Well, hello and welcome back to another UK column interview.
And you know what, Happy New Year, because this is my first
interview of the New Year and it's Happy New Year to to all of
you and to my two guests, Sandy Adams and Roger Meacock.
And this is Part 2 of what We Believe at UK column will be a
very valuable resource for every farmer and indeed every member
of the public, all of us really, who want healthy food and local
food. And this is going to be an
exclusive record actually of the future of farming, how we got
here, the future of animals and also our food.
And it's taken hours of research.
Both Roger and Sandy have literally taken hours, hours to
do this. And we believe it's going to
stand the test of time because we could be living in another
era of book burning and digital burning.
So make sure you download these two interviews because it's
going to be history in the making.
And land is valuable. So.
So is agriculture valuable? And at the moment, we're seeing
wildfires in the USA, which is claiming a lot of land.
We're seeing floods in the United Kingdom, which claims a
lot of land. We're ceiling seeing solar farms
springing up. We're seeing wind farms
springing up, but we're not seeing a lot of farming going
on. And farmers, are you being told
the truth? In Part 1, Sandy Adams, who you
know has, he's an expert by experience and has got nearly
two decades of researching into the United Nations Sustainable
Goals agenda. And Roger Meacock, a consultant
veterinary surgeon, brought you a presentation to bring you up
to date how we got here. We don't expect you and farmers,
your busy people, to do all of this research yourself, which is
why we tried to condense it into these two episodes.
Possibly we might have to go into three.
Let's see how we go. But we're going to be looking
into sustainable goals. We're going to be looking into
everything that's coming up in the future, including super
farms and for farmers. Please listen, we know you're
busy to the public, all of you that are listening now, please
support your local farms, farmers, we will support you.
We're right behind kind you. We need your food.
We need your beautiful food. We really do.
And to small businesses, it'll be you.
Next, we're going to move on to what is happening now in 2025,
the sustainable goals. And Sandy and Roger have got
another short presentation. And then we're going to be
talking about Bovia Arla. We're going to be talking about
what farmers should expect, what vets should expect.
So we're going to have a discussion.
So please stay with us. But for now, let's say hello and
happy New Year. First to Roger, thank you so
much for joining us again. Say hello to everybody.
Hi, everybody. Great to be back Debbie, and
looking forward to to what we're about to do.
Fantastic. And Sandy, Happy New Year and
welcome back for Part 2. Happy New Year, everyone.
I hope you had a good one. Yeah, thank you.
Yes, it's it's really great to be back and to to do another,
another episode of this. Thank you so much.
Well, it's going to be a hugely valuable resource, I know moving
forward. And I with that, I'm not going
to waste any more time because we've got an awful lot to get
through. So Sandy, over to you,
sustainable goals. How did we get here?
And we're here now. So what have we got to look
forward to? The sustainable goals really
they, they were, they were brought about in in 2015 because
as we know, the, the UN had tried with the 8 Millennium
goals. They had failed to, to be, to be
sort of brought to, brought to a conclusion.
By 2000 they were called the 8 Millennium Goals.
And so by, by, by 2015, they were getting a bit edgy, need to
need to accelerate the agenda. And so they put together a huge
conference in Rome with the Pope.
President Obama flew over to launch the 17 goals of Agenda
2030 and they then called it Agenda 2030.
So it was Agenda 21. It became Agenda 2030 on in
September 2015 when they launched the 17 goals at at the
Vatican, basically in Rome. And President Obama, he made his
keynote speech to the United Nations General Assembly on the
future of the world and to unveil Agenda 2030.
They launched the 17 goals. And all of this was really a big
push to accelerate the seventeen goals.
And I mean, we could, we could just go into them if you like, a
little bit. 17 goals. Which one specifically are we
looking at with regards to farming and land and smart
cities and how they go land grab from us?
I think life on land is, is a big one.
And life on land is really about revolutionising the way land
works. And a lot of it is, is being a,
you know, you have to, if you have land, it has to be
sustainable land. And that's what they talk about
in, in, in life on land. Life on land is all about not
indulging in any, anything that they, that the UN feel is
unsustainable. And so they've, they've got
many, many NGOs set up, even financial instruments set up now
in order for you to be able to, to, to achieve these goals.
And some of them are almost unachievable because the the 17
goals really want that, that this particular goal life on
land is really about controlling the land and not allowing the
people that own the land to control it, if that makes any
sense. It does make perfect sense.
In fact it makes it it sort of the sustainable goals, and this
is what I've been saying all along, is that are
unsustainable. And I I noticed that goal 2 is 0
hunger, so that dovetails in quite well.
I mean, I don't know perhaps which one of you wants to take
that Sandy or Roger, but zero hunger, How will that be
impacted by loss of land and farming?
Or is that a stupid question? Well, it's, it's not a stupid
question because you know, it's a big ask to say, you know, sort
of 0 hunger, you know it, you know that the world has always
struggled with distribution and, and some countries having less
than others. And their idea is to make
everything equitable, which is a very worthy idea.
This is what the UN always sort of appeared to look as though
they're doing is making everything everything equal.
But The thing is that with, with 0 zero Hunger, their, their
answer to that is, is GMO products, you know, sort of a
lot of almost like, I mean, the, the, the 17 goals are really all
about, particularly the, the, the zero hunger one is all about
creating mass, literally mass food that can be created on a,
on a mass scale. And we don't need that because
each country should be producing and should be encouraged to
produce their own food. But what they want is a global
food supply and creating that food supply.
They, they want to bring in things like robotics, AI, if you
like. They want to control what goes
into the food and also creating artificial food, which is really
bad. They want to phase out meat and
dairy as we know, and, and replace it with these meat,
these fake meat products that you know, and soya and all, you
know, and now they're even looking at algae and crickets so
that, you know, they can phase out meat and dairy and replace
them with other forms of protein, which in my view are
not, they're not healthy. I think everybody here would
agree with that. They're not healthy and that
it's Franken foods and we don't want it.
Well, I know that we're going to come on to talk about Bovia in a
bit because Roger's done a very serious video to put out a
warning on Bovia, so stay tuned for that.
So life on land is a sustainable Goal 15, and you've also, of
course, got sustainable Goal 14, which is life below water on
fish farms. We mustn't forget fishing.
We mustn't forget what's going on as well below the water, so
sustainable goals playing into a huge amount of this.
So what else Sandy? Take us on from there.
There's also, you know, 0 poverty.
How do you achieve that goal? Well, they bring everybody down
to the same level. They make everybody equally poor
with things like the, the Ubi that they're trying to bring in
universal basic income. So in, in their view, it's all
about equity and levelling up. In fact, levelling up is, is
talked about in our town councils.
It's talked about on a global basis as well that everything
has to be equal. And this also goes back to our
common future, which was the, the Bible of, of, of, of
bringing everything to be equal. And I, I just feel that it's an
unachievable thing, you know, you know, at the moment because,
you know, poverty is something that, that you can't just, you
can't just throw money at it because there's so much
corruption involved. And what they're doing is, is
with Ubi, it's a way of making people completely reliant on the
state. And that's what they, they, they
tested it out in places like I think it was Nigeria.
And it impoverished people because you have a set amount of
of money and a set amount of of carbon credits, because all of
that will be linked to your carbon credits.
And all of this is really about control.
It's not about equity. It's certainly not sustainable
either. So OK, so we're going to get a
world full of poverty. That's something to look forward
to. Not.
But they're also going to end hunger, I noticed.
Tell us a bit more about ending Hunger.
Ending hunger is, is really about controlling the food
chain. And as I said, creating super
farms. They've got it in mind to create
if you only have to look at the Sainsbury's future food food
report. They're, they're trying to
create these massive food super farms and get rid of farmers.
And they've even said that in the transition, the agricultural
transition plan 2021 to 2024. You can look it up online.
It's absolutely, it's there in insight.
They talk about, you know, 24/7 robotic farms, massive super
farms that are run by robots and phasing out meat and dairy and
all of that they're saying is the way to end hunger.
It's impossible, you know, to to actually envisage sort of the
way they want farms to work in. Is it, you know, what could go
possibly wrong when you've got corporations running farms, you
know, people that know nothing about nutrition and know nothing
about all they know about is money, and that's what we're
looking at. I just wanted to say it's also
in the wording. If you read the, the 17
sustainable goals, how, how it's worded in the document is, is
very different to what they actually mean.
And that obviously can be very confusing unless you realise
that there is this other agenda behind it.
You know, so they, you know, they want heritage seeds banned
and replaced by annual GMO seeds.
You know, they want to record all our habits and monitor
everything on the blockchain and use sensors, as Sandy was
saying, so that everything is, you know, provides data that
they can then sell on to third parties.
And it's all in their own documentation.
And when there was a document that I pulled off the C-40
cities website and it's actually got what the, what the aims of
meat and dairy consumption are, they think it's achievable to
get people's meat consumption down to 16 kilos a year.
Well, I was a carnivore diet. I'm, I'm doing that every,
every, every, every fortnight, every or three weeks or so.
You know, I wouldn't survive. I wouldn't last a year if I was
trying to do that. And the idea that they are
trying to support farmers and support farming when they've got
a declared goal that to ultimately eradicate meat and
and dairy consumption, which basically means get rid of
livestock farming. You know, the two don't marry.
You can't say you're supporting farming when you've got an
agenda to stop meat and dairy consumption by the public.
It just doesn't fit together. And so all they can try and then
fit to do is sort of monoculture plants.
So yeah. Now I just want to say anybody
can download this document. It's called the Future of Urban
Consumption in a 1.5°C World and it's the C-40 Cities document
headline report. Now C-40 cities as, as as Robert
said, they've, they've even put together this planetary diet,
which is rationing. It's basically rationing.
They've got a pie chart of all the things that, that are
sustainable and all the things that aren't and, and what you
can and cannot eat. And that really is a big, if
you, if you really want to go into the C-40 cities, They're
the ones that were advocating the 15 minute cities where you
could get everywhere within 15 minutes.
And it's caused mayhem in, in Oxford, Cambridge, Canterbury.
And you know, it's, this is the way that they're, they're
looking, they're looking at, at really it's making everything
smaller, everything your life smaller, your diet smaller and
advocating rationing, which is kind of what we're looking at at
the moment. Sandy rationing.
I mean, I agree. I think we're already in those
days and I think a lot of people are aware of the agenda and many
people are stocking up on on things.
Quite rightly. If a farmer is sitting at home
now watching this and the bank account is not looking very
healthy and the outlook is not looking very healthy.
And all of a sudden they get a call from someone or a letter
through the door that says, hey, you know what, we could use your
land for a soul farm or wind turbines or something like that
rather than your agriculture, your dairy farm or whatever.
What is actually happening with regards to incentivization?
Because any, any farmer sitting there now is going to be
thinking, well, you know, if I'm doomed, it's probably best off
that I get rid of the land and take the money now while I can.
What's your advice and and what is the advice that's been given
out to farmers specifically at the moment?
The farmers are being de incentivize if there's such a
word to to farm. They they're being told by in
this is all in the agricultural transition document 21/20/21 to
2024. They've they've been given from
20. It was from 2020 or 2021.
They were given five years, I think it was.
So now it's, it's actually by two, 2027, their subsidies stop,
their subsidies stop altogether. But until then, their subsidies
will, you know, are sanctioned. If they don't, they have to stop
doing any farming that is unsustainable in, in the view of
Defra. So Defra have said, you know,
you, you can't, you have to start phasing out, you know,
meat and dairy. And they're really encouraging
them. They're more than anything,
they're incentivizing them to put up wind farms, you know,
solar farms, any, you know, any sort of renewable energy on
their land. They get paid extra for that.
They've got to set up businesses because they won't have their
subsidies after 2027. So they have to set up what,
what Defra said, sustainable businesses on your land to
support yourselves basically. So it's become a business and
it's a business of not now creating food.
And what's really worrying is that if you look on the land
mapping for most of the town that the city councils or the
sorry the county councils, if they do have a land mapping,
some don't a future land mapping they do in North Somerset,
you'll see that their land mapping up to I think it's 2040.
There is no provision for food and land mapping.
It's all housing. A lot of a lot of farms are
selling that, selling up for housing.
A lot of they're going in for renewable energy, loads of
solar, solar farms, wind farms, rewilding, herbal lays,
glamping, you know, you name it. You can do anything on your farm
except produce food or you incentivize.
There's no food security provision, which is which I
believe is, is, is is unbelievable.
And a lot of people are making noise about this in their town
councils. So what we have to do is just
talk to the farmers and make them see that this is a very
short sighted view. We've got to be looking at the
long term food security of our planet and our country.
So I think that any farmers who are just selling out, you know,
they're going to, you know, where's their food going to come
from. This is what you have to ask
them. Yeah, Sandy made exactly the
point. I was going to say there was,
you know, farmers, if, if you're not, if you're not producing
food and your mates down the road aren't producing it either,
you're going to go hungry the same as we are.
Because we're going to talk about it in a bit.
But you know, some of the, some of the measures which they're,
and aims that they've got for, for shipping and, and, and air
transport and things like that. You know, food won't be coming
into the country because if every every country in the world
has the same regime, which is what they're trying to make it a
global agenda, then you know, there isn't going to be the
movement of food across borders. And, you know, if we're not
producing food in the UK, there isn't going to be any food.
And it's really as simple as that.
So I would really urge farmers to resist the temptation and
find other ways of of earning money from their food, which we
won't know we're going to talk about, discuss later.
But you know, it's a very short sighted view to, you know, take,
take the money now and you know, and then wonder where your
food's going to come from in the future.
I think this is a very valuable point, not just for us in the
UK, because I think farmers need to be reassured that especially
those of us that are watching this interview, our audience
that know the agenda, we really do need to support our British
farmers. And if this, if this is a global
issue, right? So this is going on in other
countries. And I would say the same to you,
wherever you're watching from internationally, whether you're
watching in Europe, whether you're watching in the United
States or Australia, or wherever you are, please support your
local farmers because they're all in the same boat.
You know this model is not just for the UKI can see some very
disturbing slides ahead of me containing pictures of no no
other than Sir Klaus Schwab and the world's Economic Forum.
I can hear everybody groaning now, but who wants to?
Who wants to lead us into the World Economic Forum and the
pact that was signed in 219, which is also got us to where we
are now? Yeah, I can.
I can do that. Yes, there was a there was a
pact signed between World Economic Forum and the United
Nations in June 2019. So, you know, everybody thinks
so. The World Economic Forum, they
have nothing to do with governments and all the rest of
it. They absolutely are.
They have got influence throughout governments
throughout the world and Klaus Schwab, who is the head of of
the World Economic Forum, has even boasted on video saying how
he has captured governments and, and, and got half at the time he
had half of the cabinet of Canada had been through his
Young Global Leaders programme. And so the idea that governments
are actually working for us, I think we need to forget that
they should be working for us. They aren't in power, as they
like to call it. They're in office.
And there's a very big distinction between power and
office. And they're in office and they
should be working for us. But in when it boils down to it,
they're working for these NGOs who are all being gathered
together by the World Economic Forum and that, you know,
they're putting these global policies out and influencing
governments big time. And we know Keir Starmer has
already said on, on video that, you know, he prefers Davos to
Westminster. So, you know, we aren't making
these things up. Sandy and I have have done lots
of research into this. And we're, we're trying to make
sure that what we present today, we can back it up with documents
and, and, and that there are videos to back up what we're
saying in terms of this is their own words.
These aren't our words and our interpretations.
These are their words. This pact that they signed, it's
called the UN Forum Partnership, Strategic Partnership document.
And I mean, it's important that farmers know that this is not
conspiracy theory. This is all backed up by
documents and, you know, sort of events that really did happen.
We have to get away from the fact that it's conspiracy.
And I think that's what's holding the farmers back from
understanding a lot of this. So This is why we're here,
really. But the UN for foreign
partnership, it was signed between Antonio Guterres, who's
The Who was the general secretary of the of the and
still is of the, of the UN in 2019.
It was signed between him and Klaus Schwab of the World
Economic Forum. And it was too, they decided
that they had to accelerate the 17 goals yet again.
It wasn't moving fast enough for them.
They've got real, they've got to pull this off by 20-30.
So they're going, they're going for it.
And So what they did was they cite, they held this meeting in
the United Nations headquarters between, yeah, between these
two, you know, between the, you know, World Economic Forum and
the UN. And the, the partnership
identifies 6 areas of focus that they wanted to really accelerate
and it was financing of 20-30. How do they finance the 20-30
agenda? Climate change, health.
Now this is the one that really stuck in my mind.
Digital cooperation and gender equality and empowerment of
women education skills to strengthen and broaden their
combined impact by building an existing and new collaboration.
They wanted health support, well being for all countries and all
that kind of thing. And, and what happened really is
that they got their digital cooperation because they say
digital cooperation meets the needs of the fourth industrial
revolution while seeking to advance global analysis and and
inclusiveness. So they needed to get digital
cooperation completely, get the people to buy into digital
cooperation. So the story goes on.
Yeah, obviously when when COVID came along, it became the
opportunity to, as Klaus Schwab said, the pandemic presents a
rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect,
reimagine and reset our world. And so as Sandy was saying,
they're trying to push this, this forward fast now, because
it, it's sort of gone from being conversations behind the scenes
that very few people knew about to the point where we are
actually now starting to see some of the changes and see some
of what they're trying to impose on us.
And so COVID was used as, as a way to do that.
And, and I think the clearest example of that was when we were
all in lockdown, they were still putting up the infrastructure
for 5G for all the digital surveillance and all the rest of
it. So, you know, it is coming out
in the open and they are trying to push things forward because I
think they think if, if they can get it to a certain stage, it'll
be fait accompli. And by the time enough people
wake up and start to object, they will already have their
control. And, you know, I do feel that
some of the coming food shortages, which I know are
going to happen will be potentially used as Debbie has
already sort of inferred, you know, if we end up with food
rationing, that requires identification.
And obviously during the Second World War, everybody had their
little, little paper passports to, to, to, to go and, and go
and collect their rations for, for the local shops.
But when it comes to now, they're going to use this as a
leverage to bring in digital identity.
And you won't be allowed to collect your food unless you're
on the digital platform. And then that means we're all
subjected to the potential of being socially scored in the
future. So this is all being pushed
forward very much more quickly now.
And it is coming more and more into the open because they have
to, because they've got to, they've got to impose it on us.
Now, Klaus Schwab wrote his book The Great Reset and the Fourth
Industrial Revolution, the two books.
So, you know, if you really want to understand that they've
written it all down or Klaus Schwab has and it's very
dystopian, which reflects his his background political
influences with mounted tongue and and all sorts.
As Roger said, you know, during the lockdowns, we this digital
cooperation was forced upon us whilst we were literally
sleeping. We were in lockdown and, and all
the infrastructure went in as as Roger said and the 15 minute
cities were implemented during it.
You know, all the infrastructure went in for those as well.
Let's not forget that that's that was really trying to just
push almost a smart city agenda on to us.
But you know, big cities, just locking them down, what they're
doing right now. And this was a prime example of
it. The digital corporation was a
start of the 10 year transition that Klaus Schwab had also said
in his book from share our normal price based sort of, you
know, free market shareholder capitalism to stakeholder
capitalism. It's it's a way of corporations
holding all the power instead of the people holding the power.
It's a corporate takeover. It's an oligarchy.
Is is what Klaus Schwab's talking about in the Fourth
Industrial Revolution. It's almost as though we're
talking about the weaponization of nature.
Almost. Exactly what's what Sandy's
describing there, this sort of partnership between government
and and corporations, that sort of stakeholder capitalism.
Mussolini described that as, as the definition of Nazism, which
is where corporate and government take hold.
And, and that's the whole thing. Stakeholder means those who are
actually involved in those industries.
So they will have dictate to the people who, who, who, who use
those services and, and products rather than the the consumer
sort of demanding and, and dictating which direction we go
in because we are the people and we're supposed to be in power.
So, you know, it's Nazism by its old name, but they're calling it
stakeholder capitalism to try and wrap it up and make it sound
something a little bit more advanced than that.
But you know and and we know. That there's.
Also, the UN Charter 109, which makes provision for the United
Nations to be revised and replaced.
And this was supposed to happen in 1959, but it never actually
happened. But they're trying to move it
forward now. And in the same way that United
Nations has replaced the League of Nations in 1945, they're
calling it United Nations 2 point naughty.
But they're also talking about being a new global government so
that it would be a new way of, of, of the United Nations
effectively taking over our governance totally.
And that there is actually a conference pencilled in, I think
for 2026, but they said they definitely want it by 20-30.
So, you know, these are these agendas are absolutely real.
And we're obviously getting close to these dates where, you
know, a few years ago it sounded like a long way away, but
actually they're not very far away now.
And This is why people need to be aware and and start to sort
of realise what's going on so that we can object now just.
Going back to when you're mentioning The Great, The Great
Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the books, I would
say to anybody that hasn't read them, they are quite shocking.
I mean, it is the plan, it's the blueprint almost that it's in
your face. But I want to remind everyone as
well that Klaus Schwab was knighted by the now King
Charles. And whilst many think that it
was Klaus Schwab that announced the Great Reset at the World
Economic Forum, actually it was Prince Charles when he was
Prince Charles. So I just wanted to throw that
in. But I mean, this is a big, this
is big money here. This is a big financial gain for
those in control. Roger, do you want to take us
into the financial side of it? In 2023, they, they put together
a new financial instrument was created by the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the SEC to the New York Stock Exchange.
So they're, they're looking to monetise everything.
I mean, there's even, I think there's a website where they
talk about, you know, using trees and, and, and everything
in within nature and, and giving you some monetary value, which
countries can then effectively used to to underpin in the same
way the gold used to underpin currency.
They're looking to use nature now to underpin currency and
keep their Ponzi scheme going from from that point of view and
the new digital currency. So, yeah, you know, they're
trying to manoeuvre and use, you know, are effectively are the
people's assets because everybody, the world belongs to
us all. You know, they're trying to use
that to, to, to, to control themselves and, and to back up
governments and to use that to, to impose taxis and, and
whatever else. I mean, I think there was even a
video of somebody of the World Economic Forum saying, you know,
people need to stop thinking of oxygen being free.
So, you know, it's got to the point where, you know, you'd
have to pay a tax in order to, to, to breathe.
But I mean, how, how they're going to enforce that is beggars
belief. Maybe that's where the medical
aided assisted dying comes in. But it's, you know, it's, it's,
it's got, it's so ridiculous. It sounds so outlandish that
people don't think this is what they're planning.
But it is, you know, they are on video of saying these things.
So it it is absolutely coming down the track and as we say,
anything differently. Absolutely.
Just to, just to sort of endorse what, what Roger has, has just
said, you know that they did create this financial instrument
at the, by the Securities and Exchange Commission at the
request of the New York Stock Exchange.
And it's called, there could be these financial instruments
called natural asset companies, natural asset classes, natural
asset corporations, and they're based on environmental
stewardship. So really it's about the
stewardship and the Nacs hold the rights to ecological
performance. So you're almost given
stewardship of your land. You don't you, you can own it,
but you can't control it because you, you have to be checked up
on basically to make sure that you're sustainable.
And these companies giving licence to control lands, both
public and private, that would be required to block any
unsustainable activities such as meat production or dairy farming
that lead to the degradation of ecosystems in their view.
So, you know, basically, how do you, how do you make a, you
know, take control of land and make it profitable while not
owning it? Well, they, they use this
ecological performance such as nature conservation, restoration
or sustainable management. So the NACS, the natural asset
companies would quantify and monetizing natural outputs using
a system and it it's all the the farmers are having to comply to
this biodiversity net gain or if they don't now they will do.
And biodiversity net gain is the financial instrument that's used
as a scoring system. It's a bit like Esgs or
environmental and social governance contracts in
businesses. So they will be scored.
And so these natural assets that would normally profit the
farmers and the land owners would now belong to corporations
run by what many would call environmental special interests.
So that's the that's it. You own your land.
You don't control it, you don't profit from it.
Basically, they're going to stop you pretty much doing
everything, which is what the World Economic Forum said in the
1st place. You will own nothing.
We go back to that. And and you know, as we're, as
we're speaking now, I've just seen an announcement come
through to say that President Trump, who has as we're
speaking, hasn't yet been inaugurated but will be
attending Davos this year, which is interesting, don't you think?
But, you know, all of this is going to lead to, well, I mean,
they're going to kill us through starvation by the sounds of it.
Because, you know, I'm seeing a very stark headline on your next
slide, which says the coming food catastrophe.
And this is not just to farmers. You know, I know that we're
doing these presentations for farmers, but we're also doing it
for you, for the public, because unless we get food, we can't
eat. So take us through what kind of
catastrophe? I mean, is this as bad as it
looks? Well.
Yes, I mean, farmers are saying that we're heading for a massive
food shortage worldwide. This will be blamed obviously on
climate change. That's what they that's what
they do. You've got, you know, wars,
you've got Ukraine and and and Gaza all threatening food, food
supply chains internationally with net 0 policies preventing
farmers from farming food. We have a perfect storm for some
kind of, you know, sort of famine if you like, if we don't
do something about it and that the farmers have the power in
order, you know, if they're fully informed to to avert this,
I believe anyway. And the budget change of the
inheritance tax was not a miscalculation.
It's all part of the deliberate attack on UK farming and small
businesses in step with global plans.
Government, governments are following the UNWEF agenda and
don't work for the UK public. You know, they're not working
for us. They they, they're taking their,
their orders from from the WEF and the United Nations.
Unfortunately, you're quite clearly showing, you know, that
in a slide that you have here to say that 2023-2024 was the worst
crop failure since World War 2 in the UK.
And of course, war brings disruption for every, every
single service and provision you can think.
Not just destruction to land and crops and farms and buildings
and people, but to food supplies and transportation and to to
delivery as well. I mean, you know, where, where
is this leading because we, we know that moving forward, we're
looking at electric vehicles. We're looking at they don't want
us to travel anywhere. They don't want us.
I know that you've been looking very carefully at the Absolute 0
reports and many of our viewers will know about Absolute 0, but
can you talk about that a little bit as well?
Because I think that plays into the whole that the whole scheme
and agenda moving forward. Yes, the the absolute zero, it's
called the UK Fires Absolute 0 report.
You can look at it online, it's still there.
Just type in it must be UK Fires Absolute 0.
And it comes up now this document was produced and
commissioned by the UK government and they they
commissioned it in I think it was 2019 or 20.
Yeah, something like that. Anyway, it was, it was some, it
was commissioned by the UK government through top
universities like Oxford and Cambridge as a white paper
really. And how, how could we achieve
absolute 0? No, forget net zero, how do we
get to absolute 0 Carbon, carbon CO2 in the atmosphere, which you
know, as you and I know would create, you know, things would,
wouldn't live, you know, zero CO2 is 0 life basically.
And so, but Julie, they came up with this report and I think
what's interesting is I think it's page 4 of this report.
If you do do have a look at it, they've got a very colourful
colour coded road map really to 2050 to 2050, from 2020 to 2029,
which is from now or from 2020 to, you know, 20-30.
They've got a 10 year window and then it goes on from there for
20-30 to 2040. And then obviously 2050 is when
you hit absolute 0. So we've, we've got net zero
until 2049. Basically it says in, in this
air travel and shipping to be phased out between 2030 and
2049. So how do we get food imports?
I mean, it's like being a prison island because they're also
shipping and, and, and flying by 2049.
They want to stop it. Fossil fuels to be phased out.
You know, how would farm machinery operate as EVs are
totally impractical. What's the point?
No beef or land production after 2049, no wood burning stoves, no
gas boilers, no gas appliances. And we already know that they're
trying to phase out gas and, and, and wood burning stoves at
the moment. So I'm putting in things that
are inefficient like ground force seats, ground source heat
pumps, things like that, appliances with, you know,
everything restricted to electric and the size reduction
to be cut for the power requirement, transport and
energy to be cut by 60%. How will food be moved around
the country? Construction or concrete and
mortar to be phased out and the retrofitting of all houses to
comply with net 0 regulation. So all of this is a perfect
storm for all of us literally living in poverty A and B not
having food. You know the food distribution
would break down if you if we got to absolute 0.
So that's my take on it. Do look up that document, the
absolute it's called. I mean, I've been, I have this
on my website in 2014 it was 20/20/15.
So it was, it's a big, it's a big document, but it's worth
going through it. And and certainly even if you
can't go through it, look at page 4, which is the the road
map to 2050. It's quite interesting isn't it,
How how some of what's been announced very recently in
parliament is also feeding into this.
Because we've had Keir Starmer saying he wants the UK to be the
centre of AI. And yet I know that both Google
and Amazon have said in the United States they need to build
4 plus nuclear power stations just to power their, their AI
future. And so, you know, if, if they're
trying to stop us over here from, from, from, from, you
know, having gas power and, and trying to be, you know, reliance
on, on wind and solar with, with no fossil fuels.
I mean, what's, what's going to happen is, is the electricity
just going to go into AI in the UK and then the people won't
have any, We'll have blackouts at home.
You know, there's only a finite amount of of, of electricity
that can be produced. I mean, the whole thing is
absolutely, completely unsustainable.
And as Sandy was saying, you know.
This is this is a global. Plan so when they're saying no
air shipping and travel for us this this actually applies to
all these other all these other countries as well.
I mean, it is, it is quite, quite unbelievable how, how this
is, you know, even thought this is, this is even going to be
possible. It's not only unbelievable, I
don't think I think it's completely unsustainable, you
know, and just add, add to before we go on to my next
favourite subject flooding because I'm looking at the clock
and I'm thinking, you know what, we might even have to go to a
Part 3. But I really do want to get to
Roger's latest announcement about Bovia.
So hold on tight because I promise that will be included in
this this interview. But I just want to remind people
that it's just been, remember the Nudge unit nudging you into
doing things? Well, they've just been
recontracted to nudge you into having heat pumps.
And as Sandy's just said, number one, they're incredibly
expensive. For some houses, you're going to
have to have your whole central heating system ripped out and
replaced. Or you can have a hybrid, but
whatever, it's going to be a massive cost up to 20,000 lbs.
So the nudge unit have been employed to nudge you,
incentivize you into having a system that is not only
inefficient, but it's going to cost you an absolute fortune.
So just to add that on the nudge unit and heat pump because
that's the next big thing coming up, along with carbon credits,
of course. So let's go to my favourite
subject, which is floods, because we were talking earlier
and in my introduction, I was saying and our love, thought and
prayers do go out to everybody that's being affected by
wildfires wherever you are in the world.
And of course our attention at the moment is drawn to
California. And you know what I'm seeing in
fires in, in in America, I see in Europe and the UK floods and
I see no insurance conveniently for fire victims.
It's the same in the UK for floods.
But let's look at the deliberate destruction of land using
floods. Sandy, take us from there.
It's interesting because I, I was living in in Somerset in
2014 and 65 square miles of Somerset were underwater.
It was the worst spring rainfall that they'd had in many, many
years. And banks of the, the river Brew
the Parrot and the tone had burst their banks and people
were literally in terrible trouble.
They were having to evacuate their houses and it was, it was
really, really bad. And a few of us went down to
help with the sandbagging. And what was interesting is that
there was no help from the government, the Environment
Agency or the army, the Navy or anything.
The only people that had come to help the people of Somerset were
the there was an aid organisation called Kalsa, their
international Sikh aid organisation, and they've thrown
in from the Haiti earthquake to help the people of Somerset
because the people of Somerset, the, the locals got in touch
with them and the, the whole operation was run by the local
pub, the village hall and this amazing organisation, Sikh
organisation. And I, I thought this was very,
very odd because we were all doing our best, but there was no
one to be seen. And sure enough, all the, all
the, the media were gathering on the bridge, watching, watching
everything rise. And nobody did anything.
And it took a it took days and days for the army to arrive.
And, and basically they spent an hour doing what I would call a
photo shoot, passing the bags to each other.
And then they went and then Prince Charles arrived and he
was taken down the, the banks of the River Parrot on a, on a
wooden throne. And he was saying something must
be done. And he went off and, and the,
the Environment Agency were nowhere.
But what really made me wake up to what was happening is a lot
of the locals were saying, and also a, a journalist down there
said to me, you know, this is deliberate because they've
stopped the pumping stations. They haven't dredged the reams
for for decades, since the Environment Agency got, you
know, were put in charge. Nothing has been done to
maintain the ability for the, the natural drainage, you know,
that had gone on. You know, all the, all the
infrastructure to, to drain the levels had been decommissioned.
Basically they just let everything silt up.
One of the journalists who was a fantastic bloke, who Christopher
Booker said to me, this is Agenda 21.
And I said, well, I'm looking at all that because this was in my
early days of research. And I, you know, he, he said,
look at Policy six of the Environment Agency.
And I later learned that that area where Policy 6 had been
implemented in 1997 by Baroness Young was actually the area that
was designated as a floodplain for, with EA, you know, with
Environment Agency Policy six. I, Baroness Young to, to, for
biodiversity, for the, for wading birds to, to be
deliberately flooded for wading birds and for the RSPB.
And that that didn't make sense to me because there's already an
RSPB sort of bird sanctuary just down the road.
So this was all part of literally reclaiming land, you
know, a land grab and getting rid of livestock because all the
livestock had had to go. They were all flooded out.
And what's interesting is, is, you know, if one looks at policy
6, you can see that the pink area on the policy map is
exactly the area that flooded on on at that time.
And then they're kind of doing it again at the moment.
We're getting consultations all along the coastline,
particularly where I live in Somerset, saying, you know, we
get that the levels will flood now due to climate change and
and sea level rise. And So what we're finding is
that they're holding all these consultations and more or less
preparing people for what they call resilience.
They've got to become resilient to the flooding, Like move all
your, all your electrical sockets up the wall, you know,
put to put everything above the, the, you know, the flood level
in your kitchen and all this, it's almost like normalising
flooding. So it's going to happen anyway
and you'll have to deal with it. You know, the fact is they're
not, they're not maintaining the infrastructure that was put
there 400 years ago to stop the levels from flooding.
And it's for me, I'm seeing it as a way of getting rid of
farmland because there's another, there's another issue
with the, the coastline right by the nuclear power station that
they're building EDF and the Chinese are building a big power
station. And unfortunately, they've said
that because they're using the water to, to cool the reactors,
the fish stocks are being sucked into this process.
And therefore they've got to have more sea to for the fish
and they're going to re sea all the the salt, basically the
grazing salt marshes, which is where the cattle go to just
graze the salt for certain periods of the year.
And then they move on to the grassland.
But they want to take away a whole load of farmland and turn
it into sea, which is madness. Why can't they put a philtre to
stop the fish going into the into the reactors?
I don't understand it but all I know is it's another way of
getting rid of farmland. Well, I'm taking a big deep
breath because and we are going to get to the future of food.
I'm going to go to the future of food.
Roger, to you next. But before I do, I have to say
that Prince Charles was doing a lot in his reign because he came
to me as well. I met him when he came to my
area, when my area flooded and as a repeated flooded victim of
102 Times Now. Yeah, that's right. 102 times I
can tell you that what's happening to you is happening to
communities all over the country, including my own.
And a lot of it is because there's been no investment into
the water infrastructure, and not just the environmental, the
environment agencies, pumps and, and their infrastructure, but
also water company infrastructure.
And what we've been getting is that water companies aren't
statutory planning consultees, so they have no say in whether a
housing development goes on. Is anybody checking that the
infrastructure that is being plumbed into that housing
development can cope? The answer is no.
So what we're getting is an overwhelm.
We're getting private companies performing public duties and
we're getting, we're getting local authorities and water
companies using homes as attenuation tanks for sewage
floods and for surface water floods.
And there is no legislation for flooding on land.
The EA are the regulators for what happens in a in a waterway
or in the sea in coastlines. But there is no regulator for
floods that happen on land. And, you know, I live in an area
that has a lithium mine, a desalina tion plant and sewage
spills all in one area. And that is not good for the
environment. It's ecocide basically.
It's not good for the environment, and it's certainly
not good for humans to live in. So I had to say that because the
future is water. We all need water to live.
And water is now questionable. And how badly contaminated is
our water? So, you know, floods, engineered
floods, I'm with you 100%. So yeah.
And I am mindful now that, you know, we're literally out of
time and I've made all of these big promises to everybody that
we're going to be talking about eggs and we're going to be
talking about mad cow disease and we're going to have to do a
Part 3. But I did promise you to bring
you up to date with Bovia. And before I show a video that
Roger has put out on Bovia, I want Roger just to very quickly
remind, if you could do it very quickly, Roger, just give us a
quick reminder because two weeks ago, everybody was talking about
Arla, everybody was talking about Bovea.
What was it? Was it safe?
Can you, can you introduce the video that we're about to see?
It's only a short video, but could you just give us a quick
introduction? Just remind people about Bovea.
It's, it's a product that's put in cattle feed and it changes
the metabolite or changes what goes on in the Reuben, which is
the part of the stomach that that ferments the grass, the
cattle, the cows eat. And the idea is that the cows
will produce less methane because methane they think is a,
is a greenhouse gas. OK, So I'll have put out a tweet
basically saying that they were going to start or they were,
they were having a trial with 30 farms to use this Bovair to
reduce the methane. And obviously the milk would
would be, would be being produced by these farms.
And there's quite a big uproar on Twitter, which I'm sure
everybody's aware of. I was sort of concerned about
it. I read some of the trials and I
wasn't convinced that they'd gone on for long enough and all
the rest of it. And I was also concerned that it
was classified as a feed additive in the UK, although the
FDA had classified it as a drug over there.
So I decided to write to the Veterinary Medicines Directive,
the BMD, but also the chief veterinary officer to, you know,
say why hasn't Beauvaire been have been checked and why hasn't
it been classified as a drug? Yeah, So the video gives a
little bit of an explanation as to the response that I that I
got. And here's that piece of video
that Roger put out. Please watch and listen and
share. Through an email exchange with
the UK Veterinary Medicines Directive, BMD and Chief
Veterinary Officer CVOI changed the VMD to explain why they have
not categorised Bovera as a veterinary pharmaceutical when
it has been in the USA. By the FDABND informed me that
Bovair had self categorised its own product as a feed additive
despite the fact that it is only authorised in the UK for use in
lactating dairy cows. It specifically says it is not
for use in dry cows, heifers, bulls or calves.
If it is safe enough to be considered a feed additive, it
should be universally safe for feeding to all cattle.
Due to the self categorisation of Beauvera.
As a feed additive, the Food Standards Agency and Food
Standards Scotland carried out the UK's official authorization
process for Beauvaire. There is no facility within the
FSA or FSS to make a full and proper veterinary assessment of
Beauvaire. The CVO informed me that this
consequently means that no official health and welfare
evaluation has been carried out in the UK with respect to Beau
Bear's impact on the cows being fed it to be fair.
She praised this point. Herself last autumn, but still
the VMD of which she is part allowed the manufacturers to
self determine that Beauvaire be categorised as a feed additive
and to go ahead with feeding trials in the UK.
This is a complete derogation of duty by the VMD in my opinion.
The VMD defended this on the basis that 35 other countries
have also derogated their duty in not properly assessing Bovair
either. To be clear, there are no
studies that have looked specifically at Bovair's impact
on fertility, metabolic disease, lameness, mastitis or any other
aspect of cattle health. The longest try used by the FSA
to assess Bovair budget accounts for only 15 weeks.
Despite the fact that a whole lactation lasts over 300 days
and Bovair is intended to be fed at every lactation throughout
their life, there is 0. Information on the.
Cumulative effects of feeding bovair over a number of.
Years the CBO. Informs me that she.
Is awaiting assessment by the UK VET Risk Group who are currently
trying to find out more information.
In the words of the CBO, this may take some time.
In the meantime. Those dairy.
Farmers who are already feeding Beauvaire are probably
blissfully unaware that no veterinary assessment has, with
regards to their cows health and welfare has been undertaken.
They have every right to reasonably expect that such an
assessment has been performed. Beauvaire should be.
Withdrawn from Use until. It has been properly assessed
not only for its health and welfare impact on cattle, but to
make a full and proper assessment as to whether it
makes any difference to climate overall.
On the basis that it has now been proven that the earth
temperature is not determined by greenhouse gas radiation, the
production of methane, CO2 or any other supposed greenhouse
gas is immaterial. Methane and CO2 have never been
a problem and never will be a problem.
Wow. That was very.
Powerful Roger, just very briefly and we will talk more
about Beauvier and Arla in Part 3, but very briefly, is there
anything you want to say after after watching yourself Farmers
can no longer. Trust that what they're being
advised to feed or give to their cattle has been adequately
tested. And I think like I've already
said in the last interview I did with you on my on my own that,
you know, the PCR test isn't suitable but for being used in a
clinical situation. And yet it is for for, for still
being used for, for testing animals for clinical disease.
So, you know, farmers are going to have to start questioning
everything that they've been advised to and consider whether
it's in their animals best interest to subject them to to
being tested and where the products that they are being
advised to use are, are actually being properly tested either
now, it seems. But I mean, the big take home
and and the real big in climate message that I think needs to be
shout shouted from the rooftops is that there has been a study
published where it proves that there's a completely different
model to explain climate temperature, planetary
temperature. And it not only works for the
for, for our planet, planet Earth, but it also works for
other planets as well. And you know, the data fits,
unlike the climate climate change model that's been used
to, to, to push a whole net 0 fiasco is based on models that
don't, don't consider all the cycles that naturally take
place. And, and it's based purely on
the idea that there's a greenhouse gas effect.
Well, you know, given that that paper, a recent paper, and
there's a great video on YouTube and it's called beyond the
greenhouse gas or beyond greenhouse effect.
And I'd urge everybody to, to watch it.
It's quite long, but it's worth watching.
But it, you know, it does explain that, that there is a
different model that it, that fits the data much better.
And on that basis, anything that's being pushed through on
the back of net zero has absolutely no, no vindication
whatsoever as far as I'm concerned.
So, you know, this is where we need to sort of stand up.
And you know, and I've, I've urged the chief veterinary
officer and the VMD saying why haven't senior groups, including
them within the veterinary profession?
Why aren't we standing up and saying, and you know, for the
cattle, for livestock farming and, and all the rest of it on
the basis of, of this alone, it's enough that we don't need
to be pushing these measures on, on our farmers and, and the land
doesn't have to be sacrificed. You know, we've got little
enough really fertile and a lot of land that's farmed in the UK
is quite marginal. It's only fit for pasture.
And so, you know, we don't we need this land for food.
We don't need it for for energy. There's we're not under the same
pressure that that they're trying to make out that we are.
So let's let's find other technologies that don't take up
our our food. And I would owe to farmers to to
resist on that basis as well. And resist is the big.
Message If you like what the UK column is doing and you feel
that you've gained from this interview, which I'm pretty sure
you will have done, please share our content.
Please tell people that we exist and that this information really
needs to go to everybody, to farmers, to members of the
public. Do you see it now?
This isn't just an inheritance tax agenda.
This is a much more dangerous dark agenda.
And British farmers listening, we need you.
We support you and please, please hear what we're saying
because this research is it's taken years.
Everything is evidence. And I'd like to thank you both
Roger and Sandy very much for all this amazing hard work and
passion that you put into this for all the right reasons.
And on that note, I will promise everyone there will be a part
three if you're both in agreeance.
And first of all, I'm going to hand over to Roger for, as
always, your last word. Thank you, Roger.
Thanks, Debbie. I'll make it short after the
last. One, we're just to reiterate
what I've just said, you know, resist, resist, resist.
You know, we, we don't need to go down this agenda.
And you know, provided we all do stand up, I, I do think it's
going to be positive. And you know, the the good thing
about that's come out of Bovar and the Arla story so far is
that it has pushed people to find their local farmers and,
and, and for local farmers to then to start supplying their
local, local people too. So you know, there is positive
coming out of this. So it it might sound all a
little bit too and gloom, but but there is light at the end of
the tunnel. But we've just got to look to
see that light and move towards it.
And yes, you're absolutely right.
Every. Cloud does have a silver lining,
and we're all in this together. And on that, Sandy, thank you so
much for all your incredible hard work.
And if you're open to our Part 3, then you're always most
welcome. We'd love you to join us for
Part 3. And it's over to you for your
last word. Thank you, Debbie, and thanks
for the opportunity. For us to, to get this out
without you, we wouldn't be able to thank you.
I think as Roger said, it is about a resistance.
It is about a resistance. And I, I think if, if farmers
knew really what was facing them and the long term implications
of what is going on, I think every farmer would agree that,
you know, that things have to change.
They can't, you know, they, they can't be pushed around like
this. And you know, this whole global
governance of, of farming and it is a land grab.
And if they can see it's a land grab.
And absolutely as, as Roger said, the, the, the, the
Beauvier, I call it a scandal really.
It is a scandalous, scandalous that that managed to get into
the food chain. You know, people are beginning
to look at the ingredients as well of of stuff in supermarkets
and realising that they possibly need to be more aware of what is
going into their food. I've noticed a lot of people
looking at ingredients now and realising that there are certain
ingredients that aren't good for them.
And the Beauvier thing has really highlighted that.
And the more awareness people have, the more they'll want
these natural products, which is the way we should be going.
And the farmers, I believe that if they, if they really knew
this agenda and knew that the long term thing is going to
affect future generations, their children, their grandchildren,
their grandchildren's children, whatever, they wouldn't be going
along with this. And we have to make the, you
know, sort of somehow get them to realise that this is not a
conspiracy. This is a it's a conspiracy, but
it's not. It's a conspiracy on them, not
not the other way around.