UK Column News - 11th July 2025 - UK Column News

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:08):
Hello, it's Friday the 11th of July 2025, just after 1:00.
Welcome to UK column News. I'm your host Mike Robinson, my
Co host in this studio today, Patrick Hennigson.
Welcome to the program, Patrick.Great to be with you, Mike.
And journalist Mark Anderson joins us by video link from the
United States. Now, yesterday, Keir Starmer and
Emmanuel Macron did some deals. The headline deal was one where

(00:30):
a bunch of migrants would continue to cross the Channel in
small boats. They would be sent back to
France. And in return, Britain would
take exactly the same number of people from France, except these
would be people that France is particularly keen to get rid of.
I suspect that is what's going to go on.
So, you know, this can be ignored because it will do
nothing to reduce the number of people coming into the UK.

(00:52):
And in any case, we should always keep in mind that the
main source of migration in the UK by far is regular migration.
The small boats remain a small problem.
It's a diversion. And so my question is, what was
it that Star Starmer was diverting from?
Well, first of all was his nuclear deal.
And France and the UK will, theysay, deepen their nuclear

(01:15):
cooperation and coordination. A Franco British nuclear
steering group is going to be established and that's going to
provide political direction for this work.
So this is absolutely a political agenda.
It's not something which is being driven by any other need.
It'll be led by the presidency of the French Republic and the
Cabinet Office in the UK. It's going to coordinate across

(01:37):
nuclear policy capabilities and operations.
And they say quotes. Our nuclear weapons exist to
deter the most extreme threats to the security of our nations
and our vital interests. Our nuclear forces are
independent but can be coordinated and contribute
significantly to the overall security of the alliance.
They don't specify in their press press release which
alliance they're speaking about.But anyway, in the final

(02:00):
communique, then they reaffirmedtheir determination to, quote,
ensure Russia does not prevail in its illegal war of
aggression, as well as their commitment to lasting support to
Ukraine. They convened the coalition of
the willing over the last coupleof days with more than 30
nations participating, they say,all supposedly committed to
Ukraine's long term security. And in the course of that

(02:23):
meeting, Secretary of State for War John Healey repeated
Starmer's position that they're,quote, ready to put troops in
Ukraine to help reinforce a ceasefire.
Of course, no mention of how that ceasefire is going to be
arrived at so far. They agreed to launch a counter
shadow fleet partnership to, quote, crack down on dangerous
Russian backed vessels in the channel, reduce Russian oil

(02:44):
revenues via these vessels and safeguard our maritime security.
We are committed, they said, to defending democracy and
stability in the wider European neighborhood and have agreed to
work together on new support to strengthen resilience in the
Western Balkans and Moldova. We'll come back to that in a
couple of minutes. They went on to let us know that

(03:05):
Ukraine is is not enough. Iran will never have a nuclear
weapon they said, and so they'llwork with Germany to make sure
that this doesn't happen. And don't forget China because
China also has to be dealt with.I think North Korea must be
breathing a sigh of relief at this point.
They aren't even thought sorry, North Korea hasn't even thought

(03:25):
about anymore. So they, Starmer and Macron also
announced Lancaster House 2.0. That is the new iteration of the
Lancaster Lancaster House treaties which were signed by
David Cameron in 2010, which brought Brit brought Britain
into a 50 year defence pact withFrance and they announced they
combined joint force, otherwise known as combined joint

(03:47):
Expeditionary Force 2.0 and which will, they say build a
shared capability of sufficient scale for war fighting and ready
to operate in all domains, including space and cyber in the
defence of Europe. And they said, and I quote, we
will maximize our impact againstthe highest threat terrorist
groups, including deepening our counterterrorism cooperation in

(04:10):
Syria. And if you haven't just fallen
off your chair, well, I would seriously consider it because
that's just such an incredible thing for them to say.
Here's here is a quote from the communique.
As we've explicitly stated since1995, we do not see situations
arising in which the vital interests of either France or
the United Kingdom to be threatened without the vital

(04:32):
interests of the other also being threatened.
France and the United Kingdom agree there is no extreme threat
to Europe which would not prompta response by our two nations.
Now taking all of this into account, Patrick, I do wonder
what does that remind you of? Well, this, this is exactly
where we were prior to World WarOne.

(04:52):
So this is power politics writ large after the concert of
Europe. And all of these entangling
alliances and loyalties and so forth led to a situation where
all it took was an assassinationin the West Balkans.
And all of a sudden you have allthe various accesses and blocks
hit it against each other. And there's the most important

(05:13):
part, absolutely dedicated to a military path to resolve
disputes. No diplomatic track at all.
The only way you can just resolve these is through
military means. Isn't that what we're saying
right now? Do you see anybody talking about
political resolution or diplomacy to solve the Ukraine

(05:33):
crisis? Because I don't.
No, there is absolutely no effort at diplomacy whatsoever.
In fact, as as we have pointed out several times over the last
few weeks, the rhetoric from both Britain and the United
States is that basically Putin is effectively refusing to
engage. It's similar to the the sort of
strategy of Israel of putting a deal on the table that the other

(05:56):
side absolutely cannot accept and then claim that the other
side has refused to engage with it.
It's a pantomime of negotiations.
It's it's getting old as well. Look, on the conventional front,
what have what have Britain and the French done in response to
the gravest threat Europe has ever faced since World War 2
that they tell us as you the warin Ukraine, What have they done?

(06:17):
They haven't engaged aged at all.
All they've done is pump weaponsinto a proxy to Ukraine and then
do special forces to try to blowthings up and sabotage and so
forth. It's been an utter disaster and
a failure. So I guess they're going to do
more of that because I don't seemuch on the conventional front
from the British or the French side and France's has spent

(06:37):
force as far as the conventionalmilitary go.
But on the nuclear side, Mike, that's a problem.
That's a problem because you have the Britain does not have
an independent nuclear deterrent.
It is controlled by the United States on every single
conceivable level, including thecommand level.
Now, France may be less so, but even France is tethered to the

(06:59):
United States in different ways.But having an independent to to
what I would say to belligerent actors in Europe acting with
their own agenda. We know Britain has their own
geopolitical agenda and without the United States and Europe
could very easily kick off a crisis or a war that would
ultimately drag the United States into a European or a

(07:22):
precursor to a World War Three situation or a European
conflict. But that already happened twice
in the last century, right? So I think we shouldn't really
be going there. But this is where the this is
the conversation that we'd like to have, but it's not the
conversation they're having. So it's on the French front,
though there's something to be even more worried about.

(07:43):
We'll bring this up on the screen here.
And by the way, this is from theNational Security Archives at
George Washington University in the United States.
And we've carefully gone througha lot of these various files to
pick out the highlights, the untold story of Israel's nuclear
deception. And let's look at that.
How did Israel get nuclear weapons?

(08:04):
How did they get nuclear power? Well, they got it with the with
the help of the French, and theystole the other bits from the
United States. Israel had illegally obtained
nuclear capabilities since 1967,largely due to substantial
support from France, which helped it to become the 6th
nuclear power worldwide, ensuring France a seat on the UN

(08:27):
Security Council. The big club, right?
But here's the problem with this.
This is the detail that nobody wants to talk about.
In 1965, US visitors were told that spent fuel would probably
be returned to France from Israel for chemical processing.
Although he quote gave the impression that no detailed
consideration had yet been givento this problem, we now know

(08:50):
this was misleading. Israelis never returned the
spent fuel to France. Instead, they reprocessed their
own, and it was a radiated reactor core every six months.
So, So basically what happened here Mike, is that Israel stole
from new mech facility the the weapons grade material then this
the plans the know how and France built the Demona is a

(09:13):
copy of the French nuclear reactor.
OK, so they got their civilian nuclear reactor program built by
France. In return, Israel gave the
weapons grade material and, and know how to to France.
So both of them built their nuclear programs together.
And then France did the testing for the Israeli nukes.

(09:36):
Where did it? How could Israel do testing?
And when it's the size of whales, they, they sent it out
to Bikini Atoll in the South Pacific and to South Algeria or
in around Mali. That's where in their colonies
in Sahara and Africa. That's where the French tested
their nukes and they tested Israel's at the same time.
This is how it happened. So France is is partnered to an

(09:58):
illegal not under supervision ofthe non proliferation treaty.
Israel has between 90 and 300 nuclear warheads undeclared.
Nobody knows because they won't allow inspectors in a totally
illegal nuclear weapons program sponsored and facilitated by
France. Right.
So this is a kind of a problem. If the British and the French

(10:20):
are working with their own so-called independent nuclear
deterrence, you really have to add Israel to that tripartite
nefarious arrangement. OK, well, sticking with Israel
then of course something else has happened in the last couple
of days is that Benjamin Netanyahu has been over visiting
the Dawn. Yes, yes, the the the warlock

(10:42):
himself has parachuted into Washington, probably asking for
things and and hoping to get money and weapons and so forth,
doing a bit of his Zelensky himself.
But Netanyahu is also trying to throw his weight around,
obviously. But but listen to this.
This is this is the meeting around the big table.
Trump with his team assembled, Netanyahu with his team and he

(11:03):
presents Donald Trump with a nomination for the Nobel Peace
Prize. I I really this is this is
special watch this we're. Going to have a lot of great
results. So it's great to have you.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
I want to express the appreciation and admiration not

(11:23):
only of all Israelis, but of theJewish people and many, many
admirers around the world for your leadership, your leadership
of the free world, your leadership of a just cause, and
the pursuit of peace and security, which you are leading
in many lands, but now, especially in the Middle East.

(11:45):
We have great opportunities. President has an extraordinary
team, and I think our teams together make an extraordinary
combination to meet challenges and seize opportunities.
But the President has already realized great opportunities.
He forged the Abraham Accords. He's forging peace as we speak

(12:08):
in one country and one region after the other.
So I want to present to you, Mr.President, the letter I sent to
the Nobel Prize Committee. It's nominating you for the
Peace Prize, which is well deserved, and you should get it.
Thank you very much. This I didn't know.
Well, thank you very much. Coming from you in particular,

(12:31):
this is very meaningful. Thank you very much, baby.
Thank you. Thank you for everything you're
doing. Thank you.
It's a great honor. When Trump said coming from you
BB is extra special, I mean it'salmost like that was a joke of
sorts. I mean, this could just as
easily be a skit from pick your comedy program, yes.

(12:53):
I mean, pretty breathtaking, isn't it?
So. So Donald Trump, after having
waged an undeclared war of aggression against Iran and in
violation of every single UN Charter clause and treaty, he's
been, you know, recommended the Nobel Peace Prize via Benjamin
Netanyahu, Who should get the Nobel Peace Prize?
Well, I would say argue that this woman should get the Nobel

(13:17):
Peace Prize. Francesca Albanese, who's just
been sanctioned by the United States, sanctioned by Marco
Rubio. Let's take a look at this now.
She is the special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian
territories. And this is what Marco Rubio
said today. I'm imposing sanctions on the UN
Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese

(13:38):
for her illegitimate and shameful efforts to prompt the
International Criminal Court action against the against US
and Israeli officials, companiesand executives.
Albanese's campaign of politicaland economic warfare, This one
woman from Italy, she's waging warfare against the United
States. Imagine that.

(14:00):
And Rubio continues against the United States and Israel will no
longer be tolerated. We will always stand by our
partners in their right to self-defense.
So Israel's only trying to defend itself in Gaza.
If you can believe that the United States will continue to
take whatever actions we deem necessary to respond to law and

(14:20):
protect our sovereignty of that of our sovereignty in that of
our allies. I mean, wow, that's pretty
extraordinary stuff. Here's her response.
We'll bring this up on screen here.
Francesca Albanese response saying, just to be sure, on this
day more than ever, I stand firmly and convincingly on the

(14:40):
side of justice, as I always have done.
I come from a country with the tradition of a list illustrious
legal scholars, talented lawyersand courageous judges who have
defended justice at great cost and often with their own life.
I intend to honor that traditionalso.
It is called the Rome Statute for a reason.
And I'm, I'm proud of it. So she's not backing down from

(15:05):
Rubio. I mean, it's kind of a
disgraceful move by Marco. And to announce that while
Netanyahu is in Washington, was he sending a signal to the
Israeli lobby? Like, hey, I'm still with you,
100% send more money for my presidential campaign in 2028,
probably. Here's her response, though, in
an interview she did with Al Jazeera English.

(15:26):
This is Francesca Albanese responding to the charges.
I want to remind everyone that the reason why these sanctions
have been imposed is the pursuitof justice.
Of course, I've been critical ofIsraelis has been committing
genocide and crimes against humanity and war crimes, and not
because I say that there are criminal proceedings and

(15:47):
international Court of Justice proceedings against Israel for
these crimes. Isn't it enough?
And what I've exposed is that this genocide doesn't only go
ahead because of the relinquished territorial
ambitions of Israel or because of ideological affinity of some
groups with what Israel is doing, but also because there

(16:07):
are companies who are profiting from it.
And excuse me, I mean, I record the, the offensive and rude
posture that has come from some of these companies in reaction
to, to my report like Google. But I, I mean, look, I'm also
user of Google. I don't, I don't want the end of
Google. I want Google to stop being, I

(16:30):
mean making profits by supporting a government that has
killed 60,000 people, including 18,000 children.
Is it too much to ask? So of course the sanctions are
going to to affect me and they are not going to stop my quest
for respect of justice and international law, as I've been

(16:51):
mandated to do by the Human Rights Council.
So, and she doesn't want the endof Google.
Microsoft is also named in her report.
I know a lot of people like to see the end of Microsoft
actually, but that's another debate.
It is indeed now. At the beginning of this month,
Matt Campbell was back in the High Court in the continuing

(17:12):
effort to force the British government to hold a proper
inquest into the death of his brother Jeff.
Jeff died in the North Tower of the World Trade Centre on the
11th of September 2001 and his remains were identified through
DNA analysis in 2000 and two 2000 and four 2008 and 2013.
The coroner's original findings stated that at 8:46 AM on the

(17:34):
11th of September 2001, the deceased was on the 106th floor
of the North Tower of the World Trade Center when an aircraft
was deliberately flown into the building, causing its collapse.
10:28 AM. This event was part of a
coordinated attack by the Islamist militant group Al
Qaeda. The Campbell family.
That's the end of the quote, sorry.
The Campbell family, of course, disputes this finding and

(17:56):
alleges that substantial evidence was not considered by
the coroner and as a result they've been campaigning to have
a new inquest held, including taking the Attorney General to
court. So I'd like to welcome Matt
Campbell to the programme. And Matt, the first question I
have is what happened in the latest court hearing?

(18:16):
Well, yeah, they didn't do judgement on the date on the
18th of June. They gave us handed down a
judgement on the 1st of July andwe lost, which you know, we kind
of half expected. The day went very well for us,
certainly wouldn't. There was 2 judges.
One of the judges was very on side I think with the arguments

(18:38):
they were making. But essentially they have made a
ruling and said that they're tied by precedent set in a
higher court in the Court of Appeal some years back going
back to 1978. And whilst it's obviously
disappointing that, you know, that decision has been made,
that ruling, we kind of expect in the ruling that there'd be

(19:02):
some positive noises towards what we were trying to do.
So that would be a route for us to go and appeal.
But they kind of made it really easy for us by basically saying
I just read the relevant sectionfrom the judgment.
He said. In our judgment, the combined
effect of Gurier EDA and expert Taylor, they're the cases that
set precedent. It is that it is not now open to

(19:25):
any court below the Supreme Court to decide otherwise,
however anomalous this may seem in the light of the rest of the
modern law of judicial review. And that language is really
important. I mean, anonymous is actually
mentioned in another section. I mean, it just sticks out like
a sore thumb. And what we're looking to do is

(19:46):
apply for a what's called a leapfrogged certificate straight
to the Supreme Court, where essentially, as that ruling
said, they're the only, that's the only court that can make a
decision on this completely unencumbered by, you know,
previous law. But whilst it's it's in place,
it doesn't really have a place in, in the way that judicial

(20:07):
review has evolved and that and the law around that.
So we're, you know, confident that we would get that
certificate and we would be ableto apply and, you know,
ultimately be heard in the Supreme Court.
And efforts are underway right now hurriedly, because we have a
deadline fast approaching to raise the necessary funds to do
that. I mean, the that's, that's a

(20:31):
positive piece of news that, that, that there's a prospect of
getting it to the Supreme Court.My question then would be, what
are you, how confident are you that about how the Supreme Court
would look at the case? Do you think that there is a
real possibility of of a positive outcome?
Yeah, I think, I mean for for the reasons that we argue, but

(20:52):
actually they were made in the actual judgement.
It it just, it's so anomalous tothe way that other areas of,
say, the attorney general's decisions where their property
powers or the statute powers to have something like an inquest
not be able to be overseen or looked at by the judiciary, just

(21:14):
flies against what the judiciarycan investigate or can look at
the decisions that the attorney general makes.
So, you know, this is certainly an opportunity for the courts to
wrestle back some power, much needed power, I think from, you
know, the likes of the attorney general.
You obviously change with every single government.

(21:35):
Sorry, yeah. Have you got any thoughts on
this? Well, I just wanted.
To get to Matt's, Matt's commenton this, I mean, Matt, for, for
you and your family, this has been a long, long road and
you've been through so many different legal proceedings and
attending all these hearings, all the preparation, all the
lawyers and solicitors you've been working with.
What what's this been like for, for you and your family?

(21:57):
How? How difficult has this been over
the years? It's just difficult because it
keeps going on. I mean, it's dragged on so long.
I mean, we, I first started thinking about opening My
brothers in CEST about six months after we had it in 2013.
My mum's always been very supportive, I mean, as of my
entire family. But she was there in the High

(22:18):
Court, you know, it was a week before her 80th birthday.
I don't think she expected to bethere trying to fight for truth
and justice for my my brother, you know, the week before 80th.
Crazy. Yeah.
Incredible. Yes.
OK. Well look, Matt, I think we'd
like to wish you all the best with this.
How do people find out more? I've on X Matt Campbell 911.

(22:41):
Otherwise, if you go to the Internet International Centre of
911 Justice, that's ic911.org, They they cover what I've been
doing pretty well. That's going to happen in the
next few weeks. So yeah, fingers crossed we can
we can get that certificate and apply to the Supreme Court.
Brilliant. Thank.
You and and we should absolutelyrecognize the support of

(23:01):
ic9911.org. If you haven't seen the
ic911.org website, please do. We've held events with them in
the past and we will be in the future.
So. So we'd like to wish you all the
best, Matt and you. Keep us posted on how things are
going. Yeah.
Cheers. Thanks, Mike.
Thanks, Patrick. Thanks.
OK, where does that take us? Then we'll head to the to the ad

(23:27):
break. And if so, we'll say if you like
what the UK column does, you'd like to support us, please have
a look at the front page of the UK column website.
You'll see a link there to a page.
We'll give you all the details. Once again, a massive thank you
to everybody that's supporting us financially and but if you
can't do that, at least share the material if you possibly
can. So that's that.

(23:48):
Now tonight at 7:00 PM, the workweekly banter with Charles,
myself and Jerem will be live. So join us for that if you can.
It's another interesting conversation.
And yesterday's interview with Michael Yon is on the website.
Now question is who's running the jungle?

(24:10):
If you didn't see that yesterday, it's not available
for on demand for now the and then the final thing to mention
today is the UK column on location event taking place on
Saturday the 18th of October 2025.
The tickets will be available from the end of this month on
the 20th of July. That's Monday.
So keep that date in your diary as well and hopefully we see as

(24:33):
many people as possible there too.
OK, now the propaganda machine took a new turn in the last few
days with claims of Russian use of chemical weapons in Ukraine.
Now, during a press conference, Donald Trump was asked about it.
Let's have a listen to this little exchange.

(24:55):
What does US? Intelligence believe And what do
you believe about the use of chemical?
Weapons and would you would. You free the Well, I'd ask.
John, maybe to discuss it, if you'd like, John.
Well, Mr. President. Obviously chemical weapons, if
it's documented in its use, it'sillegal.

(25:18):
It's against all international laws of armed conflict and
treaties. And obviously I can't share in
this room with this audience theintelligence that I can share
with you privately, but obviously you're not going to
stand or allow for any violations of international law
by anyone. That's right.
Thank you so very. Briefly, Patrick, that was very

(25:39):
interesting little exchange he had to seem.
It seems like he had to go to Hesketh to find out who he
needed to speak to about this question.
Well, John, John Ratcliffe absolutely in the pocket of the
Israeli lobby, everybody knows that, and probably in the pocket
of Mossad as well. So a very vague though, and you
know, the timing of this mic is so suspect, but there's more on
this. Well, it could be.

(26:00):
Coming back to this, but before we come back to the main part of
this report of Patrick, let's just have a look at the British
statement on this, because the statement goes that a statement
published last week by the Dutchin German intelligence services
indicating Russian use of chemical weapons on the front
line is deeply concerning. The OPCW has now published 3

(26:21):
reports confirming the presence of CS gas in samples collected
by Ukraine from the battlefield.That is why the UK announced the
second package of sanctions thisweek against 2 senior military
officials and a Russian ResearchInstitute for their involvement
in Russians chemical Russia's chemical weapons violations.
So you know, as was stated by EUguy in the US there and also the

(26:46):
British statement, no actual evidence of Russian use of
chemical weapons. We've seen this MO before,
haven't we? Yeah.
It's tell but don't show. It's always the problem here.
So here's the thing CS gas by the way, I mean I've I've been a
victim of CS gas tear gas basically that our police use in

(27:06):
America. So but as that constitute a war
crime we don't know is still undocumented.
But here's the problem. The timing of this MIC is so
suspect. Why did why was this pushed this
week? Well, I don't believe in
coincidences and politics. And let's bring this up on
screen here. Date is July 1st.
Note the date there. Russian forces discover a cachet

(27:28):
of Ukrainian chemical drone munitions as if by magic on the
week before. So Moscow has accused Kiev of
systematically violating the Chemical Weapons Convention.
And let's look at some of the details here.
Footage released by the FSB in chemical protection protection
gear. So they found vials of

(27:48):
chloropicrin or chloropistrin. OK, Choking agent prohibited
under the Chemical Weapons Convention.
According to the agency, substances were packaged with
plastic explosives rigged into improvis.
Improvised improv, improvised munitions.
Pardon me, designed to be dropped from drones.

(28:10):
So. And they go on.
Oh, sorry, we'll go back there. If you could reverse the frame
for me, that would be wonderful.So here's the problem with this.
OK, the that was last week. OK, that was last week, July
1st. And so Russia was scheduled to

(28:30):
present this on the 8th of July.Trump's statement was on the 8th
of July, so the Russians were. Going to present this to him.
It was. It was presented to the OPCW at
the executive committee meeting.So do you believe in
coincidences? Not really, no.
And so here's the Atlantic Council here, obviously pro war
think tank. On July 10th, Russia accused of

(28:52):
escalating chemical weapons attacks in Ukraine.
So again they're saying Russia'susing chloropicrin, exactly what
Russia found a week ago in the Ukrainian A makeshift lab.
And this was banned as an anti riot agent first used by the
Germans during World War One. So again, they're bringing the
Germans in to kind of bracket Russia with with Nazi Germany.

(29:18):
So again, create the war crimes,Sir.
So back to this. And again, as I was saying, it's
going to be submitted here, Mike, to the executive session
on July 8th, OK, as we said. So here is the chemical in
question again used by Germany in World War One band.
So it's infamous in that respect.

(29:40):
So July 9th, 2024, exactly 1 year ago, Ukraine violation of
the Chemical Weapons Convention,Russian engineering troops
discovered a laboratory that wasusing hydrogen cyanide.
OK, very well documented. They sent all of the information
to the OPCW. OK, so and just further on that,

(30:02):
the facility had a Rotary evaporator and several chemical
reactors, protective clothes, clothing was there, including US
made gas masks and Polish hazmatsuits.
Interesting, allegedly found thesite.
So all of this has been suppliedto the authorities.
And just to be clear, to date, Russia's filed 40 diplomatic

(30:26):
notes, 40 regarding Ukraine's use of toxic chemicals in the
battlefield over the last three years.
And this is from one of their senior ministers there.
So in terms of Mike, the evidence, the preponderance of
evidence is absolutely on the Russian side in what they've
presented to the official bodies.
So so just. To be clear, this is not a case

(30:47):
of he said, she said, because Russia is providing
documentation, they're providingevidence to the OPCW.
And my question to you would be very briefly, is the OPCW past
the politicization that we've seen of it in the last few years
or are they actually in a position to do anything?
So whether they can attribute blame or not, that mechanism,

(31:10):
which I'm not sure about the technicalities of that, but that
was something that they didn't have, but that they acquired
through their executive during the whole Syria OPCW scandal.
But the Syrian question is very different than this.
This is a battlefield between two state actors, A very well
documented Russia's providing GPS location, they're providing

(31:32):
chain of custody, all of the things that Britain in the White
Helmets and everybody that was saying Assad was never did.
So Russia's doing all that. So all of the Russian claims
could be debunked very easily bythe experts.
And Russia's also offered to facilitate more of an
investigation should the OPCW want to go down that road.

(31:54):
But as yet they haven't, right? Why haven't they?
They haven't pursued any of the charges in a serious way against
Ukraine. So yes, Mike, they are very
politicized, but Russia is goingto go with the institutions that
are available. This has always been their stoic
policy here. So here's a here's a video on
it's a documentary called toxic the Toxic war.

(32:15):
And this was on RT Internationallast year, I think.
So this is around Difka. The big battle after Bakmut was
a Difka just over a year ago. Watch this this trailer here.

(32:53):
What? I.

(33:21):
That's available on Rumble in its entirety.
Unfortunately, Mike, if you're in the UK, you're not allowed to
see any of the material which wejust showed because the British
government banned RT. So if you're trying to be a do
journalism or make a case or look at counter arguments, you
can't do it because of censorship.
So again, if you want to debunk any of these claims made by

(33:41):
Russia, you're more than welcome.
That documentary was filmed around the village of Ugladar,
which is just not in the vicinity of a deep cut, but
where heavy fighting was going on.
And again, all of that which wasshown you in that documentary
film was supplied to the European authorities, to the
OPCW. So Russia's not hiding anything.

(34:02):
They've got a lot of evidence that they've been supplying, but
no action has been taken. No, no inquiries into Ukraine's
use of chemical weapons. But yet they're ramping up the
Russian chemical weapons card making.
Don't you think that's kind of bizarre in a way?
Because it's, you know, it's, that's the last card you pull.
And if you look at the British statement on this issue, the

(34:23):
opening paragraph is Russia has launched a record-breaking
attack of drones and missiles onUkraine and they're under threat
and so forth. And then Russia has the audacity
to use chemical weapons. I mean, honestly, does Russia
need to use MacGyver style chemical weapons when they have
Arushnik missiles and they're absolutely pounding Ukraine?

(34:45):
So this is basically we're losing the war.
That's the subtext. We're losing badly to Russia.
Let's pull the chemical weapons card because isn't, wasn't that
the case in Syria as well? The rebels were getting hounded
and pounded in, in Ghouta, in Kanchehun, in Duma.
And as if by magic, a chemical, yeah, a chemical attack

(35:06):
manifests itself and all of a sudden you have air strikes and
by the US and everyone's up in arms in the outrage.
So it's just this pattern that we can't escape in the West.
The chemical card is literally the last card of desperation.
Absolutely. Well, let's then welcome Mark to
the program. And Mark, the since we've been

(35:27):
talking about the destruction ofUkraine, the conversation about
the reconstruction and the recovery of Ukraine continues.
So what's the latest on that because it's been another
conference? Indeed.
Good day, everyone. Yeah, the your your Ukraine.
Excuse me, The Ukraine recovery Conference.
It's surely here in Texas. The 4th Recovery Conference is

(35:51):
winding up today in Rome, Italy.And that this first slide kind
of gives the overall framework of what's been going on actually
the last eight years. And they had the Berlin
conference last year, the year before London, the year before
that, Logano, Switzerland. And prior to those 3 and now the

(36:13):
4th Recovery Conference that have won on the last four years,
there were four prior reform conferences in Vilnius, Toronto,
Copenhagen and London dating from 2021 back to 2017.
So overall this year that's winding up in Rome is the 8th
Ukraine event. Four of them have been reformed

(36:35):
and now four of them have been recovery.
And this is a little bit of an explanation of the philosophy
behind it. They're dedicated to the swift
recovery, they say, in the long term reconstruction of Ukraine
since the beginning of what theycall Russia's full scale war of
aggression. And governments, international
orgs, financial institutions, businesses, regions,

(36:55):
municipalities, civil society have come together.
And they're united, they say, bya shared commitment to
strengthen the long term resilience of Ukraine.
And it reflects the Lagano principles laid down in
Switzerland back at that event. And some of those principles are
reform focus for Ukraine's European integration.
And that's really the main goal here along with multi

(37:16):
stakeholder engagement. That's another example, gender
equality, inclusion, some very liberal social sentiments there
as well as environmentally speaking, sustainability, a very
green philosophy. And this year in Rome, as they
wind up yesterday and today, these are the four planks They
have business dimension, human dimension, logical and regional,

(37:41):
excuse me, local and regional dimension, pardon me, which
includes recovery of municipalities and regions.
But the all important fourth one, the EU dimension, EU
accession and related reforms. Again, that's really kind of
where this is going to make yourcrane part of the EU officially.
And this is a quote that sort ofsort of summarizes that 4th

(38:05):
plank. Now that's a picture of Ursula
von der Lion at last year's recovery conference in Germany,
as I indicated in the Photo, Credit there to make it clear.
But this quote comes from the organizers this year,
emphasizing that 4th plank advancing European integration
and the perspective of joining the single market will help

(38:26):
align Ukraine's policies and institutions with European
standards and Dr. long term economic and social progress.
So again, that's really where this is headed, irrespective of
the war. They definitely want Ukraine
fully in with both feet into theEuropean Union.
But what's interesting, I took alittle harder look at this and

(38:46):
they had what they called all these side meetings.
Well, there was a total of 26 side meetings around July 9 and
10 before the official Ukraine Recovery conference took place
in Rome. And these are just some samples.
And I think the side meetings isreally where the action was.
Energy solutions for sustainableregional development

(39:07):
investments, innovation and resilience investments is a big
thing. Another one, private Public
Partnerships and regional development, unlocking
opportunities together. I got a couple other examples of
these so-called side meetings, and this one's interesting.
Strong media, transparent recovery, how journalism builds
Ukraine's future. And of course, that's

(39:29):
conventional journalism. No, no real alternative
journalism is allowed. And then the Marshall Plan
governance, The last example here of the side meetings, I'm
showing 4 out of 26. This last example, a forum on
the eve of the Ukraine recovery conference, and it gets into the
German Marshall Fund of the United States and basically

(39:50):
compares rebuilding Ukraine withthe Marshall Plan in the
aftermath of World War 2. There's a comparison being made
there. And lastly, we have Larry Fink,
everybody's favorite financier. And what's interesting here is
the the left slide is from the Ukraine government itself in the
latter part of December 2022. So the conflict wasn't even a

(40:13):
year old and President Zelensky was discussing with the CEO of
BlackRock, Larry Fink, the coordination of efforts to
rebuild Ukraine. Even back then it was a much
younger war yet. This other slide is from July
7th, just a few days ago, and this is from the Kiev Post.
And after all this time, BlackRock, they say, is backing

(40:36):
out of a Ukrainian rebuild funding initiative.
So Larry Fink was supposed to reportedly show up in Rome.
Now, he probably still went, I imagine, but he was supposed to
go to Rome and kind of present the findings and present the
overall plan of how to rebuild your crane.
But reportedly they're pulling back.

(40:58):
The things didn't go quite as well.
It's a little bit vague, but he's saying that people that
were going to be involved in theinvestment got cold feet, among
other things. So apparently he was not
prepared to make that presentation in Rome.
These are just some of the developments.
But obviously we've been concerned about BlackRock and
their machinations a long time. Who's going to control the

(41:19):
resources of Ukraine, The farmland?
Will Will Ukrainians become serfs in their own land?
These have been concerns a long time.
So back to you guys on this subject I guess.
Maybe it's the way the financialsituation in Ukraine, such a
mess at the moment. Maybe it's too big a mess even
for Fink. No, it's.
It's because all the high performing mineral energy assets

(41:41):
are in the East under Russian control.
That's why they're backing out. So.
So is this another? Acknowledgement that the the the
wars lost them. It was all.
A delusion from the beginning, because they're pretending to do
this reconstruction confab, whenin fact there was nothing really
worth reconstructing because allthe damage done on the Russian
side. Guess who's going to be
rebuilding that? Russia and maybe China, but not

(42:03):
the West. So there's no contracts
available. We were saying this two years
ago. We were saying this two years
ago. But anyway, it's good that
Larry's caught up with us, yeah.Isn't that just Mark?
Let's change topics and and what's the latest on the
International Health regulations?
Well, this. Is an all important deadline
that I talked about a few weeks back.

(42:24):
We have to keep an eye on these things, of course, to keep our
readers in the US as well as abroad up to speed on this.
It's a very, of course, perilousthing.
The International Health Regulations and the World
Pandemic Treaty, there's a lot of concern that if there's
another major declaration of international concern in terms
of a pandemic, that the lockdowncould be even worse than

(42:45):
2020-2021. We don't want that.
We may never recover from it freedom wise.
So this James Roguski very urgently share this with me in
the wake of me being on one of his programs that I mentioned
recently. It's an open letter to world
leaders. The deadline to reject the 2024
amendments, that's when they were made last to the
International Health Regs is July 19th this month, 2025.

(43:09):
And this is a call for leaders around the world to invoke
Article 61 of those regulations and reject the amendments.
And the all important website isreject theamendments.com the so
the the regs contain their own element for not taking part.
Individual nations can can opt out.
That's what's being stressed here.

(43:30):
The basic status of The Who member states under the IHRI
mentioned the deadline July 19thfor the heads of state of 192
out of 196 nations that are parties to those regs to reject
the 2024 amendments. There are 4 holdouts, Iran of
all places, Netherlands, New Zealand and Slovakia.

(43:51):
They operated a little differently in the context of
the procedure of this. So the deadline for these Four
Nations to reject the 2024 amendments is March 19 of next
year. They're on a little bit
different track again, due to the procedures and the the red
tape of how this thing operates.And Raguski is mainly calling on

(44:12):
people to call the White House in the United States for those
US listeners that are inclined to do that.
I know that number is 202-456-1414.
And you can wait to talk to an attendant who takes public input
in person. Evidently it's not prerecorded,
it's an actual live attendant. But you're you're advised to

(44:32):
give very brief comments and to be patient and wait to be
connected. The difficulty for UK and
European residents is is a little more pronounced in terms
of getting their voices heard. But it's best to contact your
members of Parliament and spreadthis, you know, spread the link
to this episode of UK column. Go to rejecttheamendments.com

(44:54):
and and spread that word. You know, spread that website
around your social media. That's what regards he's
suggesting anyway. He, he provided top 10 reasons
to reject the amendments. These are just a couple
examples. He's saying director general of
The Who Tadros, he would be empowered if these amendments
are improved to declare a pandemic emergency based solely

(45:16):
upon his determination with no checks and balances.
And the director general, Roguski is also pointing out,
failed to properly submit the final version of the proposed
amendments with at least four months prior notice as required
by Article 55, Section 2. So evidently that rule was
abridged. And also another example of the

(45:39):
top ten. It's absolutely unacceptable
that healthy people who are merely suspected have have of
being exposed to a contagion maybe quarantined.
Article 27. So that's a protest saying
that's unacceptable. And this just shows that there
is a online poll about this at reject the amendments at that
website. So this is just a punctuated

(46:01):
kind of urgent message guys to to keep an eye on this issue
amid all the other headlines we're dealing with.
Thanks Mark. Now Patrick.
On Wednesday, Charles ended the program with this rather strange
tweet that came from Grok or Strange Grok 4, and with the new
improved. Grok the new improved.

(46:22):
Grok the Singularity. Is upon us, I hear.
Yes. Which of?
Course is X's AI platform. What happened following that?
Well, the. CEO resigned Linda Yakarino,
we'll bring this up on screen here.
So she basically resigned and and partly because of this
meltdown by Grokwood, which is being characterized as

(46:42):
anti-Semitic meltdown. And just look how the press is,
is is basically positioning thisex advertisers very key because
she was brought on as CEO to increase their advertising
revenue because that's her wheelhouse.
Ex advertisers remain silent after Grok goes off the rails
and the CEO resigns. So Grok apparently is

(47:03):
anti-Semitic. So if the if the singularity is
here, I guess the singularity isgoing to be anti-Semitic, at
least the one that Elon's programming here.
But but Linda Yacarino, you know, that's, that's
interesting. She's taking this, you know,
moral stance, right? Just look at this.
Remember the Israeli attack on the using the pagers in Lebanon

(47:26):
that killed hundreds and, and and injured thousands, including
medical workers, women and normal people?
That there's Linda Yacarino basically, and that's her tweet
at the time. Take a closer look at that.
We'll just do move that up and show she gave a little explosion
emoji to basically say how cool it was that the Mossad waged

(47:48):
this pager attack on the Lebanese.
So she herself is a little bit of an extremist, but I'll be an
acceptable extremist as far as the US establishment go, IE pro
Israel. So I just thought I'd throw that
any particular? Statement on this she said
anything publicly yet about. What about Croc?

(48:09):
Yeah, she, I need to, obviously we haven't reported on the
details of that because we just got this story just in the last
24 hours, but maybe we can elaborate on that in the future.
We don't have, I don't have thatto hand.
Yeah, sure. OK.
No. Problem.
That's cool, Mark. Let's bring you back then.
And of course, the tragedy in Texas, where you live over the
last few days, has been with respect to the flooding and the

(48:32):
deaths resulted. Indeed, it's about 220 miles
north northwest of where I live.And this is from the US Drought
Monitor, a legitimate source of information here.
Kerr County, Texas, interestingly enough,
experienced a dry spell or drought before the flash
flooding. Flooding that took place on
Independence Day, the 4th of July in the early morning hours

(48:55):
according to the US Drought Monitor.
And I emphasize this, Kerr County was experiencing severe
to exceptional drought conditions before the downpours
began. Drought conditions in Kerr
County have persisted since the start of 2025.
This dry spell likely contributed to the severity of
the floods as the compacted soil, which can turn to clay and

(49:16):
kind of act like a retaining bowl from the drought, reduced
the grounds ability to absorb rainfall.
And as we've heard and our hearts and prayers go out, of
course, 120 plus dead in a six county area total and 170 plus
missing. Those aren't necessarily the
latest numbers, but they're reasonably close.

(49:36):
Now this is AUS drought monitor map and you'll see that along
with the Texas, New Mexico border a little further east in
Texas. And then where I put the arrow,
Kerr County, Texas is here. Those were three of the main
major drought areas as of July 1st, that deep red color so that

(49:58):
it really was very dry there andthat's definitely a contributing
factor. You can also have situations
where the ground is so saturated, there's nowhere to go
but up see. So it can it can get you both
ways. Now moving on from there,
there's a number of other pointsof interest.
This shows some B roll of a major bridge there through Kerr

(50:19):
County. This is from a Fox News
affiliate probably out of San Antonio, and it gives you some
idea of the the severity of the flood, that's for sure.
A house is swept away, such as that one butting up against
highway, highway right of ways and things like that.

(50:39):
A pretty scary situation along the Guadalupe.
I've been along that part of theGuadalupe River once a very
popular area. There's a summer camps and all
sorts of activities all along that river.
It's it's a very pretty area northwest of San Antonio in
what's called Hill Country. So we got to look at that now.

(51:03):
This is an Associated Press itemgetting into the controversy
that exists on social media. Not taking sides here, just
reporting the phenomenon. Associated Press fact Focus.
No weather modification. Excuse me, no comma.
Weather modification Did not 'cause the deadly flash floods

(51:24):
in Texas. Got to make sure I honor that
comma there when I read it. The claim my sum is a July 2nd
cloud seeding operation by Rainmaker Technology
Corporation, which does exist and they did, they did conduct
an operation. The claim is that they somehow
caused the floods in Texas Hill Country on that weekend.
The facts as Associated Press sees it, is it's not possible

(51:47):
that cloud seeding generated thefloods as the process can only
produce limited rain using clouds that already exist.
I think that's generally thoughtto be true forecast predicted
for that weekend, forecasting rain were prior to July 2nd in
what's generally known as a flood prone area.
And a friend of mine, Ron Avery,who lives to the east over in

(52:08):
Seguin, he used to live along the Guadalupe River.
He said most of it at least is indeed a flood prone area.
He even built a house there and he had to put the house kind of
on stilts, he was telling me. But anyway, just as a point of
fact about Rainmaker as a company, this is almost a
separate story. This is their website.

(52:31):
Their slogan is making Earth habitable.
And when you read their stuff, they kind of take a more climate
change is real green sustainability kind of
philosophy. Whereas other cloud seeding
companies I've looked at like the South Texas Weather
Modification Association, they tend to take a more non

(52:51):
political or apolitical stance. Whereas Rainmaker again is more
of that green philosophy. But here's Augustus Dorico and
for the record he's the Rainmaker Technology Corporation
founder and CEO. And for the record, he was a
Peter Thiel Fellow. In 2024, he received a $100,000

(53:12):
Teal Foundation grant. And this picture is taken from a
YouTube interview of him over 2 hours long by Shawn Ryan, a
noted commentator who that identifies himself as an ex Navy
SEAL and ex CIA contractor. So August Historico, I watched
part of it. He explains a lot of things
pretty clearly. He says they actually work more

(53:34):
on making it snow than they do on making it rain, and they
emphasize using drones to do so.Now this is a little bit about
their philosophy from that website, just to give you a
flavor of it. Increasing global consumption
and changing climate patterns are accelerating the depletion
of freshwater resources. Humanity is responsible for

(53:55):
protecting the vitality of the natural world of civilization.
Rainmakers precipitation enhancement technology is the
only immediate scalable solutionto create abundant freshwater.
And then I've got a little something on the areas they
cover and that is keep growing, which is agricultural to help
the farmers supply utilities, mitigate drought.

(54:19):
And maybe that was part of the July 2nd plan when they were in
Rungi and Karn County. Rungi is a city in Karn County,
Texas, on the other side of San Antonio, where we learned from
that drought newspaper that I mentioned a little while ago, We
learned that there was very dry conditions.
So whatever limited operations they had July 2nd may have been

(54:41):
to mitigate drought and nothing more and restoring ecosystems.
So that that's the essential stuff for today on this just to
get the full gamut of what's being discussed and what the
controversies are. But overall, that pretty much
wraps it up for now, guys. Thanks.
Mark, do you have any thoughts on the controversy itself?
Well, A. Couple of points jumped out at

(55:01):
me, of course 1 is that there was forecast for major storms
beforehand so and prior to the cloud seeding on July 2nd.
So that would lend one to believe that yes, there was a
monsoon on the way. And so that would sort of cancel
out the theory that the rainmaker caused the a major

(55:25):
monsoon, 15 inches of rain in a very short space of time.
The other thing is they do do cloud seeding in these areas.
This specific area as well has had cloud seeding done to it for
for many, many years. So why haven't there been a
massive flood, for instance, like this one we've seen this
week? Or is just we're looking at a

(55:45):
situation where it is feast or famine when it comes to the
weather and some of these drought prone areas and flash
flooding is just a reality? Certainly I I found that to be
the case in other parts of the United States.
Texas is particularly bad in that respect, yes.
OK, well, look, we're going to thank you for that, Mark, but
we're going to finish today witha little bit of a an amusing

(56:09):
story, I suppose we could say ina certain sense.
And and that's this because the UK column has been reporting on
the narrative building by successive British regimes for
war in the Arctic since around 2016.
And if you use the search function on the UK column
website and just put the word Arctic and you'll see all the
reporting that we've done over the years.
Now the narrative goes a lot like this.

(56:32):
Climate change is opening up thenorthwestern and N northeastern
passages for navigation resourceexploitation, and that this is
causing competition with Russia and China for navigation and
mineral rights. Now, this is largely what, for
example, what's behind Trump's claims on Canada and Greenland
in recent months. Now yesterday, the BBC finally

(56:54):
caught up, although rather than challenging the narrative, they
naturally support it. But they published this article.
The struggle for control of the Arctic is accelerating, and it's
riskier than ever. Which is really.
Quite a coincidence, because just a few hours prior to the
BBC publishing their article, a screening was held.
I'm sorry. Oh, right.

(57:15):
OK, so I've just blown that, buta screening was held for a
documentary. Documentary produced by someone
who has worked very closely withthe BBC for many years.
That's David Bailey and well, Patrick and I attended the
screening. The film was complete propaganda
piece. I think it's fair to say,
Patrick, or do you think I'm unfair in saying that it it did?

(57:37):
Appear that way very pro military about the, you know,
almost saying we need to militarize the Arctic to to to
counter the Russian threat and the Chinese who are both up to
no good. And so we need to pour lots of
resources into the Arctic because this is the new
frontline in in the new sort of not so cold, Cold War and.

(57:58):
And lots of imagery like this. This is just a short excerpt
from it. Now, this film has yet to be
released in the UK, although it has been released in other
European countries, including those in the Arctic region.
But you know, the message very much is that both sides, by that
I mean the West and Russia and China are, are arming.

(58:20):
Now, one of the things that though I found quite strange in
the narrative that was being presented was of course, the
reason for this, Patrick, is climate change means that in
fact, we have easy navigation through across the Arctic region
and so on. And it's therefore possible to

(58:41):
get places, not only to get places, but to exploit the raw
materials as we're as we're saying.
And so that's on one hand and yet on the other hand, they're
busy talking about the fact thatChina and Russia will China in
particular, investing huge amounts of money building Ice
Breakers like they're going out of fashion.
And and so the question is, how do these these two positions

(59:02):
stack up? Because it seems to me that if,
if the ice is melting and we're heading towards an ice free
Arctic, then there's no need forIce Breakers.
Well, I. Think not yet, because there is
no ice ice free Arctic and and Al Gore was promising an ice
free Arctic. You remember the The
Inconvenient Truth back in in 2005 basically saying that it
will be ice free by like 2010 orsomething like that.

(59:24):
Anyway, here we are in 2025. It's still not ice free.
And the definition of ice free, according to the experts, isn't
no ice. It's less than 1,000,000.
Square. Miles of ice cover.
And so if you look at the work of Tony Heller at Real Climate
Science or Piers Corbin and someof these other what you might

(59:46):
call climate skeptics, you'll note that there is still heavy
ice cover most of the year in the Arctic.
And it's only during certain times in the summer where
certain passages are opening up.And again, we don't want to get
into the climate debate, but ergo, the thesis is because it's
melting. This is why Russia is ramping up
its military activity to take over the resources of the

(01:00:09):
Arctic. But there's no no one saying
that. Isn't the reason Russia's
remilitarizing is because of theNATO expansion into Finland and
Sweden and let's say the blowingup of the Nordstrom pipeline and
a few other things? And they'll say, no, no, no, it
doesn't have anything to do withthat.
It's, it's because of Ukraine that NATO has expanded, because

(01:00:31):
somehow what happened in Ukrainemeans that Sweden and Finland
are under threat. So that's the logic.
And I'm, I'm sorry, but this is just, it's disingenuous at best.
This is the same type of circular logic you see at every
level of the NATO strata. And certainly our media has
bought into that narrative. So the reality is this type of a

(01:00:53):
film, this, these types of stories in the BBC are sending a
clear message, Mike, which is that war is coming, war is
inevitable. There's no chance for diplomacy.
We can't compromise with the Russians or the Chinese, and
because they're up to no good aswell.
And so there's no diplomatic track.
So get ready for war. But yet Europe is not wanting to

(01:01:16):
actually fight with Russia because they are afraid to even
send any troops into Ukraine. Why is that?
Because they don't want to fightRussia.
They want Ukraine to be the proxy and they want to keep
making money on all the defense industry contracts and so forth
that are causing defense stocks in Europe to go through the
roof. If you have a stock portfolio

(01:01:37):
with any of those companies and you know what I'm talking about
so there's money to be made here.
These are good jobs, good defense jobs.
They call them. You remember just like good
green jobs. You remember that good green
jobs Well, now it's forget the green new deal.
Now it's the defense. It's the defense new deal, good
defense jobs. So they want to remilitarize and
mobilize society to fight a war that, let's face it, Europe's

(01:02:00):
not really interested in fighting, and they would require
American backup to do it anyway while all America is receding
from the European theater. But hey, let's make some money
along the way. And it's a great distraction
from all the real problems, the real problems in this country,
in Europe and in the region, notto mention an increasing wealth

(01:02:20):
gap, which is going to increase even more with these types of
agendas. Mike.
So resilience, it's all about resilience, Defence resilience,
absolutely. And as I say, this is just the
latest salvo in a narrative that's been building for several
years now, which we've been tracking.
So do have a look at the UK column website for the history

(01:02:41):
of this. OK, let's leave it there for
today. I'm going to say thank you very
much to Matt Campbell for joining us.
Thank you to Mark and Patrick, of course, and thank you for
everybody that's been watching. We'll be back in a few minutes
of UK Column member for UK Column News Extra.
Otherwise, have a great weekend and we'll see you at 1:00 PM as
usual on Monday. See you then.
Bye bye.

All Episodes

UK Column News - 11th July 2025

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}UK Column News - 11th July 2025