UK Column News — 12th January 2026

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing.

Another checkered flag for the books.

Time to celebrate with Jamba.

Jump in at JambaCasino.com.

Let's Jamba.

No purchase necessary, BTW Group.

Boy, we're prohibited by law.

CCNC, 21 Plus, sponsored by JambaCasino.

Good afternoon, today is Monday, the 12th of January, 2026, just after 1 o'clock.

Welcome to UK Column News, I'm your host, Brian Garrish.

To always have Ben Rubin with me in the studio.

And we'll also be joined by Mike Robinson, who is in studio 2.

Now, a lot happening in the world so much so that many people say,

my goodness, what is actually going on, so we've got the wars,

we've got America seeming to be able to claim any country in the world it wants.

If it dislikes the incumbent regime, we can stop oil tankers on the high seas.

It almost appears as though the world so-called rules-based international order

is out of control and not a truth in that.

But I wanted to just bring people's minds back on a case,

which has just produced a result, a lot of reporting UK press.

And this is about the Guantanabe torture prisoner,

who's just won a case and substantial sum from the UK government.

And the reason this case appears to me, at least, to be so important,

is it really lifts the stone on the conduct of the UK government.

At the time when the UK is strutting the world stage

and telling other countries how they should conduct their affairs.

So let's just delve into this article a little bit.

And this is the headline here,

UK piece of substantial sum to torture Guantanabe detainee.

And we've chosen the guard in as this main headline.

But it says that lawyers for Abu Zabadaya

accuse British intelligence services

of providing questions to his CIA interrogators.

Well, that sub headline is a very small part of the story.

This is what I want to pick up on,

that the excellent legal team this man has had

have highlighted, I think, some really important points

that everybody in UK should be paying attention to.

They say that the case has relevant lessons for the UK.

Today highlighting the legal and moral risks

involved in cooperation with the US at a time

it is violating international law.

And I think Ben, that's really on the button

that we've got the US now, more or less,

appearing to be out of control on the world stage.

And this judgment is telling people

they should be very, very cautious about

not only what America is doing,

but also what the UK government is doing

alongside America, particularly with regard

to the so-called war on terror

and the use of intelligent services.

Just to give a bit of substance to this report,

I brought up here the press summary

from the 20th of December 2023,

which was talking about the case, Zubei,

Zubei, versus the foreign Commonwealth

and development office and others.

And the key thing to remember is that this man,

tragically, has been held in Guantanamo Bay

since March 2002, not only without charge,

we also need to recognize that the US

no longer claims he was even a member of Al Qaeda,

let alone a senior member of that so-called terrorist

organization.

So if we delve into the document a little bit,

with a little bit more detail here,

we can see that we got a background to the appeal,

concern with the law applicable to tort civil wrongs,

alleged were being committed by the UK security service

and the UK secret intelligence service.

And it goes on to say the claimants

of Palestinian national who's been detained

without trial by the United States authorities

since 2012.

And he was also moved around CIA so-called black torture sites

in a number of cases.

Now, the key part of the case hinged on whether

he had the right to seek justice at law

in the countries in which he was held

or he could come back to the UK

or he could seek redress from the UK.

And the key bit to remember here

is that six countries were actually involved

in his trail of torture.

And that was Thailand, Poland, Morocco, Lithuania.

Let's highlight those, Afghanistan,

and Cuba there with Grantanamo Bay,

the so-called six countries.

And he bought his claim naming

the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office

and the Home Office and the Attorney General in UK

as defendants.

And so this is the meat of it.

And finally, judgment by the Supreme Court dismissed it

and appealed against the man on the basis

that the law which should apply to his case

is the law of England and Wales.

So that itself was very a very important decision.

And that has then gone on to mean

that effectively the government has settled

out of court with a substantial payment.

Now, I think it's important for UK society as a whole

to realize that the UK government

is now making a substantial payment.

They're not declaring how much money that is,

although his legal team says, well, of course,

on the basis of the length of time

that he's been held without trial

and the appalling torture that he suffered,

this money is insufficient as well it may be.

But also, we're not getting any formal statement

from the UK government as to the background

of the torture, all the UK government's involvement

in that torture.

So everything's now focused on the money

and it's interesting, Ben, isn't it?

We often see this with the, with people

who are survivors of abuse in UK

that once the compensation comes in the fact

that crimes took place against them

disappears into the long grass.

Yeah.

So, and they actually admitted any culpability?

It was not that I am seeing in the reports.

And I think this is about many people would say,

well, if you're going to pay money,

surely that admits your culpability or reliability,

but at the moment, to my knowledge today,

we haven't got any reports about more detail.

Now, his, his legal counsel, a lady called Helen Duffy,

I think made some really important statement.

She said it's important symbolically and practically

that UK pays for its role in our client's torture.

And I think she's talking in a financial sense here,

although that's slightly ambiguous.

And she goes on to say,

the settlement provides a measure of retress

and implicit recognition of our clients

in tolerable suffering at the hands of the CIA enabled

by the United Kingdom.

So there's lots to be asked about those words

and also lots to be asked about what the UK government

has and has not admitted.

Now, just to make sure that people understand

the severity of what's gone on here,

this is not a very good picture,

but at least a picture of Abu Zabadaya.

And what actually took part,

what took place around this man?

What was he subjected to?

Well, if we bring a bit of this on screen,

he was water-borted at least 83 times.

Now, water-bording is just a nice term

for the fact that you're subjected effectively

to controlled drowning.

He was locked for days in a coffin-sized box.

He was left in his own urine and feces.

He was stripped naked and beaten.

He was suspended from hooks.

And he was kept to wait for days.

And if he passed out at any stage during this treatment,

he was doused with cold water in order

to bring him back conscious so that he could be subject

to do further torture.

All of this known by the UK government

and condoned by the UK government

because they were encouraging our special intelligence services

to submit questions for him via the CIA.

So truly, truly shocking what went on here.

Now, if we just investigate Helen,

the legal counsel a little bit further,

we can find that previously she's done some very good talks

about her concerns about what's been going on

with regard to the so-called global war on terror.

So she, in a lecture hosted by the University of Manitoba,

talked about the dubious but tenacious legal claim

of by the US of the global war on terror

with extremely serious implications.

So dubious but tenacious.

She's also talking about confusion and conflation

of conflict and counterterrorism,

which I think is something we are all seeing more and more.

We're not sure whether things are being done under the law

or whether they are being done by agencies

running out of control.

And also she's talking about the global militarization

of counterterrorism.

So very, very important questions.

And I think this lady absolutely on the button.

And here under the headline of the war,

the war, the enemy and the other,

it's all become very gray.

She talks about a war on what?

What are we actually fighting?

This is not always well defined.

And so she says that it's got scope,

which is questionable and an insidious spread.

And how are we going to look back

on the forward reparation and accountability?

And maybe that was a little bit of a look into the future

for her when she, with regard to the case,

which we've just discussed.

Now, if we set all of that horrible case,

those terrible tortures and the UK government's complicity in it,

we can say, well, it appears the UK government

has been out of control.

And if you're thinking that you'd be absolutely right,

except now, in 2026, we can say with certainty

that the government in UK has given itself the ability

under law to break the law in order to carry out

these sorts of crimes under the label of keeping us safe.

Let's have a look at a report that,

White Robinson gave on the UK column news a couple of years ago.

On Monday, we had the second reading

of the covert human intelligence sources criminal conduct bill 2019-2021.

And Julian Lewis, so we've just been talking about it as chair of the ISC,

was giving it all the support that he could.

So clearly, the intelligence and security committee

is not concerned in any way about this.

Now, let's just remind ourselves what this bill is about.

It is a bill to make provision for and connection

with the authorization of criminal conduct

and in the course of or otherwise in connection

with the conduct of covert human intelligence sources.

So this is all about the criminality

allowed by agents of the government, various government departments.

And we'll remind you what the government departments are in a moment.

But James Brokenshar was the minister of state

who was giving the information there where they're from.

I'm not quite sure, originally,

but anyway, he was the relevant minister

giving the statement in the House.

This legislation he said is being introduced to keep our country safe

to ensure that our operational agencies and public authorities

have access to the tools and intelligence they need to keep us safe.

So Mike, let's just bring you on screen

because of course, as a package,

the evidence to me is irrefutable.

We've got a UK government that's not only out of control,

it has been breaking the law,

these terrors of torture,

but it will continue to break the law

because it's given itself permission to do that.

At every level, Brian.

So last week on Friday,

we were talking about the killing of the Lidian in the United States

by ICE officers.

We've got covert human intelligence act there

because that was a bill when we were talking about it

with the SNIEN Act, so that is the law.

And a couple of dozen government departments

allowed authorize criminality.

This completely undermines the constitutional arrangements

we have in the UK and in the United States,

where which are based on the principle

that no one is above the law,

but we are apparently as members of the public happy

because we're not complaining about it,

but on a general basis, we seem to be happy

that the government in the United States

and in the United Kingdom are quite happy

to set themselves up above the law when it suits them,

whether that's in a domestic scene or internationally.

Indeed, and the thing for us to be saying to the audience

is keep your eye on what's happening

and challenge this and particularly challenge it

with your MP at every opportunity.

And many people say MPs are not doing anything

while they get away with it

because not enough of their constituents

are actually challenging them face to face,

but we'll come onto that more in a UK column extra

after today's news.

And let's bring you in because if that's the reality

of America on the world stage and torture at work

together with the UK government,

we've got the remains of the Epstein saga

under the surface.

Absolutely, yeah.

Apparently, Mendelssohn is squeaky clean, nothing to see.

Well, I'm not sure that I'd say that.

What did you say the remains of the Epstein saga

and the remains of the war on terror?

That's a blarey of a throwback, isn't it?

And of course, another blarey of a throwback appeared on the BBC.

Unbelievably, over the weekend,

Mendelssohn was back.

Let's have a little listen to the opening section

of his interview with Lisa Kuntberg.

Lord Mendelssohn, thank you for speaking to us today.

You left your position in Washington

for reasons we'll come to in a few minutes,

but you have a unique perspective

from having been Britain's ambassador

and dealing with Donald Trump in the White House.

How should governments, including the UK,

react to this incredibly turbulent beginning to 2026,

his strikes on Venezuela and his threat

to grab a NATO ally in Greenland?

I know people will sometimes be taken aback

by his language and his approach to things.

And I had a ringside seat in a sense.

And so I saw how the truth social posts would come out

and how some people used language

and took positions that were to our mind in Europe,

quite undiplomatic.

But from his point of view,

you need to understand that he feels that we live

in a world that's full of conflicts,

of hard power, of growing rivalry,

and particularly between the United States and China,

and that sometimes nettles have to be grasped,

and that requires deterency.

If you want peace, you get peace through strength,

but also sometimes you'll have to use force as well.

And I think we've got to understand that

and not simply react the whole time to the language he uses.

So what do you think it will actually take

for Peter Mandelson to exit public life, Brian?

Because it is, the third time that he's been fired,

this time for something particularly egregious.

And within three months, he's back on the BBC?

Well, that's the nature of the BBC,

because the BBC is going to keep promoting people,

whatever they've done, whatever the implications are.

But I've found that fantastic

that he's brought on screen to talk about his experiences.

And allowed to speak for 18 minutes

before she brings up the Epstein issue.

So he gets to set out his stall

on a whole bunch of geopolitical issues,

before she finally gets round to the question,

and essentially allows him to say that he believed him,

and then he didn't,

Mandelson didn't really do anything wrong.

He didn't remember sending those emails.

He cringes every time that he sees them,

and actually found them mentally.

Those young women were failed by the system.

It was the system that failed them.

It wasn't Epstein and it wasn't Mandelson.

It was everybody. It was all of us.

Nicely spun.

Very beautifully spun.

Absolutely.

By the classic politician on the British side, I don't say.

Yeah, quite.

And they're ultimately to apologise for Trump, right?

Because he was, you know,

you saw that opening clip there.

He's basically saying,

oh, well, you know, Trump, Trump's not to everyone's taste,

but actually you have to understand

that he's doing these things for a reason.

We need peace through strength.

We need American heft.

He used that term a couple of times

in the interview to sort out problems around the world.

He went on to say that we mustn't ignore international law.

Of course, unless we decide to ignore international law.

He talks about the Arctic needing securing against Russia and China.

And it's obviously in reference to the noises being made around Greenland at the moment.

The fact that we'll be dependent on the US to do that.

UK finances are in a parlour state.

Interestingly, he called out the servicing of our national debt

as a major problem,

which I thought was remarkably honest for someone,

particularly coming from the Labour Party.

And then, of course,

positioning the inevitability of a conflict with Iran

under the auspices of freedom and democracy,

which is what I think the war and terror was all about as well, isn't it?

Supposedly.

Supposedly.

Yes. So, Mendelssohn,

maybe we'll be seeing more of him.

Who knows?

Thank you for that, Ben.

Well, Mike, let's bring you back on

because the subject clearly on the world stage

aside from Ukraine and Russia is Iran.

And everything seems to be being ramped up now

to create that internal division inside Iran

because ultimately what does the West,

what's the US and the West want,

which is regime change over to you?

Absolutely.

No, we'll be talking about Iran more on Wednesday.

But obviously over the weekend,

then the Israeli backed several unrest

as has escalated Iran with claims of deaths

as a result of an Iranian government crackdown.

And that, of course, is giving Donald Trump

the excuse he needs to prepare for military intervention.

So, let's just have a quick look

at what he said on Air Force One.

These are violent.

If you call them leaders,

I don't know if their leaders are just

they rule through violence.

But we're looking at it very seriously.

The military is looking at it.

And we're looking at some very strong options.

Iran called to negotiate.

Yes, the leaders of Iran called

they want to negotiate.

I think they're tired of being beat up by the United States.

Iran wants to negotiate, yes.

We may meet with them.

I mean, it's a meeting is being set up.

But we may have to act

because of what's happening before the meeting.

So, they may have to act before the meeting.

Well, of course, we just heard

Mondelson trying to justify that potential action.

And well, if we have a look at this particular item,

this is from the European Union here.

And, you know, as far as the West clearly is concerned,

the main concern should be for human rights defenders.

Because, of course, that's human rights defenders

that are at least organizing around the streets of Iran.

These are defined as people critical of government

in the case of the Iranian government.

And so, the EU pushed aside the European Union

expressed a serious concern over the widespread use

of arbitrary detention by Iranian authorities

to suppress critical voices within the country

in violation of Iran's obligations

on the international convention on civil and political rights.

And then on Friday, the UK published the guiding principles

on supporting human rights defenders.

And in their words, saying it reaffirms

the government's commitment to promoting

and protecting those who work

uphold fundamental rights worldwide.

It says human rights defenders play an essential role

in promoting and protecting democracy human rights

in the rule of law.

They say that with a straight face apparently

and without any irony at all,

they say that the UK has committed to supporting

the rights of HRDs to conduct their activities,

continue with their professions

and voice their opinions effectively, peacefully and safely.

In other words, we want to protect the right of people

to continue to create civil unrest in other countries

so that we can then use that as justification for intervention.

That's how it looks to me and be interested in your thoughts.

Well, Michael, I just sit here listening to your report

against the backdrop of the UK complicit in torture.

And of course, the torture,

which has come into the spotlight

to the press is all around Antanima Bay.

But if we go back in history, UK, UK governments

fully involved in torture,

including prior to the end of the Second World War

and supposedly we were fighting an Nazi regime

which had indulged in torture.

So the hypocrisy is absolutely outrageous

and really the government showing why the public

in this country should not be trusting the UK government

for its duplicity and its willingness

to get involved in unlawful military action overseas

and indeed in torture.

It's quite incredible.

Let's move on.

And as we always do,

a huge thank you to those of you

that are supporting the UK column

as paid up members or donators

or you're making purchases through the UK column online shop.

We can only do what we do with your support.

If you're with us today for today's news

and you're not a member,

you'd like to become part of the team

helping to make this happen.

And just click the boot,

the blue button on the website here

to get the details of how you can sign up.

Now we've got a germ warfare

edition tonight resisting mass surveillance

by embracing linux with her key manwa.

Mike, I don't know whether you'd like to say

anything about this one.

Obviously linux has been an interesting subject

over a great many years.

No, other than just to recommend everybody watches.

And of course,

it's going to be an interesting conversation.

I'll just run through the rest of these.

Brian, if you don't mind.

So tonight at nine o'clock then

is the US pushing the world to the brink.

The Karl is speaking

about that on Silicon steel podcast tonight.

Tomorrow,

Sandy is talking to Dr. Anthony McCarthy

about ethical sex.

This is a wide-ranging conversation.

It's extremely interesting conversation.

And so please join us for that tomorrow at 1pm.

And the Abbey Roberts part one

of the 1000 words podcast

that went out at 7pm last night

is now available on the UK column website.

So if you haven't seen that yet,

that's quite entertaining.

So do go and watch it.

Yes, brilliant.

A lot of fun.

And I think some more of the UK column team

are going to get caught up in the

in the artist then in due course this year.

So we'll see what transpires from that.

Now, Mike,

I'm going to give it back to you

because you've been having a look at

what's unfolding now with regard to digital ID.

This is clearly

one of the main drivers of the government

to get this sort of scheme in power.

And they're going in all sorts of directions.

What have you got?

Yes, well, first of all,

just a quick reminder.

This was the graphics the government was pushing out

in September last year.

And if you remember at that time,

Kirstaarmer had this to say I'm working with people

worried about the level of illegal immigration

in the country, secure border,

bloody blood.

He went on to say digital ID

is enormous opportunity for the UK.

Not sure who it's an enormous opportunity for.

He said it would make tougher to work illegally

in this country.

And so I'll make the borders more secure

and offer ordinary citizens kindness benefits.

So let's just have a look at this then.

This is the cybersecurity and resilience bill.

This was introduced to parliament

on the 12th of November last year.

And it's supposed to modernize the UK's

network and information systems regulations from 2018.

So they say that it aims to strengthen protections

for critical national infrastructure in response

to escalating cyber threats.

And they are expanding this

to cover data centers,

managed service providers,

large load controllers,

critical suppliers weren't previously regulated.

They're saying that it's enhanced and decent,

sorry, enhanced incident reporting,

requiring organizations to notify regulators

within 24 hours of becoming aware

of a cyber institute.

Incident, sorry,

with full reports due within 72 hours.

They're talking about strengthening regulators,

enforcement powers,

including the ability to impose

$100,000 per day for noncompliance.

And it says that they will grant the Secretary of State

parts to direct organizations

to take specific actions

when national security is threatened.

But here's the thing.

The bill excludes both central

and local government from its requirements.

So they are imposing regulations

on third-party service providers

to notify whenever there's been

some kind of breach in security.

But they're not required to notify

if there's been some kind of breach in security,

except that they published this document,

the cyber action plan,

in an attempt to sort of divert criticism here.

So this promises to hold government departments

to equivalent security standards

but without legal obligations.

So where does that leave us?

Well, if we have a look at this,

just to highlight the point,

this is the standard,

saying UK Digital ID card,

everything we know as whistleblowers

signed alarm over data security.

And of course, this was released

the last year.

But the point here is

that the whistleblowers were reporting

500,000 system vulnerabilities in one login

with thousands rated as critical

or highly severity.

At a whole host of other issues

with respect to the government's capability

to manage our own data

and protect our own data.

And of course, this leads absolutely

into the whole digital ID question

of whether government should be imposing this

on people, whether they're even qualified

to run such a system.

And if we just have a look at this one,

then this is Gov.gk1 login

loses certification for digital identity trust framework.

So this is also from last year

but just to remind everybody that that had happened.

And all the while,

the Starmer regime is working as a hand,

as hard as it can to remove

any kind of technical protections

that might be available to us.

So of course, this is being driven

by the recent, the news

in the last couple of days

of the Deep Fakes being created by GROC,

which is X's AI platform.

And of course, the fact that people were able

to reduce monographic images of celebrities

or children is getting a huge

amount of coverage.

But then what do we have here?

The computer generated

child sexual abuse material debate

was happening in the House of Lords last week.

And Lord Hansen of Flint has confirmed

that off-com is going to be using

powers to require service providers

of any kind of encrypted system,

encrypted chat and so on,

to scan material

before it gets uploaded,

either to the chat

or to other platforms.

And so of course,

if service providers

are required to scan material

before it gets uploaded,

then it completes,

makes a complete mockery

of any kind of encryption

that people may be using.

So, you know,

at the same time that government

is pursuing this digital idea agenda,

it's clearly on qualified

to do that,

it's producing legislation

which is going to regulate

third party companies,

but doesn't regulate itself,

or at least doesn't provide

any kind of legal backstop

for that,

for whatever reaches

of data that they may cause

in the coming years.

And in the meantime,

they continue this effort

to completely destroy

any people,

anybody's ability

to protect their own data online.

So again,

interesting your thoughts, Ben,

on this,

but this is quite

a, again, they say they

make these statements

without any sense of irony

and their position.

Quite yes.

I mean,

my overriding sense

is that they're utterly,

utterly shameless

and they will use any pretext

to manufacture the policy outcomes

that they're looking for,

you know,

including this child sexual exploitation

and preventing violence

against women and girls,

when you look at what we know

that they're doing,

even just in the last

20 minutes off

and they have this show

where I was talking about the,

the use of torture,

extraordinary torture

against,

against,

against,

Yes, again,

again, wait,

other human beings,

ultimately, right?

In the pursuit of what?

It's not entirely clear.

And yet they can turn around

and say to us,

ah, well, we're here to protect you

and to insert ourselves

into every part of your life

for your benefit.

And in order to do that,

they need to manufacture

a democratic consent and mandate

in order to achieve that,

they need to get their hands

around the hearts and minds

of the nation's young people,

which is what Keir Starmer has been

very much focused on

over the past few months

and got a little clip now

about the national youth strategy

and how that was developed.

I think there's a real sense

that young people have been left out

of the conversation.

Yeah, which is why this

advisory board is so important.

The last thing you want

is me and Lisa coming up

with a youth strategy.

There's less thing to young people

and having youth votes,

but then there's actually impacting

and making sure they can fill it

with a tangible change.

Mental health services child poverty

getting me interested to write.

And then there's what Lisa was just talking about,

which is what people need

on a local level.

So is it transport?

Is it a youth service?

It's the biggest answer

for a conversation that government

is happening in the Philippines.

Is that right?

That's fantastic.

That's really cool.

That is really cool.

That is really cool.

That is really cool.

That is really cool.

I said it was actually quite scary

to see the manipulation

of the young people

who brought around that table.

They have no idea

of the techniques being used

against them.

Absolutely no idea at all.

And also,

some extraordinary kind of expectations

at the beginning of the clip there,

saying, well, we've been left

out of the conversation thus far.

The idea that young people

should be intimately involved

in all areas of policy.

I mean,

this is a new thing.

Right.

And also,

Starmer, they're saying, well,

you don't want me and Lisa

coming up with the strategy,

even though he's the prime minister

of the country,

and that's kind of what

people are employed to do, right?

So anyway,

and obviously it's all presented

in this really extraordinary

and infantilising

and selfie-taking manner.

And it's all culminated

over the past about 12 months now

into this document

youth matters,

your national youth

strategy.

So this is obviously for you,

young people,

and you can see that they've got

you matter

as well as youth matters.

So this is just pandering

upon pandering

is what I'm seeing going on here.

A lot of manipulation,

a lot of thought

gone into this.

Well,

as it say,

so they have a vision

it's very simple.

Every young person

no matter where they're

from should have a safe place

to go,

someone who can't

have a safe place to go,

someone who cares for them

and a community

that they feel part of.

Right.

So you start

from a position of anxiety

and fear.

Yeah.

Any young person

is so destabilised.

They're fearful

and they need to protect themselves.

Their first plan in life

is to find somewhere safe.

They're not going to go out

in the world

and establish themselves

and challenge themselves.

They've become a child

or a puppy

that needs security

and a warm corner

of the room.

Right.

Absolutely.

And that's going to,

and it's the job of the government

to do that.

Yes.

Exactly.

This is all implicit here.

Right.

Government is going to get involved

in absolutely every area of your life.

And what's the first thing

in the opening section

that it says about

this new world of safety?

It's about feeling safe online.

Right.

So much has talked about

digital IDs

and censorship.

This is absolutely front

and centre

of the youth agenda.

This is what they're building a case for.

They're also talking here

about building connections

with people of your own age,

being part of a wider community building skills,

having opportunities,

and having support for your health,

both physical and mental health.

And all of this is going to necessitate

a total transformation

of the way that government works.

Right.

So we're going to move

from national to local.

So this is familiar.

Isn't it?

This is the devolution agenda,

regional assemblies,

metro meds,

and what have you?

We're going to move

from fragmented to collaborative,

which ultimately means

tighter integration

between the different component parts

of the state,

removal of the separation

of powers,

and then from excluded

to empowered,

which is about lowering

the voting age,

introducing these deliberative processes,

essentially to force

through a preconceived policy agenda

under the pretext

of supposedly democracy, right?

So this is how they've teed it up.

And then they've got these

ten recommendations,

based on,

I think it was 14,000 survey

respondents and various

interviews.

And obviously,

the kids are in control.

So you said it.

Now we're doing it.

Right.

And I'll just show you

a few examples here.

So this one,

remarkable, actually.

Everyone deserves

someone that they can trust.

One in five of you say

you don't have a trusted

adult outside of home.

We want a half a million

more of you to have access

to the public.

We want a half a million

more of you to have access

to an adult

that you trust outside of your home.

A government appointed

adult.

Absolutely.

Yes.

A named person that we came across

with the intended policy

north of the border

in Scotland.

Right.

And obviously these people

will be vetted

and ideologically aligned.

And not part of your family

crucially.

Right.

This is the government

going right to the heart

of the family unit.

These trusted adults

will potentially be based

in what they call

young futures hubs.

So they're going to be

50 inclusive centres

around the country,

which are going to be

led by adults coming

out of this program.

The government is going to

get involved in friendships

and relationships.

They want to create a safer

internet again

using digital ID systems

that we talked about.

Provide support

when you feel lonely.

Is that what the government's

for?

How do we get by?

How do we get by the UK

column?

No, I know.

When we don't lonely

in sad and hurt.

We seem somehow

to get three things.

Maybe we come from a different

mold.

Yeah.

Right.

Good work.

So highly curated

employment opportunities.

All of this is feeding

into the fourth

industrial revolution.

Sustainable development

gold agenda.

It's all coming from that

place.

I'll come on to that a bit

more in a moment.

They want to keep young

people safe.

More help outside of school.

They're going to keep people

safe by more RSHE

relationship sex and

health education lessons.

So apparently that's about

improving safety for young

people.

And then the big one votes

at 16 and co-creating

programs.

So these deliberative

processes where the government

will do just like

started in that video.

We're watching.

Come in.

Come sit around the table

and we'll talk through

a lot of things.

We'll pretend that we're

listening to you and that

you're shaping things.

But actually, we've got a

pre-packaged set of policy

outcomes that we know we're

going to do anyway.

And actually, this whole

thing is just window

dressing to make it look

like they're going to do

some kind of democratic

process that's going on.

And this is across the whole

country.

And obviously, we've seen

Starmer as well.

But who else is behind it?

So we can just see here.

So I've skipped ahead of

myself slightly.

The chap taking the selfie.

I showed that a minute ago.

That's Dan Laws.

We talked about him a lot

previously because he's the

current.

Co-C of my life, my say,

which is this UK youth

organisation, which is

very important.

Which is this UK youth

organisation, which is

partnered with amongst

many other organisations.

The Tony Blair Institute

for Global Change, the

National Citizens

Service, which is chaired

by David Cameron.

The Mayor of London's

office, so to the con

and everything that goes

with that, UK youth,

whose patron is Princess

Ann.

They also partnered with the

US Embassy in London.

It's based at Plexal, which

is a UK Government

Innovation Lab, which has

just about 18 months ago

announced a strategic

partnership with UK

Secret Intelligence Services,

aka AMI-6, and is also

directly linked to

R&CO for generations, which

is a Rothschild family

philanthropic fund based

in Paris.

And he's also partnered

with Tortoise Media.

We talk about all the time.

I haven't done for a few

months now, but they're also

partnered with the Rothschild

Foundation.

So these are the people who

are shaping the

National Youth

Strategy.

And the slogan there, my

saying, except when it comes

to torture and the government

is going to torture you

anyway.

Yes.

Just break any existing law

in order to do that.

Yeah.

It's actually already said

that's possible.

Yes.

It's quite incredible.

Ben, how obvious these

policies are becoming now.

They're coming into the

light.

We've lifted enough stones.

It's getting very easy to

see the traditional

democracy that people have

lived over the past.

Whatever it is, hundreds

of years in the UK.

This is going out the door very

quickly.

And then there's a very

insidious government

based control, which is

actually molded in with the

community.

Communitarianism or

participatory democracy.

Yes.

And another name for it.

That's certainly a term that

they use a lot, actually.

And without wanting to labor

the point too much.

If there are any younger

people watching this, or

actually anyone watching this,

they run out of the

community.

They're going to have a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

little bit of a

which was founded back in 2013 by this lovely bunch,

Craig Cameron, Ed Miller banned over there

on the right-hand side,

currently destroying the energy industry in the UK.

And of course Charles, as he was Prince Charles,

back in the day.

Surrounded by youngsters, very vulnerable youngsters.

Very vulnerable youngsters.

And the current, the politician of choice

for these people, interestingly,

nothing to do with Labour, nothing to do with the Tories,

is this guy, Jack Polansky.

So he was the keynote speaker at the most recent My Life

might say, next generation conference back in November,

or actually, no October, it was last year.

This is the guy that they're pushing, right?

So when you see young people getting excited

about Polansky and his policy positions,

understand that this is where he and those policies

are coming from.

OK, Ben, thank you very much for that.

This leads nicely into an article

that I saw a couple of days ago.

And I thought there was a lot more significance to it,

than maybe the guardian reader would pick up on.

So what was the headline here?

It was this government lacks emotional link

with voters and the cabinet.

Now, the important thing to pick up on here

is the fact that it's going for emotions,

not cognizant rational thought,

in order to make very clear assessments

as to what's happening in the world,

what's happening around you,

and what you are going to do to correct the situation

or drive good policies for the benefit of mankind.

No, this is about bringing emotion in.

What is the key part of that?

Well, of course, emotion and the capturing of emotions

is very, very important to the behavioral insight team,

because it can capture people's emotions.

You can control the way they think

and the way they behave.

Now, of course, all of this was sold,

that it was going to just come into the Labour Party,

who actually is talking about that.

I've had to clear Starmer on screen,

because of course, he's the boss, as it were.

But the deputy leader, Lucy Powell,

has also been making comments about this,

as has Keir Starmer's policy advisor, Morgan McSweeney.

But the main statement here is that the government needs

to gain back voters' trust with three ease,

emotion, empathy, and evidence.

So they've lost voters,

because voters are seeing into the criminality

of the main parties and the way they do politics

on the international stage.

And what is Starmer talking about

in this very gentle language he's talking about

using applied political psychology

in order to grab voters and lock them into his policy agenda?

The Labour Party went on to say,

MPs will be offered workshops by organizers in Labour HQ

on how to take credit for improvements in the local area,

or for policies directly helping constituencies,

constituents that have been implemented by the Labour government,

including frozen rail fares,

local community, high street funding,

and the warm home discount extension.

Now, think this through.

What he's actually saying is that even though somebody's been chosen

and elected as an MP,

that person is not mature enough

or doesn't have the mental acumen to make appropriate decisions

as to what their actions should be,

so that their own constituents engage with them.

This is almost like the Labour Party becoming the parents of the MPs

and holding their hands so that they know how to deal

with their own constituents is very, very devious this

and a lot more sinister than it may appear at first glance.

Now, an admission by the deputy leader of Labour Party Lucy Powell

was that it's a big switch organizationally and politically.

So there's truth here in this short sentence.

They go and say there's tools and training the party is providing,

but Lucy and Anna Turley,

the Labour Party chair,

leading some political work about what else is needed

and how MPs can support and share back their practice.

Now, we're going to say to our audience today,

be under no illusions.

The reality of this is that it is more targeted,

applied behavioural psychology

and what the Labour Party is absolutely doing here

is reframing not only its own MPs,

but also society,

because if you can get them to emotionally engage with the Labour Party,

well, it doesn't really need to worry about policy

because the emotions will take people anywhere,

including to war with Russia or perhaps Iran.

And having mentioned war,

Mike, let's bring you back in again

because of course, the horrors in Ukraine go on.

Yes, and on Friday then,

Russia used the Arashnik missiles for the second time,

as we can see on screen at the moment,

heading live this time.

And of course, this is in amongst broader activity

with respect to energy infrastructure

and drone manufacturing and so on.

This Russia said was a direct retaliation

for the drone attack on Putin's residents

in Novgorod in December.

So this is his action.

Now, of course, if we just remind ourselves

what this missile is,

we just put this on screen here,

and we'll see this Russia post article here

was asking Will Russia's new Arashnik missile

changed the course of the war.

Well, this was published at the time of the first use

of Arashnik.

It hasn't been used since,

so it hasn't really changed the course of the war,

but it's clearly something that Russia has

and is willing to use when it suits them.

Now, it is nuclear-capable medium-range ballistic missiles.

So although they have not,

I mean, as far as I am aware,

Brian, the original use,

and I'm not sure about this one,

but certainly the original use dummy warheads.

They were really showing the demonstrating the capability

rather than wanting to do massive damage.

What are your thoughts on that?

I think that was certainly true the first time it was used,

and the key point about this missile

is there is no defense in the West against it,

so the Russians have been careful to make sure

that particularly the US has been in before

when there's going to be a launch.

This is where the drive towards conflicts in Ukraine

gets so dangerous because both sides can take actions

that may appear innocent to the person taking the action,

but to the person monitoring,

that can be an absolute red flag that an attack has been launched.

So the use of these sort of weapons is inherently dangerous,

it's particularly dangerous for the West

because they have no real means to detect and track launches,

and there's certainly no defense against this missile system.

So the Russians didn't need to put full warheads on,

obviously, it would be a nuclear warhead

because they were making such a statement

by the existence of the missile itself.

Well, in response then, Zelensky made a statement.

Let's bring him on screen.

And what he said was the Russians are exploiting the cold snap,

trying to hit as many of our energy facilities as possible,

so much for the respect for America and all diplomacy.

The main Russian tactic is to try to completely shut cities down.

A Russian egg was used once again,

this time against the Lviv region.

Once again, it was pointedly close to borders

of the European Union.

In terms of using medium-range ballistic missiles,

this poses a same challenge for a soul,

Warsaw book arrest, Budapest,

and for many other capitals as well.

So he was busy trying to put forward the suggestion

that this was effectively an attack on a soul.

And this is something that, of course, Ukraine is very,

very keen to push forward.

And so they've done that by, in fact,

moving, apparently, some production of drones to Poland.

So here's Radosław Sokorski, the Polish foreign minister.

We've contributed to the purchase

of American weapons for Ukraine,

where now I'm losing kind on what seems

like the 48th transfer of equipment to Ukraine.

He went on to say, but Ukraine is reciprocating

by moving part of its drone and missile production to Poland.

And Brian just very briefly,

I mean, this is clearly yet another attempt

to put Russia in this situation

where they may want to target assets in the West,

which, of course, the West would be delighted,

because that would allow them to pursue Article V.

Indeed.

And when we spoke about this briefly earlier this morning,

I didn't pick up on your statement on Poland,

but the big problem for the West

is that Russia is now capable of targeting

any drone factory or other munitions factory

wherever it is in Ukraine.

And so you can see what's happening here,

what's the West trying to do?

Well, we're going to move into Poland

to get as close as possible to the conflict.

But we've got to stay within the NATO area

so that we still have the protection of that Article V.

But the reality is that nowhere is safe in Ukraine.

When we've seen recently indications

that German munitions companies

were going to be opening joint factories in Ukraine

with Ukrainians, this is complete nonsense,

because at any stage of the development

and build, Russia is capable of taking these out.

So in one way, it makes sense that the drone production

is brought into Poland.

But of course, what this really means

is that you are bringing the possibility

of actual conflict between NATO and Russia ever closer,

because those drones are ultimately

going to be used to attack Russia.

Yes, indeed.

But the narrative gets more ridiculous.

So here we have John Haley,

announcing that the U.K. has going to develop

new tactical ballistic missiles

that boost Ukraine's fire parts of deploy.

Sorry, to defend itself from Putin's war machine.

This is their language.

This is under project Nightfall, they say.

The U.K. has launched a competition

to rapidly develop ground-launched ballistic missiles

with a range of more than 500 kilometers.

And it's going to be able to carry,

where it needs to carry a payload of 200 kilograms.

So there you go, with maximum cost of 800,000 pounds.

Hermesile, that's that bit.

And then, of course, as we know,

the coalition of the willing took place last weekend.

We reported at that meeting,

there was announced that a multinational force

for Ukraine would be set up.

Well, the Starmer government has now announced

that it's allocated 200 million pounds of funding

to prepare the U.K. armed forces to deploy

as part of the multinational force for Ukraine.

And well, that's 200 million pounds

at a time when apparently senior military

are suggesting a 28 billion pound shortfall

in the budget.

So this is the Times and air chief Marcel Srichuk

Knight and the Chiefs of Defense staff

warning that the Ministry of Defense

is 28 billion pounds short over the next four years,

despite the fact that Starmer is claiming

that he's going to up the defense spending.

So again, they keep pushing the war buttons,

but they've really Ryan got nothing to support it with.

Nothing to support it with in the West, certainly not in U.K.,

but they're going to continue to use those Ukrainian troops

to fight and dial the front for their own objectives.

So to the last Ukrainian becomes ever more obvious

as the war now moves into 2026.

Well, lots more to be discussed on that.

But if we're worried about a shortfall in money

for U.K.'s armed forces,

then perhaps we should be looking to the NHS

because the BBC reporting here that the NHS

is wasting billions on patients

who don't need to be in hospital.

So maybe those two departments,

the running the NHS and the Ministry of Defense

should get together and see whether they can iron things out.

But this is just a very quick report from me.

I'm always, of course, suspicious and cynical

of what the BBC reports,

but sometimes there's a message comes through their reporting.

So if we get into this article here,

so it's saying that every day there are more than 13,000 people

whose treatment has been completed

and they're still in hospitals.

And so they're talking about the cost,

the average hospital bed takes 562 pounds a day

to start from maintained.

And the health service in England is losing 225 million a month

supporting patients who could be elsewhere.

And the line throughout this report is that many are older.

So if I come on to this one here, it says,

and because the population is getting older and frailer,

there are more complex cases ending up in hospital.

The system is having to run faster just to stand still.

Old people come up in the spotlight.

And then we get towards where I think the BBC is trying to lead

the minds of UK's population time to rethink end of life care.

So they're talking about price, one of the professionals

and reports about a third of people

who are admitted for medical reasons

are in their last years of life.

We admit them and end up over-treating them

with interventions, scans and pills argue price.

So very interesting that those elderly people

are such a nuisance and they come into the system.

We have to over-treat them.

We have to give them those pills,

but it's all costing us money

and really the unsaid words in my mind

are we could really do without the elderly people.

But I found this interesting because in the article

it also said this,

the problem when you start trying to treat everything

is that you prescribe more pills.

Those pills have side effects

and you can actually end up making a person's health worse.

So maybe a little bit of truth coming into the BBC report,

but of course, if we think it through,

if the NHS started to look at the damage

actually done to individuals by over-prescribing

of pharmaceutical products and the damaging side effects,

perhaps we could make millions of people more healthy,

save money and that money could be given for defence.

And it looks like a win-win situation to me unless you're old.

And I think the answer to that is they're coming for you

because you, perhaps, I should say,

we are becoming a little bit of a nuisance to the state.

So Ben, where does that take us?

Well, it takes us to the fact that the NHS is an absolute mess.

You know, it's one of the top killers.

I think it might even be top five killers

in the NHS is over-medication.

Well, that is certainly true in the states.

The biggest cause of death is pharmaceutical products.

Amazing.

It's an incredible natural death.

But if they're looking for some money

and they want to plug some gaps in the budget,

maybe they should go to Birmingham

because I came across this article in the BMJ over the weekend.

You can see here that the trust is the University Hospital

Birmingham Trust's 40 million pound overseas doctors

training scheme is axed after all it raises red flags.

So the article says a 40 million pound programme

to train doctors from overseas at Midlands NHS Trust

has been discontinued after an independent review

raised a host of red flags.

These included failures to ensure the doctors were paid fairly,

underclared hospitality linked to overseas recruitment trips.

That included the two-week jolly

that a bunch of people went on.

And evidence that most participants recruited mainly

from Pakistan did not return to their home countries

as intended.

Amazing.

It goes on to say one of the most serious issues

to emerge was the unusual arrangement

under which UHB, University Hospital Birmingham

paid a monthly stipend for ITFs

through a small UK company operating

from a residential addressing Birmingham.

In 2025, the last year the scheme operated,

the stipend paid for each ITF was nearly four grand a month,

equivalent to just under 50 grand a year.

And over the scheme's lifetime from 2017 to 2014,

40 million was paid through this scheme

to scholar and trainee services limited,

which managed the contributions and behalf

of colleges in Pakistan and one college in India.

However, the trust had no contract

or agreement with the company, did not receive invoices

and had no oversight of what money was passed on

to individual doctors.

And if you're involved in fraud and corruption,

that's usually how it works, Ben,

but surely it can't be the case here.

Not in the NHS.

Not in the NHS.

Oh goodness, no.

Anyway, so KPMG, these are the auditors

who actually looked at this and uncovered what is it,

what a match to fraud, I would say.

They also surveyed a group of 80 graduate doctors

who had completed this scheme over the past two years.

68% of them were now registered with the GMC

and working in the UK.

So they weren't supposed to stay in the country,

but they've been brought in through this scheme,

which has been siphoning off NHS money

and they've now decided to stay here.

And that's despite Pakistan being on the World Health

Organization's health recruitment red list,

meaning that they don't have enough doctors in Pakistan.

So we aren't really allowed to go to recruit there.

So there's about five things wrong with this whole situation,

the main one being that this money,

I can't believe that they got that money going out

and dealt with no paper trail whatsoever.

Ben, I'll just come in there and say over many years,

I have watched fraud and corruption

through city authorities and particularly

through regeneration and you've seen some of the documentation

with me, fraud on the scale of millions,

hundreds of millions of pounds.

Yeah, this is just routine now in UK.

This is how bad it's got.

OK, and this is one hospital.

One hospital, right?

So this is, it's extraordinary.

There was, as we've said,

there's been a review into this KPMG had a look at it.

This guy initiated that.

This is Kira Tel Chief Medical Officer, UHB.

And he said there was no suggestion

or findings of impropriety or fraud

by any trust employee, which seems completely implausible to me.

What do I know?

Well, maybe the serious fraud office

or the police have simply not got involved

and what he says is correct.

There is no suggestion because there's been no full investigation.

Mike, do you want the final few seconds comment on that?

It's all getting pretty obvious that this country is not breaking down.

It's not broken, Britain.

It is being broken and it's getting ever more easy

to see the policies and the people

who are ripping this country apart.

Yeah, I mean, I've got nothing to add.

It doesn't surprise me.

You know, this is our 20th anniversary.

When did we do the in Cornwall

and concerned presentation?

Brian, 2010 or something?

Nothing, nothing really has changed.

No, but we could say on a positive note

it's clear that many people have woken up

since then and are seeing this.

So if you're part of that team as the UK column audience

keeps spreading the word

because exposure is one of the key weapons

we've got against these people and their malicious policies.

I think we need to end there with a small,

pretty remarkable news today

and it's clear that 2026 is going to be special

for all sorts of reasons.

So hang on to your hats.

But huge thank you to you Ben

and to you, Mike, for joining me today

and a very big thank you to our audience

wherever you are in the world, UK and overseas

and a huge, huge thanks to people

making financial support to UK column to keep us going

and to help us expand.

We'll leave it there.

Thanks for joining us.

Bye-bye.

Tala Redic here from 2311 Racing.

Victory Lane?

Yeah, it's even better with Chamba by my side.

Race to ChambaCasino.com.

Let's Chamba.

No purchase necessary, VTW Group,

voidware prohibited by law, CTNCs, 21 plus,

sponsored by ChambaCasino.