Good afternoon. It's Friday the 12th of
September 2025, just after 1:00 and welcome to UK Column News.
I'm your host, Mike Robinson. My Co host in the studio today
is Patrick Hennigsen. Welcome to the program, Patrick.
Great to be with you, Mike. And journalist Mark Anderson
joins us by video link from the United States.
Later in the program. Patrick and I are going to be
reporting on the fallout from the Charlie Kirk killing.
And Mark's going to cover the visit to the UK and particularly
Chatham House by Israeli President Herzog.
But we're going to begin today with, well, of course, who else
but Peter Mandelson, because everyone will.
As everyone will know by now, Peter Mandelson has been removed
as EU KS Ambassador to the United States.
And of course, we should remember this is the third time
he's been sacked from a government role.
So he was ambassador to the United States.
He is no more. It is all collapsed in a heap
now. The reason this time, according
to the Foreign Office, was that the release by the US House
Oversight Committee of a batch of emails revealed what they
called additional information that was materially different
from what was previously understood about Madelson's
relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
Well, have a look at that claim in a moment.
But in the meantime, Keir Starmer, of course, has
attempted to distance himself from the whole debacle.
But if we remember back at when Mandelson was appointed, the
statement from #10 was the fact the Prime Minister has chosen to
make a political appointment and sent Lord Madelson to Washington
shows how importantly we see our relationship with the Trump
administration. Could that be because they
recognize the the, the similar activities, the similar alleged
activities, we should say, between Madelson and Trump?
Yes, not the Trump administration.
Or is it the Epstein administration?
Well, good question, The statement at the time went on to
say we're sending someone close to the Prime Minister with
unrivalled political and policy experience, particularly on the
crucial issue of trade. He's the ideal candidate.
Is that the trade in children? Street trade, probably, but you
could be that, Mike. Ideal candidate to represent EU
KS economic and security interests in the United States.
And of course, if your security interests are guaranteed through
blackmail, then perhaps that is sort of.
I mean, these are all allegations.
Of course, we've got no evidence whatsoever.
I'm sure none of these dots connect Mike.
None. None.
Now let's come back to modern day and well, first of all, here
we have this Sky report. They called this a an exclusive
saying that security services had raised concerns around the
appointment of Mandelson, but #10 did not judge them serious
enough to block his path to becoming U.S. ambassador.
Now, the claim from the Starmer regime is that they were not
involved in the security vetting before Mandelson's appointment,
and his official spokesperson said that security vetting is
carried out by government departments and that these kinds
of roles are only filled subject to vetting checks being done.
They didn't say anything about vetting checks being passed,
just that the vetting checks have been done.
But getting back to the idea that this newly the newly
released emails provide any materially different
information, let's remember that in 2022, AJP Morgan report,
originally written in 2019, became public through court
documents for the first time. JP Morgan had written this
report because of their its relationship with Epstein.
Now, sadly, that report doesn't seem to be still available, but
it was cited in multiple media reports, for example, the
Guardian here. And they they quoted saying that
this internal report had found that Epstein appeared to
maintain a particularly close relationship with both Prince
Andrew and the Duke of York and at the time and Lord Peter
Mandelson, a senior member of the British government.
And they went on to say that Epstein wrote to his private
banker, Jeff Stanley on 17th of June 2009 in relation to
Mandelson say that Peter will be staying over at 71st over the
weekend. Do you want to organize either
you or you and Jimmy quietly Up to you.
So clearly the connections there were already pretty much public.
And I don't think that there was anything really in the latest
batch of emails that added aside aside from this statement that
that he considered Epstein his best pal, it didn't really come
bring any new information to the table.
So, Patrick, it seems pretty hard to to claim that that this
was materially different. I think, I think the thing
problem there, Mike, is the just daily trial, that whole case, I
mean, that was fleshed out to the federal courts, hugely
embarrassing. There was a massive payout also
as a result of that involving the banks as well and just
Staley himself somewhat implicated.
But to fact you throw Mandelson in there in the mix with Staley,
Epstein and all the things that were going on, reading those
emails is quite harrowing in retrospect.
I mean, what exactly are they talking about?
And the picture that shocked me the most is Epstein going out
shopping with Mandelson, you know, picking out belts and
cravat ties. I mean, when grown men go
shopping like this together, it's, it's not, it's not the
usual thing, you see, is it? I mean, it's so there is besides
having a close relationship, they seem to be more than
chummy. Let's just say or say very close
mates a good. They seem to be yes, although
Mileson, always released since this all came out for the last
couple of years has been complaining that he regrets ever
being introduced by Glenn Maxwell to Epstein.
But anyway. They all say that.
Yeah, I know that. But.
But look, yesterday someone asked me why, if Mandelson's
connections to Epstein were too hard to handle, is Trump, who
seems to be suffering the same kind of allegations, still
invited for a state visit when he seems to have questions to
answer on his connections to Epstein?
Well, let's just remind ourselves who Trump is coming to
see because, Oh yes, it's that man on screen there who allowed
Jeffrey Epstein to stay at Windsor Castle all those times.
Really. Yes.
Was that the same man that appointed ADJ to be his social?
Secretary, we're just, we're just indeed coming on to that.
Exactly. We've got exactly that, that
article from the Guardian. Jimmy Savile invited guests to
royal party on Prince Charles behalf.
Yes, exactly that guy. And of course, we should point
out that Mandelson wasn't sacked because Starmer thought he
deserved it. And why do we say that?
Well, in fact, many believe that Starmer himself has still many
questions to answer over the cover up of Savile.
So if we take that little grouping there of of Savile and
King Charles and Starmer and Epstein and Mandelson, could it
be that they're all part of the same club?
Well, you know, one might ask that question and the other
thing you said it was third time he's been sacked.
Yes. So he has been sacked multiple
times. So if you get sacked from your
post more than once is do you get rewarded with a lordship, a
peerage? Of course, yeah.
Is that how it works? That's.
Exactly how I was. Always confused about the
qualification process, but thank you for clearing that.
Up. Yeah, absolutely.
Now, of course, Starmer could still under pressure over this.
But before we get all smug that Starmer could fall, let's just
remind ourselves who the new Deputy Prime Minister right now
And well, maybe the grass isn't greener on the other side in
that case. But anyway, Patrick, let's let's
move on to international affairs.
And we did. We met, although we mentioned it
in passing on Wednesday's program, we didn't go into any
detail on the Israeli attack in Qatar.
Well, this is, I think, I think this is changing the game
slightly. Here, we'll bring this headline
up on screen here. The UN Security Council now kind
of in turmoil in the sense of members are condemning Israel
over their deadly strike on Qatar.
So the Israelis have attacked Qatar, trying to assassinate the
Hamas political delegation. The ones who are negotiating or
in negotiations with intermediaries with Israel over
lots of things like ceasefires and the release of the Israeli
hostages. Also the release of the
Palestinian hostages, which they don't talk about 'cause there's
9000 of those. That's not a popular topic in
America, but this is the pattern, Mike.
We've seen this with everything with the United States and the
US would would have probably provided or been involved in the
loop on the intelligence loop on this.
OK, negotiations are taking place high level with Ukraine.
This happened with Ukraine, whether it is Istanbul, huge
sneak attack against Russia, the same with Iran, why the Iranians
were in the within Oman negotiating a potential, you
know, impasse with the nuclear deal, a sneak attack by Israel
against the Iranians. And here we have again
negotiations with Israel and Hamas and they tried to
assassinate the counterparty. So this, this is how I mean, who
would want to go into negotiations with the US or
Israel at this point? Because it really you will be
attacked or they'll try to take out whoever they're negotiating
with across the table. I mean, this is basically what,
what's going on here. The, the, the Trump, the, the
Trump statement here. This, I mean, I'll just quickly
read a few sentences of this this morning.
The Trump administration was notified by the US military that
Israel was attacking Hamas in Qatar, which very unfortunately
was located in the section of Doha, the capital city of Qatar.
This decision was made by promised Netanyahu.
It was not a decision made by me unilaterally bombing inside
Qatar, sovereign nation, close ally. the United States is
working very hard and bravely taking risks with us to broker
peace does not advance the Israel or American goals.
And and he goes on, he's talking about Steve Witkoff here working
hard and so forth. And then it's embarrassed.
No condemnation. It's it's it's total
humiliation. The only thing missing from this
picture is, you know, a GIMP suit.
Quite frankly, this is just for America.
This is total humiliation. This is Trump getting down on
his knees and totally prostrating himself at the altar
of the Israeli lobby. I mean, it is really
humiliating. I don't know how much more of
this the president can do, but clearly, he's not in charge if
he was. So look at the we'll play this
news clip here. This is from one of the Qatari
foreign ministers here talking to CNN.
This will tell you basically where we're at on this issue.
You don't we. Oh, sorry about that.
Let's try again. This is theater.
That's that's what they call it. Honestly, I have almost to
express he needs to be brought to justice.
He's the one who's wanted to the ISIS.
That's number one. So I think that someone like him
trying to lecture the war about the law, he's he's breaking
every law he's breaking. He broke every international
law. He's a starving people in
Russia. He's doing all these rogue
actions in the entire region. What's next?
What's next for him? I mean, I honestly, I have no
words to express how rage we are from such an if you could just
run. And I say to Qatar and all
nations who harbor terrorists, you either expel them or you
bring them to justice, because if you don't, we will.
I mean, set it right there, right.
So no one to negotiate with. Basically we're going to kill
anybody. Any potential leader we'll kill
or imprison. So there'll be negotiation.
So that's where things are at. I think this is really, I didn't
think there could be an all time low Mike, but they've they've
outdone themselves, the Israelis on this.
Well, in the meantime then, of course, we mentioned this on
Wednesday, but this claim of drone strikes by Russia and
within Polish sovereign territory.
And a a major crisis for NATO. Everyone's screaming Article 5
on this. Let's but let's, we did a little
investigation on this MIC and I think we we have a pretty good
idea of where things are at. Let's take a look at this
Poland, the downed drones. So the accusation is that Russia
was flying drones into Polish territory.
But what really happened? Let's take a closer look here.
I think we're going to get some answers.
So Warsaw has asked is Poland has asked for formal
consultations with other NATO states under Article 4.
That's prior to Article 5. You go into Article 4
consultations here. The drones allegedly arrived
from Belarusian airspace rather than Ukrainian airspace.
That is a confirmed fact. So that's an interesting detail
that you don't read much, or at least it's not made prominent in
the Western media here. And Poland has yet to show any
evidence via official state agencies to prove that the
drones were identified as Russian.
So that is still yet to happen. There have been images put out
in the media, including The Associated Press image we have
in the background, which we showed at the beginning when we
showed the initial image. So that's something that has yet
to come. But here's the here's where
we're at. This is the important part.
Russian forces have successfully hit multiple arms production
facilities in western Ukraine. That's kind of what this is
about. Russia has extended their
targeting to the West of Ukraine, and it's causing huge
problems at NATO headquarters because they don't know what to
do before they managed to avoid this.
This is all part of the plan for Ukraine here.
So let's take a look at where we might be able to get some other
answers on this and take a look here.
Well, this is what the great and the goods say.
Here are the reactions from Europe.
Mike Kaliakalis, whether it was intentional or not is absolutely
reckless. This is absolutely dangerous
here. Mark Rutte whether it was
intentional or not, it's absolutely reckless.
It's dangerous. They're basically saying the
same thing, reckless and unprecedented violent violation
of Polish airspace's Vanderline. That picture is very strange of
Starmer and Zelensky and Macron. I just want to say on on the off
there, Russia conducted an egregious and unprecedented
violation of the Polish airspace, almost identical
statements from everybody. And Macron weighs in.
Russia must put an end to this reckless escalation here.
So the rapid response mechanism has been has been invoked here,
but well, we'll get some answers.
Let's go to Belarus. Let's talk to the Belarusian
MOD. And I think they know what's
happening. Minx has claimed credit for
giving the Polish military an early warning about incoming
drones. That's an important detail.
You didn't read that in on the CNN report, I can assure you.
Oh, and it gets better. Belarus were tracking Russian
and Ukrainian drones used for mutual strikes overnight,
confirming that some of them had lost their track as a result of
the impact of the party's electronic warfare assets.
So jamming, BPS, jamming has thrown some of the drones off.
Wouldn't be the first time that's happened here.
And the Belarusian warning allowed the Polish state to
respond promptly to the threat. And the general noted here, this
was one of the spokespeople from Belarus, adding that the Polish
side had also informed Belarusian forces on duty about
the approach of unidentified aircraft from the territory of
Ukraine. Another important detail which
was left out of Western coverage here.
And their Belarusian air fences shot down some of the stray
aircraft. That's another new revelation
here from this. And just so people can see,
that's the map there. You can see how closely this
tri-state, Tri national border area is.
And this is the the site there right over the Belarusian border
very close to Ukraine as well. So it's completely plausible,
Mike, here, by the way, the Polish shut down to two or three
major airports as a result of this.
But it's perfectly plausible as we found out, you remember in
November 2022 when there was stray anti aircraft missiles
that fell into Polish territory. The press immediately ran with
it and said it was a Russian missile attack, nearly came to
some kind of an Article 5 crisis.
And all sudden we find out that that didn't happen and the whole
thing was de escalated. I think we're seeing some of the
same things here. But what's important is they're
panicking because Russia has moved up, stepped up their
attacks against arms manufacturing facilities in
western Ukraine. That's really what this is
about. And yes, yeah, OK, OK.
Well, sticking on this topic, we want to let everybody know
because it's fantastic news, that the Starmer regime has done
a deal, sorry, with the United States for what they describe as
closer defence ties. Now this they're saying British
government is saying that working people will be more
secure. As the UK Armed Forces prepare
for the new era of threats with a major deal with Google Cloud
for the latest security technology strengthening
collaboration between the UK and the United States, The language
that they use is absolutely fascinating, they go on to say.
The partnership means that the latest technology developed by
Google Cloud, including AI, data analytics and cybersecurity,
were used by Defence Intelligence national security
specialists to share secure information between our partners
and out compete our adversaries. So this is a £400 million
contract. It's going to deliver what they
claim to be a key recommendation from the Strategic Defence
Review for a digital integrated service.
It's going to provide resilient and secure networks.
And John Healy said that today's investment shows how Defence is
an engine for growth, supporting highly skilled UK jobs in
Vibrant British tech startup ecosystem.
So this once again is being justified that jobs are are
going to be created as a result of the war narrative.
But unfortunately, people got a an early sight of this.
But let's head over to the United States because I want to
very briefly get your thoughts on this, Patrick.
And that was the news that Donald Trump has issued yet
another executive order. This was and he began by saying
this in his executive order on August the 7th.
Seventeen, 89236 years ago, President George Washington
signed into law a bill establishing the United States
Department of War to oversee the operation and maintenance of
military and naval affairs. He went on to say the name
Department of War, more than the current Department of Defence,
ensures peace through strength as it demonstrates our ability
and willingness to fight and win wars on behalf of our nation at
a moment's notice, not just to defend.
And he went on in the executive order to say, I've therefore
determined that this department should once again be known as
the Department of War and the secretary should be known as the
Secretary of War. I don't know what your thoughts
are. I mean, I don't know what your
thoughts are on that. It's it's very clear that they
have moved from a purely defensive footing onto an
aggressive offensive footing. But not it just rhetorically
offensive that's taking us back 150 years.
So this is this is classic reventionism.
Basically, we need to get back to the glory years.
We need to go to the golden age. This is classic is a
reactionary, political reactionary and fascist.
Language this is these are fascist proclivities.
It's just blows my mind like the thing they accused Trump of all
those years with Trump Derangement syndrome.
He was a fascist before he was actually doing fascism.
He's now actually doing he's actually now doing fascism and
the left is just paralytic. They, they, they're not
responding or not responding any coherent way.
I think they've just shot all of their rounds on fake scandals
during the Russia gate period and now you have a real problem,
right? I think why would you name it
the Department of War if you weren't planning for war?
Simple question. Very good question.
But anyway, coming back to the UK then for a second and the
Starmer regime has officially stood up the Cyber and Special
Operations Command to be led by this man, Sir Jim Hockenhill.
Hockenhall, sorry, he gave a keynote speech to the Defence
and Security Equipment International 2025 conference a
couple of days ago and he said that last week on behalf of the
Secretary of State for Defence and the Chief of the Defence
Staff, we officially stood up the Cyber and specialist
Operations Commander today. I want to set out the
implications of what that change brings.
So what are the implications? Well, this is yet another regime
agency to deal with this information.
He made that point very clearly, which he claims is used as a
weapon, eroding cohesion, a cohesion at home and sowing
doubt abroad. But that's not the only thing.
The mission of this new agency is to generate and operate
specialist capabilities ready to fight across all domains, they
say, to make the United Kings secure at home and strong
abroad. So this is the integrated
operating concept that we've been talking about so much over
the last few years since the previous defence review.
So this is it in action. Home is as much a theatre for
operations for these people as abroad is, and therefore the
British people are viewed by this government as much of an
enemy as the Taliban is, and this is really an unprecedented,
unprecedented situation. A war on free speech.
A war on opinions, A war on points of view.
Anything that could be labeled as, quote, Russian
disinformation or the viewpoint of the enemy.
You know what happened to the, the remember those great green
jobs all those years? Those have been replaced with
great defence jobs or Great War jobs if you're in America.
Well, if you're in Britain as well, although we haven't
overtly said it yet, but Mark, let me welcome you to the
program and back in the staying in the UK for a second.
And well, we had a visitor this week, the President of Israel,
indeed. Good day, gentlemen.
I, I was putting my other news together and I got on Chatham
House's mailing list recently to make sure I don't miss anything.
And of course, Israeli President Isaac Herzog spoke to the Royal
Institute of International Affairs, AKA Chatham House,
September 10th. And it was interesting as I
started watching the video, he was interviewed by the Chatham
House director, Bronwyn Maddox. And, you know, you normally
think of these globalist organizations and we're and
we're rightly suspicious of many of their machinations.
You normally think of them as more or less pro Israel.
But as we've seen in other avenues, at other think tanks
now, Chatham House has taken a little bit more of a questioning
approach to the Israeli machine. And this video we're about to
show shows that there's considerable skepticism of the
Israeli point of view on Gaza and related matters.
Well, let's go ahead and watch this.
It's quite revealing as well. Struck Qatar hoping to kill the
Hamas leaders, but they're there with US knowledge and
endorsement and are the negotiators for a potential
ceasefire. So should we conclude that
Israel does not want such a ceasefire?
What Israel wants most is to bring back the hostages and the
key to changing the entire Vista of the region and the future of
the region and getting out of this horrific situation which
we've endured for the last two years is getting the hostages
back home. Today, two hostages.
These are Gali and Ziff Berman, two brothers, 28 year old,
they're from Kibbutz Farazza. They this is a picture of them
touring Britain and they are wonderful, wonderful brothers
who have been abducted and kidnapped and their fate is
unclear since October 7th, so many countries, many, many
countries. President Herzog have called for
the release of the hostages for Hamas to return them.
But the hostage families seem dismayed by this attack on
Qatar, saying that Israel is destroying the negotiations that
might have brought a ceasefire. So let's speak about the
negotiations to bring back the hostages.
Israel has accepted every proposal and almost for the last
year or so, every proposal that was laid down by the mediators.
Israel has accepted the the whole notion that was led by the
United States, including with other other parties, meaning the
Qataris and the Egyptians. And then we were faced time and
time again with either a refusal or endless procrastination by
Hamas, for example, in the last few months.
You're probably going to ask me also about the humanitarian
situation because the way as it happens, I am, but I have to
answer because of the the Hamas's feeling that they had
the upper hand publicly in their image wall.
They decided not to move on any proposal.
As you can see, Mr. Herzog was put on the grill pretty, pretty
well at at least in terms of Chatham House being more
aggressive than they normally would be to get some information
out of him. Of course, his his statements
that Israel has been right on, right on top of this, you know,
trying to honor all the agreements and that it's
blameless are, are just not believable statements
whatsoever. And but it's good to see this
coming from the Royal Institute. I also just got this information
that Chatham House is continuing an intensified focus on the
Israeli Palestinian conflict with its long standing Middle
East program, as Chatham House is calling it.
And it talks about they've hosted Mr. Herzog and they've
hosted Yasi Bailin, Hussam Zamlot and other relevant
Israeli officials and mainly Israeli officials anyway.
And these engagements, they say at Chatham House reflect our
core purpose to support informed debate.
And Branwyn Maddox, the lady that we just saw is coming out
in favor of Palestinians, Palestinian statehood, she's
saying in the official Chatham House statements.
So these are some interesting developments.
Maybe you guys want to comment from here.
But this just happened and it was very important to get this
out there. Thank you.
Mark, what are your thoughts? Well, Isaac Herzog is really the
chief propagandist of the Israel.
They push him out to push all of the crazy stuff.
He's that's his, that's basically his job.
It's, it's a, it's a not a very powerful position in the Israeli
political government, but he has been tasked with basically
pushing most crazy stories and propaganda ever since October
7th. So it's no no surprise seeing
him squirm in his chair there when asked some really basic
questions. He was too much for him.
But what's Craig Murray been up to?
Well, he was protesting the the arrival of Isaac Herzog and the
fact that he was meeting I think probably with the British Prime
Minister Keir Starmer. We got some some video of this
actually. Take a look.
Murray heckling the motorcade of the Israeli president here.
And in his own defense, Craig basically comments here.
Hertzog is in the blue Range Rover.
Somebody kindly caught this video of me at Chatham House and
put it out on Instagram. I am normally such a mild
mannered person, says Craig Murray.
And he is a very mild mannered gentleman, Craig Murray.
So to get Craig out basically haranguing visiting heads of
state, I mean, that really takes something.
But those are the times we live in.
Indeed. OK, let's move on.
If you like what the UK column does, you'd like to support us.
We do need your ongoing support and thank you very much to
everybody that is contributing in some way.
If you would like to help us, there is a link on the front
page of the website which will take you to a page that gives
you all the various options for how you can help.
If you can't help us financially, please do share our
material because of course your help to get around the
censorship regime is vital as well.
We need to say a massive thank you to everybody who's bought
tickets for York because of course, that is now sold out.
So no more tickets, physical tickets available, although
there might be 1 comes on. So we'll let you, we'll let you
know about that. There may be 1 new ticket
available very, very soon, but if you aren't able to get there
physically, then please do consider joining us on the live
stream. Those tickets are available now
and it's going to be a fantastic day.
You're not going to miss anything if you join us on the
live stream. So if you possibly can, please
do. OK, Let's move on then to the
situation in the United States over the last couple of days
with Charlie Kirk, because, well, obviously his body has now
been brought home and well, apparently with full state
honours to some degree, Patrick, because, well, who's that at the
front of the coffin there? It's like the vice president, JD
Vance it. Is indeed so he's he was very
keen to be seen at the front of the coffin putting it on,
helping to load it onto the plane.
And. But what I'm particularly
concerned about really is the rhetoric that's coming out
around this. But before we get on to that,
let's just look at some of the BBC coverage of this.
So the shootings there, there had been two previous suspects
which were who were considered persons of interest by the FBI,
but have been released again, there's now this new video has
appeared and new photographs have appeared.
So here's the BBC footage of it. And I just wanted to to look at
some of the photographs here. So there's there's one of them,
the most recent images released in search for the gunman.
There's another one. There's a third one.
There seems to be something missing there.
Patrick, can you see what it is? Well, beside the fact that the
images they've chosen don't have the face in it, I'm sure there's
plenty of other images that have the face.
They they're not showing the face.
That's one thing I noticed. But there's another thing.
If this is the shooter, wouldn't he be carrying the weapon?
Well, indeed so. So there doesn't seem to be a
gun. And this is this is very
strange. Even in the video clip that they
released of of someone in black jumping off the roof of the
building and running across the street towards the little wooded
area where allegedly the firearm was found.
Doesn't seem to be carrying a firearm.
He seemed to be carrying the backpack that that you that we
saw on on that image there, but he didn't seem to be carrying a
firearm. So it could be very confusing.
It could be in the backpack. It could if it was a multi piece
disassembly. Which it wasn't.
It wasn't.
That's the only option I can think of there.
Otherwise, it's a big gaping hole in the story.
Well, it seems to me at the moment, but in the meantime, the
thing that really struck me was the language being used on
social media. So let's just look at some of
the examples of it. This is somebody saying
Philadelphia school teacher on the left.
I need my my detectives to find out who this scumbag is and get
him fired because the guy is wearing AT shirt that says is he
dead yet? Now whether that is a legitimate
photograph or not, I don't know. But the but the, the, the point
here is the, the vitriol that is coming out from people that are
pro Charlie Kirk and people that are clearly anti Charlie Kirk.
It's just off the charts. If we move on here, another
scumbag here talking about Florida Democrat Steve Cody
marks Charlie Kirk's death. There's I saw a huge amount of
mocking of the thing. There's no question that that
was going on. It's the way that people are
being radicalized here, which I think is of major concern.
The patriots and tick Tock are old are taking all scumbag
Democrats on tick tick tock down.
So we got to start to see stronger language here taking
people down. And then we see the scumbag.
Sorry, we're surrounded by pure evil.
This scumbag is laughing and celebrating the assassination of
Charlie Cook Kirk. Sorry, we're at war and whether
we like it or not. So we're now getting the war
narrative here. But it's not just people on
social media that are using very, very strong language.
And in fact, a, a, a well known voice in the alternative media
scene in the UK is speaking out against one particular person in
the United States, and that is David Icke talking about Alex
Jones and really being quite critical of Alex Jones's
coverage. This just one, this is his pen
tweet today. David Icke's pen tweet today
featuring one of Alex Jones tweets, but this one is quite
stronger. You know, alternative media RIP
is what David Icke is saying. So look, I just wanted to to
very briefly, Patrick, play a little bit of some of what Alex
Jones has been saying in the last day or two and just have a
listen to this and then we can have a chat about it.
The Democrats just killed Charlie Kirk today.
They're desperate. They're losing.
They want to intimidate you and me and everybody else.
And the left is everywhere celebrating him.
They're so happy. They had witches in groups
cursing him in the week before. They had people in Utah
releasing a song a month ago about killing him.
We'll get to all of that. But the reason it's a shot heard
around the world is he came out a few days ago with the murder
of the Ukrainian 23 year old refugee and the left trying to
cover up. It was racially motivated.
The killer says. I got that white girl and they
said he's the bad guy, he's the fascist, he's Hitler.
So Charlie Kirk will live forever and God bless his family
and everything he's done. But the left everywhere,
literally celebrating this just shows you how sick these people
are. They want you dead because
you're not a Satanist, you're not a pedophile, you're not a
globalist, and they're not going to stop.
So you can't roll over the political correctness.
You can't hope they just go away.
You've got to stand up against them culturally, economically,
spiritually. Right now, he went on to then
say people need to stand for office to counteract the left.
But the, the, the language that's being used here, call it
basically blanket calling all, everybody on the left, Satanists
and paedophiles, that they're all out to kill anybody on the
right. This is really dangerous
language in my opinion. And you know, all that is going
to do is drive people further and further to the extremes.
You know, I, I think in the UK and the United States in
particular at the moment, we're seeing a massive effort to pit
people against each other, Patrick, to the point of
significant violence. And I think that that it's a
really dangerous situation, situation at the building.
It is no matter what you think about the Charlie Kirk's
killing, which you know is disgraceful in and of itself.
Well, first of all, the, the, you know, the, the accusation
from the right and from Alex Jones is that the left is
radicalized, woke ISM is out of control, but they are themselves
radicalizing. The reaction to woke ISM, anti
woke ISM has become radicalized and Alex is dog whistling to go
out and fight and then he's saying, but do it peacefully,
you know, kind of thing. But he is obviously dog
whistling there. So they they're both sides have
been radicalized and this is not by accident.
And the right is basically claiming to be the victim.
They're so they're trying to repurpose these events.
We'll talk about the Ukrainian refugee stabbing in a moment.
But when you look at this is interesting because, you know,
whatever, whatever you, there's no proof that the left is behind
the shooting. And a lot of the accounts that
are gloating that you showed about Charlie Kirk's death are
anonymous accounts. The biggest, some of the biggest
anonymous accounts on X. These are people that are so
cowardly they can't even put their name on their account.
And then they're the ones rallying up and amping up.
And Elon also boosts some of these accounts as well if they
happen to agree with with Elon as well.
So. Can I, can I just make a point
on this briefly because, you know, Alex Jones has lost
significantly because of his claims about a certain shooter
event, school shooting event, Sandy Hook, right?
In which where he was saying that the story from the
mainstream press and from the FBI and so on was fake.
In this case, if if a story comes out saying that the left
was responsible or a representative of somebody who
considered themselves on the left or.
Trans shooter or something? Right.
If that, if that is the statement from the FBI or from
the mainstream press, what will Alex Jones say at that point?
Will he will he say that that's also fake, or will he say that
that's real? Well, the trend on the right is
they'll go with whatever story happens to align with their own
political bent on this. So they would he would say that
the official story is true. So again, it's it's baffling
that people that, you know, like know about false flag attacks,
who pioneered educating people on false flag attacks will then
jump to a run with a political narrative that's basically, you
know, incendiary. So let's let's just look at some
of them, the media coverage on this mic, because I think it's
interesting here, we'll bring this up on screen.
This is the blaze, the whole front page, It's Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk. This is at least 20 or 30
stories. This is Glenn Beck's media
outlet here. Charlie, why the Charlie Kirk
assassination will change us in ways this generation has never
seen. How on earth can you make such a
statement when you don't even know who the shooter is yet?
OK. And so and on and on it goes.
And this is a little more radical here.
We'll look at this from the California Globe.
It's a conservative website, or at least the writer is by the
looks of it. Charlie Kirk will blow this
headline up here. Look at what this says a little
bit little bit bigger there. Charlie Kirk has fallen a martyr
for American patriotism. Well, we don't know why he's
fallen. We don't know who shot him.
That's those are important details, right?
You'd want to know who the murderer is, what the motivation
is. Then you can work out whether
he, you know, fell for American values or not.
So I mean, these are just typical reactions here.
But the the main point Mike here is that what is that what is
going to be the state reaction to this?
What, when you're weaponizing all of these left, right and
political polarizing angles on this, which everybody is doing
OK, The state and the security state have moved in very
aggressively on this. So this is Aaron Cohen, who is
on Fox all the time, is security expert, who I think is an
Israeli. As well, and this is his
reaction, of course, he's on full rotation on Fox pushing
basically this watch. Cameras part part of your your
whole gig, Aaron Cohen, is to make sure that you know what's
going on here. Could this guy be profiled?
What's the next step for investigators looking at this?
Well, so there's there's, there's very good technical
tools that have fallen into local law enforcement's lab.
There's flock systems for cameras which allow license
plates to be read. I'm sure that the Provo Police
Department. Who?
I I recently spoke to about Gideon not long ago Trace.
We kicked him out an alert. I guaranteed them and I actually
made contact with them quietly to let them know that we were.
Going to be ramping. Up the system for any additional
attacks or copycat attacks out there and shot that out to 20
more agencies who are on the pilot.
So there's a flock system which allows.
Those those cameras are essentially placed around
counties and around cities. They can read license plates.
They don't monitor people's name and personal information like
they just they literally will get you a license plate.
So if this individual jumped into.
A car, which he likely did, that'll get dropped into the
investigation. Once they get a make on that, if
possible, they can then start picking cell phone towers to try
and track down cell phones that'll get thrown into the mix
as they start closing in on the investigation.
But really, I think the biggest concern now is hunting down this
shooter. Could be a collapsed AR, could
have other pistols and weapons, could be, who knows, getting
this guy in handcuffs and arrested.
Everything else will fall into place afterwards.
But there's an active threat out there and he needs to be.
So he's not being correct there. Israel does gather personal data
and attach it to a facial recognition.
And they're using this, they're pioneering this in Gaza against
for, for killing civilians, basically.
So there's the Israeli security experts.
So they're going to all these Israeli experts on U.S. media to
to empower the state, the Trump administration to crack down on,
you know, potential threats, potential threats.
So where's this going to end? Well, here's Marco Rubio, take a
look at this. So in Thomas Fassie, great
journalist here in in Italy, this is how it starts, the new
Patriot Act breaking Marco Rubio's State Department will
ban any foreigner from entering the United States who, quote,
celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk on social media
using AI tools, presumably. And this was announced and
confirmed there. So I mean, you, you do get these
sort of reactions as a result of what's happening.
And I don't know where exactly this is going to head in in the
long run, but let's take a look at what rallies are looking like
and will continue to look like. Look at the security perimeters
around political events now in the United States.
And again, we see a lot of this as well.
But inside you basically what's this is it's this is hardening
the echo chamber politically. And this is what's happening.
The polarization in America is increasing.
Trump rallies are sort of resembling sort of cult kind of
evangelical revivals. And people are becoming more and
more balkanized in their political corners here.
And, you know, I look at a film like V for Vendetta in 2005.
And just coincidentally, they they merged the cross of Saint
George there with, I think a Norse symbol as well.
And this was the party of the Lord Chancellor there and V for
Vendetta. But you know, you look at those
science fiction depictions of the future and I have to ask
legitimately, you know, we're not far off actually, if you
look at some of the the symbolism that's going on around
this. And this was and V for Vendetta,
that was a race based party. I think it was Norse Fire was
the name of the party, of course, famously played by I
think it was John Hurt. I believe the actor.
I can't remember. I think it was who was in 1980,
Orwell's 1984, Yes, right. So, but but here's the other
question. This was clearly a professional
hit. I cannot look at this event with
Charlie Kirk, Mike and say this is not a professional hit from a
distance. Sneaks onto a roof, long range
rifle, perfect shot hitting the artery on the side of the neck.
I mean, in that same Israeli security expert we had on Aaron
Cohen, he was in the segment before that.
We didn't have time to show it saying he got lucky, the shooter
got lucky. Nothing to see here.
He was just probably a radical leftist or what.
I don't know what the explanation on Fox was, but
that's basically his shtick. But this was a professional hit.
They don't have the shooter. He didn't post the manifesto on
4 Chan. So.
So if it was a professional hit, who hires professional hitmen?
State actors, governments, which government and state actor has
logged in the most amount of political assassinations in the
last few years? It has to be Israel.
So here's James Lee, who is a major influencer on social
media. And he reminds us of this
pattern, this change in Charlie Kirk's rhetoric just over the
last two months and what that might mean in terms of could
Charlie Kirk have fallen foul with powers well above even his
pay grade? Listen to this.
This is a source that I trust very much, and this is coming
from the top levels of government.
And they were having dinner with people, senators in the Senate
Foreign Intelligence Committee. They are not openly saying this
at this point, of course not. But in private conversation,
they're saying, hey, this looks like potentially Israel is
behind this. Wow.
And then in terms of getting to the actual evidence itself, a
very close friend of Charlie Kirk's put put out there.
Charlie didn't want to put out this tweet himself, but he told
a friend to put it out on the Internet and said, hey, if I go
against Israel, I think they will kill me.
And when, when did he say this? This was August 13th, so less
than a month ago. I can see Charlie over the last
few months sort of taking new information and have his mind
shift a little bit, right? He used to be an Israeli
loyalist. Then he starts to sort of mildly
criticize Israel and that, hey, I don't think, you know, we
shouldn't be allowed as an American to question the acts of
the foreign government. I have text messages, Megan,
calling me an anti Semite. I have less ability sometimes
online to criticize the Israeli government about backlash than
actual Israelis do. And that's really, really weird,
isn't it, Megan? And he publicly said hey, maybe
Epstein was Mossad. He certainly had a lot of
connections to Israeli ex prime ministers.
And there's also this clip where he questions how October 7th
happened. Was there a stand down order?
Six hours? I don't believe it.
Israel's the size of New Jersey when I took a helicopter ride
from Jerusalem to the Gaza border.
It's 45. Minutes.
Six hours. They're live streaming the
killing of Jews. Was that somebody in the
government say stand up? That is a legitimate non
conspiracy question. I mean, this is a big problem
for Israel. Charlie Kirk was maybe the most
influential figure on the right, especially with people under the
age of. 30. And when you start to have
somebody that influential as a conservative is say, hey, we
need to maybe reassess this relationship, there's something
weird going on. This is a warning to people in
the media to say, hey, you need to stop this right now because
you could be next. So Charlie Kirk is one of the
most influential conservative for the for the 18 to 40 age
group, probably one of the most influential conservative voices
or advocates in the country. So for him to change path even a
little bit on the Israel issue, on the Gaza issue is huge.
And then this happens and Netanyahu takes advantage, Rabbi
Shmuley takes advantage. They're all basically drifting
off the back of this tragedy, OK?
And that in itself is strange. OK, but but let's just finish
this off then with with this question of the Ukrainian girl
and and the murder of the Ukrainian girl.
And was that actually a race related incident?
Well, this this was earlier, just a few days before.
And then this happens. Fatal stabbing of a of a
Ukrainian refugee blonde, good looking white as as as she's
been portrayed by the right wing media and she was killed by this
black man in North Carolina on a train.
Clearly this person had mental issues like so many other people
who do random killings on the street.
But immediately it got branded by the media on the right wing
media as a racially motivated. I think even Alex Jones said it
was racially motivated According to him.
But we don't know that for certain.
But then there's the federal reaction here.
We'll bring this up on screen. He's going to be charged much
with the federal crime. So this plays into the troops on
the street using federal assets for law enforcement here because
it was on a mass transit thing being charged with the federal
crime. And then we'll go back to that
original video. Yeah, this one.
And so how how the right wing media is totally trying to spin
up a race, a race war on the back of this watch.
But because it's race related and it makes white people look
bad, it's got a lead. If it leads, it bleeds.
If it bleeds, it leads. If a black bleeds, it leads.
I didn't want that same. Energy all the way around.
Then if we, if we must talk about it, I want that same
energy all the way around. So these are the same people
that lost their minds over George Floyd, pushing that
narrative like it was a. Lynching when the facts scream
suicide. But they have.
When the facts claim suicide, there was no suicide with the
George Floyd thing anyway. We'll put that aside.
But that was a typical podcaster in America basically saying,
well, if if what they did during George Floyd by making it about
race is wrong, then we're going to be wrong and make it about
race. SO2 wrongs don't make a right.
Now I covered the George Floyd story in depth.
We also shared some of that on this program at the time there,
there there was no evidence of any racial motivation by Derek
Chauvin. It didn't come up in the trial,
The prosecution didn't. None of that stuck.
So there was nothing there. And likewise here, what we have
is a clearly a mentally ill psychotic person who has
randomly killed this Ukrainian refugee and it's been
immediately branded as a as a race incident to stoke up a race
war. Everybody in the media is so
anxious to pit white against black, Christian against Muslim.
They just won't stop until they see blood on the streets.
That's my the only conclusion I can make here.
You if it's not about race with George Floyd, because there's no
evidence. There's no evidence that it is
here. Not any real evidence,
compelling evidence. Why can't it just be a crime?
Why can't it just be a murder? Why do we have to attach race to
it or religion? Because we're being plagued.
Yeah, and, and that's the problem.
And that's the thing people really need to step back and
take a deep breath about. And the other thing is with
Charlie Kirk, Last thing I'll say, Mike, it's important.
You know, I, even though I disagree with Charlie Kirk,
especially on the issue of Gaza and some of the crazy things
Charlie Kirk has said over the years, it's not, it's not
permissible or it's it to to, you know, shoot or try to kill
somebody you disagree politically with.
And that goes for all the radical leftist as well.
And that also goes for the people on the right with their
political enemies. I mean, we cannot get to a point
in society where we cannot have a political conversation that
must be settled at the barrel of the gun or the end of a fist.
We're very, very close to being at that point.
And we're being pushed towards that point and, and you people
need to step back and think, are you being pushed to that point?
And if so, do you know who's pushing you?
It's an important question. You got to stop, pause and think
about that. Mark, let's come back on to the
issue then of American troops potentially being deployed
domestically and what's your thoughts on this and whether
that actually has any support within the American population?
Well, the the background to this is very important in the
immediate wake of the Civil War. It really wasn't a civil war in
the strict sense, but what they call the War between the States.
The north, of course, were the victors, and during
Reconstruction federal troops were used in ways that were more
along the lines of policing functions and there were
considerable abuses. So in 1878, the Posse Comitatus
Act was drafted to limit, at least limit the use of the army
in domestic law enforcement. And now the Chicago Council on
Global Affairs, which I watch pretty closely along with
Chatham House CFR, they're birds of a feather.
They came out with a September 4th survey here that we can show
that on the screen Americans oppose overall, they're saying
domestic use of U.S. troops. And we can go on from there and
show the subsequent slides. They're very brief.
These are some recent headlines I showed last week when I
touched on this issue. Axios reported that there was a
federal ruling that could restrict Trump on potential San
Francisco troop deployment. And Chicago Tribune reported As
Trump threatens more Guard troops in U.S. cities, including
Chicago and Baltimore. Here's what the law allows.
And this next one gives a very brief summation of what this is
about. Recent weeks.
This is from the Chicago Council survey.
Recent weeks have seen an escalation in the use of troops
for domestic operations to a degree not seen in recent memory
in DC. President Trump has commissioned
DC's police, deployed immigration agents and asked
states to lend their National Guard forces to the nation's
capital, urging a crime crackdown.
I abridge this text a little bit, and then I emphasized here
whether U.S. troops should be used domestically has gone from
a theoretical question to a practical one.
Quote, UN quote. And that's according to some of
the narrative in this Chicago Council survey.
From there, this is 1 slide. I only used one graph here and I
can explain it. Let's put that up.
The the top one is those who favor it.
And of all those surveyed, 29% favor using U.S. troops for law
enforcement to whatever degree they call it protest
suppression. Sometimes that may be true.
Sometimes they're guarding federal property or guarding ICE
agents. It's a mixture of things.
But of those that favor the use of troops in this way, 52% were
Republicans. That's the long red line on top,
17% Democrats and 23% independents.
Those who oppose it were 70%, seven, zero, 70% of those
surveyed. And of those 70 percent, 47%
Republicans, 83% Democrats and 76% independents.
Interestingly enough, among those that favor or oppose these
troop deployments, the Republican reading is close to
equal on both sides. And in other words, almost half
the Republicans oppose and half support this use of troops.
I'll mention that yesterday I managed to get together with a
friend that worked on the border to protect private ranchers land
from illegal immigration from from illegal border crossings
out near Eagle Pass, TX on the other side of Laredo from where
I'm at. And I asked him about this and
he felt that the troop, the troop deployments, though he
hopes they don't last long, were necessary to protect mainly
federal property and protect ICE agents from violence.
Although he had some questions maybe about protest suppression,
things like that. The the conversation kind of
ended there. He used to help apprehend
illegal crossings when he worked for these private ranchers.
That's what he was hired to do two or three years ago.
So he has a pretty unique view on this.
He actually was in the Rio Grande River itself getting wet
and getting very directly involved in this.
And one other thing I'll mention is he said that a lot of Texas
Governor Greg Abbott's efforts to quell illegal crossings were
largely greatly exaggerated. And actually under under the
guise of being a strong border enforcement governor, what what
Abbott was actually doing was allowing more illegals.
And therefore the numbers got tremendously high in terms of
how many illegals are in the states.
And according to the guy I talked to last night, with such
high numbers of people having crossed during the Biden years,
1010s of thousands a month, that he felt the troops, the troop
deployments were at least necessary because they have to
make up for lost time because so many people were allowed to
enter the country illegally. Now very few are entering the
country illegally. And he hopes the troop
deployments again, don't last long, but he feels they're
necessary to bring the numbers down to get enough deportations
and to enforce the border laws the way that Trump announced it.
So that was his more or less pro Trump view on it.
On the other hand, when does it end?
Because in principle, using the troops for for domestic law
enforcement can become a very slippery slope very quickly.
Very unfortunate things can happen and abuses can soon
follow. And that's what brought about
the Posse Combat Tatus Act to begin with.
So there's some things that remain to be seen the the troop
deployments have been largely just LA and DC so far.
Apparently Baltimore and Chicago have not happened yet.
So there there are some things that remain to be seen in terms
of the scope of this thing. But these are some of the points
that I gather these these are some of the key observations at
this point. Yeah, sorry, Mark, Thank you.
Thank you for that. Now back in the UK then, well,
for a lot of years now, I've been following the accusations
against people, people ending up in prison in this country,
falsely accused of various things.
A lot of years ago, it must have been about 2012 or 2013, I was
visiting somebody in Strangeways Prison in Manchester.
And one of the points that he made to me during that visit was
that there were a ton of people in that prison, one of the worst
presidents in the country, who were there on indeterminate
sentences with no release date. But the only thing that they
needed to do in order to get a release date was to admit their
guilt. But they would not do that.
So why am I mentioning this? Yesterday was falsely accused
day, and Will Coleshill was at the Royal Coach of Justice to
report on that for us. So let's just have a look at
that. Hello, this is Will Coleshill
reporting for UK column. And today I'm down at the Royal
Courts of Justice talking to people on international Falsely
Accused Day, talking to people about miscarriages of justice
and how our justice system is broken.
Yeah, this is the Falsely Accused day outside the Royal
Courts of Justice and it's to bring together lots of
organisations who who either claim to have been falsely
accused and who represent different parts of that
community, I suppose. Hello gents.
May I ask what brings you down here today?
Well, it's interesting the Jeremy Bamba case because he's
the same age as me and I followed it for since I remember
the case when I was in my early 20s and here, here I am.
He's still in jail for and there's some of the evidence was
produced. It's been a fast this sounds
farcical to me. So I've got Lucy that be today.
Well, Lucy was found guilty and sentenced to to all of 15 whole
life orders. Our case is in the hands of the
CCRC at the moment for review and we're just hoping for a
referral back to the Court of Appeal as soon as possible
because she's in the primaries of her life and they're
dwindling away. So my name is Mike Thompson.
I am founder and director of Falsely Accused Network.
We support anyone falsely accused of domestic abuse in
England and Wales and I'm here today to show strength and
solidarity with the falsely accused and the other
organisations here today. We just want people to know that
there is a lot of injustice out there.
The the system is not a great system at the moment, needs a
lot of work doing. They fail a lot of people and
yeah, continue to do so. It's very common for a man who's
been falsely accused to go through post traumatic stress
disorder. They can enter deep phases of
depression, anger, mood swings, and unfortunately some of sort
of the ultimate action you can never, ever get back the the
last time. And it isn't just the person
affected it, it's families as well.
You know, it's got massive effect on people's families and,
you know, careers, pensions, you know, it's a financial impact as
well. My mum was a sub post office
worker. They wanted her to take on this
new equipment, the Horizon equipment.
And she said, no, you know, I can't learn computers, blah,
blah. Should if they forced me to do
that, I will shut the post office.
And she did. So had she not shut the sub post
office, we could have been, you know, our family could have been
wrapped up in that. So it literally can happen to
anyone. Have you seen what's been
happening to the MP who exposed it, Andrew Bridgen?
Yes, yeah, they will belittle him as they do to, you know, a,
a lot of these people that, that expose it, they, they do what
they can to try and trash their name.
And what specific changes do we really need within the courts?
You know, the use of circumstance and scientific
evidence has got to improve. I think juries need to be better
informed when they make decisions, especially like
medical, medical cases. They've got to be better
informed and it's got to be balanced as well.
You know, you can't just have a strong prosecution.
It's got to be, it's got to be fair.
Because when you've got one person arguing for the
prosecution and nobody for the defence, who is The Who is the
jury going to believe? If there's no, if there's no
contest, who are they going to believe?
I believe the victim policy introduced by Keir Starmer when
he was from prosecution services inverted the principle of
innocent and in law. And, and everybody here has had
a experience of that and they're here to stridently fight it and,
and to and to point out to Starmer and his people where
they're going wrong. They know they're going wrong
and we have to do something visible now and again like this.
What's particularly broken is the presumption of innocence.
Second, a woman makes an allegation against the man, he's
automatically seen as guilty and treated like a criminal before
anything's any evidence has been reviewed or any trial.
And that's got to stop when there is a miscarriage of
justice that they should be a lot easier and quicker to get to
the get it in front of the back in court or whatever needs to be
done. What about jury unanimity?
Jury unanimity it's a real problem when you have the
majority verdicts As for example in Lucy let me original trial
and in Andy Malkinson released a couple of years ago, exonerated
a couple of years ago. Those were majority verdicts.
There were two people in both of those juries who are two or
about that number who didn't agree that the person was
guilty. And imagine how they felt when
they went home. That's a, it's an, it's a
aberrance of justice. The, the Trochuria.
I was on what a majority, A majority, A unanimous verdict.
And I think that's a good thing. I mean, after all the law says
has to be beyond reasonable doubt.
Well, if the two people disagree, there's some doubt
there, that's for sure. I think, you know, 1:50 is still
not enough, you know, But when you're talking about whole life
sentences, you know, mistakes do happen.
It's been proven. You look at Andrew Malkinson,
Peter Sullivan this year, Stefano Kishko from years back,
you know, you've got to be sure than sure.
What do you think about what's going on with all of these
district judges who aren't volunteers like magistrates and
as your state employees and can lock people up for six months.
These judges have a have a tendency to be trained in
certain new culture crimes, new allegations of that.
And we'll follow that rather than and the pressure on those
people to protect to follow conviction targets.
It's just like it is on the police until they start doing it
with the principle of British law as we're all used to it.
We're screwed because they're just they are woke indentured
for want of a better term, you know.
Well, I think all things the best.
I think the whole thing is the complete best and it all needs
overhauled. It's absolutely shocking the
state of it now, you know, and it's only going to get worse.
So do you think we've got a 2 tier justice system then?
Yeah, I'd say it's a multi tier justice system because I know
what the two tier can apply to in certain intersectionalities
with race and immigration, that sort of thing.
And then there's sexism going on, misandry, misogyny,
everything. All these different competing
identity groups, all that needs to be chucked in the bin and get
back to the presumption of innocence and law for everybody
in that country. Well, that sounds good to me.
Where can people find out more? I think go to go to
empoweringtheinnocent.com. In it on a Google search,
they'll find all of the empowering, the innocent things
under there. Yeah.
So it's been an interesting day today down here at the High
Court. You've had a lot of people
talking about the failures of the justice system.
I've experienced it. I'm sure a lot of people have
experienced it in recent years, whether it's from the
postmasters to all of the men falsely accused of domestic
violence, to people put in prison for murders that they may
not have committed. This is Will Coleshill reporting
for UK column. Thank you and thanks to Will for
that. Very good report, yes.
OK, Patrick, let's just very quickly because we're well over
time here, just very quickly and with with what?
Well, we were going to do a feel good segment because that went
over really well last time with John Bolton there.
But we're going to do an educational segment, I think
more of a cultural heritage educational segment here.
So we'll bring this up on screen, as you know, tomorrow,
September 13th, that's the big free speech rally led by Tommy
Robinson here. As you can see, a lot of the
opposition media are jumping on there on the what's on section
here, full route of Tommy Robinson's huge quote, free
speech rally through the capital in London.
Tommy says a millionaire going to show up.
It's going to be a million man March for free speech, I guess.
So that's exciting here. But what what we want to point
out is, is the symbolism, especially of the the English
flag here. And as you know, Tommy likes to
adorn himself in the cross of Saint George.
This is one of his big calling cards ever since the days of the
EDL here. This is an old photo hear from
back in the day. Tommy is the head of the English
Defense League. So you'll often see St.
George's flying when you see Tommy in public and at rallies
and so forth here. So but then there's a whole
conversation about about Saint George himself.
This is the Patriot St. of England.
This is what the cross of Saint George represents.
Why is Saint George the patron St. of England and what was his
nationality? That's an interesting question.
I always thought growing up that Saint George was English, and
then he left England with Richard the Lionheart fight in
the Crusades, you know, and the rest is history.
Sean Connery and Orlando Bloom and the Kingdom, Kingdom of
Heaven and so forth. But that's not actually the case
here. We just did a little bit of
digging and some people might be surprised, not least of all
Tommy himself here at the nationality of Saint George.
It turns out Saint George, his father was a Turk and his mother
was Palestinian. So Saint George is effectively
Palestinian. He, he, he lived most of his
adult life in Palestine. He fought against the oppressors
in Palestine. He's venerated to this day by
the Palestinians. There's a church, a Chapel,
historic Chapel in his name as well.
So he's highly regarded by Palestinians, Christian
Palestinians specifically, as a kind of hero figure here.
So I mean, I hate to break it to you, Mike and everybody here,
it's not such a bad thing depending on what side of the
issue on, but you know, Saint George was a Palestinian.
Well, maybe Tommy will add the other flag alongside of the
cross of Saint George. I don't think he will, but then
again, isn't it interesting though?
History is bizarre. History can be bizarre.
It's so strange, it's so strange, but we thought we'd
share that with you and, you know, go ahead and talk about
that at the pub. I think that would be a nice
icebreaker for a conversation at the dinner table or whatever.
Saint George, Father was a Turk, mother was a Palestinian.
I'll leave it there. We got to leave it there for
today. Thank you to Mark and Patrick
and everybody that's watched. We'll be back in a couple of
minutes for some extra. We'll see you then.
Bye bye.