UK Column News - 6th February 2026

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing.

Victory Lane?

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

Race to chambacacino.com, let's Chamba.

No purchase necessary, VTW Group,

voidware prohibited by law, CTNCs, 21 Plus,

sponsored by ChambaCacino.

Good afternoon today is Friday, the 6th of February, 2026.

Just off to one o'clock.

Welcome to UK Column News.

I'm your host, Brian Garrish,

delighted to have Patrick Henningson with me in the studio.

Great to be with you, Brian.

Momentous times, Patrick.

And we are delighted to also have Basil Fallon,

time journalist and political analyst with us as a guest today.

My goodness, things are moving.

We may have blue skies and sunshine in Plymouth, England,

but storm clouds in the middle.

East Patrick, which you'll be coming on to in a couple of moments.

But for today's news, really packed.

Patrick's going to have a look at that latest with Iran.

He's also going to be having a look at the breakdown in Russian,

Russia, US, nuclear treaties.

We're going to be digging into Epstein revelations,

having a look at that famous bad-knock clip

where she's challenging a very weak storm about what he knew.

We're going to be looking at Christopher Steele's comments

to do with Epstein and what's revealed in those comments,

including us bringing back a little bit of UK Column News from 2018.

Break down in UK security vetting system,

which is not being talked about at all,

but UK Column is going to bring that to the surface.

We're also going to be having a look at the power of Israel

as it lobbies through government and civil service.

And finally, you're going to end on the Fulton 6.

And what's been happening now with jury trials,

very clear jury trials under threat.

An incredible result.

And we'll talk about that in the second half of the program.

But let's just go to the major item here.

We'll bring this up on screen.

Donald Trump is threatening to wage war against Iran.

Threatening to attack Iran.

We're going to call this Trump's latest war.

We hope that that's not the case.

But Brian, all the heavy assets are being moved.

More military equipment has been moved into the Persian Gulf,

into the Middle East.

One can only draw the conclusion here

that the United States is preparing for an unprovoked,

unilateral strike on Iran.

That's the only conclusion.

No doubt about it.

And the sheer scale and size of these assets and the cost,

and that they're not going to be moved for nothing.

So yeah, I think it's looking very dangerous.

We have another tell-tale sign here.

I'm going to go to this is the virtual embassy of Iran.

Obviously, the US doesn't have a diplomatic presence in Iran

and the security alert was posted yesterday evening.

And this is what they're saying right here.

Increased measures, road closures, public transportation

disruptions, leave Iran now if you are a US citizen.

Have a plan for departing flight cancellations, disruptions,

planes grounded.

If you cannot leave, find a secure location

within your residence or safe building.

Have a supply of food, water, medications,

and other central items.

So avoid demonstrations, keep a low profile,

stay aware of your concerns.

I mean, Brian, I really, I don't know what to say

at this point.

I've never seen this telegraphing of a war

without any actual reason for going to war.

No clear statement.

Yeah.

Nothing.

To me, this all fits the pattern of its psychological war

in the first instance against people living in the West.

And of course, the fact that this gets pumped out on X

very often as opposed to coming through proper channels.

This is all ramping up the fear so that people's minds

can't really cope with what's happening.

Is it, is the war coming more with Iran?

Is that the issue or is it Epstein?

This is just going to become a jumble in their heads.

Well, that's the legitimate speculation as well,

which we'll talk about in a minute.

But this could be leverage for negotiations.

But the last two rounds in negotiations

the United States have had have featured a sneak attack.

Either by the U.S. or by the Israelis.

So I really wouldn't trust any negotiations.

I'm sure the Iranians aren't that naive at this point here.

But this is what the influencers on Twitter.

This is Mark Levine, news on Fox News.

It's time to attack Iran.

If we can't get our military assets fully in place

in a five weeks to attack Iran, a regime with virtually no navy

or Air Force or a massive and massive internal unrest,

then we have a serious problem.

After all,

we're not talking about China or Russia.

I mean, the war-mongering Brian is completely off to charts.

And why this is disturbing, ladies and gentlemen,

is because of this.

And this is very much related.

And we're taking an article from RT.

So privilege for UK viewers.

We get to show you some a Russian website here,

which is banned in the UK.

Trump's commenting on the fact that the new Star Treaty

expired yesterday.

Did you know about that?

The last remaining nuclear non-pluriferation

arms control treaty between the United States and Russia

expired yesterday.

Donald Trump did not send through a proposal

for an extension after repeated requests by Moscow.

But here's what Trump has to say in typical Trump fashion.

He dismissed the new start,

a new reduction treaty between Moscow and Washington

as a very badly negotiated deal.

And calling instead for US nuclear experts

to begin work on a completely new agreement.

Obviously, Trump says we'll work on that

and then we'll give it to the Russians.

And if they don't like it, we may threaten them.

I don't know.

But this is how diplomacy is going on this from this presidency

here.

And here's what he says here.

He's basically saying this was a terrible deal,

a badly negotiated deal by the United States.

That aside from everything else is being grossly violated.

That's not technically true.

The United States have allowed this agreement to lapse.

That's absolutely correct.

America has not responded to the point

the Russians have given up and it's lapsed.

So, and he's not only that,

he's throwing subsequent US presidents under the bus,

including Ronald Reagan and others.

So I mean, it's just disrespectful.

And I really have lost any hope and quite frankly,

any respect for what this president's world views are.

If he has any, it's hard to discern what his views are.

But this is the concern folks.

All the risk levels are right through the roof

at the moment, Brian.

We have flashpoints.

The United States are threatening Iran.

We've got a serious situation in Ukraine.

And we also have the situation in Gaza, Israel,

as well as Taiwan.

We haven't got there yet.

But I mean, now people are talking about tactical nukes.

They're talking about strategic nukes

as if you can win that type of a war.

Absolutely.

But as the pressure rises,

regimes governments become ever more unpredictable

what they're going to do when they're under real stress.

It's a very dangerous time being provoked.

And from the US point of view,

it's kind of about this.

We are literally sending our military

to war for our ally, the state of Israel,

is it worth it?

Is there is World War III worth it?

I don't know.

I don't think so.

I think many would agree with me.

And Donald Trump's poll numbers, Brian,

are just cratering right now.

And maybe he thinks that this is going to improve

his poll position.

I don't think he cares, Patrick,

but we'll save that in some discussion, right?

It's called an extra.

Yes.

So this is the big story.

This Brian, of course,

is just saturating the headlines on both sides of the Atlantic.

The Epstein email dump here.

And I just want to quickly,

well, I want to get Basel's comment

and yours as well, Brian here.

But there's been some revelations here.

Obviously, these high profile people

that denied having any relationship with Epstein

are going to the island.

Well, Elon Musk was begging to go to the island here.

What days are the wildest parties, Jeff?

He says in this email.

And he's talking about Trump having parties

at Marlago called calendar girl parties

where Jeffrey Epstein would bring children

and Trump would auction them off.

Now, this has been corroborated by different people.

Okay, that these types of parties exist.

That's just one example.

That's in Politico.

And then there's this one here.

This is a series which was done by Freddie Ponton.

It's a 21st century wire Bill Gates and Epstein.

Epstein was right in the middle of the pandemic, Brian.

Surprise, surprise.

Vaccine slush funds with Bill Gates.

Walking in and out of parliament here in the UK.

So it is completely sick like thieves.

These people here.

And here we go, Tom Barak.

This is Trump's main foreign policy piece in the Middle East.

544 mentions.

He was one of Epstein's fixers.

He's a billionaire finance here.

He's running foreign policy in Israel and Lebanon for Trump

with a who baroque in the frame as well.

And of course Howard Lutnik.

This is Trump's quote handler in the White House,

the Commerce Secretary, former head of Cantor Fitzgerald,

bank here, he denied knowing Epstein, Brian.

But the emails say something different.

Family holiday on the St. James Island with the wife

and the kids.

I can't imagine a wholesome family retreat

that could top that in the Caribbean.

But there we are.

I asked one where he's a polar joys

and there would be so many of them, I think.

I don't know.

It's a little bit of family and all that.

The connections are unbelievable, including Sarah Ferguson,

former Duchess of York, Elaine Maxwell,

and a whole host of socialites here.

So we've done deep dives and great work here

by this journalist, Freddie Ponton, on this story.

So go to 21st Century, the links are in the show notes.

Those are all deep dives into the Epstein emails here.

But over to the UK, Brian, and I'll

I'll tee this off for you.

This is what the European and the UK media

were running with this week.

Nothing about Israel.

It's all about Russia.

Epstein might have been working for the KGB.

And this was all Russian ruse, according to Andrew Marr

at LBC.

And the telegraph, of course,

were running hard on this in Velt in Germany as well.

But Nigel Farage included no mention of Israel

and then you know, Israel's just completely got

prosecuted.

Basil, just a comment on this.

What Basil, what's your take on the emerging stories

over Epstein at the moment?

Good day, gentlemen.

Well, the first thing to notice,

given that we know that the UK national security

state is the prime driver of the enmity towards Russia.

Then Andrew Marr coming out with this nonsense

about Epstein being a Russian spy,

simply flags to me that he himself is very likely

an asset of the UK national security state,

as are the newspapers that have been running with it.

That's all that does really.

Not to be taken seriously or given any credence at all.

As for Donald Trump, he's asking everybody to move on.

I'm not surprised.

Really, the calendar girls' revelation alone 30, 40 years ago

would have been enough to force him to resign.

Mendelssohn's involvement with Epstein

was no deeper than Donald Trump.

So the relationship goes all the way back

to New York real estate in the late 1980s.

Trump recommending Epstein as a great guy.

So I'm surprised there isn't more pressure on him

in the U.S. here in the UK.

Of course, Mendelssohn's already gone.

And it looks like either Starmer or McSweeney

are going to have to follow him out of the door

at Labour MPs now rounding on the Prime Minister

saying it's not a question of if but when he too is forced

to resign for catastrophic lapse of judgment.

Thank you, Basil.

We're going to go deeper into that Starmer

and Morgan McSweeney scandal with Epstein

in just a few moments, Brian,

but over to the UK on this story.

Yeah, well, it's just a little reminder

of bad and off from the Conservatives' challenge

in Kia Starmer in Parliament a couple of days ago,

but let's listen to what she said

and let's listen to Starmer's answer again.

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister

a very specific question.

Did he know that Mendelssohn had continued his friendship

with Epstein after the conviction?

He says if he knew then what he knows now,

but he did know, in January 2024,

a journalist from the Financial Times

informed the Prime Minister that Mendelssohn

had stayed in Epstein's house

even after that conviction for child prostitution.

So did the Prime Minister conveniently forget this fact

or did he decide it was a risk worth taking?

Yeah, very much so.

Mr. Speaker, as the House will expect,

we went through a process that was a two-diligence exercise

and then there was security vetting

by the security services.

What was not known was the sheer depth

of an extent of the relationship.

He lied about that to everyone for years.

A new information was published in September,

showing the relationship was materially different

to what we'd been led to believe.

When the new information came to light, I sacked him,

but we did go through a due diligence exercise.

The points that are being put to me

would dealt with within that exercise.

In response to the humble address this afternoon,

I intend to make sure that all of the material is published.

Mr. Speaker, the only exemptions are national security,

prejudice national security,

that my first duty is obviously to keep this country safe.

And when we drafted humble addresses,

we always put an exemption for national security.

But also, anything will prejudice international relations.

Mr. Speaker, you in the House will appreciate

that in the course of discussions country to country,

there are various sensitive issues

of security, intelligence and trade,

which cannot be disclosed without compromising

the relationship between the two countries

or a third country.

Mr. Speaker, so that it can be totally open with the House.

I should also disclose that the Metropolitan Police

have been in touch with my office this morning

to raise issues about anything that would prejudice

their investigations.

We're in discussion with them about that,

and I hope to be able to update the House,

but I do think I should make that clear to the House

at this point, because those discussions are ongoing.

Well, there we are, Mandelson Light.

We didn't know we had a process, but that didn't work,

but I'm looking after the national security of the country.

And so I'm not going to be able to tell you much

because it's all to do with keeping you safe.

And I can't tell you much anyway,

because we've now got the police involved,

presumably the very police force that failed

to investigate all of the Epstein documents

in the first place from this side of the pond from the UK.

So that was setting the scene.

So he didn't know nobody knew.

Let's have a look at what Christopher Steele had to say

where there will be sea news.

Now, this man's got a checkered background,

but nevertheless, he was there in the job as an MI6 spook.

And let's have a look at some of the things he said.

My sources in America tell me that the American government,

the American intelligence services assessment

was the Epstein was recruited as early as the 1970s

when he was a young man.

By Russian organized crime figures in New York,

and that his information was being used,

his operation techniques were being used from that point onward.

Nobody knew, but we did know it was going on since the 1970s.

And Christopher Steele continued one of the interesting aspects of this

is that if the American security services knew

that this was initially a Russian operation

was a continuing Russian operation over the years,

why did they let it run so long?

I find this mysterious.

I think other intelligence services were also involved.

Israelis almost certainly, Patrick, oh my goodness,

even Christopher Steele has been forced to admit

there's an Israeli hand in this whole saga.

A slight turn of phrase there if you noticed, Brian,

when you talk about New York and Russian organized crime,

you're talking about Jewish organized crime.

Russian Jewish organized crime as well.

Christopher Steele conveniently left that very key detail

out of there and it has a massive overlap

with Israel and Israeli interests

and Israeli organized crime as well.

Just saying Chris, you've left out a little key detail there.

In those quotes, Patrick, to be precise,

those are all quotes from what he said.

He had more to say, but we've taken that,

but absolutely take that point.

He went on to talk about compromise,

compromising material.

So let's plot this on screen, hopefully,

whereas there we are, the value of the compromise

that was being gathered must have been so great

that it was attractive to more than just

Russian intelligence services.

So there he is back on the scheme,

the line that it was the Russians,

although he has mentioned Israel in the background.

And this is the bit where it now starts to get interesting

because he said, with regard to compromise,

I think it's quite likely,

sorry, he thinks that the compromise is quite likely,

although he suspects that some of these files

have been destroyed.

So we should be asking, who authorised the destruction

of files showing compromise on top level

Western British politicians and others?

What were our special intelligence services, MI5, MI6?

What have they been doing since the 1970s?

Well, apparently, they didn't know.

And if we bring Mr. Steele back on screen again

and pop this one, he's saying very strongly

that he would argue that this goes back to the 1970s.

And of course, we'll remind the audience

that Keir Starmer told Parliament that nobody really knew.

Now, let's put some of this into a deeper context

and we go back to a UK column news from 2018,

where Mike Robinson was talking to Alex Thompson,

himself formerly of GCHQ,

about Christopher Steele and this Christopher Steele saga.

Let's have a look at this news clip.

This is the Washington Post

and the hero is hero or hard gun.

This is from a couple of days ago.

How of British former spy became a flashpoint

in the Russia investigation?

This is overrushigate in the United States

and Christopher Steele on screen there.

Now, I kept this back for the next time Alex was on,

but basically this article is demonstrating links

between Christopher Steele and Richard Deerlove,

which really I thought Alex was a,

this is something that I haven't heard in discussion

of Russia gate before that in fact,

Steele was working with other people,

including his former boss at MI6,

well, no longer at MI6 himself, of course.

But this seems to imply a much greater British interest

in undermining Trump than we were otherwise aware of

and then the question has to be,

who did interfere if anybody in the 2016 general election

in the United States wasn't the Russians

or in fact wasn't the British?

I don't know if you any thoughts on this.

Well, just to keep it brief, Mike,

I would say that the long term people analyzing this

in the States, like Lyndon LaRouche and his organization,

have been vindicated here.

The Brits are the evil geniuses,

the duo who talk as able danger, David Hawkins

and Field McConnell have been vindicated.

Their analysis is except the same

and has been mainstreamed by Lionel Nation

and American intelligence media reaching hundreds

of thousands at a time, if not millions.

America's waking up to this.

We've been in this game since the 16th century,

we together with the powers that be in Rome

at that time basically planned the creation of America

and we would determine not to let it go

over the trifling matter of a revolutionary war.

Steel, I can now see his whole command chain involved.

The one man immediately above him

I'm not allowed to name because he hasn't been

avowed publicly and not as I've seen anyway,

but Steel, boss of boss, was Nigel Inxter

and the boss of that was Sir Richard Dielov.

So in the mid 2000s, 10 years ago or 12 years ago,

that entire command chain from C,

the head of the code name for the head of MI6,

right down to Steel, was involved in touting the idea

of the Russian threat and, of course, the Iraqi threat

to the Americans.

We took or we, I say we, a clique at MI6 took the lead in that

and don't think that it's MI6 institutionally

that's to blame because these were not popular officers

within MI6 at the time, I can tell you that.

This was a small clique that basically subordered

and subverted the constitution of both Britain and America.

They've now gone their various ways.

Inxter is doing various things

like trying to start wars in Russia and North Korea,

this is old trade and trying to get into parliament

to do that now.

Dielov is obviously touting himself as an anti-Trump

steel has gone to ground because there's possibly threats

to his life and he may find himself appearing

before a grand jury in the US or even worse.

It doesn't look good and the Russians have got

very little indeed to do with this.

So sorry, just Alex, just one final point.

Just going back to this article for a second,

it says that Dielov said that he advised Steel

and Steel's colleague Burrows to work discreetly

with a top British government official

on the end at this point to pass along information

to the FBI.

So this seems to be a bit more than people working

independently of their organizations

if they're actually involving allegedly

top British government officials than this.

Yes, this is coordinated and the only place

it can be coordinated is number 70 Whitehall

the headquarters of the cabinet office.

That's always been where the deepest actors have been.

Again, not the entire cabinet office assessment stuff.

There are very upright bodies,

certainly were in my time when I was dealing with them

on a monthly basis, it's not weekly.

But that's where the people who control both

number 10s of the Prime Minister's department

and the foreign office and the MI6 reside.

Cabinet office and probably someone very senior there

would be the unnamed senior official

who would talk to the department of justice.

So interesting Alex's take at the time,

not the Russians, but we've got Britain in here.

We definitely know we've got his braille interests.

It's a mucky scene.

I'm just guessing could that person have been Mark said,

well, I don't know.

I'm just a wild guess.

Just a wild guess.

One of many potential candidates of there.

But yeah, right.

OK, so I'm going to follow this up.

Who else has been blaming Putin despite this sort of analysis

at the background in the background?

We've just heard, well, none other than Nigel Frage.

I've taken a little clip.

There's somebody kindly sent into the UK column.

So let's have a listen to Nigel's view.

This is a potential breach of the official Secrets Act.

It involves the royal family.

It involves senior members of government.

I realize why did all maybe even

Epstein could have been working for the Putin regime.

I believe that this is bigger than Profumo.

Bigger than Profumo.

Well, I think he's right.

But of course, the Profumo case itself exceptionally dirty

and innocent people were absolutely destroyed

in order to protect the British state

from those accusations of good-time girls.

But let's follow through on the subject

of compromising material, which is what Epstein would be doing.

He'd be sucking senior politicians,

very powerful politicians and others into a web

where they could be filmed, watched,

and then blackmailed through compromising material.

And people who think this can't happen.

Let's listen.

Well, let's first of all have a look at this gentleman.

He was the Tory whip away back in the 70s.

This is Tim Fortescue.

And he's describing within the conservative party

how they obtain compromising material,

compromise on MPs in order to blackmail and pressurize

MPs into following party orders, particularly on voting,

but also other matters.

Now, this is a BBC clip.

So the BBC putting this clip out when it did

was clearly acknowledging the use of blackmail

around small boys within Westminster

and the conservative party.

Let's listen to the clip.

Anyone with any sense who is in trouble

would come to the whips and tell them the truth.

They say, no, I'm in a jam.

Can you help?

It might be debt.

It might be scandal involving small boys

or any kind of scandal, which a member seemed likely

to be mixed up in.

They'd come and ask if we could help.

And if we could, we did.

And then we would do everything we can,

because we would store up brandy points.

If that sounds a pretty nasty reason,

but it's one of the reasons, if we

can get a chap out of trouble, then he'll do us

we ask for ever more.

So I'll answer that clip that what Tim Fortescue had to say

happening inside the conservative party,

absolutely being done by whips inside the Labour Party,

the use of compromising material to blackmail people

into other acts, including unlawful acts.

It's in our faces, so we shouldn't be surprised

that Epstein has been recruited to do this

on a truly massive scale.

And Brian, what we're going to do right now

is put some meat on the bones of what you've just built for us

with those historic examples politically here.

Let's go back to the present day now,

bring things back to the present.

And let's put the Mandelson scandal really into the frame here.

And I just want to give a shout out,

this is absolutely stunning journalism

by Jody McIntyre for the electronic in Defada here.

Morgan McSweeney, this is the chief of staff of Kier Starmer,

the man running Britain and his ties to Israel.

And here's the bottom line.

And we'll get into the details of this,

which are quite uncomfortable.

I'll just warn you in advance.

It is impossible to understand the Slavish pro-Israel stance

adopted by Kier Starmer and this Labour Party

in recent years without understanding Morgan McSweeney here.

And this is also the thrust of where we're taking this.

The mainstream media's focus has been on how he illegally

had donations to Labour together.

This was the big bundling fundraising organization

that helped Kier Starmer achieve his leadership,

victory, Brian earlier.

And while he was director of that organization,

the one that was credited with propelling Kier Starmer

into leadership of the party.

So he is really the architect of Starmer

and the new new Labour as some people like to call it here.

Yet most journalists have missed altogether,

either deliberately or negligently a key thread

that McSweeney's story, the historic relationship

with pro-Israeli lobbyist politicians and financiers here.

And this is all outlined in this book by Paul Holden,

which is selling like hotcakes at the moment

because of this scandal.

It's called fraud.

And this book, Brian, has already

led to two resignations already.

And it could be, but maybe lead to the resignation

of the Prime Minister.

We don't know, but the details in here are absolutely stunning.

It's gotten quite stark reviews from some top journalists

as well.

And it'll probably be banned by Amazon.

Jacob?

In two course here.

Yeah.

But let's take a look at this here.

And so according to the Jerusalem post,

McSweeney was indoctrinated into the radical Zionist ideology

while living on a kaboots as a teenager

in occupied Palestine.

This would have been in the early 90s,

where he became closely acquainted

with Hashelmer Hatzar, a Zionist settler organization

founded in Austria-Hungary in 1913.

This is the extreme of the extremists, by the way.

And this is the reframing of people

so that they can be placed back in their own countries

to do the bidding of a foreign power in this case, Israel.

Certainly, that's what it looks like here.

So it really answers a lot of questions

as to the sort of unflinching loyalty and so forth here.

But take a look at this.

Now let's put the characters together.

Here is Keir Starmer, Morgan McSweeney.

And right now, we're looking at,

while researching this article,

a former labor volunteer Simon contacted the author,

Jody McIntyre, Brian listened closely

and spoke of conditions of anonymity.

Simon claimed that McSweeney was deliberately inserted

into the party and later became Keir Starmer's handler,

presenting compromising material to keep him, quote, in line.

Now, isn't that exactly what the fortitude skew quit?

It's an amazing coincidence.

Amazing coincidence.

So we have it at width level.

Now we've got it at international level,

the two go hand in hand.

It's stunning, but it gets better, believe it or not,

if that's even power gets worse,

depending on what tree look at it.

Starmer has arguably gone further than any previous labor leader

and pushing an extreme pro-Israeli narrative

in the British political sphere.

Once announcing that he supports, quote,

Zionism without qualification, strong words

by a prime minister, this supposed to be more objective

when it comes to these ideological matters.

Now let's bring Peter Mandelson into the frame,

Mandy, as he is known during his years with Tony Blair.

And let's remind ourselves what the press was saying, Brian,

in September of 2025, just a few months ago.

And this is what they said.

The independent put the claims that Keir Starmer had pushed

through Lord Mandelson's appointment

despite not clearing MI6 vetting.

A spokesperson said the vetting was done by, as you said,

Brian, the foreign and Commonwealth Office,

the cabinet office, in a quote, normal way.

So that's not what the prime minister said

in the House of Commons during that initial clip we showed.

With shaking hands, no, he was in very shaky grounds there

because he couldn't tell the real truth,

but as we'll see in a minute,

the whole of the UK's vetting system

effectively collapsed at one point

and had to be rebuilt within the cabinet office

by outside agency help.

So this is very, very dangerous attack

on national security.

And then where, of course, the pyramid

isn't complete with that man at the top right here

who Odell is micromanaging a lot of what we're seeing

or what we have been seeing for the last two decades on this.

But McSweeney joined the labor party in 97.

And 2001 was set to work on Excalibur.

This was a database established by Peter Manelson

who was the architect of New Labor

and the project to remodel the party into its neoliberal image.

But look at this, this is where it gets interesting.

According to a BBC report, Excalibur rivaled MI5

Britain's domestic spy agency.

And the information that it held on anybody

and everybody, friend or foe.

And Manelson's headquarters became the quote,

became synonymous with spin, doctorate and control.

Freakery.

So that's a spy agency within the party

to collect Compromote.

Once again, validating what Fortescue said

during that BBC reporting,

validating what Simon has told Jody McIntyre

a source for this article.

Brian, it's kind of undeniable what we're looking at here.

It's undeniable because there are so many pieces coming together

and the probability of them all being sheer coincidence.

It's just off the scale.

This is orchestrated.

And it's aversion is the correct term for it

as operated right the way alongside government

controlling people, but also through government itself.

Not just this government,

a foreign another government as Christopher Steele alluded to.

A third party in the state of Israel

may have access to all of this material.

Well, we can we can see this with with Francis Ward's announcement

many years ago where he was calmly saying

that Israel and Israel's security unit 8200

will be working alongside GCHQ,

alongside intelligence services in UK

and alongside universities

as well as the political parties.

It's all been declared.

It's hidden in plain sight.

It's simply putting these pieces together now.

So now, bear in mind what we just showed you,

ladies and gentlemen,

now put Jeffrey Epstein in the frame next to Peter Mandelson

to best friends,

to Chums hanging out,

go shopping together,

spend time at each other's homes and so forth.

And we have a very disturbing picture here.

And I don't need to tell people what else is going on enough.

But I want to bring in Basel Valentine here.

Basel, based on what you've just seen,

what we've just showed you.

And I know you've looked at these reports as well.

I want to get your thoughts on all this.

Well, first of all,

fascinating that Tim Fortisq talks about conservative MPs

having an issue with little boys as a plurality

as if there may well have been more than one of them,

certainly not just a single case.

Abtidate now, Morgan McSweeney.

Well, he started in the Labour Party as a receptionist,

believe it or not,

coming over from Ireland with a very modest degree.

So his rise within the party ranks

to become the guy effectively running the show

who's been quite meteoric.

One Labour insider described Starma himself as not driving the train,

but just simply being at the front of a DLR,

Doppler's Light Railway,

which is a driverless train.

We can see from what you've shown us,

the cesspit that British political life is currently engulfed by.

And unless there's major reform,

I mean, whatever happens to Starma and McSweeney,

the structures in place will remain, unfortunately,

without some drastic action,

some major surgery on the body polity.

Yeah. And Basil, can I add to that,

the key thing is that people have to see what's happening for what it really is.

This is not cock up.

This is not a failure of the system.

This is the orchestrated infiltration and breakdown

of our political system on a vast scale.

It is increasingly easy to see.

And this requires, as you say,

it to be cut out is got to be identified for what it is,

which is subversion, that's the correct terminology.

It's resulted in treason and interesting to see that words now cropping up.

Certainly in newer media channels in relation to what we're seeing happening,

that subversion and that treason has got to be dealt with very severely.

If we're going to cut this out and then be in a position to rebuild the body polity

that you've just mentioned, that's my personal opinion.

Very, very interestingly, the very first piece of legislation

that the Blair government introduced after election in 1997,

after 18 years, eight of power,

out of power was to repeal the treason act to remove the death penalty.

The very first thing they did after 18 years in opposition.

Yeah. Interesting.

Just a coincidence, but just a coincidence.

So another revelation with the Epstein emails is that we found out how Jeffrey Epstein

became a member of the trilateral commission.

Now, this is interesting.

And again, we're going to rewind the clock just a little bit here

and we'll bring this up on screen.

And this is what Matt Kenard is saying here.

Kierst Armor himself joined the CIA linked trilateral commission

while serving as Corbin's shadow Brexit secretary, if we remember correctly.

He did not inform Jeremy Corbin of his membership to this organization,

the trilateral commission of which Jeffrey Epstein was also a member.

It's by invitation only.

Starmer served alongside two X heads of the CIA,

X CIA director said in 2019, quote,

we will do our level best to stop Jeremy Corbin.

Jeffrey Epstein was also a member here and we'll just remind people

there it is, Kierst Armor, a vaunted member of the trilateral commission.

And the timing of Epstein joining and Starmer joining were around the same time.

And one has to also ask the question, Brian, is that the purging of the labor party

of so many of its members, including its leader,

was Starmer not kind of rewarded potentially for his work.

By this is a billionaire club extraordinaire.

To be a member here gives you access to all sorts of financial opportunities.

So it is the elite of the elite club headed by David Rockefeller, I believe at the time.

Yes, so the legitimate questions.

We just say if the compromise is for the big stick,

that's the black male, the dirt on individuals or MPs

in order to wield the big stick to get them to do what is required or rewarding

with money sometimes or positions of power and influence is the other side.

That's the carus, if you like, to get people to do the bidding.

Well, let's get deeper into events now and actually have a look at UK's vetting system.

And as the BBC correctly identified, two stage process,

and the Kia Starmer was intimating due diligence and had been carried out.

So he said on Mandelson, a check carried out by a team at the cabinet office

on behalf of Downing Street.

But the second part of this is deeper and more serious security vetting.

This is the really detailed developed vetting DV as it's called

when the state goes into the heart of somebody's personal and private information

in order to understand whether they are a security risk to the state.

Now, having talked about that, security risks to the UK state.

Let's have a look at a video from UK's vetting system itself.

It is a cartoon. Let's watch this.

Vetting establishes a trust between employers and their staff

for roles where national security concerns are a consideration.

It is a thorough check of your life, which can be lengthy and at times may feel intrusive,

but it is a crucial national security process.

As part of your role, you may need access to sensitive information, assets or equipment,

and it's vital we do everything we can to keep them secure.

To ensure we place sensitive government information in trusted hands,

we carry out a series of background checks across many areas of your life.

This can take the form of questionnaires, confidential conversations,

and character references.

For higher levels of clearance, it will also involve a whole life interview.

That can take between two and five hours to complete.

It's personal, yes, but we invest in our teams to ensure they are culturally aware

and sensitive to difficult topics.

We understand that nobody's stories are the same and provide you with a safe space to discuss

your life. Our teams are not employed to make moral judgments.

We want anyone to feel able to apply for a security related role or clearance,

regardless of their background, circumstances or lifestyle.

You'll be asked to provide information on your family,

employment history, where you've lived, and any criminal convictions.

You may be asked about your financial situation, relationships, and life experiences

to help us get a better understanding of you as an individual.

Every aspect of the process is objective, professional, and non-judgmental.

There are no right or wrong answers, and you can always ask why we need information.

It can take some time until a decision is made,

but this does not necessarily mean you won't be granted clearance.

Every case is individual and has to go through a number of checks,

and you can rest assured that all the information we collect from you during the process

is held in the strictest confidence. It isn't shared with anyone outside of the vetting community.

For more information, search UKSV on gov.uk.

Now, just a apologies to UK column news audience, because I should have said full that video

played that I had inserted some flags at some of the things said in there, but let's remember

we're dealing with very important national security, protecting the nation and the UK's vetting

offices produces a childish cartoon in which they say that it's really about being culturally

aware. This is not about security, defending the nation state and every man, woman, and child

in the country. They're not going to make any moral judgments. We don't want morality to get into

it because if there's no morality, then what Epstein got up to is perfectly acceptable,

what's all the fuss about. The third thing is that the vetting process is going to be non-judgmental.

So whatever you do, we're not going to judge you, so you can carry on doing it and help break

down the country. Now, you're probably wondering what sort of crazy personal system could introduce

such a vetting system in UK as the one you've just seen. Well, if we got a civil service world,

I found some very interesting articles. Here's a vetting better how we turned around

the UK vetting service. And what this very good article is talking about is the fact that UK's

security vetting system was utterly destroyed a few years ago and it was described as a failing

beleaguered service. And if we have a look at some of the additional comments around other reports,

so this is a national audit office report, which acknowledged a history of underresourcing and

legacy issues of the vetting system, which was formed in 2017 from MOD and FCDO services.

And this is where you can see the serious action of vetting people that they are safe

to be in positions of power is taken away from the Ministry of Defence. And indeed,

the Foreign and Commonwealth and Development Office. And it's brought into

the heart of the civil service in the Cabinet Office. And if we put that one back up on screen,

I'll just give you a little bit more here, because it says that UK vetting service moved out of

MOD into the Cabinet of Government Security Group in 2020, just as COVID hit. Oh dear, Patrick,

it was that nasty COVID bug. It destroyed our ability to actually check people out as to whether

they were safe or not. The gift that keeps on giving. Absolutely. So I'm just going to label that

one over the top. Is this accidental breakdown? No, this is orchestrated breakdown. And if we go on to

civil service world here, there was another article which I'm not going to go into because we don't

have time. But they identify back in January 2023, the vetting service failures were putting

national security work at risk. So there's no cook up here. This is a conspiracy to destroy the system,

protect the country. And let's put a name in here. Patricia Drakorn is the chief executive of the

vetting unit. A very interesting lady, because previously she was working with off-gem and

her achievements, including transforming e-serve, embracing digital techniques, efficiency and

effectiveness, increasing assurance and risk management. I'm not even going to read the rest

because let's put a flag on this one. This is how the whole system has been ripped apart

to make it so easy for people like Mendelssohn and others to come through the system.

It's breathtaking, Patrick, when you get into this stuff. Yeah, that should be the discussion

right now. Is the system that produced this situation? It won't get addressed.

It will in UK column extra. So let's be positive on that one. Now let's just take a few minutes break

a huge thank you to our audience and UK column members as always. And we'd like to say to our

wider audience, if you've never been to the UK column website, go there. It's a 20-year resource

of news and articles. Fantastic information. And if you click on the famous click here line,

you can sign up as a member for monthly subscription and you'll or a lifetime member.

And it's people are helping to pay for UK column. We're a joint team. We can only do this

with your financial support. Now coming up, we've got Joan Warfare tonight at 7pm,

World War 3 and what to do about it. Amazing coincidence with the time of that one with

today's news about Iran, Patrick. And we've also got more of a thousand words coming up.

And on Sunday, it's going to be Andrew Bridgens turn. Now we should have a little video clip here

if we can just play it to get an idea of what it's like to be in the chair as the artist sketches

you out, shake the artist. I was told that there was no link between lockdowns and

and suicide rates. They weren't worried about killing granny. Civil servants and young advisors

all just standing there, not mass, not socially distanced, watching it all. They said it was an

absolute pantomime. Paris Johnson could not have had COVID. And I've just got this thing. I can't

stand anyone doing anything to children. And here, why are you willing to die on that hill?

Because that's the hill you're killing my people. I know if he's sold his soul to the devil and

he is not, he's not what he purports to be. A lot of truth coming out in that as the painting

gets made. So encourage people to go and have a look at that. But let's come back onto the subject

of the Epstein case and Mandelson. Now, one of the things that British presser got very excited

about, this is the Guardian, is that MPs agree to release Mandelson papers to Parliament's Intelligence

Committee. This is all in action at the moment. So this isn't the real news. But the real news is

when we dig into who's now going to be vetting the Epstein papers themselves. And I just remind people

that many, many good media sources have been warning and warning about the power of Israeli lobby

in UK matters politic. And here we've got an article talking about millions flowing from Israeli

lobbies to fund a quarter of UK MPs. Now, people can go and see this report themselves. But these

statistics, very important, 180 of 650 MPs in Britain's last Parliament received funding from pro-Israeli

lobby groups. What sort of groups are we talking about? Well, these are some of the ones listed in

the excellent work by declassified UK, conservative friends of Israel, labor friends of Israel,

Lib Dems, friends of Israel. We've got Lnet UK, Australia, Israeli cultural exchange, national

Jewish assembly, Henry Jackson's society often comes up Patrick and Elbit's systems when we're

into weapons supplies. And Israeli, the largest Israeli arms firm is what, plowing money into UK

political campaigns. Well, quite often small amounts or visits, but it's all influenced.

So what happens in those visits does anybody really know what goes on? And then, of course,

when you've taken the shackle and you've done the bidding, then all of the sudden favours are

asked and you're not quite representing your constituents anymore. And just quickly bring that

list back up on screen. I was surprised to see IPAC is involved in British politics. I thought

that was an American Israeli lobby organization. I guess they're busy on this side of the

area. Shane's a grey Patrick. It's all very smoky. Now declassified did some really excellent

work on this because they produced a database. I'm just going to let this run on screen. I can't

take you through all the names, but you will see this is an overview of some of the penetration

of Israel getting at our MPs influence, possibly changing policies, possibly getting them to do

dirty work. We just do not know. We're not suggesting that any of these MPs have done anything

wrong. What we are pointing out is that it's very difficult to see what is actually happening

through and under this Israeli influence. And as you can see on screen, the list goes on and on.

Now, if we jump back to the Intelligence and Security Committee, Parliament, who are now going

to be the people who are going to be looking at the Epstein files in the first instance to make

sure that there's no matters of national security, we have to ask will any of them be concerned

whether there's any material which puts Israel in a bad light. And one of the things that we have

to do is flag up members of this committee that are actually listed on that declassified

database that I've just shown you. And as we're popping up on screen, yes, there are some of this

committee. So do they have a problem with conflict of interest or vested interests? We don't know

because it appears that it's simply the UK column asking this pertinent question.

In the old days, Brian, wouldn't you recuse yourself from the committee if you were receiving any type

of support financial or whatever? I mean, that would be the normal thing to do in the past, I would

imagine. That's what an upstanding individual would do. But of course, if that upstanding individual

is also in the Whips Black book, it could be the Whips saying stay in position. If we just end

this little segment here, bring on the last three members. And we can do the same thing again

because we can flag up Derek Twig here as being listed on that declassified database. Now,

I'm a stress here. We're not saying that any of these men and women have done anything wrong.

The key point is we simply do not know what the power is of the Israeli lobby to interfere with

even the working of the intelligence and security committee of parliament. And we're going to say

that the UK public is presented with what can only be described as an opaque picture of loyalty and

interest. And just to finish this segment off for coming back to you, Patrick, if you've never been

on the UK column website, go on to it and go into the research bar, the little magnifying glass

and search because this is 20 years of deep research by all of us. And I think most people will

be amazed at how much information comes up on particular topics over to you, Patrick.

Yeah, that brings back some memories. That photo there, we can, the integrity initiative,

initiative in an old abandoned mill. That was quite something. Now, so that we've reported on the

Phil 106 trials that were going on, Brian, and they're so important in terms of legal precedent

on this issue. And so I want to give an update on this. It's extraordinary what's happened this

week. And we can give an update. It's very positive on a certain level of Palestine action.

Phil 106 acquitted, acquitted just about of all charges. And we're going to bring

Basil Valentine in for a moment here. And Craig Murray has broken down the really salient points

as he often does. But he's saying the Phil 10 acquittals demolished Starmer and Cooper lies about

Palestine action. Now, I want to bring Basil Valentine back in. Basil, give us an update on what's

happened with this right now regarding the Phil 106. And also Murray's made some pretty powerful

points as well. But just bring us up to date on this. It's extraordinary this result.

Well, the first thing to say, Patrick, is that it's a win not just for the defendants,

but for British justice such as it is a win for the jury trial system. Because I think it's fair

to say that had Mr. Justice Johnson been the sole arbiter in this case, there is every chance they

would have been found guilty. And the charge on which they were all acquitted, aggravated

burglary, is a particularly serious charge. It's not just the stealing or damaging of property,

the aggravation aspect relates to intent to harm people. And that they took the weapons into the

they took the sledgehammers into the Elbe factory in order to hit people with them. That was very

much an overcharge by the UK government. There was no evidence that that was their intention.

All the evidence points to the fact that they were using the sledgehammers simply to damage

property. So the fact that they were all cleared on that charge is a big win certainly in terms of

the judicial review. Great makes the point that this really does drive a coach and horses through

any attempt to demonize them as terrorists, criminal damage and terrorism are not the same thing

at all. Five of the six were released. The sixth Samuel corner is still on remand,

pending a retrial on the charge of Grievous bodily harm. This pertains to the spinal injuries

sustained by a police woman. Now it's doubtful whether or not it actually qualifies as Grievous

bodily harm, the MRI scans and the x-rays of her back indicated a possible hairline factor of

the wing of one of the vertebrates. She suffered no damage to the spinal cord and it's an injury

from which we understand she was able to make a full recovery in in a couple of months. So

he unfortunately is still being held in harsh conditions and a further application for bail will

no doubt be made. The government and the Crown Prosecution Service now are asking for time to

decide whether to seek a retrial on the other charges those of violent disorder and criminal

damage. They may decide to drop them. Of course there is 18 other defendants also awaiting trial

or more likely I'm afraid to say they will continue with the prosecutions but even if they

succeed in getting convictions on charges of criminal damage and violent disorder that falls

a long long way short of the threshold for anything that could be defined as terrorism.

So whether or not the three person panel now undertaking the judicial review of the prescription

of Palestine action take these verdicts into account that remains to be seen and still a long

long way to go on all this of course. Thanks and Basel I wish wanted to remind us our audience as

well and get your comment in a moment but there was a as a temp by this judge too strong arm

the jury on this and we'll bring this up on screen just to remind you we reported this a couple

weeks ago this excellent commentary by Jonathan Cook here. Barrister's powerful speech at Filton

trial reminds jury of its right to defy the judge and this is what happened at one point

in the trial. Jury member sent a note to the judge Mr. Justice Johnson asking this very question

quote if we decide that they the defendants genuinely believe that they were performing

life-saving action and were morally compelled to destroy weapons they believe were going to be

used to kill civilians and what they believed to be an illegal genocide what or sorry would that

amount to a lawful excuse this is the question posed by the jury to the judge and the judge who

repeatedly stifled efforts by the defense to air evidence of velvet systems involvement in

the genocide answered that the jury must not take into account such lawful excuse quote unquote

in his words there is no evidence in this case of anything that is capable in law of

amounting to a lawful excuse so that is not something that you need to consider says the judge

to the jury and the reaction from their barristers giving what many describe is a historic

speech on this issue here and here is a Rajiv Menon he is a king's counselor defending the

filter six Menon makes a rousing defense of the rights of juries to reject judicial interference

and of their right to make up their own minds both on guilt and on factors that might mitigate

guilt and he does so at the very moment when starmer and his ministers are seeking to eradicate

the principle of jury trials that includes the Justice Minister David Lammy and Justice Levinson's

are deeply involved in this and so this is the details of that speech but Brian bottom line he's

invoking 1670 here William Penn and William Mead and this is so these these men were preaching in

the street and you weren't allowed to preach to groups of people in the street so they were they

were tried the technically they broke the law the jury said we don't think any crime has been

committed so the jury found them not guilty the judge then put the jury in prison on bread and

water and said I'm not gonna let you out till you make the right decision but the jury's strong

enough to stay in prison and eventually when they were brought back into court they'd made the

case powerful enough that the jury's decision of not guilty stood and this is such a landmark

case because it shows the power of the jury to make moral decisions in court whatever the law says

they can they can counter bad law in court and this is a classic case of a jury trying sorry I

have a judge trying to bully direct that jury into finding a verdict which the government clearly

wanted so the I believe the barrister is Pakistani that's right and what an amazing man because he

is absolutely put the huge common per common common law rock in the pond and leverson of course

in his latest reports is trying to get rid of juries why because that gives the sole power to the

judge in a court so this is a major major decision here that's come out of school because that that

issue of jury notification Brian this is one of the foundational blocks of the modern democratic

society and when you take that away you you take away 800 years really of hard fought efforts by

subsequent generations I'm patriotic you leave people with no defense as as many people in the

UK column news audience will know I have fought on behalf of largely mothers but sometimes it's

been fathers that have had their children taken away through the family court system and of course

what is so heinous in those cases is that mums and dads are in court facing the judge and a whole

range of experts ranged against the mums and dads no jury no press this is a star chamber it's a

secret court and it's clear that the the changes of recommendations coming out of leversons

reports about the about courts in the future and AI and no juries this is designed to put power

solely in the hands of appointed and elected judges very very dangerous so this barrister should

be getting a million emails of thanks from people around the country for his bravery in challenging

a judging court but I think that takes amazing courage in this day and age Patrick holding the line

for English common law correct and and just for those who are interested in this historically

you can buy this very short book but very important I think you should have on your library

shelf in your living room the trial of way in pan the way you meet for causing a torment at the

session held at the Old Bailey so again this is so important in terms of history Brian and people

don't realize that to remove this to move jury trials which they're attempting to do this government

this is a huge step backwards for Western civilization it's a massive step backwards

well it's a step backwards patrie but it's also a side step because it takes us from

common law people being innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers to the fact that

essentially you will guilty until you can prove your innocence in front of an appointed judge the

the European system or large parts of Europe anyway so this this is really incredible should we

bring basil back in basil this is truly amazing isn't it and many more people in this country

should be delving in researching this particular case to understand the significance of what's

happened here yes the right of juries to make more judgments is arguably the single most important

bullwalk in the unwritten British constitution against tyranny that's the thing if governments

appoint judges and judges are then the sole arbiters of justice then particularly when you have

governments as shall we say morally bankrupt as the present one then you are on the path to tyranny

worth pointing out that in this case the defendants were not allowed by the judge to say

why they had carried out the action that they did think about that when on the stand they were

forbidden to say we did this I did this because XYZ absolutely extraordinary so what would have

happened had the jury not been there and had that courageous barrister not made the speech he did

who knows yeah exactly yeah it would have been an illusion of justice indeed at that point thank

you basil valentine more about this in extra I'm sure the discussion will spill over there indeed well

we've come to a close for today's UK column news so Patrick thank you very much for joining me

basil valentine thank you for UK column members we will have UK column extra in a few moments

for our worldwide audience huge thanks for joining us today spread the word spread the information

we've given be kind to your fellow man and woman and my last comment is we're delighted that UK

column team are indeed back from China very long flight in the last 24 hours and some of the team

back in the studio today to help us get this production out so good news all round stay

posted we'll be back for UK column news one o'clock on Monday UK column extra in a few moments see

you then bye bye