UK Column News - 26th January 2026

Good afternoon today is Monday the 26th of January 2026 just after one o'clock. Welcome to UK column

news. I'm your host, Brian Garrish. Delighted to have Ben Rubin here in the studio with me. Delighted to

be here, Brian. You had a good weekend in Turkey. That was on Thursday. Oh, was it? Yeah, I was in Ivy

Bridge on the weekend. I've got a little video. I'm going to play later, actually. Excellent. So staying

local, meeting local people, this is always good. Well, we've got a very interesting and we think

important news today. We're going to be having a look inside the deeper layers of politics and in

particular, we're going to be having a look at Davos again. We're going to be looking at remarks

that Nigel Farage made. We think some of those very, very important comments. We're going to be having

a look at the Institute of Government again to see who is planning what for the UK state and what

that may be for the future. And in particular, we're going to be focusing in on the phrase broken

Britain. And is that the phrase that we should be using? And if so, why or indeed why not? We're

going to be having a look at the world economic forum. Well, you are Ben. That's the AI apocalypse.

We're going to be having a look at interfaith dialogue plans for a national police force across

England, which I think is very England Wales, very, very significant. We're going to be giving

an update on the cruelty of the ongoing war in Ukraine. And we're also going to be having a look

at Pax-Judeica. So very interesting stuff. We've got a very, very turbulent political system

internationally and in UK. And we're going to try and pick some of that apart today. But let's

kick off with Nigel Farage. And here he is looking very excited prior to his departure for Davos.

But Nigel's overwhelming message to people supporting him and reform was trust me. And this

will be something for us to discuss today. Should you be trusting Nigel Farage on everything he says,

or do we need to look a little bit deeper? Let's have a look at his own self-promotion clip about

his visit to Davos. The online conspiracy is running riot. Nigel Farage is going to Davos.

He's become a globalist. Slow down. I spent 20 years going to the European Parliament,

never once did I change my views. In fact, they probably hardened. And yes, I am going to Davos

as is President Malay of Argentina and Donald Trump of the USA. And my message to Davos is going

to be very, very simple. You guys, the globalists have had it your way for far too long. British

governments have been craving to you, rather pandering to you than standing up for the interests

of British people and British workers. And I'm going to tell them all of that is going to change.

There is going to be a new government in Britain that puts British priorities first. So ask

yourself a question. Would you rather, I stayed at home or rather I went and gave that honest message?

Well, there we are. There's Nigel Farage in his own words. And I'm going to say he's saying some

really important things there that he's going to take on the really, really powerful people who

are running global policy dealing with the world economic forum and Davos. He's going to take

them on. He's going to get politics back to Britain looking after it itself. And that's all there

is to it. Well, is it as simple as that? Did he do a good job in the European Parliament?

Often, yes, because he was introducing vital and very heart-hitting comment on the damage

that the European Union was doing to UK. But whilst he was taking that enormous annual salary

from the European Union, there was a lot going on in UK that Nigel Farage didn't appear to want

to engage with. And let's not forget that after building up the momentum of UKIP, he then abandoned

it to say it was leaving politics, and particularly he was getting a bit scared as to what was happening

around him. And then suddenly he turned up on the world stage with Trump. So very, very difficult

to know exactly what's going on in Farage's mind. Let's look at a separate video clip where he's

been pretty specific that he's going to target welfare. Basically said, we won't increase spending

in line with inflation. So for our programme to work, what we absolutely have to do is to say that

people, we are going to reduce welfare spending. We are going to reduce excessive government waste.

And I think if we do that, the markets will applaud it. I think a lot of people would hear you on those

sort of what we would say, you know, micro-economic things going wrong, you say, I'm going to change

these micro things. But if you're putting the whole system of the way that macroeconomic policy has

been running the country, particularly the independent fiscal watchdog, independent central bank,

if that is in question when you walk into number 10, you don't think there's going to be an

enormous amount of concern in international markets that will affect your ability to pay your debt.

Well, maybe people will think finally we've got a government that actually has within it,

people have been in business because we haven't got that now and we haven't had much of it for many,

many years. You shouldn't tell us you're very worried about having a repeat of this sort of

list trust type. I'm not because we're going to cut spending. For example, you can now go, you can

now get benefits if you suffer from mild anxiety. Well, I have mild anxiety every morning.

I mean, we've just reached a ridiculous level with all of this and it can't go on.

It just can't go on. We're looking at a benefit spill of 300 billion by 2030, something like that.

So it can't go on. So there we are. Obviously, that was just a clip out of all the things that

he said in that interview with Stephanie Flanders from Bloomberg. Banks got mentioned and he's

going to cut back on profits for the banks as we'll hear a little bit more of, but he's going to

target welfare out of all the things which he was he discussed. What was he most hard hitting on

in my mind that he was going to target welfare? So is this Nigel Farage going to look after

ordinary people in UK or is he simply on the trail of the money Ben? Well, I mean, the headlines

there sound kind of interesting right, but the thing is banks are stripping out cost left rights

and censor anyway, that's what all this artificial intelligence is doing. So they're not going to

need the cost base they've currently got. So they're probably kind of going along with the title

on that front, cutting benefits. I think that we could all agree that there's too much money going

into the benefit system. I'm assuming that that includes the NHS budget as well, that's 300 billion

because that is an extraordinarily large number. It's not clear on that. Right. Yeah. So I mean,

NHS spend could come down, but I mean, by an order of magnitude, my personal belief is,

but I mean, not talking really about any kind of serious economic policy. I was

actually working on my growth going to come from. Indeed, that's the case. Let's listen to this

second clip, though, where there's more about the banks. But you say you're going to do it

into part of your plan. It's not just part of your plan to discuss it. No, no, we're going to do it.

At least 20 billion. We're going to do it and tax the banks. And some of the banks won't like it.

You're right. They will all pass on to their consumers. Well, I don't like the banks very much

because they debanked me, didn't they? It wouldn't give me an account and try to force me out of the

country. No, look, this will be tough for banks to accept. I get that. But how do you think they're

going to get into 20 billion? I'm sorry, but the drain on public finances is just too great.

But how do they make their money? If they don't make it there, don't you think? I mean, it's pretty

clear. It's going to go on to interest margin. It's going to go on to the mortgage cost and the

interest rates they charge your, your voters or they become more or they become more efficient or

they cut costs or they do whatever. This money, they should not have had this money over. Look,

frankly, the whole QE program has not achieved anything very much other than to make the rich richer

and the poor poorer and everything we've done on QE since George Osborne co put it into place

has been bad for most people in the country. That's, I mean, that's been really helpful because

it's very clear. You're very happy to have a very hefty extra tax on banks. It's not a

tax. It's not a tax. It's not a tax. They're just not going to get free money anymore.

It's just taking 20 billion pounds from the banks. It doesn't really matter how you call it.

They'll adapt. They'll adjust business does. You disagree with the bank of England governor on

that. If we have an election on schedule, there'll be a new bank of England governor by the time

you would become Prime Minister. They'd come in in early 28. One of the other things that people

are worried about is that you're actually questioning one of these key pillars of UK economic policy,

one of the few stable pillars in the last 15 years or so, 20 years. The independent bank of England,

will you let that new bank of England governor continue in their term, their full term?

Well, given what a catastrophe UK economic policy has been over the last 15 years, I think we should

challenge every single tenant of it. One of the biggest mistakes, we vote Brexit. If you vote

Brexit, use it as an opportunity to do things differently. The trouble is from day one,

the Conservative government viewed it as a damaged limitation exercise as opposed to an opportunity,

and Andrew Bay is a perfectly polite, nice man, but they should have picked somebody who

was a Brexit here to be in charge of the bank of England and to think totally differently,

especially around financial markets, financial market regulation. We've ignored this.

So I think this was a very interesting dialogue, and certainly Stephanie Flanders for Bloomberg,

they're absolutely desperate to protect the bankers. We shouldn't be taking any more money from

the bankers, but the real debate under the surface of this, I think, is two things is one

who is actually creating the money, who is pushing the money into the economy, who's in control of

it, are the central banks truly independent. That's certainly a question which doesn't get

discussed, which needs to be dealt with if Nigel Farage is actually going to be taking

fiscal policy and economic policy under control. So there are a lot of things don't come out,

but certainly from the world, economic forum desperately to protect the banks and the idea

that we have independent central banks. So Nigel Farage, under quite a lot of pressure there,

and he does come back with some fairly hard statements about the fact that quantitative easing,

pouring money into the banking system in order to protect it from bad debts caused huge trouble.

Saying the right words, is he going to stick with it, Ben, do you think?

Well, difficult to say, really, but the fact that he called Andrew Bailey a nice polite man,

I think, is a bit of a red flag. He's an arch-fabien. We talked about that just for Christmas,

Andrew Bailey's was president of the Fabian Society, came as university, one of the top central

bankers, not just in this country, obviously, he's the governor of the Bank of England, but he's

on the board of the Bank of International Citizens, he's on the board of the G30. And the central

banking system is really the head of the snake as it comes to global economics and really politics

as well, because they put a lot of the strings there. And then just the final thing on that 20 billion

number, that does sound good. But he actually touched on something I was talking about after

your first clip, which was about efficiency. I'm taking 20 billion back from the banks, but if

they're saving 200, maybe more through the implementation of new technologies, and actually,

they're getting a better deal than it's been presented here, so that needs closer investigation.

Indeed, as it's corruption within the banking system, we'll come onto that a little bit more

in a minute. Now, in the next clip for us is onto the subjects of NATO, but he's also talking about

foreign policy for Britain. Let's see this one. Look, of course, we understand collective strength

through NATO and organisations like that. All right, I get that. But let's face it, let's face it,

the globalist idea that we should all do the same thing, have the same regulations, have the same

targets, and the EU, of course, is the epicenter of all of this for the globalists. That's now for

the birds. There's a change of debate. There is now something called national interest, and that's

the new politics that you're saying. That's the new approach that you're saying. I think a lot of

people in this audience would say the conclusion from this week was not that, was that countries cannot

go alone, especially in their relationship with President Trump. They need to group together,

and a lot of people in the UK will be thinking, and we know from the polls that they want to be

closer to Europe, but you're saying the opposite. You don't want to work with other countries,

and especially not with Europe. I'm very happy to work with other countries. I love Europe.

I love Europeans. I just don't like Brussels, and the terrible law to credit structures that it's

built. I don't believe it's bought any benefits whatsoever. It may have been good for one or two

big companies, but beyond that, it's been a failure, not a success. It's been a little bit hard

from this conversation to see where the direction would be. An independent UK foreign policy.

What do you actually do? An independent United Kingdom chooses

its own future, chooses its own relationships, makes its own decisions. We're doing it in trade

policy. Trade policy is one example of what you can do. If you're not, if you're not part of a

structure that tells you what you can and can't do, and that's what the EU was, and that's what the

Brexit world's about, making our own choices, making our own decisions. And yes, of course,

in terms of defence, in terms of defence, NATO is crucial, America is crucial, but you ask yourself

a question. It has Donald Trump made NATO weaker or stronger over the last 10 years, and I would

argue he's made NATO a lot, lot stronger by waking Europeans up to the fact they couldn't go on

having a free lunch. So again, a very interesting mix of comments, so according to Noegel Farage,

Davos has changed. All those people, they've dumped the idea of a global rules-based international

system, and they've moved on to something about national independence. Do I believe that?

I certainly don't. Does he think that or is he just playing for the cameras? We don't know.

And then as far as foreign policy is concerned, well, if Britain's in control of its own foreign

policy, clear of the rules-based international order, presumably, we can make foreign policy

as a nation-state. Is it that clear or is Noegel Farage maneuvering through the atmosphere

of Davos? Now, you've got an extra clip here, Ben, where you're actually looking at Noegel Farage

and the aspect of thinking more globally. Let's have a look at that and see how these two bits fit

together. I just think we've underutilised the amazing advantages we have across the rest of the

world. We turned our backs on India, we turned our backs on the commonwealth countries,

in the 70s, we decided that Europe was our future. That became the sort of foreign office and

political priority over decades, and we've turned our backs on large parts of the world,

where there is still a remarkable relationship between those former colonies and ourselves,

so we need to think more globally in every way. Okay, so a little bit more detail,

are we going to be backing in control of our foreign policy with Noegel Farage and reform?

Who knows? We can't be unless we control the people making the global policy,

and we can't control the people making the global policy unless we get the banks under control.

Just to round that point, let's just have a look at comments here. This is from 2022

from the Bank of International Settlement and Quarterly Review. They're talking on vast sums of

money missing within the system, non-banks outside the USO 25 trillion in missing debt,

non-US banks, so upwards of 35 trillion. And if we go back to another report,

Reuters here, obviously, but this was December the 6th, 2022, is talking for an exchange swap debt

of 80 trillion, just a mere 80 trillion. We don't know what's happened to it. It's gone into hidden

off-balance sheet dollar debt in financial exchange swaps. So vast amounts of money disappearing,

some examples coming up on the screen to do with Dutch pension funds, etc. And how the system

works, but essentially 80 trillion disappears from the world system. But the banking system itself

is independent and we're going to rely on it in order to move forward. So lots of questions to be

asked. And I'll put this one on screen. This is from a UK column news report from 2022.

But essentially, we're pointing out that the Bank of International Settlements is taking a

leading role in coordinating the work of central banks on technological innovation. And it's

basically working with the Bank of England, but you can't ask what's going on because it's all

secret. And then basically, we've got Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England. As a

central bank, we recognize the importance of innovation. So they're deep into innovation,

but what they're not actually doing is sorting out the fraud and corruption in the banking system.

We can't ask questions about it because all of this is under diplomatic immunity and immense

secrecy in Switzerland, the UK and worldwide. So a lot of work for Nigel Farage to do because he

cannot change the globalist policy, cannot change the world economic forum and Davos,

unless he deals with the corruption in the banking system. And one thing he did comment on was

the Office of Budget Responsibility, which is supposed to be producing the detailed data for

the Treasury. So I'm going to give him credit for that. And if we have a quick look at individuals

connected, it's the normal revolving door of interest. But so maybe we should just end on the facts

that Nigel Farage attended Davos, but his bills were paid by an Iranian billionaire. It's this article

in the, excuse me, the financial time springs this out, reform UK leaders, pass and hotel costs

for the world economic forum event were paid by Susanne Kandahari. And if we look at a bit of

detail on this gentleman, it is family with a Iranian, basically we've got a $10 billion

family trust. Now is Nigel Farage working with that family? It's not too clear. It's not too clear

in the article. And I don't think there's any doubt about the facilities being paid. But his

Nigel Farage working on behalf of that billionaire, that is not clear. And it's certainly not proven

in the financial times article. Now compare what Farage said there at Davos with what we are

actually seeing the Institute of Government talking about. And we would say that until we deal

with what is destroying Britain from the inside, we cannot possibly move along with the policies

that Nigel Farage says he wants. Let's look at what the Institute of Government had to say recently.

Thank you very much for that introduction and welcome everyone here today. I'm delighted to have

the opportunity to say a few words to introduce down Jones MP Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister

and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Unsurprisingly, to any of you here, the Institute for

Government agrees that government must think hard about the how as well as about the what.

Without setting up the people, institutions and processes of government, the success,

no government is going to deliver for the vases. And that's why we were really pleased to see

the creation of the Chief Secretary role at the centre of government and to learn about the decisions

to clarify the structures there and to hear about the government's plans to make it easier for

the public to access public services using digital tools, something that what three words knows

all about. Of course, Labour is not the first government to talk about tackling public sector

productivity or about making government more innovative and agile. That's a point that Darren

made at our conference last week. So the obvious question is why all this time be different?

What the IFG would say, based on two decades of research, is that what is important is what comes

next. How the vision for reform that we hear about today is communicated across government,

how political focus on these priorities is sustained and how civil service leaders are held to

account for delivering what ministers want to see. So whether it is Greenland or Gaza, the war in

Ukraine or the famine in Sudan, these challenges threaten not only our international security and

that of our allies, but also make life more difficult for ordinary families across Britain.

As the Prime Minister set out yesterday, this caused for strong British leadership abroad,

but also a more active government at home. Because for too long, government hasn't worked the way

it should. Everybody agrees that the status quo in our public services is not working.

It's clear to phrase the public will often refer to the so-called broken state.

That's why the public, politicians and yes civil servants are all frustrated by the pace of change.

But this diagnosis is not new, and it's why the Prime Minister has asked for nothing

short of a complete rewiring of the state.

So there we are. So while Davos goes on and apparently we're going to tackle the globalist

policy inside UK is being hollowed out and we've now got massive change coming in through

Kia's storm, but notice also the broken state expression. And let's mirror this with the fact that

Nigel Farage also saying Britain is broken, but UK column is going to challenge this very much.

Is it broken Britain or is it Britain that's been deliberately broken from the inside?

And we absolutely say that's the case. And until the attack on the UK from the inside is dealt

with, there's going to be no change to the standing of this country. So over to you Ben.

Well, how do we fix it? They think that pouring loads of technology into the mix is going to

sort everything out. That seems to be the the hypothesis that they're pushing ahead with.

And a lot of that's been driven by this chap on the left hand side, Alex Carp, the founder,

chief executive of Palantir here at the World Economic Forum last week talking to Larry Fink,

the CEO of Founder of BlackRock. And Carp is fascinating character. We talk about him all the time

and at the centre of this transformation of the British state, Palantir is deeply embedded into

the NHS and increasingly more and more facets of the civil service and he's really kind of

eating the system from the inside. I'm not going to share any clips. I've just mentioned a

couple of the points that he raised and I could talk a bit about what Elon Musk talked about as

well. But essentially what Carp is saying to Fink is that government is their core business,

they work with all sovereign nations who can work with the US. So this is the Western sphere of

influence ultimately. And a lot of that centered around Israel ultimately as well because that's

where I believe it's probably reasonable to say a lot of Carp's interest lies.

And this is rooted in warfare and battlefield technology and what these systems do to use

the terminology directly from this interview is to take out the fat as he calls in the system

so that actual workers can be elevated. So that fat is the white coloteer, that's the management

here that has been stripped out and completely replaced by these algorithms. So everyone

inside these organizations is now subservient to technology. And that's where a lot of the

higher paid jobs were. That's where the managerial class was, the professional classes,

that's been destroyed by the technology that has been developed and deployed by Alex Carp.

And Fink actually says to him, is this going to destroy jobs? And he says, yes,

it's going to destroy jobs. And the note that I wrote to myself, on a piece of paper by the way,

the Alex Carp, I wrote something down on a bit of paper with a pen, we have these pens you see,

we can write on the papers, it's quite a good technology actually. What I wrote down to myself was

the machine wind and the sole loses. And I think that's probably quite an after.

Quite apt as it relates to Palantir. I'll just touch on Musk as well. We'll provide links to the

interviews you should go and watch them. They're only kind of half an hour long. It's worth

while to get some insight into what these people are thinking. Musk is, if nothing quite

entertaining, I've got to say it. So he opened with a quip saying that he only came to Davos

because he'd heard about this thing called the Board of Peace. But he thought it was spelled P-I-E-C-E

because you get a piece of Greenland and a piece of Venezuela and a piece of Gaza.

Which, although it was a kind of throwaway remark, I think that's probably quite revealing

actually. It might be a little bit of a glimpse into the way that Donald Trump sees the world.

And now all these people see the world. But what was he there to talk to think about?

Abundance for all, which can only be delivered by artificial intelligence and robotics produced

by people like Elon Musk ultimately. And his vision is a future where artificial intelligence

will be smarter than humans, than a human this year. And by 2030 will be smarter than all humanity

collectively. That's reassuring. You know, an AI that, yeah. And what he wants to do is to put

AI data centers in space so that we're orbiting the earth. And we will then have this super intelligent

AI running on solar power from deep space 24-7 that will then become like this new technological

data, I guess. I will be happy. And it will be well fed, watered and happy.

Oh, and there'll be more robots than humans. I don't know. It sounds, I don't know if it sounds

pretty out there to me, but it doesn't sound like any kind of future that I want to live in.

And the other thing that I really noticed this year was this kind of consumerisation of Davos.

And we had people like this chap turning up. So this is Stephen Bartlett from the diary of a

CEO, big YouTube channel. So he was there, the kind of content creators and influencers were out

in force. And the BBC was beginning to give real coverage to the Davos agenda. And you know,

I think that this is all part of the propaganda push, the reputational cells.

Because they're under pressure. Absolutely under pressure. And they need people to go along with this.

Yeah. So lots of the guy, and I'm going to still be looking at stuff coming out of us all

through this week, to be honest with you, because there's so much material, so many people speaking

there. So we're just reinforcing that. So good news in there in the UK column news today that

basically it is clear that people driving the global agenda are under huge pressure, huge

and increasing pressure. They're running behind time with their plans. And they're also getting

wobbly when you hear them in interviews. So this needs more pressure from the massive

of mankind in order to destabilize what's happening. Agreed. We've got to get organized, though.

And we do have a fight on our hands. One final segment from the World Economic Fund, one that

really jumped out of me actually, this clip has been doing the rounds, which relates to this

discussion. This is the advancing interfaith dialogue for peace session. If we can just get that

up on screen, we can see there that's Mohammed Alissa, Secretary General of the Muslim World League,

and Pinchus Goldschmitt, who is the chief rabbi of Moscow amongst other things. And of course,

as you'd expect for an interfaith dialogue for peace, there was a lot of talk of peace,

a lot of talk of dialogue, a lot of talk of tolerance and education. And then also this remarkable

clip about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe.

Your Eminence, especially in Germany, you are facing a rise of anti-Semitism, but we are

facing this all over the world. So I would like to hear what is your perspective on this?

The 7th of October has created turbulence in the whole world. A tremendous rise of anti-Semitism,

organized state-sponsored, many instances in universities, under-street, and a rise of 500 percent,

maybe some inches to 1,000 percent of anti-Semitic acts. And there has also been a reaction

of Europe. I think the rise of the extreme right in many European countries is a response

to the insecurity felt by the old Europeans, so-called older Europeans, regarding the new immigrants

who came from the Middle East. So I think that fighting Islamophobia and anti-Semitism is an

interest of both religions and both communities. And when we do it together, it's going to be

much more useful. We have created, also the Saudi umbrella, more than 10 years ago, the

Muslim Jewish Leadership Council, and which was successful. And we believe that we have to go

this way if we want to make sure that every European can live in peace and walk in peace in the streets.

So Ben, I have to ask, was there a Christian input in that panel? Absolutely not.

Absolutely not. I think I'm right in saying so. The largest world religion

not represented by the World Economic Forum. No, and particularly in Europe, right? So

it's talking about Europe. The Europe is Christian, Christian Europe. And there was a number of

things that jumped out of me just from that little segment alone. Again, we'll provide a link to

go and watch the whole thing. Is the main outcome of October 7th is an increase in anti-Semitism.

That's our primary concern about what's gone on since October 7th, 2023. He refers to the rise

of the extreme right being down to the insecurity of the old Europeans. The old Europeans.

There are a problem aren't there? No, I know, yeah. They can remember what life used to be like.

Yes. Yes. Dangerous people. Absolutely. And this idea that the new Europeans

in the brave new world that we're moving into are the ones that are coming in from the Middle East.

And also further afield, not just from the Middle East, but that's what he referred to.

And also the he is established under the Saudi umbrella, this organization, which is the Muslim

Jewish Leadership Council. I'm just going to have a quick look at now. So this was set up in 2016

with the aim of freeing religious people and religions from prejudice,

false claims, attacks and violence. So that each religious tradition has the right in duty

to contribute to European society. And it is co-chaired by Mufdi Ned Zegrabis.

He's got a great headgear, by the way. I think the Muslims are definitely out in front when it comes to

Hitler. No, but it's very smart. Absolutely. And then you've got the rabbi

pinches there in the center, chief rabbi of Moscow. And then three others on the leadership teams.

You've got rabbi Shlomo Hofmeister, who I think has got a very cool name. And also a very cool

app. And then this chap on the left hand side, Michael Shudrick, who's the chief rabbi of Poland,

has been since 2004. And he's worked extensively since 1998 and nearly 30 years with the Ronald S.

Louder Foundation in Warsaw. And Ronald Louder is a fascinating character because as soon as you

start getting into the world of international jury, he pops up because he is the president of the

world Jewish Congress. We spoke about him at the back end of last year, not least because

of his fondness for the current Syrian president, Ahmed Al-Sharar, aka Jelani, who is a former

terrorist, ISIS commander, essentially. He blocks beheading people and all the things that can't

kind of go along when you venturing into that territory. And what Louder is here talking about

the positive discussion that he had with Jelani about normalization between Israel and

Syria. And maybe this tells us something quite significant about the relationship between

Judaism and Islam that's being pushed forward by the world economic forum. I don't know.

Certainly very complex. And it's certainly a lot of questions need to be asked. But

this is a key part of our reporting is to lift the stones so that people can see what's actually

happening instead of what mainstream media is reporting so that we can ask the key questions.

Yeah, absolutely. And read between the lines of some of the things that are happening

in terms of terror-related activity in this country and further afield, for example.

Now just a couple more points on this because he usually said that this new body that has been

established has been set up under a Saudi umbrella. And we've known for quite some time that Saudi

Arabia has been funding the spread of particularly radical forms of Islam across the rest.

And that relates to the establishment of radical mosques all across the UK in this country

the further afield. But this report which comes from 2018 references a piece of work done by the

Henry Jackson Institute. And the Henry Jackson Institute was the initial vehicle for the creation

of the Council for Inclusive Capitalism which was set up by Linda Rothschild in 2015 I believe it

was who's actually herself on the board of Estee Lauder. So Ron Lauder's family business,

she's on the board of and Ron Lauder's brother Bill Lauder is also on the board of the Council for

Inclusive Capitalism. So there's quite a mix going on here. And then finally this entire thing

relates directly back to the Drum Landrig records that I spoke about back in October last year,

which is the Muslim Jewish Reconciliation Accords, a framework of reconciliation, understanding and

solidarity. So in the presence of Charles III, almost exactly a year ago today, it was news on

the 15th and 16th January last year. And just to reinforce the question that you asked a moment

ago Brian, my question is where are all the questions in this? Well, they appear to be excluded or

we could look at the Christian community and say that there's not enough oomph, there's not

enough political awareness in the Christian community under the Anglican Church, for example,

to actually get involved in these types of very important discussions because the people who

are absent from the discussion of course have no say in the policies that result from them.

So lots of questions to ask, but overall lots of things that we need to see and understand

about the power behind the creation of not only globalist policy but national policy.

Well, as we always do, let's say a huge thank you to those who are supporting the UK column

financially. If you remember with us, or if you're donating or you're a lifetime member,

we can only do what we do because of your financial support. So a huge thank you to everybody

who's helping the UK column. We'd like to grow numbers. So if you're not yet on board with a membership,

follow the yellow arrow click here on our website and you can sign up as a member or indeed you

can make a donation or visit the UK column shop. So do have a think about that. Now just to highlight

the information that UK column does put out, website is packed full of news, written articles,

interviews and much else beside, but I just wanted to draw people's attention to this interview

back in July 2022 when I was talking to Trevor Kitchens specifically on the subject of 4x and

the banking fraud. So if you don't understand this part of the deep financial system, just put

that into the search bar on the UK column website and find that interview. And now tonight at 7pm,

we've got the world is controlled by a criminal syndicate and that's German warfare's podcast

with Catherine Austin Fitz very, very timely. And I think the title of that is absolutely on the

button because that's certainly what we think we're looking at. And this one's also very

interesting to know it at 9pm, the day that rules based order died Canada's revolt in the end of

US hegemony. That calls our Silicon steel podcast and he's going to be talking to Einer Tang and

senior fellow at CIGI. And actually if I if I've got this correct, this will be giving us a look

into some of the institutions who have been clustered around the rules based into national order.

So this one should be very interesting to tune in at 9pm this evening. Now I also just want to give

a little bit of a heads up that UK column teams recently completed a series of interviews with

the survivors from the abuse which took place for Nethi residential school in Scotland.

It's a really unique series of interviews. It is 2 hours 20 long. These ladies great courage to

speak out about their experiences and the trial that's just taken place. So we're saying to our

audience watch out for that because we'll be streaming it soon. And back to you Ben,

on the growing police state I think in UK. Right absolutely. So the Institute for Government

video that Brian showed a few moments ago talked about centralisation of power into

cabinet office. Well there's a lot more centralisation happening. This monolith of a state is

accruing power at an extraordinary pace and just over the weekend we've seen the introduction of

what has been built as the British FBI. That sounds great doesn't it? We really need one of those.

British FBI will free up forces to tackle everyday crime. Home security says. So this is a new

body, the National Police Service that is going to bring the work of existing agencies such as

the National Crime Agency and the regional organised crime units under the same organisation.

So massive centralisation of power into police service. And this is all because,

according to the Home Secretary, the current police and system is broken. Is that word again?

Broken. Nobody broke it. It was just the incompetence of the population of the UK.

They slowly fell asleep and allowed the country to fall apart. That is not the case. What has

happened is Britain has been broken apart from the inside. It's very easy to see. This is

very sinister. And I just like to say here, Ben, that a few years ago we saw the centralisation of

the police Scotland, of the police north of the border in Scotland. And what that meant was the

creation of one unified police system, police Scotland. And as this got problems and issues

absolutely because if you have any corruption within the police force itself, it will investigate

itself. Whereas if you have different police forces spread across the country, at least you can

bring in a remote police force to investigate wrongdoing amongst the police. So on that thing alone,

Ben, some really worrying implications. But this is the creation of a state policing system, isn't it?

This is not about Bobby's protecting members of the public. This is about the state

controlling the population through a militarised police system.

Yeah, absolutely. And doing it completely off-script as well. Because none of this was in

the Labour manifesto, wasn't it? I don't think we did. No, we didn't. No one voted for this.

The creation of a new FBI for the UK. It's all been done in extraordinary fashion, right? So

I'll get our esteemed home secretary up on the screen. This is her at the NPCC conference last

year. And interestingly, you can see the National Police Chiefs Council is actually sponsored by

PWC. See the PWC logo just poking out of her dairy air there on the bottom right hand side.

Who are well-economic forms to see as your partner? So you can get a sense of where the new strategy

for policing is coming from. Just to reinforce that, a corporate entity which is there.

Sponsoring, as you say, what the National Police Chiefs Council is doing here.

Yeah, amazing. And the NPCC, interestingly, was the only place that I could actually find any

kind of formal communication about this development over the weekend. So there were

there was a BBC article and various other newspapers picked this up. It was a big development.

But there's no formal address, no formal statement on a dot-gov website or from a mood at all.

Apparently, there's something coming out later on today, but this is all just being done by press

release. Right. And Ben, if I may, and I'm going to support Nigel Frasier, which is very rare of

me to do. But one of the things that he did in pushing back against Stephanie Flanders, the

lady interviewing him from Bloomberg was to say it was obvious to him that very little was being

discussed on the House of Commons, on the floor of the House of Commons, and also that the

committees were incompetent and not doing their jobs. And certainly, I'd absolutely agree with

him. And this topic itself has not come up in the House for your MP to understand what's really

being proposed. Right. And this is an enormous shift. So we got my mood at the NPCC conference.

And then, as I said, the only place I could find formal communication was through this joint

statement from counterterrorism police in the Met and the NPCC, essentially saying that our

organisations operate in an environment where crime is becoming increasingly complex, digitally

enabled and dangerous terrorism, hostile state activity, organised criminal networks, now more

interconnected than ever. They demand the policing model that is agile, capable and resilient,

and that is going to be the National Police Service. So this is about the integration of

police and it's the top tier. Right. So this is the real in-depth intelligent investigation work

all being centralised into one place. Right. And this is part of a trend. It's not the only

thing that's happening in terms of centralisation. They're actually looking at reducing the number

of police forces across the country as well. So this came out a few days before the announcement

about this new FBI type body. My mood is pledged to significantly cut the number of forces from

its current level of 43 down to what could potentially be just 12 mega-forces. And do you think

that those will be completely aligned to the Metro regions? I think they probably will be,

won't they? That will fit quite nicely, won't they? I wonder if that's coincidence or if

that's just, you know, accident? Well, we'll find out in due course. Yeah, potentially we will.

Rather concerningly, Shabbana Mahmoud has said some extraordinary things as well,

probably all this policy that we're talking about. She's actually made some unbelievable statements

over the past couple of weeks as it relates to justice and policing in the UK. I'll direct your

attention to this article from the telegraph, build the minority report policing to catch criminals

before they strike. Minority report obviously, the film came out good. It's probably 25 years ago,

which essentially was about tackling pre-crime. And you think that this is science fiction. It's

really not. And they quote an interview that the Home Secretary did with Tony Blair last month

where she said that AI and technology can be transformative to the whole of the law and order space

when I was in justice. Multimivision for that part of the criminal justice system was to achieve

by means of AI and technology, what Jeremy Bentham tried to do with his benopticon. That is,

the eyes of the state can be on you at all times. Yeah. That's what they're pushing towards.

And this is what all of this is about. And that is a state that we've already been describing

at the beginning of UK column news, which is essentially utterly corrupt and incompetent.

But it's going to be watching you, the individual, to see that you are running your life correctly.

Exactly. You can see it apart from anything else. It's breathtaking.

Right. Absolutely. And just to kind of reinforce the point, for those who are unfamiliar with the

concept of the penopticon, it came from a 18th century philosophical Jeremy Bentham,

who promoted this idea of a circular prison with a central inspection tower from which a single

guard could observe all inmates all the time while remaining unseen. And it has actually been

built as an example of it. I believe this is in Holland. You can see the central tower in the bin

all and then all of the cells which are completely open all of the time. And actually, let's just

reinforce the point that this is a prison. We're not supposed to be living in a prison.

We're supposed to be living in a free society. Maybe someone should tell the home secretary.

And also, I do want rather wonder if this has got anything to do with the interface dialogue

that the home secretary was involved in herself towards the end of last year. But I don't know.

Well, again, we don't know because nothing is debated in openly in front of the public. It's all

decided in meetings and close, close door events, which the public is not privy to. So lots of

questions to be asked. What do we think is being constructed? It appears UK is taking the slow slide

into some form of fascist states. So on one hand, we're being told, don't worry the rules based

international order or the new world order is collapsing. That's apparently the message at Davos.

According to Farage, but here in UK, the tightening up goes on. And this is certainly I think

a very worrying development. So people should be aware of that. Let's move over to the subject

of Ukraine, because of course, the war in Ukraine has driven a lot of the international turbulence

Europe and the friction between EU and NATO and indeed within NATO and also with the United

States. What is the key problem? Well, the key problem is it's now absolutely clear that Ukraine

has lost the war. Yes, the fighting still goes on. But the reality is that Ukraine has essentially

lost the war and Russia is demonstrating that it's capable of continuing to fight and destroying

Ukraine in infrastructure with weapon systems to which the West does not have any counter.

Let's just have a listen to retired Colonel Douglas McGregor in an interview here.

The question is, if you're losing a war and there's absolutely no evidence that anything you

can do will change that outcome. Why would you take such irrational steps? Now we know you pointed out

something just a second ago. If you go back and look at Crimea, when the Russians opted to seize it

very suddenly and very quickly, what people didn't know is that there were great plans in NATO to

occupy a Crimea to use the naval facilities there for the very purpose that you outlined to turn

the black sea into a NATO lake, if you will. But the bottom line is that we've we've unambiguously

failed in Ukraine. There's an unwillingness to admit this truth. And if we persist in provoking,

as we are doing right now and have been doing for months, frankly, we will eventually get a

reaction and we may not like that reaction. Because let's be frank, we are not prepared for a

major war with Russia, but Russia is prepared for a major war against us. And I think people in

Washington have lost sight of that. There's something else here too that we shouldn't lose sight of.

We have a problem in this country. It's an infatuation with air power. Air power is the

equivalent of sex without consequences. You can bomb or missile attack people on the ground.

There is no real response against you sitting in the United States or sitting in Western Europe.

Nobody has the air defenses to stop you. You don't really accomplish anything other than alienating

and offending people. But it feels good to the politicians in Washington that we're able to do

that with impunity. Well, that's worked with Iraq. It's worked in Libya. It works in Africa.

It's worked in many places, but it's not going to work with the Russians.

So very wise words from Colonel McGregor. Russia has won the war. The fighting is going to go on

until Ukraine stops receiving support from the West. But at the end of the day, the West knows

that they've been beaten. And that is the combined arms of the European Union together, actually,

with the Americans. It has absolutely failed. And in the meantime, the slaughter goes on on the

battlefield. And of course, as the Ukrainian military breaks down, so losses increase.

Before we have a look at some of those losses, we just have a little look at this clip showing

some of the horrors of events on the battlefield. And let's see if we can play this.

And drones, of course, are being used now to flush out Ukrainians from the last of their

defensive positions around key towns and key lines where the Russians are moving forward.

Ukrainians also using drones, but the Russians have the upper hand. And this is horror. The horror

of the warfare. This is a Russian drone attacking a assembled group of Ukrainians. And this

little clip here is going to show a 3000 kilogram Russian bomb being used to deploy an assembly point

of Ukrainians. And this is where the war is now so cruel because Russia has ample of these weapons

to destroy Ukrainian strongholds before it moves forward. Look at the size of that explosion.

Killing radius is truly vast due to the shock wave. But also Russia is capable of moving into

where the Ukrainians are trying to hide military vehicles to just been indicated there within civilian

infrastructure. But the accuracy of the drones can still locate those vehicles. So the war goes on,

Ukraine becoming more fragile. The economy destroyed to a large extent through the Russian

attacks on the infrastructure. And on the battlefield, we just really see the horrific killing going on

because the West will not admit that it's a adventure in Ukraine is over. This last clip,

very important. This shows the height to which the drone war has got to where you now have drones

attacking other drones in the air. This is technology which the West is desperate to catch up on

because at the moment it's clear that it's been outproduced and outdeveloped by Russia and its

arms industry. And that has a particular significance. But if we just look here at Ukrainian deaths,

now this is one of the web sites that was pointed out to me as being fairly accurate

on the left. You've got a scale going up to between 1,000 and 1,200. And these are weekly deaths,

it's claiming. Many of the other statistics would indicate a lot more. But in the course of the war

so far, according to this website, 177,000 Ukrainians dead already. But what you can't see

is more or less an equivalent number missing in action. These people have just disappeared on the

battlefield. This can often be the result of very heavy shelling or very big bomb blasts where

people literally disappear. And so horrific casualties funded by the West and the killing goes on.

If we get into this particular website, we can actually see that as is being done by the BBC

in Russia, people in Ukraine trying to track their own citizens that have been killed. And I

can tell you, these pages go on and on and on. And what they also tell you is the average age of

the men being killed is 38 years. If we have a look at the latest American National Defence

Strategy document, a particular statistic called my eye. And this was a Trump prompted by Trump.

The source is actually from the World Bank 2024. But it's basically the spend on military

equipment on military and defence in the West compared to Russia. Now this does not include

the US. So it's known at US NATO, 26 trillion being spent on defence compared to Russia's true

two trillion. But Russia is wiping the floor with NATO in Ukraine. What this suggests, Ben, is that

the fraud and corruption in the military industrial complex in the West is truly mind blowing.

26 trillion disappearing where we haven't even got the where with all of the equipment.

To fight in Ukraine. But the war over in as much as there's no doubt that Russia is now fully

in control. And this is why Russia does not need to reach any agreement because it is in control

on the battlefield. So truly horrible that Keir Starmer and the other Western leaders are allowing

this destruction to take place. But it's extraordinary, isn't it? Absolutely extraordinary.

Yeah, where does that take us? That takes us to just to wrap up. I would like to draw people's

attention to this video. Well, this is a still from the video. It's presentation by Benjamin Netanyahu

the APAC conference in 2018. And he's talking about what I view as the projection of imperial power

by Israel politically, economically, industrially. And he talks about turning the map blue.

And you can see all of the countries on there that he views as blue on the side of Israel. Isn't that

fascinating? It is fascinating. I'd like to know what is in his mind. Does he mean these

countries that have got exceptional support for Israel? Are these countries that he now believes

that Israel has got such a controlling hand within their national political system that it's hard

to tell whether it's the national government in control or Israel? I know there's a lot of people

who won't like that question, but I think it's reasonable to ask. Absolutely,

reasonable to ask. I mean, the man standing on stage presenting the world as being something

that's controlled by him and his government ultimately. And the reason this has come to light in

the past couple of weeks is because of this little clip which we can take a look at now.

By the way, what are we doing with Greenland? We got to do something with Greenland.

Where's my advanced team? Go to Greenland. They must have some satellite needs or something

that we could do there. But we are coloring the world blue.

What is going on with Greenland? Just to qualify. That was from 2018. 2018.

2018 and Netanyahu, with all his problems, is pointing a finger at Greenland and saying we

should be paying attention to it. We should be saying attention to it. And then within 12 months,

we have this from Trump. Since Trump starts talking about Greenland. So obviously,

this has come to the foreground again in the past few weeks, but actually it's not the first time

that Trump's been talking about. He does this. He makes these jokes. Are we going to put a casino

up there? You know? Truly horrible. Or maybe they've got other ideas for you. I don't know.

Let's have a little listen to this clip from The Golden Girls in 1987.

At two in the morning waiting for George to come home, I called a radio talk show.

I gave them the solution to the crisis in the Middle East.

Giving the Palestinians Greenland? I didn't know that was you. You were great.

Giving the Palestinians Greenland?

It's a big place. Nobody uses it.

You would take a desert people and put them in the ice and snow.

With a proper claws, they'll be fine.

Just a coincidence, Ben. May be. From 1987. From 1987. Maybe we've got a glimpse into next week's

controversy. Let's see what the board of peace have to say.

Indeed, a lot to think about there, but we understand today's UK column news.

Oh, I've got my little clip of my little walk. Let's let's could we drag that off?

Of course. Okay, very good. So this is me and Ivy Bridge over the weekend, just on the

edge of Dartmore, and just look at that river. Raging. Raging like the world's political system.

Exactly. Yeah, I thought it was quite quite poetic, actually, that given in the context of

everything going on. Looks beautiful. Okay. Well, a huge thank you to all of our viewers,

wherever you are in UK or worldwide. Huge thank you to everybody supporting UK column

financially. Our objective is to grow from 2026. So do help us to do that. Join the community

to get a feeling that you are part of us and you help us to produce the news we do. I also

want to say people stay calm, carry on, but do tackle the issues that we're bringing forward

on the news wherever you can. And lastly, I'd like to say to people supporting reform party. We know

a lot of you are doing very good work within local politics. And we hope that UK column news and

analysis and data will be helping you focus on what are the really important issues to tackle

whatever the leadership of reform would have you believe. So let's end on that positive note.

We will be back in a few minutes for UK column extra. And we'll see you again for another

news at one o'clock on Wednesday. Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you, Ben. Bye, bye.