Former Coldstream Guards officer, policeman and Afghanistan vet Charles Malet chats to James about his awakening, why he resigned from the police during the 'Covid' shenanigans on a point of principle, and what we can do to resist when They've got all the weapons and institutions and all we've got is the numbers...
You can find Charles at UK Column https://www.ukcolumn.org/writer/charles-malet
Here is his Telegram channel https://t.me/UnboundToday↓ ↓ ↓
Earn interest on Gold:https://monetary-metals.com/delingpole/
/ / / / / /
Buy James a Coffee at: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpoleSupport James’ Writing at: https://delingpole.substack.comSupport James monthly at: https://locals.com/member/JamesDelingpole?community_id=7720
I love Dennypole, come and subscribe to the podcast baby.
I love Dennypole, and listen another time, subscribe with me.
I love Dennypole.
Welcome to the Dennypole with me, James Dennypole.
And I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest, but I really am.
And I'm a bit worried because Charles Mallet has got so much stuff to talk about that we're not gonna be able to cram it all in into a podcast.
And I don't know where to start, Charles.
I mean, I glanced at your... you know I don't do any research, but you very kindly sent me your CV and it is absolutely...
Bloody amazing.
So it ranges from serving with the Coldstream Guards in Afghanistan, to pretty much living off grid, to church, we can do God, but also the police.
I'm suspecting that was probably your red-pilled moment, wasn't it?
Was that when... Because I imagine that once you were a bit like me.
You fully believed in Queen and country as they then were, and you believed in the system, and you thought being born English was to win the lottery in life, and etc, etc.
And British Empire, some never set, etc.
And then suddenly there came a moment where you realised that the whole thing is a sham.
Yeah, to an extent.
I think that I believed there was always a way to forge one's own path regardless of the system.
So I was, I think I was always aware of the flaws and my priority or I suppose my outlook was to
Do what one could in as much as possible in one's own way and I think you're absolutely right that that changed for me and I think for a huge number of people all over the world three years ago where suddenly it really was taken out of our control and we we weren't for the most part able to just push on and Everything stopped.
And, by coincidence, policing at the time brought it home, I think, in a way that it might not have done had I been doing something else.
Yeah, right.
You've now piqued my curiosity.
That you're suggesting that you knew something was amiss with the system even before then.
Because I don't think I did.
I genuinely thought.
For example, this is sort of lightly relevant to your military experience.
A few years ago, I was invited by the commanding officer of the Light Dragoons to come and address his officer's mess and to play fireball hockey with them.
But to explain why they were in Afghanistan, because they were about to go and deploy and they wanted somebody to sort of make sense of it.
And I came up with all the usual guff about spreading democracy and all the crap that I believed at the time.
And there were one or two officers, even then, who knew that they were going out on a false premise.
And I was wondering whether, perhaps, maybe you woke up earlier than I did.
Well I think, as everybody always says, you're never fully awake, but I think what I probably hadn't done was to join all my misgivings together and that's what 2020 and the time thereafter has done.
It's made me, and I think a huge number of other people, join the dots and realise why things were as they were, or were moving towards a place that they're now in.
So I would say, funnily enough, I had a very similar experience prior to
An Afghan deployment and I remember you know, I mean, I think I've I've had a healthy skepticism of of government and all the sort of ancillary organizations for as long as I can remember but we had we had a briefing would have been back in 2007 sort of summer 2007 I think and they were then I think it was then called the Stabilization Unit so they were Foreign and Commonwealth Office, DFID and MOD and
The idea was to give us a sort of commander's brief on why we were going, what we were doing, what the big picture mission was all about and it was paper-thin and I remember the question asked of this civil servant that undid her completely was to inquire about the economic plan for Afghanistan and she rather
I suppose sort of ashamedly admitted that that was something they were still working on and you think that at that point it was six years in to that particular operation and yet there was no defined idea of what was supposed to happen to the Afghan economy which was being destroyed by all the various interventions that were going on there.
I think, and I know that probably sounds odd to be holding those views and yet still be doing the job, but the problem is, this is part of the great dilemma of public service I suppose.
You have an idea that what you want to do can be done within such an organisation, let's take the army or indeed police, and in many ways it can be.
You can have that moment.
If you're being managed properly, you should be able to exercise discretion, you should be able to carry out Whatever it is you've been asked to do in the way that you deem best possible and you can justify that by using your own rationale, your own decision-making process.
Obviously there are a number of sort of caveats and whatnot to that but that was my feeling on the Afghan situation in particular.
Looking back I think my view of that And frankly any other operational theatre that we've had involvement in has changed now.
And I think that, you know, that it comes down to the fundamental problem that no matter what your intent, even as a junior commander, people will die.
And that, frankly, should be avoided.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, this has been one of the bizarre things for me.
I don't know whether you've had this experience, but I used to be really into war.
I used to think mainly of myself for not having been a soldier, you know, I would have loved to have done what you did.
I was into my war stories, and I believe that most of these wars were just that they were designed to spread democracy, etc, etc.
And then you start Waking up and you start looking into the history of these wars that sit with the hitherto You were into in a kind of war poor.
I mean, you know, I've read every book that's ever been written about Vietnam I've seen every Vietnam movie.
I know I wished I could warn those those um tiger stripes special forces Camouflage that outfit like Robert De Niro does in in the deer hunter.
Oh all this crap and And now, when I realise that the only purpose of the Vietnam War was to generate money for the same people that always benefit from these wars, and that it was provoked by the Americans and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and then you realise that the same applies to the first Gulf War, that I think...
I think it was George Bush Senior.
Saddam Hussein actually said, look, we're thinking of invading Kuwait.
Are you OK with this?
And I think it was Madeleine Albright who briefed him and said, yeah, it's going to be fine.
We have no problem with that.
And then later on, it's like, Evil Saddam has invaded Iraq.
I mean, invaded Kuwait.
And then they create these fake stories about babies being taken away out of incubators and stuff.
The same propaganda used to get in at the beginning of World War One where German soldiers were apparently killing babies and raping nurses and so on.
Same playbook every single time.
And then suddenly you get a bit cynical about war, don't you?
I think so.
I mean, funnily enough, I'm not sure whether I'd be in a minority, but to be honest, the appeal of the Armed Forces for me wasn't about that.
It was actually about the other stuff, the lifestyle that you led, which was essentially being paid to be fit, healthy, intelligent, and in charge of other people's lives.
And I found that to be a really compelling sort of career um so the the warfare side of it was I say incidental I mean I don't mean to sound glib it obviously it was a part of it but I certainly wasn't lusting after that um plenty of people do and I think that's it was actually something I was going to mention about policing and and you know we'll probably go over more human nature stuff but I think one of the things that people
are often unwilling to concede about the armed forces the army in particular the infantry in particular within the army is that a significant percentage of people that join the army do so in effect because it is a legitimate means of having the opportunity to kill other people and I think that's something that's not really thought about very much and it should be
Not least because it's dangerous to have people around that are like that in some senses, although in others very good that they're not in places where they could potentially be harmful to the public.
So I think the Army does an amazing job of containing an awful lot of that sort of testosterone-fuelled growing up period that people do and, you know, the results are transformative.
I mean to see people coming in at the ages of sort of 16, 17, 18 with either minimal or no qualifications, often with I know it's a bit of a stereotype but perhaps troubled childhoods and all the rest of it and yet get spat out 20, 22 years later able to do almost anything.
That is remarkable and remarkable to think where they could have gone had they set out on a different path.
So that was the side of it that I was interested in and that's why I found the demise of the armed forces On defence pretext, stupid.
You know, the defence planning assumptions, they've never ever got it right.
There's no reason to think they would now.
But to do away with essentially a massive sort of welfare and development service is daft.
But anyway, yeah, so that's sort of the way I looked at it.
But no, you're right.
I mean, I think on the operational side of it, you know, yes, one wanted to get the operational experience, but I would say not because you really wanted that fight.
Some people did, and I'm afraid when you look at the sort of, you know, the trauma, mental trauma that people suffered, It's very sad, but a lot of people who really, really wanted that were the people that suffered most when they came face to face with it.
So yeah, I would agree with you.
It's not good.
I think it is not something that people should want.
Just on that point actually, that's interesting.
You mean the people who are Most determined to see the elephant, as it were, who wanted to get there for the war jollies.
Is that because they put themselves in the way of danger more, or what?
It's not an absolute but I can think of a lot of people who were who were very much sort of you know up-and-atom type people to talk to and in training and appeared to want that more than anything else rather than just quietly getting on with it and yet it was it tended to be the people that quietly got on with it and
that suffered better mentally than those who had been very very keen to get stuck in and I think it was it's sort of it's bravado I think that will carry people so far but but I did see a lot of people come unstuck who had held that that sort of mentality before That's really interesting, yeah.
I mean, one of the bits of the old me that I've kept is I still have tremendous respect for people who've certainly sort of, you know, below kind of I think once you get to rank above Lieutenant Colonel, you basically become a hideous creature of the system.
But before that point, I have great respect for the men and women who put their lives on the line for what they probably believe is a very, very good cause.
I haven't lost that.
Tell me.
You went into the police.
Well, first of all, what's it like being a kind of tough character, you know, ex-guards, going into the police?
I mean, were you welcomed or did they think you were a bit of a freak?
If they thought I was a freak there could have been any number of other reasons for that but I have to say there was no overt judgment of my perhaps sort of otherness.
I mean yeah as you say I was in a very small minority by background but I think one of the pleasant things about joining the police is that Police, by nature of what they do, are very, very used to dealing with people of all creeds and colours.
And so there is an acceptance, I think, of absolutely anybody and everybody, despite what you may see or believe.
But I think internally, I think, you know, you have to prove yourself.
I think you'd probably be given a little bit more of a sort of, you know, suspicious, I don't know, you know, grilling as it were, if you are in a a minority or at least you've come from where I had come from but no I mean I found I was I was very much welcomed it wasn't it wasn't any kind of problem at all I think if actually to be perfectly honest as is often the case people were just interested.
I mean I like the way you describe yourself as a minority I mean You're the wrong kind of minority.
We know how eager the police is to show itself being a rainbow outfit.
and stuff did you do you join before that period i mean was it was it slightly because would you get no no no i mean no yeah well no this is i mean i'm afraid i i have not been policing since peel i It was a very short-lived thing and it was unfortunate.
They were running a programme in the late 20-teens which sought to put people in direct entry inspector positions.
So the idea was that you had a reasonable amount of life experience, but particularly in command and leadership.
And you would be able to go across into the police as an inspector and, you know, use your sort of perspective from outside.
And I had started on that path literally before the Covid internment started.
And it wasn't actually to do with that, but if you remember there was the rather fanciful pledge of putting 20,000 more constables on the street.
So the fallout was that the inspector programme was bumped off the shelf.
And I then had to think again, but I have to admit I was quite invested in the idea of it by that stage, because what I had seen from the constabulary that I did join impressed me.
I liked the idea of it.
I was, despite what I've just said about the army, I was Yeah, I was still drawn by public service and by the idea that, you know, if I believe in a community and I want to invest in it, then then what's wrong with that?
And I'd seen by that stage, obviously, I'd seen a lot of terrible footage from 2020 about, you know, the sort of Appalling miscarriages of justice and unlawful behaviour and all that kind of thing.
But I still thought, well, that's, first of all, it's not going to be me.
And secondly, that must only be a tiny minority of people.
So I carried on with it.
And I joined what was a specific detective programme And yeah, like you say, it was amusing only because every single person in the promotional literature did not look like me.
So yes, to have got through the process...
before I'd even seen anyone else because of course it was all done online so I thought gosh you know I wonder what everyone else is going to look like only to find that um when we got spat out the other end and we did all meet up everybody pretty much looked the same ie British uh or at least you know white British so despite the the illusion that um that this campaign of diversification and all the rest of it was going to reap an enormous dividend actually the reality was was not quite that
But yeah, so it just it was a very strange time to join in the midst of all this stuff and it got, yes I think, as opposed to things tailing off after 2020, as you as you well remember, things just got worse and worse and worse and worse both within policing and without.
Well actually no, I'm puzzled what specific things you're talking... Oh, you mean the policing of like sending drones in to spot people going for walks in the Peak District and that kind of thing?
No, I think I mean policy-wise, I mean government policy and media critique of government policy but also the sort of shaping of people's minds and what they were supposed to think about their friends, family and neighbours.
I think in 2020, and okay it's quite a lot to try and remember now because there was so much that happened over that period, but I feel that during 2020 It was more a case of the government just trying to terrify everybody.
That was it.
There wasn't much discrimination in who got what in the propaganda bombardment.
Everybody was just on permanent receive all the time.
Whereas in 2021, with the, you know, with the jab having started and then people could be divided on those lines, the, you know, the campaign, the policy, everything shifted towards Right.
creating a sort of a better tier of society.
People who, you know, in the workplace didn't have to go through certain protocols because they had demonstrated their compliance and obedience by receiving a product and all the rest of it.
So I think it became much more divisive during 2021.
Right.
The thing that struck me most about the policing in that era was I'd never felt more conscious of just how politicised our police have become.
And it's probably been the case for years.
I mean, you know, you look back at the policing of football matches, for example.
But anyway, and Orgreave, the Battle of Orgreave.
I was, having been on a few of the marches for example, including I think the very first anti-lockdown whatever march, where I was almost arrested or I was threatened with arrest for just what?
For wandering around a park with a few other people.
I was very conscious when a few weeks later there was a Black Lives Matter march.
Which got completely different treatment, not just by the media.
It got a double-page spread in the Mail on Sunday, for example, which had completely ignored all the much, much bigger anti-lockdown marches.
But the policing, in some of the events, there was one in Trafalgar Square where these people who were not obviously even English, they were specialists, and maybe you can tell me about this, like what used to be called the SPG, I don't know what it's called now, but nasty people.
Coming in sort of tooled up and hurting the demonstrators.
Well, you never got that the Black Lives Matter demo.
Were you conscious of this from the inside that there were double standards going on?
Yeah, I think so.
I mean, I personally didn't have to deal with any of that on a sort of mass basis, certainly as far as the Covid restrictions went.
I think, you know, it's actually one sort of sidebar, but I think one thing that people don't consider enough Is that a huge amount of what police were doing with regards to stopping people from going about their daily business and interfering in their lives, I'm not talking about on a mass scale, you know, demonstrations or protests or whatnot, but at the individual and sort of small, you know, family level.
It was entirely, almost entirely, because their neighbours and other members of the public were reporting them.
That's how this was being generated.
People were sneaking on each other.
That's what happened.
So I think it's easy to characterise the police as just being absolutely eternal busybodies and sort of hiding in hedges waiting to see if more than six people come back out of a house or whatever the stupid rule was meant to be.
But it wasn't like that.
It was police doing what they're supposed to do, which is to respond to a call or an allegation made by a member of the public.
Interesting.
Yeah, but I don't mean to exonerate police because of course what should really have happened, and this goes for a huge majority of police business, is that that should have been shut down absolutely immediately.
It should not have got through, to my mind, through the force control room where all these calls come into.
People should have been told to mind their own business and just get on with life.
Yes.
And I think that's the case for a huge number of the very trivial offences now and you look at something like free speech where in effect people are under the Public Order Act and all these sorts of things people are claiming to have been harmed or caused anxiety and all the rest of it and again it looks like police are
Deliberately sort of going after free thinkers or free speakers or whatever but actually they're being put in that position by people who are getting in touch with police in the first place to say I've been caused anxiety by this and so it is a bit of a double-edged sword.
Police are certainly to blame in that they are not getting rid of An unnecessary, pointless workload, I think.
So, yeah, sorry, that's a bit of a diversion.
But, no, with regard, I mean, the distinction you make between, say, Black Lives Matter and a Covid protest would be... Or Extinction Rebellion as well.
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah, I mean I think my view is really that comes from the sort of political or chief officer level at which point a decision is made on the sort of the motives of those involved and I think such was the brainwashing
that the motives around protesting or demonstrating or anything to do with what was regarded as an infectious disease sort of boiled down to you want to harm people you want to make people ill and whereas with Black Lives Matter or
The climate or any of those sorts of things, I think the belief or at least the reason that people were able to say that it would be policed in a different way was because the background, the ideals were different and supposedly sort of for the benefit of society.
That's interesting.
So you mean that at a senior level, The police were actually making decisions, making value judgments on the causes represented by the march, so that no matter how well behaved the marchers were, if they felt that protesting against vaccines and so on was a threat to the health of the nation, they would go in harder than
Then say somebody protesting about the death of a fentanyl addicted career criminal who got accidentally died in custody because of overzealous policing in America.
That's the deal.
Well it sounds desperate but I'm afraid to say I think that that is in effect what did happen or what does happen and it would be nice to think that people that reach the office of Chief Constable or even a couple of ranks below that would be able to see objectively what it is that they are doing or what they are supposed to be doing but they can't.
The brainwashing was complete and I'll tell you what, I'll give you an example of that.
I've got something that I printed out because I thought it would be worth reading.
I'm not sure, I've listened to an awful lot of your podcasts but I don't think this has come up yet.
Okay.
Are you aware that policing of the Covid regulations was optional?
It did not need to be done.
And this was set out by a House of Commons library briefing paper and chief constables effectively had the operational decision-making process to go through in order to decide whether or not they were going to commit manpower to it.
So if you imagine that you're running a police force or a constabulary and you've got a huge amount of various pressures on you and then somebody chucks in
something completely new and different and says right i know you're overstretched i know you haven't got any money but i i want you to do this and it's not about crime it's not really about public safety and it's not to do with consent of the public but i would like you to do it however it is up to you what will you do so that so the um the actual wording
From the, what was called Enforcing Restrictions, House of Commons Briefing Paper 9024 from 2nd December 2020, which it had been printed before that, but this is the version I've got.
Police lockdown restriction enforcement is an operational matter for the police.
This means police leaders, open brackets, not national or local politicians, close brackets, decide whether and how to deploy their officers to lockdown enforcement.
The National Police Chiefs Council say chief constables assess the threats and risks in their local areas alongside the national and local Covid-19 restrictions in place and resource their patrols and responses accordingly.
There are 43 constabularies in the United Kingdom and not a single one of them decided that they were not going to police those restrictions.
Wow!
That doesn't get talked about very much.
That doesn't actually get talked about at all.
And, you know, we go through all these ridiculous whitewash inquiries and everything else, but I guarantee you this is something that will not be looked at.
And yet, why would you?
Why would you do it?
If you believed, as a Chief Constable, you believed that there was a threat to public health that had the most incredible messaging campaign surrounding it, why would you feel that you needed to tell people to look after themselves?
I'm shocked actually.
Can you try and enter the head?
Is it groupthink?
Is it because you don't get to a position like that without being brain dead?
Effectively.
I think brain dead is definitely wrong.
Those that I met are Intelligent, articulate, personable people and capable too.
So you have to be.
You can't bluff it.
If you're not able to do what's required at the strategic operational interface, it won't work.
You will not be able to do that job.
But yes, I think I can answer that question.
I remember early on in one of the training sessions that we had as a sort of plenary group across the National Programme.
We were spoken to by a Chief Constable.
He was sort of describing his working day and I vividly remember him saying the very first thing he did every morning was to check the mainstream press and social media.
And he didn't go on to say, but I'm sure what he meant was, in order to work out what I should be doing.
And I think that's, that is the lead that is taken.
And again, to exemplify that, all police forces will have, they'll call it slightly different things, but they all have something like force priorities.
So they'll have, you know, four or five or six things that they're concentrating on because either they've been particularly bad in that area or whatever it is.
In the wake of the obviously horrific, tragic Sarah Everard murder and the subsequent investigation and trial and all the rest of it, there was, as you remember, there was a big explosion of focus on violence against women and girls.
And in my constabulary that's, you know, it's not something that had been any more of a problem than it usually is.
There was no real uptick in incidents where we were policing.
However, the very next day a notice came out saying, you know, new force operational priority, violence against women and girls.
And I can't remember which priority it bumped off the list but it went straight to the top of the list and not only that but the County Council had found down the back of the sofa a million quid to give the constabulary in order to put cameras in places that women and girls felt unsafe or that they were most likely to be at risk of violence.
Well that place is in the home so how was that going to work?
So I think what I'm saying is it's all it it's a lot of it is is meaningless.
And yet that's what people are fed, you know, day by day.
That comes down, it will be decided upon, the Chief Constable will in effect take their lead from media sources or, you know, some sort of government statement or what, regardless, totally regardless of what's actually going on in their area, and implement it anyway, and quite possibly disrupt entirely productive and well-meaning existing work.
So, you know, the consequence being that actually it's completely harmful to do that.
Yes, yes.
Well, of course, once you get to the stage where you realise that the media is part of the lying machine, it's not there to serve the public interest or the readership or anything else, it's just pure propaganda, you can see how dangerous it would be if police chiefs are taking their lead from these propaganda sheets.
Yeah, absolutely.
But then again, the point is they shouldn't really be taking their lead from anybody.
You know, they should be running their operations according to what's going on right in front of them.
But they don't.
Do you think there remains any concept, any understanding of the idea of policing with consent?
Very little.
And I think that's not really necessarily to do with the fact that it's not considered or not thought of.
I think it's actually because the infrastructure has been changed so much over the years that it's almost impossible to either determine whether or not consent is there or to even be in a position where you're sort of in effect judged to the point where you can
Ascertain, you know, put yourself in a position to be seeking that consent and I think what I mean by that is just the, you know, police have in effect retreated backwards and backwards and backwards out of sort of smaller, more remote police stations, off the street, back into vehicles, back into centralised police stations and all the rest of it.
So very sadly And I mean this in at least two ways.
Very sadly, the relationship between the police and the public that they're supposed to have the consent of is so limited.
It's almost non-existent.
And then a little bit like the civil service, police are constantly flitting from one job to another, which means you don't have, you know, reliable old Constable So-and-So who's been there for at least 20 years and knows everybody.
And what's forgotten is that not only does that mean there's a breakdown in community relations and all the rest of it, but think of the intelligence that he would have, that that police force would have if it were done like that.
That's how you do it and you can have all the technology in the world but unless you're actually there and you physically know who's who and what they're up to, I'm afraid intercepting communications will never ever do that job.
Yeah, but is this a A fantasy that we have.
I mean, I'm trying to remember the name of the guy who used to be a Satanist who talks about the New World Order and so on.
People keep recommending I do a podcast with him.
But his thesis is basically that anyone in uniform, especially the police and the military, are basically the boot boys of the New World Order.
They are not our friends.
They never have been our friends.
They are betraying their fellow citizens.
And this notion that they are these friendly, well, in the British police case, these friendly bobbies that say, evening all, has always been a myth.
That they're all kind of free masonic agents of the New World Order.
Yeah, well, I mean, I think, I don't mean this disparagingly, I would assume that he's not been in any of those uniforms himself.
I'm not quite sure who it is you're talking about, but I don't mean to... I take the point and I think it's, I think with any of those sorts of situations you only need a small number of people to conform to that mould in order to be able to sort of tarnish the reputation of everybody.
I mean, you don't hear about, like you say, you don't hear about Constable So-and-So who really went out of their way to get it right.
I think the problem now, a large part of the problem, is that even if you do, and I like to think that what I was doing, I was doing with the right motives and I was exercising discretion in the right way.
And I, you know, gosh, I don't mean to suggest that nobody else was doing that.
I worked alongside plenty of people who absolutely understood how to treat people and how to get the best outcomes for people.
But the system, I'm afraid, is set up in such a way that it's very, very difficult to achieve that.
So, yes, I can see how somebody would form such an opinion.
But again, it's...
That comes not from the bottom.
That is not, I would contest, that is not from rank-and-file soldiers or police or, you know, any other uniform.
I would say that that is people in those ranks, in those positions, being put there by their chain of command, who are either, at best, misguided or, at worst, malevolent.
Yeah.
Well, I'm going with that.
That seems to be... it doesn't sound like you're covering up for... I do think that the rot is like a fish, you know, from the start to the head.
Yeah, yeah.
Same with the army.
Anyone who gets to Chief of General Staff or a bit below that is just absolutely just not working for us.
I'm sure it's the same with the police.
I mean, look at Ian Blair, Tony Blair's favourite policeman, for example.
Yeah, I think you're compromised and actually going back a bit to when you were talking about warfare and Queen and Country, King and Country.
Yes, I mean for me there was a very very distinct turning point in 2005 when Tony Blair was in office and was given what would be referred to as an interview without coffee with Mike Jackson who was the then Chief of the General Staff, Head of the Army.
and it was to do with manpower funding resources all the usual stuff and I think in a nutshell he was told by Blair well use it or lose it and if you're not on board with with what's going on we will just cut your numbers and this was when all the There were a lot of regiments being done away with and amalgamated and all the rest of it.
It was causing huge heartache and, as I've said again, I think I'm doing the country a massive disservice because, you know, you go back far enough, people, young offenders, were given the decision, right mate, either you join the army or you go to Borstal or you go to prison.
And I worked with people who had had that choice and they had been turned into remarkable people.
So, you know, what a tragedy to do away with that.
Anyway, what happened as a result of this back in 2005 was that the leadership, effectively sort of army board downwards, became compromised, I believe.
And you can see it in the communications that came out of the MOD.
Previously there had been nothing on the effect of operations in either Iraq or Afghanistan on life in the United Kingdom.
There was no link made between the two things.
So in effect, like what you're saying, you know, Queen and country form no part of it.
And then suddenly you heard the Ministry of Defence talking about keeping our streets safer and that that's why we were there.
And no one had ever said that before.
That was never part of it.
It was all to do with, you know, well, defeating the Taliban, finding bin Laden, Bringing democracy to Afghanistan.
There was never any inference that our safety here had anything to do with it, and then suddenly it did.
And ever after, that degree of compromise has been there, and if anything has just worsened.
Going back to that police thing about the discretion, it is quite shocking.
It's probably the most shocking revelation of this podcast.
of this podcast, that how much of it is them being so instinctively in tune with the thinking of the system that they just do it anyway?
And how much of it is, well, if I don't act on this, okay, it's optional, but if I become the only policing, what do they call department? - Well, What are the units called?
Departments?
Well, constabulary, police force, constabulary.
There would have been an opportunity for wonderful constabularies to let pubs stay open, not chase ramblers, not harass people walking their dogs.
It would have been great PR between the police and the public.
Like, we've got your back.
But nobody took that opportunity.
So why?
Honestly, I just couldn't say.
I mean, I think...
Well I would hope that anybody who had held views similar to mine going into 2020 could still could not have been more amazed by by what happened and I by which I mean that when you when we read about you know yet another health scare somewhere in China and blah blah I I you know I just I just sort of sighed and read the next thing you know it was here we go again
It'll be on the cover of Private Eye with a joke about here's a cut-out and keep paper mask and we just move on to the next thing and and yet here we are three and a bit years later and and the world really has been turned upside down and I think it I think it just caught it seemed to have caught everybody unawares.
If we're to give people the benefit of the doubt and I'm talking about not so much policymakers but people who who sat in, you know, higher offices, like you say, in the tops of police constabularies and whatnot, I think they were completely blindsided and I think they thought that there was absolutely no way, regardless of their own personal views, and I mean I'm not suggesting actually that any of them did have any different personal views, I think they all went along with it personally as well as professionally,
But I don't think there was ever any point at which anyone thought, oh no, I don't think this is right.
I think they honestly were that caught up in it.
And I can say that with some degree of authority, okay, only on a sort of single constabulary basis, but I wrote, if you like, I've also got the pretext of my
resignation to yes to my constabulary and this was obviously you know having described what i described i did i wasn't policing during 2020 during sort of drone drone and supermarket madness but but the the you know the 2021 um sort of mask and six people in a garden uh and and then the jab thing so so a different kind of madness but i think where it went was was increasingly awful
And the tipping point for me was, and I'm sorry this is rather technical, but it was a statutory instrument that came out at the end of 2021.
It was December 2021, statutory instrument 1416, which was the venue entry requirements, which effectively was the vaccine passport thing.
And when you swear your oath of allegiance, you talk about people's human rights, you talk about fairness, impartiality, integrity, all those sorts of things.
And yet here we were, apparently in a position where, according to some utterly sort of nebulous criteria, we were going to tell some people in society that they were better than other people.
and there really was absolutely no justification for doing it and less still justification for policing it and so my concern was was sort of at least twofold one was that it was an abhorrent thing to be doing to society or at least to be proposing to do in society to actually walk
sort of say up and down the queue of a nightclub and hoi somebody out if they didn't have a vaccine passport and we'll come on to what that means in a minute and then the second thing was the incredibly damaging potential it had to the to the relationship between the police and the public that you know the sort of pr exercise you look at what was going on in australia new zealand canada austria germany where they had already cut people into cut society into and you know there were pitch battles and
And I didn't want to see that.
I didn't want to see colleagues of mine going into potentially harmful situations because of what they had decided to do off the back of bad law.
So, you know, there were lots of different elements to it.
So I wrote to my Chief Constable, who is therefore, you know, sort of leapfrogged the entire chain of command, not to be a pain in the backside, but because it simply wasn't understood at any lower level, and nor was it considered to be something that was within their gift to do anything about.
So I wrote, Dear Chief Constable, I appreciate that it is irregular to get in touch with you directly, but these are most certainly irregular times.
I'm writing as a concerned colleague, as well as a member of the public that I serve.
In light of the continued encroachment of the UK government into the private lives of citizens, I'm writing to ask if there are any circumstances under which you will employ or direct the Constabulary to affect a division or segregation of society.
The House of Commons votes tomorrow on the likely introduction of an instrument of discrimination and the beginnings of a de facto social credit system.
At the moment, this presents itself as ordinary participation in society becoming contingent upon the consumption of the product of a profit-seeking pharmaceutical company.
This might seem dramatic, and I would hazard a guess that you have not been asked this until now.
And yet, despite the efforts of the commercial media channels to suppress it, I am watching as police help create a two-tier society in the countries of our friends and allies in the Commonwealth and European nations of Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Austria, Germany and France, to name a few.
If you are able to answer with an unequivocal no, is the Home Office aware of the Constabulary's position?
If the answer is not an unequivocal no, may I ask when and how colleagues will be told that they are to take part in the introduction of apartheid in the UK?
I think you are in a very unenviable position, but that the right course of action is clear.
I would be very pleased to discuss this with you face to face.
That's a cracker of a letter, Charles.
How long did that take you to write?
I can't quite remember, but yeah, I probably went through a couple of drafts.
It's good.
Not a word wasted.
Anyway, so what happened?
Not a word wasted.
Was it interesting you should choose that phrase?
Because...
Do you know, it honestly wasn't understood.
What I meant was not understood by the people that read it.
And it was read, it went round the whole of the Chief Officer Group, so the Chief Constable plus the Assistants and Deputies, the Chief of Staff, and they honestly didn't know what I was driving at.
So that shows, and I know, you know, I can think of the You know your early days, I know it persists, but your many many sort of London calling conspiracy or cock-up sort of debates.
These guys didn't understand what they were doing.
And I'm not saying that that puts blame away from them.
It absolutely doesn't.
They hadn't sought to understand what they were doing.
So not only had they decided they were just going to police absolutely every element of it, they were going to take whatever was thrown at them, they weren't even going to think of the consequences of doing that.
Can I just check with you which you're referring to your oath?
First of all, to whom are you swearing the oath?
Is it to the government or to the monarch?
No, it's to the monarch.
Is it?
So yeah, it was changed, the oath was changed, the Police Reform Act of 2002.
Interestingly, because the previous oath had included the phrases to police, without favour or affection, malice or ill will, and basically took that out and put in the notion of fundamental human rights.
And everybody thinks, oh, you know, wonderful, you know, those human rights.
Yes, they are.
They are enshrined in law and thank goodness for it.
And I'm afraid the Human Rights Act 1998 is not worth the paper it's written on.
It is absolutely shocking.
You know, human rights, for those listening who might not have necessarily and probably understandably a grasp of exactly what's sort of meant by them, at least in the state that they're written down, but effectively Human rights are split into three different categories.
They are either absolute, which means that there shouldn't be any conditions under which there's a challenge presented to them, or limited, which means there are certain situations in which that particular right or freedom can be limited or qualified.
So they exist unless such and such happens.
And, you know, this is ages old.
1998 is in effect a lifetime ago, you know, the age of terror.
And yet, people seem to have totally overlooked the fact that all these rights are qualified.
And I'll just, you know, just to quote, the right to liberty and security is qualified by the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants.
The right to respect for a family life, which is Article 8, can be qualified by accordance with law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety, or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder and crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of rights and freedoms of others.
You know, in a way, the changing of the oath by the Reform Act was quite clever because, of course, to say that you're protecting people's fundamental human rights sounds brilliant but means nothing, or at least means that people can still do, the government can still do exactly as they please.
Actually, I think, Charles, it's not clever, it's diabolical.
And I think you'd understand that.
It is.
It is diabolical.
And a lot of it, you know, we've been, we've, we have, I mean, okay, I'm not sort of blaming anyone because I'm absolutely as much to blame for this as the next person.
But all this has been there for years.
The Public Health Act was drawn up in 1984.
The provisions within the Public Health Act, which luckily we haven't actually seen affect themselves over the last three years because they because they invented the coronavirus act but you know the public health act is absolutely appalling what the provisions it makes the same thing with the public order act 1986 you know these have been around for a long time and yet it's only now that people are beginning to get alive to the fact that these sorts of laws exist well because so um anyway yeah
go on they they they the people who plan these things that they they have a long time to do it yeah yeah that that that that They plan sort of in generations rather than in the short-term way we think, which is why they're always getting one over us.
But tell me, that letter to your Chief Constable, how were you in breach of your oath?
You talked about apartheid.
Yes, so I'll tell you why.
First of all, the fundamental principle, and this accords to what's referred to as the doctrine of the lesser magistrates, which is in effect that if you're confronted by bad law, it is your duty to either disregard it or interpose yourself in some way as to nullify that particular point of law.
So therefore, as a police constable, If dealing with what is bad law, law that is not natural law, that does not conform to the natural laws, then it should be disregarded.
I like that.
Is that written into your oath?
How is that understood?
No, no, no, no.
No, again, of course not.
No, because it's far too powerful.
No, the weight of, and again for people listening, the doctrine of the lesser magistrates goes back for years to the sort of time of Knox and Calvin.
Written sort of formally enshrined by the pastors of Magdeburg in Germany and if you want to read it there's a very good book produced by Matthew Trewella who's an American written in 2013.
I'll just show it up to the camera for people who are watching.
And written in 2013, Matthew Trewella, which is spelt T-R-E-W-H-E-L-L-A.
It's very easily available online.
But it set out very clearly, you know, that this sort of thing should not happen.
If bad law exists, it should be challenged by those within the system.
How is that binding?
When you become a policeman, how is that principle binding?
Well, in effect, you're sort of, partly through discretion, partly through duty, you're not meant to conduct anything that's unlawful.
So you have to effectively take it on good faith that if you either fail to do something or do do something because of your beliefs, and you're then challenged over that by the system, you should hope that the next chain above you, say the magistrates or the county court or whatever, would see it that it was bad law and it would go up the chain and be overturned.
That's effectively how it works.
So an example of that to a sort of extent is jury nullification which is when a judge would direct a jury to either to convict or not to convict and a jury would disregard that because they held a particular belief about the case and they would decide one way or the other Contrary to that.
I mean, you know, law does get overturned.
Statute law does get overturned.
Oh, no, listen, I'm totally with you.
I love the idea of jury nullification, although I doubt it's... Well, it's a double-edged sword, actually.
It's a double-edged sword.
Very much a double-edged sword.
I'm just sorry to pin you down on this.
So, you're effectively holding your chief constable to account, saying, look, you are about to... by creating this two-tier policing system where one class of people, the jabbed, or the acquiescent or the surrenderers or whatever.
They are given privileged status over people who don't want to take part in this experiment.
I see why there was room for your principled objection.
What I'm saying is, in what way does that...
Why does it breach the oath?
It breaches the oath, I would say, for several reasons.
First of all, you're not dealing with people with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality.
You're definitely not doing any of those things.
And the reason for that, to go into the technicalities, is that if you remember It was to do with not whether you'd received the vaccine, it was whether you had the vaccine passport and you were eligible for the vaccine passport if you had had a medical exemption or if you took part in a trial.
So there were basically four groups of people existed in society.
People who had had the injection and people who had, you know, taken the passport to demonstrate that.
People who had a medical exemption but were still eligible for the passport.
People who had Taken part in a trial, still had the passport, or people that simply decided they didn't want to take it.
So you had four groups of people, three of which hadn't had the injection, but only one of those groups was prohibited from doing all the things.
So that's not fair, and also has absolutely nothing to do with what they call health, public health, safety, any of those sorts of things.
So it's a complete red herring, not least because there were several very significant exemptions in this statutory instrument.
Amazingly, and if we're to go along with the premise in this case, which is to do with, you know, infectious disease, so reducing human contact, that's what it seemed to be all about, And yet exemptions were granted for staff at venues.
So if you imagine that somebody, if we have our infectious disease model, somebody standing on the door of a football ground or a nightclub infecting every single person as they go in.
And yet that was perfectly legitimate under the statutory instrument.
Completely ridiculous.
And then also, you know, a long list of people, police officers, diplomats, officers, you know, holders of X, Y and Z, officers of state, environmental officers, local authority officers, all the rest of it, were exempt.
Just one other thing.
You describe it as a statutory instrument.
How obliged are police... I mean, was it even legal?
Was it enforceable?
Well, yeah, I mean, that's getting into a sort of separate minefield and then we get into really, I mean, that's a long, long discussion because then you're getting into legal or lawful and whether something is, you know, whether something's written down in statute or not, whether it's effectively sort of a law of the land and we're getting into the difference between common law and statutes and all those sorts of things.
So, but no, I mean, secondary legislation, statutory instruments, are, I suppose, less likely to attract criminal sanctions.
But that's not to say that they can't.
In fairness, I wouldn't want to go too much into detail without researching it further.
You'd be better off talking to somebody who practices law.
Exactly.
I've resisted the temptation so far.
So just tell me, by the way, I've got to go and pick up my son from the station now.
Yeah, exactly.
So just tell me, by the way, I've got to go and I'm supposed to go and pick up my son from the station now.
Right.
Okay.
Either we can sort of wrap it up fairly quickly or we can do another half hour when I get back in 40 minutes.
Yeah, yeah.
That's fine, let's do that.
Let's do that.
I'll go and pick him up now and I'll be on time.
So I will stop this one now and I'll send you a new thing when I get back.
Perfect.
Yeah, brill, alright.
See you then.
Are you uploaded?
You are, yeah.
I won't do anything, I'll just leave it.
Yeah, okay.
Shall I?
So for the...
Viewers and listeners won't notice the seamless transition between this section of the podcast and the last section.
But like, in the interim, Charles, I remembered the name of that ex, rather trivialised him by calling him an ex-Satanist, because there's more to him than that.
He's called Mark Passier.
And he's a serious thinker in as much as
His view, and I wanted to bring you on to this because you mentioned Christianity in your biog, his view is that what we are experiencing is a spiritual war, that what's going on down here in the Materium is also a reflection of what's happening up there and possibly down below, and that we are battling ultimately against entrenched evil.
Now where are you on that?
Yeah, it is a huge one and I think it's very, very difficult to arrive at a point in your own mind that makes you feel like you're satisfied that you've got it right, like you actually understand, or at least that's where I am on it.
Yes, I do believe that there is a much more overt
battle or attempt to subvert faith and spirituality than I've ever been conscious of before but it's it's hard to be I think it's hard to be objective about it and it's hard to consider with the views or the knowledge perhaps that I have now how I would have felt about such a thing 20 or more years ago so
I don't mean to dodge the question, but it is a bit of a tricky one to pin down.
But I'm very interested in the thoughts that people do have on such a thing, and actually going back to what you, when you introduced him initially, about talking about people, essentially, sort of the fear of, not fear necessarily, but scepticism around people in uniform.
And I do understand where that comes from, and I think that is perfectly legitimate.
And if you look at the bigger picture, which is the overall state of things and the overall contribution that, say, police make to society or that the armed forces make to society.
It is more difficult now, I think, to put that in positive terms.
I wrote an article not so long ago about policing which touched on the sort of the roots of policing in this country going back to the early 19th century and how much how much fear there was around what was going to happen and you could say it was prescient.
I think you know the exact restrictions on liberty that were envisaged at that point have really come to come to pass But of course, it's just the way in which it was done.
I mean, it's so hard to tell, isn't it?
Let's just examine that for a moment, because this is really interesting.
One of the things that's really been brought home to me in the last three years in my renewed, actually my final understanding of the world, I don't think I ever said it before,
is the degree to which we denigrate the people of the past intellectually, this false, completely false notion we have of progress, the idea that somehow we know more because we've got advanced medical science and there's all this stuff we know about the world that our forebears didn't know.
And you mentioned the debate that arose at the time when Robert Peel first established a police force.
People were alive to these issues in a way that they probably aren't now because we've all been kind of brainwashed and... Yeah, we have, yeah.
I think we've been brainwashed, I think.
More than that, we've been completely isolated in the name of Socialization, I mean it's still the enormous myth that communications devices in some way make people more connected.
I think the obverse is true.
I think the rise and rise of particularly the mobile telephone but all forms of other technology with which you're supposed to be able to easily communicate with people have stripped away so much of the meaning in communication that people used to enjoy and also it's dulled people's minds.
Just to give you a policing example, when an incident takes place and you're trying to gather a picture of what happened, one of the processes obviously is to approach witnesses and to get accounts from people who were there or in some way can
tell you what happened and the quality of people's statements now and I don't mean I don't mean the language they use but the detail they're able to recall is absolutely pathetic and there are there are exceptions to that sometimes you'll come across somebody whose recall is absolutely staggering down to minute detail and you just
you know you are sometimes you're able to verify you know you might happen to have CCTV footage of the same thing you can see what it is that the person is referring to and you cannot believe that they could remember such a detail so there are you know there are people who do still retain that ability but reading reading now that what people remember the detail they're able to go into is pathetic and I had I remember dealing with
a very interesting historic stranger rape and it was went it was you know a mystery for years, 30 years, and then suddenly there was a DNA match, and it all came up, and it's gone through the courts again, and the offender has been imprisoned, and there we go.
But what was so interesting was going through the many, many, many witness statements from the time back in 1990, and they were so detailed, and it was in a public place, it was in a park, And the degree to which people could describe what was happening around them, who was there, what they were wearing, the senses that they had about this particular person who'd been seen by many, many people was quite staggering.
And now you just don't get that because people are so distracted by stuff all around them, whether it be, you know, adverts or music or most predominantly people's mobile telephones.
So it's a bit of an aside, but it has made a massive impact.
No, I like that aside.
That's really interesting.
And I was thinking, I remember when I first got, when I lived in London for the first time and I did my first commute to work on the Tube, and I was very conscious of who was in the Tube carriage and you sort of made up stories about them or just whatever.
Now, look at the tube carriage.
Everyone is so involved with their phone that they wouldn't be able to describe the passengers.
Suppose a bomb were to go off and they were to describe the events leading up to it.
They wouldn't have a clue.
Absolutely not a clue.
Yeah, I mean, so I think that has had an absolutely monumental effect on the way that people behave in relation to one another.
And also, you know, it's made It's given everybody this direct link to, again, with, say, policing.
You can have a problem, have, you know, something wrong, and without thinking about anybody else or anything around you, just immediately call, make a call to the police.
And this is, you know, particularly everybody sort of talks about the surge of mental health crises and all that kind of thing.
And for the most part, the way I see it, and I don't mean this to be dismissive, it's not dismissive, But people who are isolated and do not have a sort of nucleated family that can they can depend upon or group of friends who are in their immediate environment are left in a place that means that they feel to get attention they just they need to make that call and they call the police absolutely over and over and over and over and over again.
Do they?
Yeah.
For what sort of things?
Well, I mean, there's a lot of, a lot of it's to do with Sel Palm.
So people will, it's, you know, it's the sort of classic, it's always rather disparagingly referred to as a cry for help.
You know, people who just disappear.
I mean, you talk about missing persons and I mean, anyway, it's so much to go into, but the, you know, the amount of money generated by people who apparently go missing, when in actual fact they haven't gone missing, they've gone somewhere that they probably go every single time that they go missing, but because they're deemed vulnerable, there's always an enormous response to it and all the rest of it.
But if they hadn't had a mobile telephone...
And they, so I'm slightly mixing two things, but if mobile telephones didn't exist, let's say, and people actually had to talk to each other, the chances of these sorts of things happening on this scale are vastly reduced.
And that's, I mean, that's in the sort of empirical evidence in that you talk to somebody who's been working in a police control room for years, and they will tell you for a fact that the number of incidents on the log now is probably five or six times what it was 20 or 30 years ago.
I remember on the marches that one of the things we were all at pains to do, apart from, and I noticed them, there were agents provocateurs on the marches, definitely.
There were people there whose job it was to discredit us and they were so obvious.
They so obviously did not fit in and they were there to discredit us and I think possibly even In collusion with the police.
I mean, I don't know.
But anyway, we made it our business to be as lovely as possible to the police who, you know, we wanted to make them our friends and ideally bring them on side a bit like those Vietnam-era protesters shoving flowers in the barrels of the National Guard's armolites, whatever.
But do you get Any impression?
A lot of us who are awake look at the stuff that's coming down the road and we're thinking, is anyone in the police going to act in our interest?
Or are they going to stay loyal to the corrupt, authoritarian, totalitarian system?
Did you get any sense that there were police who might get it?
What's going on?
I hate to disappoint people, but no, I don't.
I don't get that sense.
I get the sense that people are in a job, and this is not, I mean, this is not exclusive to police.
I think this was seen across the board.
I think that people are in a job that they find challenging because of the way that they're asked to do it and lack of support and the rather ludicrous bureaucracy that accompanies it and I honestly don't think that people stop and think about what they're doing.
It takes quite a significant Or a sort of seriously traumatic incident for people to stop and review what it is that they've done, I think.
And part of that is, I suppose you'd sort of say that there's no time given to decompression.
You would expect, if you're in uniform, you're in a response role, you would expect, especially if you're on a late or night shift, you would expect to see some trauma every single time you go out.
Yeah, I mean in an urban area, I mean sometimes in rural areas it can be far worse, but more frequently in urban areas.
And no attention is given to decompressing.
People never ever, you don't get back at the end of a shift and sit around and talk about it.
It just doesn't happen.
That was something the army was trying to introduce when I was, you know, sort of in the like mid, the first decade of this millennium, this century.
It was something that had come from the Royal Marines and it was to do with, you know, it's called trim trauma and risk management, and it was to do with making sure that people didn't bottle stuff up and let it affect what they were doing and what they were able to think about.
And I think not nearly enough attention is paid to that, but you know, I have to say seeing people covered in blood, you know, sort of wailing and going at each other, Regardless of how many times you've seen it, it's just, it is not a nice environment to be in.
And it gets a lot worse than that.
And yet people never ever have the chance to stop and deal with that.
And I think, you know, that's one of the things that prevents people from thinking objectively about any of the other stuff.
I mean, you know, if you're doing something that seems I don't know, by comparison relatively benign.
I don't think you really would stop to evaluate it.
And besides which, that should have been done several stages further up the chain.
But of course there's a massive disconnect between the political hierarchy, like we've talked about before, where I think the way that internal policy is shaped has very little to do with the with the policing requirement and much more to do with the pressures from national government and media and sort of other, you know, rather harder to to pin down forces.
And then the sort of the middle tier of management is very very separated from the people that they should really have a much more direct working relationship with.
So people who are there, you know, at the interface with the public are left to flounder about somewhat.
And I think some of these big issues, the ethics of policing is not discussed nearly enough.
The fact that you are a part of the community is not discussed nearly enough.
It's very easy for people to fall into the trap of thinking of the public as the others, as the other side.
And it happens very much with people who are suspects.
You have to remember that when somebody comes into custody, Or, you know, they're named as a suspect in an allegation.
That's all they are.
They're a suspect.
They might well have done nothing, and frequently haven't.
I think, again, it's very easy to, and I dare say I wouldn't have a grasp on it, but The amount of police business, I would always say, you know, you say probably about 95% of business is generated by about 5% of police customers, as it were.
It's a revolving door.
You've got the same people going through the system over and over and over again, and it will just change slightly as to whether this time they're the victim, the witness, or the suspect.
So it's a very, very crazy world.
It's very easy for people to get jaded by exactly that.
So for people, in amongst all of that, for people to stop and consider whether what they're doing is right or wrong is something that I'm afraid I just don't think gets addressed and it's not being done for them, which it should be.
Yeah, well thanks for confirming everyone's worst expectations.
Fair enough, but I tell you what, I tell you what I should go on to say, and this does bear relation to the, you know, there's a lot of talk about the sort of the police state and where we were going and even talk of sort of martial law and all this kind of stuff and the army started doing vaccines and this that and the other.
One thing I think That people do not pay enough attention to is the reality of the situation, which is that the police, the numbers involved, and I know there's more to it than simply statistics, but the adult population of the United Kingdom is about 59 million.
The total police in the United Kingdom is in the region of 164,000 and the total armed forces about 150,000.
You can beef those numbers up a little bit by, you know, reserves and other sort of departments and whatnot, but still those are the raw figures.
Which means that for each of those entities they amount to about a quarter of a percent of the adult population of the country.
That's roughly one uh soldier or or sailor or airman to every 400 people in the country now if you if you are in fear of being policed to the point where you can't run your life as you would like then it cannot be affected through police or armed forces, simply numerically.
I mean, you don't even have to imagine that everybody's going to kick off at the same time, but the ability of any police force or constabulary to manage more than a certain number of incidents at one time, or to provide a sustained response to a particular campaign or incident.
Take the truckers convoy in Canada, which obviously you know, received an awful lot of international attention.
If something like that happened here, there is absolutely no way in which, over a sustained period, the police would really be able to do anything about it.
And those numbers are always, well, they're artificial because they're the total strength They're not the number of people who are actually on duty at any one time.
Of the people on duty, only very few of those are actually going out and about.
And it's exactly the same with the armed forces.
The number of people on the strength of a particular regiment is never anywhere near the number of people that are actually fit to fight and deployable at that moment.
And it's just, I think it's just something worth bearing in mind.
I'm not trying to sort of, you know, incite insurrection, but But the point I think I'm making is that to be in fear of police popping up and telling you what to do and this that and the other is is frankly unfounded and also people should have the confidence to carry on about their business.
One of the things that happened a lot during 2020 was police absolutely abusing their position by asking people to stop an account, to say to stop people and ask them what they're up to.
Police are perfectly entitled to do that in the same way that I am.
If I see somebody on the street I'm completely in my, you know, entitled to say what are you up to, where are you going, who are you?
The other person does not have to answer.
There's absolutely no legal requirement to answer a stop and account question.
So you put the ball back in their court.
If they suspect you've done something wrong and all the rest of it, okay well then you start to go through a different process.
Then they do have powers of search, of arrest if it comes to it.
But it's for them to justify their actions.
For the stop and account that you absolutely do not have to talk to them.
And I think people are not aware of that.
Right.
Yes, well, I'm sort of lightly reassured by what you say about the numbers, but of course they do have the monopoly of force.
I mean, you know, the army particularly have access to weapons that we don't.
Yeah, absolutely.
But I mean, OK, if it comes to that, well, you know, we're all kind of done for and it is every man, woman and child for themselves.
So I think to play it out to that point is, well, you know, I don't really see if there's anything to be gained in thinking like that.
But anything in between.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that people could, particularly on a small local level, not really have to live in fear of being meddled with.
Right.
Yes.
Let me pick you up on one point.
Which I've heard before and kind of shocked me.
Am I right in thinking that both the military and the police swear loyalty to the monarch, not to the country or any other aspect, not to the people?
Yeah, I mean, I've got it here.
Yeah, so you solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of Constable.
Okay, obviously this is out of date.
And then you do the human rights bit, according equal respect to all people and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property.
So yes, your oath is to the monarch.
Yes, you're absolutely right.
Because there was a time when I would have thought, what do you do?
At least, you know, good old royal family.
They're not the government.
The government are horrible.
Yabu, Hiss, but the Queen, God bless you mum, etc, etc.
And they're proper toffs and they understand, they love their country.
I don't buy into any of that anymore, and particularly in the case of King Charles, as we must learn to call him.
This is a man horribly in bed, I mean overtly in bed, with the World Economic Forum, with the Green Agenda, which we know is essentially a control mechanism.
It's a sort of a cloak of righteousness To mask the nefarious agendas of the New World Order.
I feel no loyalty whatsoever to Charles and I don't trust him an inch.
And yet here we have the armed forces and the police swearing loyalty to this person who doesn't even love his own country.
Because if he did, he would not be supporting the World Economic Forum.
He'd be supporting the resistance of the World Economic Forum.
Yeah, and I mean that does, I think, very much tie in to what you were mentioning earlier about, sorry I've now forgotten his name as well.
Oh watch, yes, Mark Passio.
That's it, yeah.
So that's, yeah, I mean, you're right.
And this is the problem with so many of the elements of the architecture of the state or of society that we've, I suppose, previously, to an extent, relied upon, or at least relied upon to do the right thing, or at least adopt the right sort of code.
But yes, I'm afraid to say I do totally agree with you.
I think the trust in specifically this monarch and his offspring appears to have been shattered in a way that's probably unrecoverable.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, the one thing I will say is that We still have a sense, lots of us have a sense of the kind of country we'd like to live in and the people that we are.
So it's not a complete fantasy.
It's just that the goodness and decency lies within us, not within the system.
We thought that these institutions were the bulwark against this stuff, and they're not.
They've all been infiltrated and taken over.
Yeah, which is something I completely agree with and I think this is where so many people have been and I think this will chime with your audience very much.
I think you have had such an amazing array of people on this podcast who have educated viewers and listeners beyond their wildest dreams, I should think.
And given people a sense that, you know, knowledge is power, it absolutely is, and yet I think people still feel this incredible sense of frustration and helplessness at knowing what so many of the problems are, but not having the first idea really what to do about it and how to somehow change their fortune.
And, you know, I think it is a very difficult position to be in.
But I don't think it's one of despair.
I think there are things that people can do and I think that's where, you know, that's sort of personally the bit that I'm most interested in is where one finds solutions and how you do, albeit in a different way, you're putting your trust elsewhere.
I think how you do get your life back on track.
And?
Tell us!
Well, I think and, you know, with that loss of trust of all those, like you say, all the previous, you know, sort of anchors around which our lives have apparently been secured,
We have to do away with them but but in their entirety and obviously this is you know sort of can only really be done by degrees but I think to to more or less separate yourself totally from the state and therefore have as little to do with any form of authority as possible as possible and be as self-sufficient and I don't I'm not I don't mean um I'm not talking about necessarily providing sort of food and water for yourself but but in terms of running your own affairs
And I think there really are ways to do that but I think it's easy and again it goes slightly back to the to the technology thing you know we all we all fall into what I think is a little bit of a trap of spending a lot of time researching things and bringing ourselves up to speed with what's going on in all these particular areas and being horrified by you know what else what else has gone on gone wrong how dreadful this is and forgetting to actually do anything and
I think that there are still ways in which people can be challenged.
I think, you know, most of the big sort of state Architecture is very difficult to deal with, but I think that there are still challenges that can be made.
I think people should stop accepting corruption of any form.
I think it happens all the time.
We tolerate the most minor corruptions and I think that they in turn enable much greater corruptions to occur.
You know, people need to be stopped and asked what it is they're doing about this, that and the other.
And I think, you know, an example was, because we're still quite a bit, an example was the churches, the churches being closed to absolute disgrace and completely undermined the whole purpose or the sort of the espoused purpose of the church in the first place.
And yet the arrogance within the clerical body itself was just mind-blowing.
to think that they didn't really have to pay any attention to what anybody said and it just so you know just so happens that they were challenged by by people and i you know from my own personal experience i i challenged my bishop on the closure of the churches, particularly our church here, which is very remote and rural.
And I was given a rather glib response, which was sort of, you know, well, clearly you're too stupid to understand, but that everybody's dying and we just really can't have that.
And then it was a bit of a sort of throwaway line of, well, you know, if you want to check it with the insurers, then I'm very happy for you to do so.
And I thought, well, there we go, I'll call your bluff since I am the secretary of the PCC for what it's worth.
So I rang the insurers and said, so just tell me, what is the insurance liability with health?
You know, I mean, if somebody walks into the church and says that they got ill there, is the church liable?
And is this, you know, this apparent health scare in some way different from anything else?
So the chap was a bit bamboozled and said, well, I'll tell you, I have to get back to you.
So he very dutifully rang me back about half an hour later and said, um, said, no, it's no different.
There's no, there's no liability.
So for somebody to, for somebody to be able to prove that they went into a particular church and that it was not just the church, but it was because somebody else had gone into that church and, you know, willfully licked a hymn book.
And they happen to lick the same one, you know, and you go through all that stuff.
And so the answer was there was no insurance issue with it.
So I wrote back and said, well, guess what?
There isn't one.
Following week, open the church.
And so there is a way, okay, that's a very small example, but there is a way in which
People can be challenged but I think should be challenged and I would say that with almost all organizations doing that just going straight for the top effectively you know if you think of all the sort of ills in the world one of the worst is customer service which is just you know it's just it's a dreadful buffer just to just to cover people in absolute nonsense and stop them from ever really getting to where they want to go so you clearly would always leapfrog that go straight to the top of
Whichever organisation.
And almost always you will get dealt with and there will be some result.
And even if there isn't, you will be forcing that person to consider something that they haven't yet considered.
And I think the exception to that is British politics which has the absolutely opposite view.
If you go to the top they absolutely don't care because they know they can fob you off.
Whereas if you start, if you effectively cut their legs from underneath them, By going through the lower levels and, you know, look at what's been happening now with the low traffic neighbourhood 15 minute city thing and Sandy Adams success and what's happened in Thetford and all that kind of thing.
You know, you start there and you go further up and by the time it gets to Westminster or Holyrood or wherever, it's a dead duck because they've got nothing left to stand on.
So I think we should be hopeful.
That's a really good piece of practical advice that I mean I like your story about the you shouldn't play it down it's a really good story because how did your ghastly bishop take it?
Well you know I mean I'm afraid to say I wouldn't have said with a particularly good grace but I think I think this has been the problem, and you know, this is one of the things, again, you know, the church is such a good example.
You sort of feel, I have felt, as a churchgoer, and not just a churchgoer, but to so many other things, that it's, you feel, first of all, the sort of barking response to all the government policy, a lot of people jumping before they were pushed, you know, churches desperately closing before they were even told to, and all that kind of thing.
You feel, oh my goodness that's ruined it for me forever, I don't ever want to go back to that place, I can't bear what they did, I can't bear how mad this all is and then after time what I found is I get a sense of sort of purer indignation and I feel that I don't want to have that taken away from me.
You know it's not, they might be the incumbents for now but it's not their church and it's for us to, and I know this sounds a bit sort of
A bit flighty, but it's for us to reclaim all of this, and I felt it with, I mean it's a silly example, it's frivolous, and I know it's to sort of, you know, it's effectively to keep workers away from thinking about serious things, but I've always loved cricket, and cricket again I felt was tarnished and ruined, because first, you know, they went crazy for Black Lives Matter for a bit, they've sort of dropped that, but then they, you know, they pretended that cricket grounds were You know, sort of places where you would go to die if you dare turn up.
But that's not it.
It's not really for them to do so.
If you want to enjoy something, you should be able to.
And I think we, when I say we, The people that feel strongly about whatever it is, whether it be the church, something they used to participate in, I think they should, you know, they should really take active steps to reclaim that.
And you can't do that by just looking at a computer screen or just going on a mobile telephone, finding stuff out.
You've actually got to do stuff.
Yes.
No, I just, we can all do it.
I remember, I can't remember which Christmas it was, but the Verger asked me, of our local church, asked me whether I'd do the reading in the Christmas service.
And I said, I will only do it if I'm not required to wear a mask.
And of course, you know, I was about the only... I think there was another person not wearing a mask.
And so I did stick out like a sore thumb.
But we have to fight our battles where we can, don't we?
Yeah, we do.
No, we absolutely, completely do.
And I think... Yeah, I mean, you're right.
It is fighting a battle.
But I do... I think the other thing is to try and take away the sense of conflict.
We shouldn't be in conflict with each other because, let's face it, the vast majority of people, exactly like somebody in church who thinks they're doing the right thing by telling other people to wear a mask, they are not the problem.
They are not, you know, in effect, the enemy.
So To be able to bring people round through kindness and engagement I think has got to be the way to do it and I'm not suggesting that you can, you know, by doing that you can disarm them to the point where you've red-pilled them immediately and they're completely on side but you cannot do that through confrontation.
Yeah, yeah.
Now, I've got a few more quickfire questions for you.
When you were in Afghanistan... You were in Afghanistan, weren't you?
Yeah.
Did you use Psalm 91 to protect you from being killed?
I have to admit that... Actually, do you know, we were given Have I got it with me?
Yes, I have.
We were all given this before we deployed.
To those of you that aren't watching, I'm holding up the New Testament and Psalms, and you wouldn't want to drop it because it's covered in camouflage, or at least you'd have to be very careful where you dropped it if you wanted to be able to pick it up again.
I did dip into it, I'm afraid to say.
I remember Talking to the Padre a fair bit out there and whatnot, but actually, yeah, I would love to have said that I engaged more with Psalms, with the New Testament, all the rest of it, but no.
Apparently it really works.
The US Marine Corps apparently use psalm writing, it's their favourite.
Yeah, well I think, yeah, No, I can well believe it.
And I think they, I think they're still in effect, I don't mean in terms of their capabilities and advancements and stuff, but I think they're still well behind us in that they haven't, they're not, they're not shy to be using You know, the Lord's name.
I think everybody here has been so terrified of expressing any form of religious belief for such a long time that it's more or less disappeared from all forms of military life.
It's very, very sad, but people feel that they shouldn't do it.
It's sort of as though it's embarrassing.
It's terrible.
Yes, yes.
I think I just, I've heard so many stories about heroic Padres, like the one with the Sherwood Yeomanry who went in, you know, sort of retrieving sort of Burnt-out bodies from burnt-out tanks and things like that.
But you're right.
There shouldn't be any atheists on the battlefield.
Well, there probably aren't many, are there?
Well, no, I think when it comes to it, I think there aren't.
I think you're absolutely right.
Now, a much more important question.
Did you ever get to drive a rainbow-coloured police car?
Very thankfully, no.
Or participate in a Pride event?
No, funnily enough, I wondered if that was going to come up.
I do, somehow.
I remember getting emails about it, but amazingly, I didn't seem to have got caught up in any such activity.
Which was a merciful... Which is why or not?
Why or not a Chief Constable?
Well, probably, exactly.
I mean, actually, to be honest, it's a very interesting issue because that is exactly what I'm talking about.
That is corruption.
That is complete and utter corruption.
The relationship that a lot of constabularies have had with organisations like Stonewall That's corrupt, you know, and this is exactly the sort of thing that shouldn't be accepted, but because of the cause at stake, it's just, you know, people change the rules, they bend the rules, and that is not right.
It is, well it's absolutely a breach of that very thing that you said, that policing without... you cannot discriminate against... Absolutely.
You never, I think, because I had to dash off to do a station pickup, you never did explain what happened after you sent the letter to your boss?
Yeah, yeah, you know, I mean, sort of sad but predictable story, which was that it was obviously battered around by those guys for a little bit.
They quite clearly had absolutely no intention of changing their direction of travel.
They were very, very reluctant to concede any of my points and and and you know just it's so funny in a way to think back to that time because it it was it was completely insane and it did it you know there was there was an awful lot of pressure in that environment i don't mean pressure to to sort of get um jabbed or anything but you you just couldn't avoid it you know you had
I suspect all police forces will have had the same thing, but there was a dedicated team within the within the constabulary that would send at least weekly updates, you know, called the COVID team.
And of course, you know, they were immediately pushing the jab and
they pushed it and pushed it and pushed it and then slowly but slowly there were then sort of little throwaway remarks like oh well it turns out we might not be as protected as we thought we were going to be and this that the other yeah and and sort of you know you really do if you if you're planning to go on holiday this summer then you really need to get jabbed not because you might die if you go abroad but because without demonstrating that you've done it you won't be allowed to get on an aircraft so
It was never ever looked at for the right reasons.
And then shortly before I left, lo and behold, actually, well, in fact, more or less concurrent with the beginning of my resignation process, I saw one of the early studies into endothelial cardiac issues with the jab and I sent it on to this team to say, look, I think people should be made aware of this.
There are, you know, there are, it seems, safety risks with it, and I wouldn't want to think that I knew this and my colleagues were unaware of it.
And it was staggering, you know, and again, talk about corruption.
It was sent to the force medic, or whatever he was called, the doctor, who absolutely whitewashed it and just said, yeah, this is perfectly normal inflammation of the thing.
You'd expect that with a vaccine.
And, um, to go any further to research this any further would be, I mean, you know, I'm paraphrasing, but it would basically be too hard, too much like hard work.
So we're not going to change anything.
And, you know, I was staggered and I thought, well, so I replied by at least sort of having the audit trail saying, well, if it subsequently turned out that people had had cardiac issues because of this injection and you knew and you didn't tell them then i think they'd feel quite miffed and um just before i left i i remember an email coming out
with a a notification that if you had had an adverse reaction this was the code that you were supposed to put into the um the system which ran the sort of the employment database which ran all your leave and all the all the various things so i mean it it was absolutely staggering so therefore to go back to the the resignation letter and the you know my tone about That there is no justification for cutting society in two.
And I, you know, I use the word apartheid very deliberately and they could not see it.
It was just, it was, why on earth would people not take a God-given vaccine?
That was the line.
And so, yeah, there was no, we're not going to not police it.
So I said, well, the only other thing was then, well, you can you can see what the Police Federation says, you know, they're the union, you know, are they going to sort of stick up for you or do anything?
And I thought, well, I think I probably know the answer to that.
But I went through the motions and got in touch with them.
And again, same same deal.
Absolutely nothing.
Wouldn't wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
So I said, well, I'm sorry, but, you know, the principle of it is pretty flipping serious.
And I will not be part of a, you know, even though I wasn't, I knew I wasn't going to be down sort of pulling people out of nightclub queues and whatnot, but I wasn't going to be part of an organization that was tasked with doing that and indeed had no line in the sand.
I mean, that was one of my questions.
But further on was, well, where does it stop?
Well, it doesn't.
We will continue to do whatever.
Yeah, it doesn't.
I think what you've established fairly well, fairly convincingly, is that those of us who are awake, we look at the world and go, how can these people not know at this stage?
How can they be so blind?
They must know and they're lying.
I think in most cases it's much simpler than that.
They're under a spell.
They've bought so much propaganda.
I was listening to a podcast that Brian Gerrish was doing.
I haven't done Brian yet.
He's disgraceful, given that he's one of the original gangsters.
And he was describing a conversation with his Friends, neighbours, about how he'd said to them, look, I've spoken to lots of doctors and nurses across the country, and they say that hospitals are really pretty empty at the moment.
And this friend said, no, no, they're not, they're full, they're overstretched.
He said, no, no, no, I've spoken to doctors and nurses with experience of the system, Around the country and they tell me this.
No, no, no, no, no.
The hospitals are overstretched.
And you realize that so many people are just parroting lines that they've said.
I mean, in the same way, my conversation with Tobes the other day about Ukraine.
And he was just regurgitating media talking points about Russian atrocities and Putin being Putla and so on.
You can't penetrate the brains of people who've been brainwashed. - Right.
No, it is amazing.
My start point in those sorts of conversations is sometimes to ask people about an event they can remember being part of that was subsequently reported in the media.
It doesn't have to be an event, but something that they had first-hand experience of that's then reported in the media.
And you ask, was it done accurately?
And the answer is always, no, not at all.
It was absolute rubbish.
They couldn't have been further from the truth.
At which point you say, well, so why is it that you think that anything else in that form of media would be accurate?
And people will see your point and in 90% of cases they will go through the motions of understanding and thinking that they're with you and then they will just revert back to going along with everything else.
It is, I'm afraid, it is perfectly extraordinary.
I think everybody has different reasons for doing it and, you know, Getting outside of your comfort zone is a difficult thing to do.
It really is.
I think for a lot of people who've lived their whole lives depending upon certain sources for reliable information, to suddenly be asked to believe that it's all rubbish is really, really difficult.
Especially when you're part of a group of people that all believe the same thing and it just, you know, it's like picking at a thread and suddenly the whole thing comes apart.
You know, how do you now find a foundation for the friendships that you've had with these people?
What is it now based on?
You know, previously you shared views and opinions and a worldview and now you sort of don't.
It's very difficult.
It's really hard.
It's really hard finding, I find it so hard, finding stuff I can talk about Without getting myself into trouble, you know, when I do, I do tend to drop truth bombs here and there.
But at the same time, one does need the odd topic of conversation, which is neutral, so that you're not always the person who's goading people with with crazy views.
And all I can think of is pretty much great works of literature and hunting.
It can be done.
I think I agree with you.
I mean, it's sort of increasingly hard.
But I think to, I find certainly rather than trying to ram your point of view down other people's throats, I think to ask people how it is that they've arrived at their point of view can be at least a way of not being antagonistic for one,
And certainly for trying to give people room to maneuver in order to allow themselves to see your point of view without having to outright disagree with you because I think that's that is what we've lost and that's what you know you think well I'm sure you could trace it further back but the sort of
The ability to agree to disagree with people that you know and like or don't know or don't particularly like has just evaporated and that went, you know, the build-up to the dreadful EU referendum just stripped that away, you know, the Scots referendum did it, there was no, you could not agree to disagree, it was utterly, the whole thing was completely polarised and therefore horribly vicious.
Charles, you've been absolutely brilliant.
And I heard the sound of tyres on gravel, which means that my wife is back and she's going to be wondering why I haven't prepared supper.
I'm going to be in trouble.
But before I go, I want to say to you, I would love you to have been my company commander.
I would have felt that you weren't going to send me out on stupid missions.
You'd have put some thought into it before you sacrificed me.
And thanks for all your advice.
It's been really great talking.
And I hope I get to meet you at some stage.
Yeah, well that would be wonderful.
But no, thank you very much indeed for having me on.
Thank you to the audience for their forbearance, listening to somebody they will certainly have never heard of.
But no, I think also what I would say as a long-time Deling Pod listener is that your, and I, you know, you are sort of aware of it, but your strength in teasing out these issues that people just have been sort of denied access to has been phenomenal and I think what you're able to do by
By, you know, getting the best out of everybody and bringing out information that is absolutely critical to sort of enhancing the quality of your life is a service that I don't think you get enough credit for.
So I would say that you're doing a fantastic job and I think, you know, we, and I mean people who listen to your podcast, people who think some of the things that we think We will win.
We will get there.
Maybe not collaboratively or collectively, but as individuals and as small communities and families.
And that's where we have to start.
So thank you very much indeed for having me.
It'll be great to meet you sometime.
That's really, and thank you for your really kind words.
One thing I've had to learn is to take compliments gracefully rather than do that thing some people do and they get embarrassed.
Compliments are nice things and I really appreciate it, so thanks.
Charles, where can people find you, read you?
Well, yes, I haven't gone much into the sort of monetisation, commercialisation side of it yet, but I do, I write and podcast for UK Column, which is at ukcolumn.org, and you'll find pieces mostly about policing at the minute, but I do also write about defence, faith and spirituality, and about the environment there.
And then I do have a Telegram channel, the website of which, if you don't use Telegram, is t.me forward slash unbound today.
And if you're on Telegram, therefore, you just look up Unbound Today and that will be my Telegram channel.
So that's where I am at the minute.
Great.
And it only remains to thank all of you lovely viewers and listeners.
Of course, Chelsea's absolutely right.
I am indispensable and you must support me.
You're doing the Lord's work.
So do please continue supporting me, or support me if you don't already, on, I think, Locals is probably the best.
Subscribestar, I'm going to up my literary endeavours there.
Patreon if you want to, Subscribestar, but I don't think you get quite such good access.
Um uh locals um oh yeah buy me a coffee that's always good um thanks very much and thanks again Charles Manner and I'm getting off to cook supper now before I'm getting any more trouble.
