there who are deliberately trying to
damage society. Now, Brian's already referred to
the Soviet Union. I'm going to take you back 101
years to the Criminal Code of the then Soviet Union in 1924
and their efforts to crush dissent.
And the specific word used in the Criminal Code then was that
the term counter revolutionary is applied to any act committed
with the intention of overthrowing, undermining or
weakening the authority of the workers and peasants.
Government founded on the Constitution of the Russian
Socialist Federative Soviet Republic.
Well, where do we think Michael Gove went when he was redrawing
the new definition of extremism in 2024, exactly 100 years
later? Extremism is the promotion or
advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or
intolerance that aims to undermine, overturn or replace
the UK system of liberal parliamentary democracy and
democratic rights. OK, it's not word for word, but
that could be a transliteration issue from Russian.
So we can't be entirely sure, but the point is that here we
are again and in actual fact the there there is no concerted
effort by any media or government organisation to bring
people together. They instead absolutely want to
separate them. And yet here we have Dan Jarvis,
the man who brought in the Foreign Interference
Registration Scheme and is always banging the drum in his
role as Minister for National Security, to suggest that we are
at threat. But of course now as has been
brought out by both Brian and Mike, not from without, from
within, and I spoke about this last week, the national Security
strategy which has been produced alongside the SDR and it's
effectively the civvy version of it.
But in addition to all the things that it does mention, it
is very clear to make it the case that the extremist
ideologies are on the rise within this country.
And when we look at this plan for a whole nation approach to
national security and entering into a state of war, part of
that war is to be with these so called extremists who hold
conspiracy theories. So this is very, very obvious.
Now tomorrow in Parliament, or rather as the news goes out
today, Monday, let's say, the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper
will be laying before Parliament to draught prescription order
against Palestine action. And I just want to run quickly
through the consistency of this on a point of law and whether or
not Parliament or indeed the Home Office should be engaging
in such a thing. This relates to action taken at
Bryce Norton Airfield on the 20th of June where a couple of
aircraft had paint put into their engines and and therefore
that's been regarded by the Home Secretary as serious criminal
damage. Now we have to look at the
Terrorism Act 2000 to understand how any of this is able to make
sense and frequently it doesn't. And the reason for that is that
the language is sufficiently vague for anybody to manipulate
and wield it in a way that gives them the desired outcome.
So I would just remind you that Section 1, which defines
terrorism, speaks about actions or threats that are designed to
influence government brackets with an amendment from 2006
including international governmental organisations.
Interesting to change that language in 2006, but it goes on
to say, notably, that this may include intimidating the public
or a section of the public, something the government does on
a daily basis, so that mustn't be forgotten in it, however,
prescription happens under Section 3 of the Act and there
therefore are a number of criteria that have to be
satisfied. And just to articulate the point
about how legislation is corrupted, the clause that she's
aiming to use here is serious criminal damage.
Now you will have all seen many a video over the last five years
of somebody wearing high viz handcuffs and a walkie talkie
saying to somebody if you do that again I'll arrest you.
So has the threshold been met or not?
How many points of law can you see that, say, at the sixth time
of serious criminal damage, the offence is complete?
That does not exist. So this is entirely a political
decision and that could not be made more clear by the campaign
that Palestine Action have been running over the last four
years, which I think I will be able to display for you if I
press once more. Maybe not.
But anyway, I think in your mind's eye, yes, here we go.
So, so this is the the front page of their website and I'm
not going to dwell on exactly what it is they've done.
It's not it's not really entirely central to what I'm
talking about. What I'm really talking about is
the way in which the government is able to seize upon an action
like this and do what it wants to do regardless of the
circumstances that are in fact laid before them.
Now the reason this is so relevant is that in the most
recent edition of Soldier magazine, the laws of armed
conflict are are called into question.
And so if Palestine action can't call the laws of armed conflict
into question and yet the British Army can, what the heck
is going on? And here we talk about AI
breaking the law. This is with specific reference
to what are called suicide drones, which are non manned
vehicles that make their own minds up about who they kill.
Now, there's a very, very obvious problem with that, which
I'm sure I don't need to articulate for anybody here in
this tent or at home, wherever they may be in the world.
The point is that this is a complete discrepancy and an
inconsistency where the official state sanctioned body of the
military is allowed to talk about this, but nobody else is,
and that plainly is wrong. Specifically, we're talking
about the Red Dragon capability produced by Aerovironment of the
United States, which as I say, is an autonomous suicide drone
capability. It should be very, very clear to
anybody hearing those words that that is not something that can
possibly conform to international humanitarian law
or the laws of armed conflict. Now, I will just wrap up when
the slide changes, which might do some.
Oh yeah, here we go. So, so, so just to right.
OK, we've skipped on but but you know who these goons are?
Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart, formerly Secret
Intelligence Service and an MP. But just to highlight how this
legislation is so terribly badly and most obviously manipulated
for political gain, we've talked about the prescription of
Palestine action. Now, if once a group is
prescribed, to support that group in any way or act for the
benefit of that group is to commit an offence under the
Terrorism Act 2000. That's very, very clear and
Section 12 says very plainly a person commits an offence if he
arranges, manages or assists in arranging or managing a meeting
which he knows is to support a prescribed organisation.
Now the photograph, which I will OK, which Mike is just going to
put on screen now, is initially a sort of montage put out by
Alastair Campbell, but the centrepiece is Al Jilani as he
was Al Sharadi. Well, now let's say President of
Syria talking to Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart for
their podcast, which was very, very widely promoted to a large
audience and quite clearly does promote A prescribed
organisation, Al Qaeda when 1 looks at where Gilani has come
from and indeed has been described until very, very
recently. So it's quite clearly a
contravention of the act, of Section 12 of the ACT.
So I just wanted to make the point that there is a direct
thread that runs from a gathering at an event like this
where you can be described as a conspiracy theorist, which in
one small step turns you into an extremist, which turns you into
a terrorist. And then you are subject to the
provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000.
If the Home Secretary decides that that fits the particular
agenda and the particular route that she wants to go down.
My question, I suppose to conclude by is we'll ask
Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart interview Palestine
Action once they've been prescribed.
And if they do, what will happen?
Thank you very much. How you guys doing?
Good. I just to add to what Charles
said, very important conversation.
A prescribed terrorist organisation.
There is no objective definition for terrorism.
The designation is a political designation because not all
countries around the world are designating this group, that
group, that group as terrorists. But whoever is against US or
British or NATO foreign policy, it will be prescribed as a
terrorist organisation. Or whoever is opposing Israel in
the Middle East will be proscribed as a terrorist
organisation. Any National Liberation movement
that opposes the US or its allies will be proscribed as a
terrorist organisation. That's the rules of the game.
So it's not a level playing field.
Just want to put that up another another group that's been talked
about that should be proscribed. Very dangerous group.
You guys should be aware of this.
A hip hop band from Northern Ireland called Kneecap.
They're talking, they said the righteous indignation about this
band, the how dare they, how dare they shout Free Palestine
at their concerts. And you know what?
The BBC really stuck their foot in it.
They decided they're not going to cover Kneecap's performance
at Glastonbury. And what happens when you do
that, when you censor an artist, it just blows up to galactic
levels. And that's what happened.
First it was Sharon Osbourne, then it's the BBC and Kneecap
just gets more and more popular. The gigs are getting sold out
and the minute they're announced and getting cancelled and sold
out and cancelled. And so you think about this,
it's incredible. And other artists at Glastonbury
this year stepped up when they heard that kneecap wasn't going
to be allowed to be broadcast. They all did their own free
Palestine or protest and support.
And our politicians are horrified they have taken to
social media. We condemn this extremism and
hateful calls for the ethnic cleansing of Israelis and
etcetera. I mean, the irony of it is just
dripping and, and a level that you can't possibly imagine.
But here's the point, OK, here's the point.
Why? They're horrified that the
establishments horrified, the music industry's horrified.
They've tried to cancel these these types of artists and they
have been successful at doing that for the last couple of
decades. They're horrified that the
artists are starting to do what artists were meant to do, which
is to reflect what's going on in society, in the world, The
corporate structure, the music industry in collusion with
corporations, broadcasters, media, government, They've all
been successful in turning the so called music industry into a
basically a corporate conveyor belt of sort of low grade
disposable commodity products or music they call it.
So now they're freaking out. They're freaking out because
some artist is actually doing that, you know, and Nina Simone,
Nina Simone, a great, great artist, great singer, a legend.
She, she, she wrote the first protest song.
It was called Mississippi. Goddamn.
That was the first quote, viral protest song.
And a lot was going on in America at the time of the civil
rights movement, the Vietnam War, lots of things post World
War 2. You know, America was in serious
tumultuous times back then socially and economically and
and that that led that paved the way for Bob Dylan and all these
other sort of artist, Crosby Stills and Nash, conscious arts,
Buffalo Springfield, Woodstock, etcetera, etcetera.
And she said that is the job of the artist.
I saw an old interview of hers. I posted it on my ex account
said that's the job of artist. Artist must reflect what's
happening at that moment in the world.
That's what they're there for. But they've managed to crush
that. And then along comes these these
kind of guys with hoodies and, you know, wearing, you know,
knitted mask and whatnot and basically standing up for what
what the International Courts of Justice and what the
International Criminal Court and most UN member states are
calling a genocide right now in Gaza.
OK. They're all they're doing is
these are people that are working class kids standing up.
And guess what? The response is amazing.
The people are are responding to it because that's what the
people, that's what the people feel.
That's what the people believe. And the establishment doesn't
know what to do. They're at their wits end.
The whole facade is falling to pieces.
And so I think, I think this is a real important moment right
now. We're starting to see the
disintegration of this control structure, of this thought
structure. And I'll leave you, I'll leave
you with this. I was in the barbershop, old
barbershop in Plymouth, I think it was on Thursday, just a few
days ago. And you know, as you do, all the
guys are waiting on the sofa. There's three chairs running.
There's about 15 people in there and they always have Radio 1
blaring. You notice that always.
And at the salon as well and radio one's blaring and you
heard some music, it was some song or whatever.
And then they do these PS as these sort of vapid, kind of
anodyne PS as in the middle. And he said what would it was a
female voice, that really good RPBBC, female, middle aged,
trusted voice. He said.
What would it be like if conflict came to British shores?
It's not something people think about much.
Are you prepared? We'll be discussing this on
Radio 1, whatever the show was this afternoon.
What? When Britain, when war comes to
British shores. And Are you ready for that?
That's mainline BBC Radio. That's about as mainline as you
get, right? And I was just like, wow, wow,
we have arrived. Oceana is at war with East Asia.
Oceana has always been at war with East Asia, and I was just
that moment like who who wants to invade Britain?
It's is it the the French? Maybe I don't know.
Is it too? What is it?
The Dutch? Maybe, I don't know, but maybe
the Vikings, maybe it's the scant, the Norwegians don't
trust the Norwegians. We yeah, I'll wrap it up.
So so that that's something I think, you know, this is very
real. This is very real.
They're really going into hyperdrive on the psychological
operations. Thank you for that.
Yeah, we'll thank you. OK.
I will yield my time to the next speaker.
Thank you very much. Right.
I just wanted to finish off before we do take a couple of
questions. I just wanted to finish off with
a bit of good news, and that was somebody sent me that.
Well, Richard sent me this yesterday, an email saying that
he and some people had been out in Stroud yesterday and had in 3
1/4 hours distributed 400 light newspapers and that people were
accepting them with happily accepting them.
They weren't. OK.
I've just been told that was
misinformation. In fact, they were in
Cheltenham, right? So, so, so, so Richard is from
Stroud, but he was in Cheltenham.
OK. So let's just clarify that.
Thank you. Thank you, Charles.
OK. So unlike others, we do correct
our mistakes. OK.
So we'll leave it there. Anybody got any questions?
No questions. What a good job we've done.
OK, lady there. Hello, yeah here we go.
Not so much a question, just some information share for
everybody. I've only just learnt this
recently. You can't if if you opt out for
organ donation on the government websites, you also have to
submit your driving licence back to the DVLA because you've got
code 115 on your driving licence and it means you're
automatically going to donate your organs anyway.
So you have to send it back to the DVLA with a letter stating
that you want to be removed from the organ donation system and
they'll send you a new one. Thank you.
Can can I just respond to that one to say thank you for for
telling us that a classic example of how devious the
government is, right. But you've picked it up and this
is where when the backlash starts from the ground up, can
we now get pick a Figure 10 million people sending their
driving licences back. If we can do this, the system
shudders because they can't introduce the Soviet, as we're
going to call it, unless each and everyone of you acquiesce to
that system. So brilliant research.
Let's start the wave. I will be sending my driving
licence back because apparently when I switch from, hate to
mention this, from 69 to 70, I could only hold my driving
licence for three years before having to reapply.
So the government decides when you get to 69, what they're
actually telling you is that you're no longer capable.
That's what's happening. OK.
Another question. Yes.
So all these people that are coming over the border with no
border control, a lot of people in the UK don't really realise
it. So as activists, I mean, is that
what would you suggest we can do to highlight that that our
country is being invaded, that the border control is not there?
Is it? As it should be.
Well, I'm going to disagree. The borders control is there as
they want it to be. And it's it, right?
We go back to Peter Sutherland, who was the UN ambassador for
mass migration. He's died a couple of years ago,
a few years ago, but he was on public record as saying we need
more mass migration to break down the homogeneity of the
nation state, right? So the victims are everybody.
The victims are the migrants who get uprooted in their own
country. And most of them do look for a
better life and then the trafficking during their
migration streams and then they come into this country and that
creates all sorts of problems. I'll make a comment with Patrick
as well. You may not know this, but if
you are travelling from Holyhead to Dublin, you are required to
bring a passport because often they'll have passport control at
Dublin Port. If you're travelling from Dublin
to Holyhead, there's no such thing right now.
The Common Travel Area is something that existed before
the EU and whatnot between Britain and Ireland means that
that we are supposed to have freedom of travel, freedom to
work in in each other's jurisdictions and so on.
But that only applies in One Direction.
Apparently that's related to the EU, so just wanted to mention
that. And I want to just remind people
on this immigration issue, the biggest immigration flows into
Europe from sub Saharan Africa, via Libya, from Central Asia,
via Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, via from Syria, via Lesbos in
Greece. These are the biggest flows of
migrants into Europe in the last I would say and Albania and
Kosovo after that little war in the Balkans in 1999.
All of those are NATO military interventions.
Those are all a direct result of the foreign policy of Britain
and the European States and America.
All of the migrant flows, all of them so and you know, you have
Afghans in your community. Well, the people who are
protesting, those are the same people are saying support our
troops fighting the Taliban, 25 years of occupation in
Afghanistan. You can't have it both ways, so
you have to understand where that comes from.
If no one talks about the connection between foreign
policy, NATO membership and migrant flows much, don't expect
Nigel Farage to ever bring that up.
But that's the real conversation, that's the adult
conversation. They're having a childish
conversation to manipulate people, to get people scared, to
pit people against each other by race, religion.
That's what's actually going on. So we have the power to to
pressure your government, but you're you have to ask the right
questions. You have to ask the right
questions. I've I've been successful in
putting that point out to some European governments.
OK, it's possible, but you have to work at it.
If you're asking the wrong questions, you're not going to
get the right answers. Thank you.
OK. I'm fine.
So can I, Can I just add to that?
At the end of the day, the people who are in this country
are here. We have to work together to deal
with the people who created the problem in the 1st place.
This is critical and truth and exposure of what they're
actually doing is a really powerful weapon.
Talking about rubber boats does not talk about the issue because
the bulk of the people are coming in through approved
legislation and that was deliberate.
So don't focus on the strangers, focus on the people who created
the problem in the 1st place because we need to stick
together. OK.
Thank you very much. Well, ladies and gentlemen, it's
so great to have people like this because that can speak
actual common sense, so. Let's give it up the UK.
Column.