UK Column News - 27th August 2025

Charles Malet, Mike Robinson, Sandi Adams and David Miller with today's UK Column News.

Sources: https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/uk-column-news-27th-august-2025

00:00 The Flag Wars: What’s Really Behind Britain’s Latest Symbolism Battle

24:30 They Won’t Drop Digital ID — We Still Don’t Want It

30:27 Cash for Abortions: What’s Really Going On in Australia?

36:22 UK Column Will Be ‘On Location’ In York

38:24 Tracking Viruses Through Waste Water: Are They Taking The Piss?

41:16 All Roads Lead To The Agenda 2030 Control Framework

47:47 The Renewable Rip-Off: More Green Energy, Less Green in Your Wallet

1:00:33 Drought: Where’s the Water? Schemes of the Agenda Men

Episode Transcript

(00:08):
Good afternoon. It's just gone 1:00 on Wednesday
the 27th of August 2025. Welcome to UK column News.
I'm your host, Charles Mallett and I'm joined in the studio
today by Mike Robinson. Welcome to the programme, Mike.
Pleasure, Charles. Good and we have our live links,
Sandy Adams from Somerset. Now in today's programme we'll
be looking at the relationship between the Online Safety Act

(00:31):
and digital identity, a closer dive into the surveillance state
as it is, how the 2030 Agenda iswielded as a control mechanism
and a well, I suppose another look at the very questionable
decisions being made in the energy sector as well as the
relationship between so called public health propaganda and

(00:53):
celebrity. But we are going to get started
today with the issue of deportation, and the past
fortnight has seen the issue of mass deportation as being the
key political and social battleground, with opportunists
crawling out of the woodwork at every turn.
Just yesterday, Nigel Farage andZia Youssef took to the stage to

(01:17):
give speeches under what they'recalling Operation Restoring
Justice, including saying that they would do away with not just
the European Convention on HumanRights but also the Human Rights
Act 1998. Now they in fairness then, they
did take a a large number of questions from the press, which
they answered in varying degreesof well, they were varyingly

(01:42):
convincing, let's say to be perhaps generous to them.
There seem to be exceptions to every rule when they were
actually pushed, especially concerning the rights of
Afghanistan residents to remain.Farage qualifying saying that
yes, absolutely those who foughtwith the Brits and Americans.

(02:02):
Which of course is slightly contradictory considering that
the most recent statistics show that Afghans are among the
greatest numbers of those that he is suggesting that he would
deport in the 1st place. It's all a bit contradictory and
confusing, but nonetheless, everybody is weighing in.
Yvette Cooper, of course, sayingthat she will overhaul the

(02:23):
system after inheriting. She's very clear to to make the
point that she's inherited the problem.
And from the government statement, she's promising to
end hotel use under some of the most significant changes to the
asylum system in decades. And she concedes that whilst
there is a backlog of 106,000 cases waiting to be heard, but

(02:45):
wait times are increasing, with an average wait time of 53
weeks. Now, just like Nigel Farage, the
government appears to have no real idea of how it's going to
actually achieve any of this. It's a point of political
expediency at the moment. And just to confirm what I mean
by that, just have a quick listen to what Dan Dan Jarvis
said to the BBC recently. No commentators on this

(03:09):
particular issue think that hotels are the appropriate
setting. No, no, I think, I think you
made that point falsely. So what is the appropriate
setting? You are a minister from the Home
Office? Yeah.
So. The appropriate setting will be
a range of other different sort of sets of arrangements.
Can you name some? Parts of the country, well we,
we are working through the options of what they might look

(03:29):
we. Had a yeah.
We've had a year and during thattime we've returned 35,000
people who didn't have a right to be here and we've increased
asylum decision making by 116%. You you you have to do more than
one figure. You know this is a.
Issue a live issue now. We've had somebody on the
programme this morning saying the first council, Broxburn

(03:50):
Council, saying they're going toseek legal advice, whether they
can now do the same. This problem's going to get
bigger. It's a headache for your
government. Could you at least answer just
so specifically? If it's not hotels as security
minister, what is it? It won't be hotels because of
the commitment that we've made and therefore it will have to be
a range of other more appropriate accommodation.

(04:15):
Dan Jarvis there taking the hit for the government.
In fairness, the BBC, the the correct question is being asked
and there's an absolute failure to answer it.
Now. The the catalyst for all of this
coming into the news has been the High Court ruling on the
case brought by Epping Forest District Council and on their
website Chris Whitbread, the leader of the council has
written, and this I should remind you, concerns the Bell

(04:37):
Hotel. He's written, so far as the
council is aware, there is no criminal record checking of
individuals who might only have been in the country a matter of
days before being housed at the hotel.
The use by the Home Office of the premises for asylum seekers
poses a clear risk of further escalating community tensions
already at a high and the risk of irreparable harm to the local

(04:58):
community. Then he says we are frustrated
that the Home Office continues not to listen.
And then he explains how planning permission is being
brought to bear. He says it is not in use as a
hotel and it doesn't function asa hotel.
As I said, this is the Bell Hotel.
The establishment of a centre toaccommodate asylum seekers is
not appropriate in planning terms.

(05:19):
Asylum seekers have been at the Bell Hotel since early April
this year, but the council has only just been moved to act by
the protest. So it would appear that direct
action can yield results, but there is nuance in how they're
interpreted. Now Mr Justice Eyre, in summing
up at the High Court, makes a few important things clear.
He take he takes heed of the planning issue but completely

(05:42):
dismisses all other concerns. And This is why the sorry.
It is this precedent which should be considered, especially
since so many other councils areproposing similar action now.
Eyre said the questions to be answered are whether there has
been a change in the use of the bell and if there has, whether

(06:02):
that change is material in planning terms.
He then goes on to say that the claimant has submitted that
there was a risk of irredeemableharm, that prolonged
continuation of the use of the bell could result in community
tensions which would not heal. That amounted essentially to
speculation and I take no account of it.
And then he said, the defendant contends that the current

(06:23):
application has been triggered by unlawful activity to which no
weight should be attached and byunjustified speculation.
I have explained above the limited weight to be given to
the fear of crime and the consequences of the reactions,
both lawful and unlawful, to theuse of the bell.
So whilst this may be held as a victory, as I say for direct

(06:43):
action, it's very much qualifiedby the manner in which the legal
system has actually addressed itand in fact the specific
concerns raised have very much not been addressed.
More than that, in listening to what Air said, they've actually
been substantively dismissed, which shows both the government
and the judiciary which refuses to respond to the issue at hand.

(07:04):
Now whilst there is no doubt that Community Action has
prompted the Council to act, though one may ask what was
right about the planning situation back in April, since
when they've failed to do anything now, as the Jarvis
interview demonstrates, it further begs the question of
what now? And of course, is there the
potential for even less suitableaccommodation being found for

(07:26):
young men who are already here? So the public imagination in
relation to this has been captured and as you may be
aware, in what appears to be an organic campaign to fly the
flags of Saint George and of theUnion all over the place.
And this is well underway, well supported.
But I would say that we would dowell to consider how the use of
flags has been weaponized in recent years.

(07:49):
And here are just some of those which have split communities
right down in the middle. And if you're only listening,
I've shown the NHS rainbow, Black Lives Matter, Pride,
Progress and the Palestinian flag, of course, before the
Union Flag and the Cross of Saint George.
Now they're described as an initiative of national fervour
and patriotism. There is huge potential for

(08:10):
divisive action and serious manipulation of the emotions of
the population and, as this video shows, running silently in
the background, the aggressive removal of Palestinian flags in
order that they be seen to be replaced with British ones.
So the very public order issue that Nigel Farage has been
speaking about can absolutely betriggered by the conflation of a

(08:33):
sense of national pride with apparent anger at communities
which are perceived to be not British.
Now also, just as the case, justas was the case in the wake of
Southport, this will pit people against the police rather than
against those manipulating the system in the 1st place.
And here's an example of exactlythat taking effect.

(08:56):
Hey, they're throwing digs. Hey, he's going up that that
flag is going to the top of thatlamp post.
Go on. He's getting up here.
He's going. He's got up.

(09:18):
Yay, yay. Go on, Bellai.
Fucking running the soulful boys.
Go on, Bellai. Yeah.
My apologies, I think there was a certain amount of colourful

(09:40):
language in the background there, but it just illustrates
that this is already a situationof aggro with the police.
And here we have Robert Jenrick committing criminal damage, of
course, as he perhaps unwittingly Stokes racial
tensions here, hanging the Unionflag on a lamppost.
Now whilst he might be considered at best naive,
there's no doubt that others know exactly what they're doing.

(10:02):
And the reason I describe it in this way is that the flag
campaign is called Operation Raise the Colours and has been
started, or at least claimed to be by this man Andy Saxon as you
see in the top left. He's supported by Urban Scoop, a
pro Israel and very much anti Islam film production company.
And they're here promoting a campaign to save Tommy, Tommy
Robinson of course with Rebel News and known Zionist

(10:25):
affiliated organisation. So some of the response to this
campaign has been alive to the dangers of the manipulation and
the unfortunate likelihood of this demonising in particular
anyone perceived as Muslim or Asian.
This tweet there saying this is raise the colours in practise.
It's not pride, not heritage, it's intimidation, racism and
hatred dressed up as patriotism.And this video, in effect,

(10:49):
proves the point that this person is trying to make.
It's not a country. Yeah, for your future, for your.
Future. Sweetheart, all these ragged
Palestinians. Get up.

(11:25):
It's very easy to see how a campaign that may be perceived
by many as a as a noble and and indeed fairly straightforward
campaign could actually very easily be subverted.
Now, Urban Scoop further promotes the idea that the Quran
is in fact condoning acts of violence.
And it's at this point that I would cite David Miller's most

(11:46):
recent article on the UK column website.
And I am pleased to say that David joins us on the news
programme today now. So David, welcome to UK Column
News. Just to get started with what
I've just said in mind in a way in in the way in which Islam may

(12:07):
be regarded by some and indeed how it's been manipulated on the
shores. If you could just tell us a
little bit about your article please.
Well, I mean, the article is an in depth investigation based on
leaked internal government documents, which tries to look

(12:31):
at the way in which the British government, in particular the
Home Office and its Homeland Security Group, which is an
intelligence agency within the Home Office, has engaged in
effectively astroturfing a wholenumber of different Muslim
groups as part of their effort to effectively domesticate Islam

(12:52):
and especially to respond to thethreat which they perceived as
coming from Islam. After the success or the the the
the size of the anti Iraq war demonstrations in 2002 and three
and four. So the government's response to
that was to try and say, well, we want to change Islam.
Islam shouldn't be engaged in, Muslim shouldn't be engaged in

(13:16):
criticising government or foreign policy, especially over
the war in Iraq, but also in relation to the question of
Palestine. And so that the, the reason that
they've done this and they've asked reserved a huge number of
Muslim groups is to try and suggest that that Muslims are
British patriots and that it's wrong and indeed extremist for

(13:37):
Muslims to oppose Western wars. So of course that's been a long
term campaign of affairs. And what they've done
effectively is that the the commissioned APR firm to set up
a whole number of different Muslim organisations or to work
with existing non Muslim organisations whereby the

(13:58):
government would write the messages that these Muslim
organisations would give out. And and these these messages
would be given to the PR firm and the PR firm given to the
Muslim organisations. So that sometimes the Muslim
organisations didn't even know that it was British intelligence
officials who were actually writing their key messages.
So the investigation really is an intent to show how that
process worked and how the government was able to keep this

(14:20):
secret, keep secret the idea that that what's usually secret
their their involvement in it. And so of course what they did
there was they wrote a whole series of contracts with the PR
firm which which in very great detail showed that the how the
operation worked such that they would be create this new office
which was called the Hub. And Muslim organisations would

(14:45):
be brought into the Hub as if itwas a pro bono free a community
relations organisation. Actually it was run directly by
this PR firm. And secretly in the Hub, this
this office there would be PR firm staff.
And secretly there were also 2 British intelligence officers
sitting in the backroom making sure that they checked and and

(15:05):
cleared every message which wentout.
So this is a quite elaborate attempt to manipulate the Muslim
community and to and actually toalso manipulate non Muslims in
this country into effectively not supporting the anti war
movement and the movement for Palestinian rights.
That's that's the purpose of it.David, I suppose my first

(15:28):
question would be, is there any evidence to suggest that aside
from not supporting the anti warmovement that there's been any
effort to manipulate opinions about each demographic as it
were, so Muslims versus other communities in the UK and
particularly the white communityversus Muslims?

(15:52):
Well the the idea is to try and destroy the possibility of white
people and non white people coming together to oppose UK
foreign policy. And the reason that they wanted
to do that was of course they saw that there was a unity in
2002 three and four between aspects of the conscious Muslim

(16:14):
community and the left and the anti war movement and that
frightened elements of British intelligence.
So this whole effort has been totry and split that asunder and
to make it clear that that Muslims should first of all,
Muslims shouldn't support the anti war movement, they
shouldn't oppose Western wars. They should be, they should

(16:37):
adorn themselves with the Union flag, which is one of the key
themes of one of these campaigns.
And also that they wanted to split the Muslims apart from,
from from white left groups, if you like.
And part of part of the effort, therefore, was to say that there
are these good Muslims who are the community groups working
with them, although they didn't say they were with them.

(16:58):
And there are these bad Muslims and these are the Muslim
extremists. And so they try to show that
people, the Muslims who were, who are conscious and who are
saying we don't want to kill a million Iraqis, We don't want to
participate in the genocide in Palestine.
They were tried, they tried to smear them as being extremists,
as being what they were called jihadis, etcetera.
Now, of course, this is at the same time, exactly the same time

(17:21):
as, as actually the British government was supporting Al
Qaeda and similar groups in Syria.
And we've seen of course, the effects of that in the coming to
power of the Jwani government inSyria in in recent months.
So there's like there's a deep malaise inside the intelligence
services such that they are both, on the one hand,

(17:42):
supporting people they call extremists, on the other hand
smearing honest Muslims who oppose Western government policy
as being extremists. And 3rd, thirdly, trying to wrap
some elements of the Muslim community in the Union flag.
And I think that's a profoundly mistaken approach.
And David, you know, when we look at the, the types of types

(18:04):
of organisations that you talk about in your, in your article,
we've obviously got the researchinformation Communications unit.
We've got, you know, reference to the, the old information
research department within the Foreign Office, which of course
we know has been succeeded by the counter disinformation media
development programme in the Foreign Office.

(18:25):
And then later on in the articleyou, you are talking about
Breakthrough Media Network, now known as the Zinc Network
Limited. And so we've got parallels here
between what's going on with themanipulation of the Islamic
narrative, but also the manipulation of the Russian
narrative. And, and so it's it's pretty

(18:45):
cynical in both cases. Well, yes, I mean, the, the the
stuff that you're talking about,the counter disinformation unit,
of course is run by MR6 and by aguy called and the Andy Price.
And of course he he was involvedin running the the integrity

(19:07):
initiative, which you've coveredon your show before, which of
course was an anti Russian thing, part of the whole Russia
gate furago of nonsense, which was created and which has now
actually been exposed by the Trump administration just in the
last few days by Tulsi Gabbard. So, yeah, that's part of the
same thing. This is the anti Russian stuff
which of course is in favour of the the adventures in Ukraine

(19:30):
and of supporting Zelensky and indeed the the neo Nazis who
support Zelensky at the same time as trying to to target
those who who were against the Iraq war or who are are against
the genocide in Gaza. Now this is a set a set of
organisations which are closely related to the intelligence
agencies. As I mentioned, Riku, the

(19:51):
organisation you you mentioned there which is effective with
today's Information Research Department, is part of the
Homeland Security Group, which is a British intelligence agency
inside the Home Office and comesunder effectively the rubric of
MI 5. The organisation you refer to
Counter Disinformation Unit comes under the aegis of MI 6,
which of course was key to the the propaganda operations in

(20:15):
Syria where they've employed a whole number of people to
promote effectively Al Qaeda in Syria against the government of
Bashar al Assad. So this is a deep cynicism
inside. British intelligence and inside,
inside the strategy of British government.
And what we're trying to do hereis to show how that works, to
illustrate to people that that these people are not honest and

(20:37):
that they are engaged in a, in ahuge apparatus of deception.
And we should point out that this is Part 1 of 2.
Is that right? Yes.
So in Part 2 what I will do is Imean this.
The first part is a long articleand it goes into great detail
from the leaked documents with all the contracts, etcetera.

(20:57):
And in Part 2, what I will go onto do is to look at the specific
organisations that work very closely with British
intelligence, and there's quite,quite a number of them, but I'll
look in depth about four or fiveof them.
David, thank you very much. Just to just to finish off, have
you got any thoughts on on the general situation in the UK at
the moment and how you think this might pan out?

(21:21):
Well, I think it's extremely worrying.
We having a huge escalation in Islamophobia.
You mentioned Tommy Robinson andRebel Media.
They are. And of course I've done
investigations of Robinson's background and his alliance with
the science movement and the funding that he's had from the
very beginning of the English Defence League from the Zionist
movement. I think there's a great need to

(21:44):
disinter some of what's happening with just in the way
that you started to do there with the flag.
I mean, the whole question of ofremigration as a concept, where
does that come from? It clearly is linked to earlier
Zionist themes about, for example, the concept of Arabia,
which was popularised by a womancalled using a pen name Bat your

(22:08):
her real name is as she say, a Lipman who is a former Mossad
operative. Her and her husband operated in
Morocco for the Mossad. And so there's a need to look at
look at the links there are between the, the Zionist
movement and this current activity.
Like in the film that you just played.
Of course, one of the key indications that there's a, a

(22:30):
Zionist connection is the fact that they're taking down what
was it. They called it Islamic terrorist
flags, like the flag of Palestine.
Now as an indication of the way in which the the Zionists are
involved, deeply involved with the far right in this country in
a way which people haven't understood, perhaps they
understand that this is are involved with the neo con think
tanks and with the pushing Islamophobia and all of that.

(22:51):
But they're deeply involved in the far right, as we've shown
with, for example, Tommy Robinson.
And that's something I think which requires much more
research work. And I'm glad to see that you've
started to do some of that. David, thank you very much for
joining us today. That's been that's been really
useful and we'll look forward tothe second part and having you
back on in the very near future.Thank you.

(23:12):
Thanks David. And of course, there'll be a
link to the article referenced in the show notes.
Now with David in mind and indeed the legal situation that
he's been through with Bristol University, just to finish off
this piece, it is perfectly remarkable that the Wall Street
Journal has printed an an open letter from Charles Kushner, who
is father of Jared Kushner, Donald Trump's son in And this

(23:39):
is particularly to suggest that France has reached a tipping
point in terms of anti Semitism.And it actually concerns the
phrase in today's world, anti Zionism is anti semitism, plain
and simple. So this is the the United States
ambassador to France has been inthe chair but a month telling
France how it is. So one wonders whether there is

(24:03):
to be some sort of a split, at least cosmetically between the
United States and European countries.
But we won't hold our breath necessarily.
And I would just finish off thisreport by reminding you that
ultimately the goal of the migration or indeed anti
migration narrative is digital identity.
And this is where the Labour Together Ritz card idea will

(24:23):
come to into its own. Which leads us on to Mike taking
us into the next report. As I say, the Brit card here
saying that it's concerning people without permission to
live here and there should be a mandatory universal national
identity credential. So there we have it.
OK, let's just have a look then changing topics slightly on the

(24:44):
censorship narrative because thelegacy media continues to show
for censorship and digital ID. And this Sky article then is
typical. Digital ID is great, they say,
because a pornography viewing has plummeted in the UK.
And well, we talked a little bitabout this last week as well.
But the narrative continues, theheadlines continue.

(25:05):
Sky attempts to lower the success of the online safety Axe
Edge verification roll out by speak.
Speaking to some teenagers at the Youth club in Warrington,
you seem to be suggesting they feel much cleaner since the new
regime was put in place. And to quote Ryan, who's 17,
we're told he said that the Internet was a very, very

(25:25):
malicious place and described frequently seeing inappropriate
content. Just one month on, he says this
algorithm now seems to be tamed,although he still describes the
Internet as malicious. And they published this graph to
show what has happened. And although they do pay lip
service to VPN use, there's no analysis of whether or not

(25:47):
there's any real decline in pornography use in the UK or
whether it's just masked by VPN use, at which it is, of course.
Now here is Proton VPN, and they've published one graph here
which shows exactly what's goingon.
And other VPN providers are reporting similar increases, and

(26:10):
these increases have continued since July.
So clearly, you know, the VPN use is masking activity as
people recognise what the government has actually done
here and they're wanting to therefore hide what they're
doing on the Internet. The fact that the investigators
investigatory powers legislationrequires Internet service

(26:31):
providers to maintain metadata and records of every website
that we visit seems to have passed most people by over the
last few years. And it's taken this piece of
legislation to get to get the point across.
And I'm going to be talking a bit more about that in Extra.
But in the meantime, in the United States, the FTC, the
Federal Trade Commission, has written to platform chief

(26:55):
executives to warn them that compliance with the Online
Safety Act may leave them open to prosecution in the US.
So FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson said that restricting access to
content for American users to comply with foreign legal
requirements might amount to a violation of Section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits unfair or
deceptive commercial practises. He cited the E US Digital

(27:18):
Services Act and the U KS OnlineSafety Act, as well as reports
of British efforts to gain access to encrypted Apple iCloud
data, as examples of measures that could put companies at risk
under U.S. law. He invited company leaders to
meet with his office to discuss how they intend to balance
demands from international regulators while continuing, he

(27:42):
says, to fulfil their legal obligations in the United
States. And on the digital ID front
itself, the global roll out continues.
So biometric update here is reporting that Nigeria's
National Identity Management Commission must make sure it
issues at least 59 million national identification numbers
by December the 31st, 2026. Now, this is an objective of the

(28:05):
the ID Authority is pursuing in line with revised terms for the
Nigerian Identity for Development project.
It's an initiative funded by theWorld Bank alongside the French
Development Agency and the European Investment Bank to the
tune of around $430 million. Now, Barometric Biometric Update
cites a report by Tech Cabal which says that they need to

(28:27):
issue at least 3.3 million of these new identification numbers
every month between now and the end of the project, which is 3
times the current rollout rate. And so that is probably unlikely
to happen. But Biometric Update also
reports that Sri Lanka is in a similar boat.
In this case, they intend to integrate the Sri Lanka Unique

(28:48):
Digital ID project with the Electronic National Identity
Card project, assigning unique ID numbers, centralising various
types of IDs and capturing data like birth certificates and tax
identification. And finally on this topic for
today, the future Marketing Insights website takes a look at
the size of digital of the digital ID market over the next

(29:10):
few years. The digital identity services
market is predicted to grow from28 1/2 billion U.S. dollars in
2025 to 86 1/2 billion U.S. dollars by 2035.
And they provide us with a nice graph for that.
The leading segment in digital identity services market in 2025

(29:30):
is identity verification and so called know your customer, which
of course is related to the banks.
It's something that we're all subject to.
And the top key players in this,they consider the the likes of
Nexus, LEXIS, Nexus Risk Solutions, Experian, Truly,
Trulio, Jumio, Onfido, Mitac Systems, IDEMIA, Thalas, I prove

(29:55):
GBG and so a mixture of social credit companies in the West
here and military industrial complex in there.
So I don't know what else to sayabout that.
But this agenda rolls on a pace,and it looks like it's, you
know, it's clearly a global effort.
It is, but I think we would be well advised to cast our eyes
towards Nigeria in six months time and see how they're doing

(30:18):
because if uptake has been anything like it was for the
central bank digital currency, it's going to be a disaster.
So I think that's what we have to hope for.
Now moving on, last week you'll recall that Sandy gave a report
on still birth and indeed still what we were called stillborn
baby payments in Australia. Now, the situation has evolved
somewhat since then, but just before we have a look at that,

(30:39):
we'll go to Sandy for a very brief synopsis as to what she
was reporting last week. Thanks, Charles.
Yes, I, I came across this last week and the, it looks as though
the, the Australian government are kind of covertly encouraging
incentivising women to have abortions, late term abortions

(31:03):
20 weeks plus. And they, they're giving them an
initial payment of 4200 or $300.And then after that, because the
baby is killed in utero, they are given birth to a stillborn
child. And because it's a stillborn
child, there is another payment that they can get, which is

(31:24):
$22,000 for a parental leave, um, payment so that they can,
uh, for, for grieving for, for up to 18 months.
So that is the, the, the way that it's, it's and, and
services Australia are encouraging women to, to take
these payments and giving them all the apparatus to do so, all

(31:46):
the forms to fill in. And what's happened really is
that midwives are getting very, midwives and doctors and nurses
are getting very, very stressed because they have to, because
the paperwork is crucial. It is literally saying, yes, you
have got a stillborn child, you're entitled to this, even
though they have who willingly aborted their child.

(32:07):
So all the it's down to the paperwork basically is if the
paperwork is there and it's beensigned off by, by the by the
medical profession who are having to do that.
Otherwise they lose their jobs and they're traumatised by it,
then the payments go through. Thanks Andy.
And and this has caused sufficient stink, quite rightly,
for a question to have been asked in the Australian

(32:28):
Parliament, which we'll just have a look at.
This is from Pauline Hanson. Why is it made to women who
deliberately abort a baby, Minister?
This policy risks creating a financial incentive for late
term abortion where Australian women can terminate a pregnancy
order to the day before birth, they can terminate a pregnancy

(32:51):
up to the day before birth, allowing women to receive a lump
sum payment and access to paid parental leave of up to $22,754.
Why is the Albanese government funding the murder of healthy
babies, some left to die in a kidney ditch for up to five
hours, so that. Was the question and the

(33:12):
minister, who had the unenviabletask of responding, said this.
The Gallagher Well, the answer to that question is the same as
to my earlier question. There are laws in this country
around termination of pregnancy.They are laws that are regulated

(33:33):
by the States and territories, and I support those laws.
I one of the reasons I got into politics was to ensure that
women had the right to make choices about their own
reproductive health. I accept that some people
disagree with with my views on that and with laws in States and
territories that that provide the regulatory arrangements

(33:54):
around that. Now, in relation to the
stillborn baby payment, as I said, and as it relates to other
payments including PPL, evidenceis required.
Documentation is required beforethose payments are made in the
relationship. In relation to the stillborn
baby payment, that includes certification from someone

(34:15):
attending the birth, a health professional attending the
birth, that the birth was of a stillborn child.
That is the documentation that'smade or required in order to
receive that payment. She was absolutely trying to
evade the question and UK columngot in touch with Services

(34:37):
Australia directly and they too absolutely tried to evade the
question. They sent a statement saying it
was attributable and in that text said that government
recognises the tragic loss and trauma of still birth.
They said a medical professionalis responsible for determining
if the definition of a stillbornbaby is met for the purposes of
the stillborn baby payment. And that is at the crux of this

(34:58):
because of course, if the the way in which a foetus is
extracted after being terminatedconstitutes still still birth as
far as the medical professional is concerned, then indeed the
system may be manipulated. Then Services Australia go on to
say that claims are assessed on the basis of evidence and
documented documentation provided by a medical

(35:19):
professional. A medical professional is
responsible for considering the cause of death.
So in other words, Services Australia, they're washing their
hands of any further investigation into the matter as
to exactly what it was that the medical professional had written
up and why. And then they go on to say, as
though to cast one's attention elsewhere, they say for
circumstances that are not a still birth, such as termination

(35:42):
of pregnancy supports are available through Services
Australia, including counsellingand support to connect with
local services. By which they mean if it's been
written up as a termination rather than an abortion, sorry
than a than a still birth. So Services Australia very much
avoiding the question here. And indeed they refused on a

(36:03):
follow up enquiry, they absolutely refused to answer any
further questions about this. They exactly as Sandy reports,
they are without doubt incentivising late term
abortions by the waving of moneyfor exactly this this type of
procedure. Now moving on UK column is a

(36:23):
phenomenal research resource andI hope you are able to use the
website to its greatest effect, whether or not you're a member
by searching first for it, making sure that you're looking
through all the various sectionsand indeed going down to the
comment on the home page. If you would like to join us as
a member, the front page, we'll guide you through that whether

(36:44):
you'd like to do it on a monthly, annual, or indeed
lifetime basis. Now, the interview that went out
yesterday was Diane Rasmussen Mcaddy speaking to Louise Payton
on holistic health. So please do go back and listen
to that's gone, that's gone out Well, and just up now is an
article by Jobst at Land Group, which is on evil power and
artificial intelligence. You may have read Jobst articles

(37:07):
to date on AI and Indeed. This is very, very incisive, but
of course makes that distinctionbetween what is or is not
possible in relation to the human programming side of it.
And then we've got coming up tonight, Germ talking to Carl
Zarr on Trump making India greatagain this time.
And then going out tomorrow at 1:00 in the afternoon.

(37:28):
I am speaking to Alex Thompson on a question of faith.
And in particular, why did the Church of England go wrong?
We only had 60 minutes, but we covered a fair amount of
grounds. I really would encourage you to
listen to that. And in terms of in terms of
what's coming up, we are still very much looking forward to
seeing you in person, we hope atour event in York where we have

(37:52):
Andrew Wakefield speaking. And indeed you will have access
to his film Protocol 7, whether or not you join us in person or
via the live stream now, as wellas Andrew Wakefield, test lorry
will be there and a great volumeof the tickets have gone
already. So please don't delay too long
in committing to that. And just a reminder, there will

(38:13):
also be a good social event in the evening.
So we really hope to see you there.
And if you can't make it, do please join us on the live
stream to that. Now this takes us up to the the
subject of biosurveillance, which Mike is going to describe
a bit more about. Yes, indeed.
So a new programme to evaluate wastewater monitoring could be

(38:34):
used to detect a wider range of dangerous pathogens was launched
today by the UK Health Security Agency.
Sorry, their words, not mine. They say they will assess the
use of cutting edge technologiesto improve the U KS ability to
detect and identify the genetic material of various viruses in

(38:55):
wastewater, tracking how the amount of virus detected changes
over time. And they say that this builds on
the U KS existing wastewater surveillance for polio and if
successful, could develop the U KS capability to detect
dangerous diseases such as Crimean Congo hemorrhagic fever,
a severe disease. These are their words, pandemic
in Africa, the Balkans, the Middle East and parts of Asia

(39:18):
that has never before been targeted in wastewater testing.
So I'm sure you're impressed. It goes on.
The programme will also explore the potential of these
technologies to create an early warning system for pathogens
such as mpox, West Nile virus and Lhasa, which could in future
enable the UK to detect and takefaster action on outbreaks which

(39:39):
their words, as we saw in the COVID-19 pandemic, is vital for
an effective response. So try not to laugh.
I appreciate this is a comedy section of the programme.
But anyway, if we remember back to 2020, the exact same story
was coming out of the British regime then, this time from

(39:59):
Defra, the Environment Agency and Joint Bio Security Centre,
because the UKHSA didn't exist yet.
So what did they say? They said the project has
already worked successfully in an area in the southwest of
England where sewage sampling data showed a spike in
coronavirus material despite relatively low numbers of people
seeking tests. And then we got a quote here

(40:21):
from George Eustice, who said atthe time, this is a significant
step forward in giving us a clear idea of infection rates
both nationally and locally, particularly in areas where
there may be large numbers of people who aren't showing any
symptoms and therefore aren't seeking tests.
And then the report at the time said that the programme was

(40:41):
first announced in June. This would be 20/20/2020 has now
proven that fragments of geneticmaterial from the virus can be
detected in wastewater. So Charles, I, I don't know what
you think of that, but but I find it highly impressive.
I'm afraid to say I really don'tthink very much of it.
Yeah, sarcasm over. Yeah, I'm sorry.

(41:02):
It is. I'm all out.
But yes, I mean, no doubt they'll keep banging that
particular drum or splashing it or whatever one does with it.
But yes, it sounds like completenonsense.
Sandy, on that theme, I suppose considering all these things are
related and the control mechanism that is Agenda 2030,
what are your thoughts on that right now?

(41:22):
Well, I'm, you know, I'm, I'm just about to speak really about
how 2030 is really the, the nub of everything.
Everything really radiates out from from 2030.
And I, I did a talk at a festival a few weeks ago called
the Dirt Girt Dog Festival in, in Somerset.

(41:43):
Girt means big. So it's a big dog festival.
It's on some, it's on, it's anyway, it's on the the Gert dog
of Langport, which is a, an effigy in the land.
And, and anyway, a lot of peopleenjoyed seeing this and the way
I broke it down and said, oh, you know, this actually makes
sense because it's like joining the dots.

(42:05):
There's so many things going wrong in our world and it kind
of brings it all back. And you know, you see where it's
all radiating from. So my first slide is really a
kind of a visual of that. Now you can't see it very well
here because it's quite small. But in the, in the centre is

(42:25):
Agenda 2030. And I will explain all these
other ones radiating dating out because all of it is linked.
And 2030 Agenda 2030, which was,which was brought about in 2015
by, uh, it originated from Agenda 21.
It became 20/13/2015 at the Vatican, uh, by President Obama
where the 17 goals were launched.

(42:47):
So umm, the next slide is umm, really about the, the control
framework and how that, that works.
We've got umm, one of the branches is DEI mandates
enforcing ideological compliancein workplaces, education and
government, undermining meritocracy and creating
division. And then we've got net 0

(43:07):
policies, costly energy transitions that dismantle
rebar, reliable infrastructure, raise living costs and energy
costs and give over the energy control to global actors.
And then we've got mass migration, overloading housing
and services, changing demographics rapidly and eroding
national cohesion. Yeah, we, we've got a lot of

(43:31):
these that are tax on farming land, rewilding, carbon offsets
that drive farmers out of business and reduce domestic
food security, ESG. We've got environmental and
social governance contracts for businesses which will dictate
corporate policy via environmental and social
scorecards and the sidelines profit and market choice.

(43:55):
We've got BNG which is, you know, biodiversity net gain,
which is a really big one on scoring and literally
commodifying agriculture and nature.
So the next one is digital ID systems, again, centralised
databases, you know, enable surveillance and control.

(44:16):
We've got the C40 cities with devolution, with the transfer of
power from Westminster to the the smart cities and what that
means bypassing local democracy.We've got CBDC's and financial
centralisation, programmable money and education reform and
indoctrination, replacing knowledge with ideology, global
citizenship, training and climate and social activism.

(44:37):
And the next one is obviously the NHS.
That's another arm of it. Digitising and centralising
health data, enabling predictivesurveillance and global health
governance. Property rights, erosion, 15
minute cities, mobility restrictions and surveillance,
infrastructure, facial recognition, AI monitoring,
predictive policing. And then there's the last one is

(45:02):
I think it's the water resource one.
Anyway, we've got yeah, water resource control, privatising
and rationalising resources under environmental quotas,
which is what you were talking about earlier.
Charles banning private collection in some cases.
International treaty overrides, cultural deconstruction,

(45:22):
monopoly consolidation, destroying small and medium
sized businesses again, umm, anddata mining, umm, uh, you know,
and, and data mining in schools and impact investing all the,
you know, the, the children in schools, data mining them.
So this all comes back to the 17sustainable goals.
And uh, though each one of thoseis, is, is instrumental in the

(45:47):
destruction of everything as we know it.
Umm, and I just sort of go into it a little bit deeper just with
two of those goals, umm, what they really mean.
And I'm going to take two that are really related to food.
We've got no, no poverty and 0 hunger.
So let's start with no poverty. Yeah, it's, it's gold #1 poverty

(46:09):
alleviation and social protection.
So the UN solution is AI enableddigital footprints for credit
and mobile money access, blockchain identity solutions to
enable economic identities for all.
And it's a like a levelling up of the, of communities.
And really what it means is to make everyone equally poor Ubi
with all with fixed amounts of carbon credits and digital

(46:32):
footprints that are all sort of feeding into this data mining
facility that they're creating. And the next one is I think
we've got, yeah, end hunger, UN access to food, improved
nutrition and food production, low cost GMO mass produce, food

(46:52):
production by Monsanto, which isnow Bayer synthetic food
proteins, insect proteins, no meat, AI sensors and blockchain
to eliminate waste loss in food value, everything that we, we
really have. But the real meaning of that is
to push everything into into fake meat in mass food
production and all that kind of stuff that we we know is

(47:15):
happening. But this is where it puts it all
into one place. These are the two goals that
cover that. And that's, that's really, I
just wanted to put it all in oneplace.
Agenda 2030 is really the the nub of everything that that is
is happening to us right now. Yes.
And I think to the UK column audience that's extremely clear,
but it is extraordinary the degree to which the perhaps the

(47:38):
majority of people are still notalive to this.
So of course, this is very much a message that we do need to
continue to put out there. Now with those two last points
in mind in terms of apparently ending poverty and apparently
ending hunger, although of course not energy is very
relevant to this because increasingly it takes up ground
that could otherwise produce food.
But what is the latest? Well, the latest is that today

(48:01):
the energy regulator Ofgem has announced a 2% rise of the
energy price cap for the period covering October to December
2025. Now this is more than expected
and it means a household using atypical amount of energy will
pay £1755 a year, which is £35 more than the current cost cap.

(48:27):
But if we look how the energy price cap has changed over time,
we can see that energy prices have been pretty much normalised
or high energy prices, sorry have been pretty much normalised
since the so called pandemic. And although the so called
energy price guarantee made it seem like government stepped in

(48:48):
to protect people from the excesses of the wholesale energy
markets, in reality they did no such thing because while we
didn't end up paying directly inour bills, the energy company
still got paid and every taxpayer footed the bill.
So remember that the energy cap sets the maximum price for each
unit of energy, but not the total bill, which depends very

(49:11):
much on how much energy we use. So this I quoted figure of 1755
per year is only indicative. The question remains, why are
energy prices so high in the UK?Could it perhaps be to do with
renewables and net zero? So let's bring this on screen
then. This is Deidre Helm because he's

(49:32):
saying yes in a comment piece that he published yesterday.
Why is the price of electricity so high, he asks.
It's a puzzle, he says, because excessive successive
politicians, Blair, Cameron, May, Johnson and now Starmer and
Miliband, lots of lobbyists havetold us we should have expected
quite the opposite, cheap energyto be achieved by getting out of
fossil fuels first exit coal, then bear down in gas.

(49:56):
And a new year of cheap wind andsolar would give the UK low
absolute and relative electricity prices.
And he concludes by saying quotes.
It's hard to sorry. It's hard to conclude other than
the Secretary of State is deluded when he champions the
2030 net zero target as a route to lower cost of energy through
ever cheaper renewables. It's time to be honest about the

(50:18):
costs of the net zero target. Now Charles, I don't know what
your thoughts are, but I would say diluted is not the word I
would use wilfully. Lying is much more likely I
think. Absolutely, and and this is
borne out in fact, in that the, there are demands both within
and without the sector for further subsidisation of this

(50:38):
very form of energy in order that the price is artificially
reduced in order to create the impression that exactly this is
happening, that it is becoming cheaper to use and cheaper than
the more reliable traditional alternatives.
So yes, absolutely. I, I think, you know, you're
totally right. And the other point I would make
is actually in terms of the cost.

(51:00):
The other side of it of course is industry.
And this is something that's come up or flared up a few times
this year, specifically with regard to steel, where the
government again is making out as though it's trying to
preserve the steel industry in the United Kingdom.
And this is not exclusive to steel, of course, but industry
in general is absolutely penalised on the enormous costs
of energy that it is having to pay directly as a result result

(51:20):
of what you're what you're talking about right now.
We'll, we'll go directly to a specific example now because
Sandy, you have news for us on the development in Somerset.
Yes, I this came to me, I read amagazine called The Leveller,
which is a, a Somerset magazine.And this isn't an isolated
thing. I mean the unfortunately this is

(51:43):
happening all over our country. An 80 acre solar farm is planned
to be put up near Somerton. And you know it's Sam, it says
here after it, you know it. It will apparently provide 40
years of power. And they said after 40 years,
the site will be decommissioned and returned to its current
state and arable use. Now, interestingly, I mean,

(52:06):
that's, that's the extent of it.The, the, the, the map there,
it's a huge, I mean, it's 80 acres and this is happening all
over our country and it's takingthe land out of food production
for 30 to 40 years. And a lot of it, I mean, we've,
we're talking thousands and thousands of acres and we're
talking livestock here. Most of the land that, that the

(52:27):
solar farm, they call them farms, which is funny because
they're not farms at all. They're anti farms and they're
being taken out. Food production is being taken
out Now. I looked at the, the, the, the,
oh, there's another, another issue that it, it says it will
be restored to, to its former, former state, but that it also

(52:48):
is questionable because I did some, some work on on risk
assessments. And if solar panels are damaged
in fire or severe storms or landfill crushing, the toxic
compounds like cadmium and othertrace minerals do leach into the
ground. And even, you know, beyond
chemistry, you've got soil compaction, loss of farmland,

(53:11):
habitat changes and herbicides used to control, you know,
herbicides used to control vegetation underneath.
And actually, you cannot graze animals alongside the panels
because the farmers can't get insurance because the animals
nibble the wires. So that is not an option.
So it's taking out a lot of livestock grazing.

(53:32):
That's what I'm trying, the point I'm trying to make now, I
looked at the National Planning Policy Framework document, which
is really quite comprehensive. And what I've realised is, is if
you actually put a search into that and you look at, you look
at the word food, food does not come up up into it.

(53:53):
Food production is simply not there.
And well, there's 4, but they'retalking about all sorts of food
takeaways and food outlets. There's no food security
mentioned in this document. So it's it's quite interesting
that food security hasn't is notin the equation.
It's all about in they talk about environmentalism.

(54:14):
It's not even environmentalism. It's anti environmentalism
because it destroys, uh, landscapes.
So, umm, int interesting, uh, you know, interesting stuff
there. Now the, the next slide, please,
is all about, yeah, umm, the infrastructure, the, this, this
is the, the 13 protective security infrastructures that we

(54:38):
have in this country. And food is one of them.
And so this needs to be protected.
We've got energy, water, food, transport, health, emergency
services, government, defence, finance, telecommunications,
space, nuclear, civil, nuclear and chemicals.
So food is, is to be protected, but in no way is it in any of

(54:58):
these documents from, from the government.
We've got the UK Food security report, but if you open that up,
there's nothing really much about food security for, for,
for the yeah, it's, it's global food production they're talking
about. Most of the time it's all about
global. It's not about UK food security.

(55:20):
So I did look at things like, you know, meat production.
They did have a little bit on that, which was interesting
because beef production, it's the top one and that went down
very slightly because of obviously various animal health
food scares, you know, and health scares like BSE and foot

(55:40):
and mouth and all those things. And then you've got 2, two other
diagrams there, which is I thinkthat's chicken and and pork,
which went down because of the same thing.
And also decarbonisation of meatprocessing plants.
Lambs tended to stay pretty stable, but and eggs went down
as well. So we're everything as far as

(56:01):
meat and dairy is going down very slowly, but this will
impact more the more solar farmswe have because they'll be taken
out of production and that's thewhole idea.
And the next slide I think is the C40 cities.
Yeah, the C40 cities slide whichactually says that, you know,
they're the progressive target for 2030 is 16 kilogrammes of

(56:23):
meat per person per year. And actually the ambitious
target is 0 kilogrammes meat consumption.
Now we, no, they're not hitting their targets because you know,
20-30 is, you know, we've got five years.
Are they going to make that happen?
Five years, no meat production at all, probably their try and
that's what they're doing. So at the moment farmers are

(56:46):
being incentivized to give up their land to renewable energy
such as solar, wind and housing,rewilding non food production
businesses and this will reduce production significantly.
So there's consideration for food security, which is
currently at only about 60% and it's declining.
Our food production is declining.
So if we weren't able to access imports, what will we do?

(57:10):
We've got loads of solar panels that are making money for big,
big investors, but and, and, andwind farms, but not, not, not
the people. So if you do want to oppose this
planning application, do try, I,I think you, you can go on to
planning application. That is the I'll put this in the
show notes and there's a planning application number or

(57:34):
or or code and, and unfortunately Somerset have
spent 12 weeks now they're not answering their phones, they're
not answering emails because they've got a backlog of
planning applications. What a surprise.
And so they've closed down shop.So whether this will be slid in
under the radar without people being able to oppose it, I don't

(57:54):
know Now I'm going to look at quickly biodiversity net gain
because a lot of people don't understand what it is.
And again, there's another, there's another UK government
guidance on it by diversity net gain.
And this is a way of creating a financial instrument for Land
Management people, big corporations to make money out

(58:17):
as a financial instrument out ofthe land, financialisation of
nature and all the banks and thecorporations make the money, not
us. So here, here's a sort of
idiot's guide to it if you like.And so long as you, you actually
there's a net loss if you just you, you, you just build and
then there's a, there's no net loss if you build and you add a

(58:38):
few trees. And then with this one, you get
net gain because you, you're notdepleting the countryside and
you're building and you're putting more trees up.
So it's all about building and trees, not about food.
And that's, that's really quite interesting in that, uh, so who
needs to think about BNG? And we're looking at BNG really,

(59:00):
uh, it refers to the core groupsand BNG, its developers,
developers will be, umm, required to submit BIOS
biodiversity net gain, umm, so that it, it creates a, a, an
income and that's all it is. It's a big income for, for
various sectors like land managers, big corporations and,

(59:22):
and, and banks basically. So all of those make loads of
money out of biodiversity net gain.
It is a financial instrument andwe don't we, you know, it takes
away our food production. It doesn't do it Andy.
Many scams running concurrently though.
And you're quite right on the biodiversity net gain.
Of course, the other thing to point out is that there's no
requirement to have replaced before you destroy.

(59:45):
So in fact, there's in effect there's always an enormous lag
which has never really taken into account because it really
concerns intent, which of courseit shouldn't.
I think the other thing to pointout is the, as you quite rightly
did, the absolute con about suggestion that livestock would
be able to graze in areas that there are solar panels, which of
course might in certain situations be feasible.
But you can't cut the grass if you want to in order to keep it

(01:00:08):
for hay or any of those sorts ofthings.
And again, the food security report that you refer.
Referred to is something that the Labour government have
absolutely put the brakes on, having had a commitment written
down in law to continue to update it.
They have absolutely failed in that department, one assumes,
because they do not want to report the true state of
affairs, even if they know what that is.

(01:00:29):
Now we are going to move on to deal with what I've described as
the relationship between public health, or at least as it's
described, propaganda and media,especially film.
Now, the drought situation as reported by the Environment
Agency is shown on the screen now.
But in effect, this suggests that almost half of England is

(01:00:53):
in what is called drought, with the large quantity of it in a
situation of prolonged dry weather, with only a few
regions, interestingly the Southeast and the Southwest,
regarded as being normal. So the alarmist rhetoric is not
exactly borne out by the latest data from the Environment
Agency. But that hasn't stopped certain

(01:01:16):
individuals, or indeed organisations, from capitalising
on the the sort of feeling of panic.
And this is the London, the Mayor of London's organisation
here talking about London cool spaces.
So suggesting that due to climate issues and the necessity
for water in hot weather and allthe rest of it, they have set up

(01:01:38):
London Cool spaces, which no doubt you can access via an app
or something similar. The reason I cite this is
because Sadiq Khan has a form where this is concerned.
This is him on stage with Matt Damon, the founder of what's
called water.org can't thereforemaking a pledge to connect

(01:02:00):
London's activities to those of Damon and his worldwide sort of
campaign and organisation front page.
The website here described as advancing the global
conversation. Of course, that means that among
the global partners are of course, UN, Water, Water Aid,
World Economic Forum and a number of other usual suspects.

(01:02:22):
Now, the reason I cite Damon in particular andwater.org is
because he too has form where propaganda is concerned and
indeed especially the leveragingof celebrity.
So we're going to look back to 2011 now.
And an interview with Matt Damonafter he had released the film

(01:02:44):
Contagion among them. But right now, our best defence
has been social distancing, no handshaking, staying home when
you're sick, washing your hands frequently.
Let me bring in Alan Crumwood into this debate as well.
Alan's a freelance journalist. He was the first to track the
Schinkel Busman video. Alan, today on Twitter you wrote

(01:03:06):
that the truth about this virus is being kept from the world by
the CDC, by the World Health Organisation, to allow friends
of the current administration tobenefit from it both financially
and physically. There are therapies we know are
effective right now, like forsythia, and they don't even
appear on the CDC website. On your blog you also wrote that

(01:03:27):
the World Health Organisation issomehow in bed with
pharmaceutical. Companies, because they are.
That just stands to gain from this.
They're working hand in glove. What do you think?
About the politics behind contagion and other pathogens,
where the government might, on the side of caution, not tell
everybody till, you know, maybe it's too late.
Like it could be. Going on right now, we don't

(01:03:48):
know. Well, I mean, I think the media
would be a big part too, becausebecause how that was framed to
people would would dictate really what what the outcome
might be. I mean, because it's not really
about necessarily the virus itself.
It's about our reaction to it. And, you know, if you look at

(01:04:09):
like anthrax, like, what, two people died and we shut down the
airline industry, you know, thatthat panic is potentially a lot
more lethal than than than the actual virus or could be all
right now. So just to clarify that first of
all, that was 2011 and secondly,the first part of that clip was

(01:04:31):
actually film. Now we go back to look at
Londons cool spaces because we need to have a look at the all
important message which pops up after you've accessed the page
and it says when the weather is hot you can take simple actions
to protect your health and the health of others.
Of course the NHS luckily has tips for how to achieve this.

(01:04:54):
But now we're going to go back to Matt Damon, who spoke there
in 2011, and this is what he hadto say at the behest of Columbia
University in 2020. And if you know anybody over the
age of 55 or anyone who has any kind of pre existing conditions,
this is a lot more serious for them.
So you can literally save their life just by staying away from

(01:05:19):
each other. You can actually sit on the
couch or in a chair like I'm doing and watch TV and save a
life at the same time. You can work from home.
You can use social media to communicate.
You can save a few more. Now is the time to spend all the
time you want staring at your phone or your tablet.
And if anybody gives you a hard time about it, tell them not to

(01:05:40):
bother you because you are saving lives.
Just make sure that you tell them that from six feet away.
So there we go, the the incredible symbiotic
relationship between the propaganda and the film
industries. I don't know whether you have
any comment in particular on Matt Damon or what he said.
We'll keep it for extra. Yeah, we'll keep it for extra.
OK, Well, in which case what we'll do is we'll finish off on

(01:06:02):
very much related topic. But it would appear that the the
latest news is that the Monty Python team appear to have been
hired by the UK Health Security Agency in order to manage their
heat health alert programme. So I will read it out because it
says please. Please complete the form below
to register to receive both HeatHealth Alerts and Cold Health

(01:06:24):
Alerts. The alerts are year round with
the core HHA season running fromthe 1st of June to the 30th
September and the cold heat season running from the 1st of
November to the 31st of March. The Weather Health Alerting
System, which is managed by UKHSA in partnership with the
Met Office, underpins the adverse Weather and Health Plan,

(01:06:47):
which brings together and buildson the previous heat wave Plan
for England, first published in 2004, and the Cold Weather Plan
for England, first published in 2011.
Users will be able to specify which region they wish to
receive alerts for, with the ability to be notified for one
region only or multiple regions as required by the user.

(01:07:10):
Should a period sorry, should a period of heat or cold occur
that meets alerting criteria outside of the core alerting
periods, an extraordinary alert will be issued.
So there we have it. You know where to go in times of
peril if it gets too hot, too cold, or none of the above.

(01:07:31):
No, don't forget Germ and cars are going out this evening.
I'll be speaking to Alex Thompson at 1:00 tomorrow.
If you are a member, please stayon for extra.
And if you're not a member, please consider joining us.
Otherwise, we will look forward to seeing you at 1:00 on Friday.
And Many thanks to Mike and Sandy and indeed Professor David
Miller for joining me on the programme.

(01:07:53):
Goodbye, bye. Bye.