the world's corrupted you need to descend. ah, so join us and the devils all remain in the shallows. ah ah, that emma putins pledge to boost the gas flow to europe. finally take some heat out of the market. it comes up to record breaking price surges. this week, which seems to me, you members questioning brussels energy policies will so on the way pasco, paul's a count to request to the global chemical weapons watchdog. after the u. s. was allowed to question the organization about the alleged poisoning of kremlin critic alex in a volunteer despite the o. p. c. de, we still refusing to cooperate with russia on the account? ah,

a very good evening and thanks for joining me on our t international boiling gas prices have been reduced to more of a sim after intervention from vladimir putin who said that russia will ramp up exports to europe, addressing the continents energy crisis. on wednesday, the president added moscow will continue its commitment to ukraine with regards to gas transit. a solicitation, yes, prom believes that it would be more profitable for it to pay a fine t crate and increase the gas volume pumping through the new systems. but there's no need for that. there's more pressure in the pipe, less c o 2 emissions into the atmosphere. everything turns out cheaper and at $3000000000.00 a year, it is necessary to fully comply with the contractual obligations for the transitive gaster ukraine. although it is more profitable to sell it on the exchange, but there is no need to buy anyone in a difficult position including ukraine despite the difficulties in relations.

second has no need to undermine gas pumps. confidence is an absolute, reliable partner in all respects of. but if it has statements sunday, subsequent let up in the price search have seen some in the mainstream media changing the tone towards the node stream to pipeline. and more generally on russia's role as europe's key energy supply concerns about moscow. celeste attempts to use oil and gas is leverage. they have lessened it. same significantly at russia wants it to be approved. but i don't think much is really doing anything wrong here . you know, europe has a supply crunch, and russia has the gas to supply it. russia does instantly benefit from care in the market. they want high stable prices, and they want to be seen as the reliable partner. some are words soothing words i guess which we rarely get from mr. potent actually helped reverse that. 3540 percent jump over night in natural gas over in europe. desson element of,

of ross are playing politics but is also an element of a lot of money having been invested in noise being do not just on the russian side from the european side as well. going german chancellor angle america has been vocal in support of russia as a supplied partner. speaking at an e u. balkan summit in savannah, she stressed moscow's always stuck to its contractual obligations. the fog. it is a gift of, if you ask me whether there have been orders that russia has taken and then fail to fulfil as it stands. now, that is not the case. various, there are no orders that russia has said no, we will not deliver those to you, and we are not pumping gas through the ukrainian pipeline. rather, russia can only fulfill orders that have been contract it out. so the questions really isn't have been ordered. the russian leader also put the current crisis in the european gas market. down to the e use rushed push for a green transition, coupled with brussels decision to switch from long term gas contracts to immediate

spot trading. the current volatility can be traced back to april of this year, but it came to a head this week, maybe european citizens to delve yet deeper into already strained pockets. ah. maintaining a trusted energy partnership between russia and europe is a key focus of an international gas forum that's taking place in st. petersburg,

st. i. 3 of the gathering on correspondingly patrol carriers that are on the side lines. he called it with the seo of the association of european businesses as tunzia shilling. in the end, a pragmatism prevailed. it also showed that the interests of different stakeholders need to be taken into account. there is no sense in insisting on a, on one perspective and denying the to the fact that others view a project differently you need to sit together. so we'd also showed the need for international cooperation the, the fact that now the stalemate has been overcome. and that we have avoided a complete blockage of the project is actually very good news. as europe, as a suit association of european businesses, we've also always been very clear that we are against the application of sanctions,

especially in an extra territorial perspective that we think this is a purely commercial project. and we also think that the european energy security, something that should be decided in europe natural gas has an actually tremendous role to play as a transition shoe. we are here talking now about the traditional fuel makes that we need to move away from and move to greener an energy sources. but there is also a way how we need to bridge this process between a status that is the current status and, and out of future desires status. well, in the wake of the gas price surge, spain said the european commission should negotiate gas strong contracts on behalf of all a member states instead of the present system where individual nations agree their own contracts. the proposal our government is making is that the you commission

negotiates on behalf of all 27 member states. what we propose is a strength and co operation. how of another everybody is happy with madrid's proposal critic say that it encroaches on the sovereignty of individual states. alternative for germany party m e p gunner back believes that the scheme would run contrary to the use own current rules. it clearly contravene article $194.00 of the e treaties. there is a very bad habit on the part of the institutions themselves, as well as many been to stay to disregard its own goal. they think their national interest justifies a breach of the treaty. they don't hesitate to ask others to disregard the treaty. now as a purely hypothetical scenario, if the treaty didn't dis allied would i support this proposal?

when it depends on the perspective, isn't necessarily sensible for a country to shy it's energy supplies with everyone else. this pretty little sort of devotee of the power to bother you repeat countries with germany generally. so i'm not sure i bought a solution. on the other hand, what is the german government likely to because it ever has any regard fritz, a country's national interest. it's quite conceivable that the german government will choose to disregard the treaty and do what isn't in its own country's interest . russia's foreign ministry has filed a counter request to the o, p c. w. that's after the united states and 44 other countries officially submitted

to list of questions to the body, demanding the most can give details about the alleged poisoning of kremlin critic alex in a valet. russia says several times that the global chemical weapons watched august plant. they refusing to cooperate any one who calls on russia to conduct an investigation incorporation with the o. p. c. w. into what happened to miss in a valley meets to once again, be reminded of the facts. a year ago, russia replied to the technical secretariat of the o, p. c. w, for technical assistance under article 8 of the convention. but we never got any help. in august of last year, the only fell ill on an internal flight to moscow. after an emergency landing, he was taken the hospital and in placed in an induced coma. he was subsequently airlifted to germany. that was at the request of his family. doctor's in berlin said in the valley, been exposed to the navi chalk, nerve agent, and ultimately blamed the russian government. both russian officials and medical professionals who treat in the valley claimed no poisonous substances were even

detected in his body while he was in the russian hospital. moscow repeatedly ass, both germany and the o. p. c, w for a joint investigation or to making a recovery. alexson of ali returned to moscow where he was arrested and sentenced to t is in jail for breaking his parole conditions. in a corruption case. we spoke with a russian representative to the o. p. c. w. alexander shogun, who gave us 1st hand information on the latest of elements ah obsidian state. there's a feeling that something else ah, that goals a driving them judge for yourself today i was not allowed to speak for more than an hour. the pretext were different. for example, the absence of the bulgarian representative who should have been great in the appeal of 45 countries, i asked the ambassadors of the united states, great britain to britney not want to hear the answer from russia. there was no desire to listen to us. apparently of the goals are being pursued, it is possible that his whole story is connected with the escalation of sanctions

prussia look ah, we wanted to do a joint investigation and what do you think the technical secretariat began to drag out the whole thing? one of the excuses was that there were no similar incidents from the u. k. all the u. s. were putting forward a counter request within the same framework and expect that from sweden and the technical secretariat will never last ounce of the same questions that we asked earlier. we close this subject with the request from 45 countries and sent a counter request. the bowl is on their side. ah, now just give me some nato countries of working with substances called navi chalk. i recall the statements of the check president who said in his country there were laboratories where work is carried out with the substance called a tooth trio which can be attributed to navi chuck, the pretty side admitted that in their potent down laboratory work was carried out with substances from the family of navi choke the united states is the only country

that is not freed itself from chemical weapons. 140 peyton's had been developed there for the use of ammunition that contains chemical warfare agents such as no v choke. a facebook whistleblower is being accused of by a suffix, discovered that she has ties to. the democrats becomes days after. she said that the company was harming children and stoking divisions in an impassioned play. she made to congress, calling for a crackdown on the social media giant that i am here to day because i believe facebook's products harm children, stoked division and week in our democracy. the companies leadership knows how to make facebook and instagram saver a won't make the necessary changes because they have put their astronomical prophets afore people. congressional action is needed. they won't solve this crisis without your help. or francis, how can is being represented by

a co founder of whistle blower aid. thus john ty, himself a former official in the a bomber administration. the other co founder of the organization that helps whistle blows with legal aid. his mach zayed, he was a legal ret, filings under st. vincent men, who though it was a white house staffer who spoke donald trump's 1st impeachment. what's more, it turns out that france is how gunners regulated donated to democrat affiliated organizations all working to get more democratic candidates elected in america, legal media. unless loanable is, that's how guns, sudden appearance rings some alarm bells they, these are the greatest actors in the world. what they need to do was very simply that you have to view these, these platforms as a your tell any unique role. what if you're on your phone and all of that because really the issue was about censorship. that's really the biggest issue. yes, there are ways to get around it to protect children with, with, with different,

a screening devices in the light. but the real issue, the gravamen, the, the 64000 alec. why can just one of our people and coding of former president of the united states who are excluded an expert gated bowdlerized from any kind of public conversation. because of who he is is that's the issue. whether she's a legitimate whistleblower, i don't know what a legitimate whistleblower is. i don't know the thing about her. it is interesting how she came out of nowhere. and i know there's a lot of interest as to who she is and where did she come from? man, why did she get blue checked so quickly and she was, she just started twitter on october. now that doesn't mean anything in and of itself. but there's a lot of people who are saying, well, this is interesting. still to come facing up to the risks it poses the a you moves to ban police forces across the block from using facial recognition

systems in public places where we're debating the issues involved after their short break ah policy makers in the federal reserve bank and jo bye to the present. thanks. america is so freaking stupid that they can make them believe that picking up a worthless shiny round object. and going hocus pocus over it magically turns it into a trillion dollars. that that again, can deposit that at the federal reserve or the treasury to somehow mitigate that $300000000.00 debt crisis. numeracy on the internet. the allows olu problems and much was about to invite everybody's lloyd. that wasn't

a glitch. that was the feature that the people who does owens the internet is owned by it as a feature. join me every thursday on the alex salmon show, but i'll be speaking to guess in the world of politics, sport, business, i'm show business. i'll see you then. oh, well, come back. thank you. parliament has passed a resolution to ban police forces from using controversial facial recognition systems in public places. some i me pace quoted, a huge win full european citizens. that's an important step in fighting against my surveillance, the central and eastern europeans used to live under the eye of the big brother. and we don't want to come back. facial recognition is

a controversial practice and involves the use of ai tools by the police to stop crime algorithms is biometrics to map out facial features captured in a video still or a photograph. the information is then compared to a database of faces, but critics points to concerns about privacy rights being violated, and the potential for false matches and mounting worries about house. it systems could be abused. the city of san francisco band, by magic surveillance back in 2019, and francisco became the 1st city in america to enact a complete ban. several other big cities like boston and minneapolis followed the lead san francisco authority member or on pesci. believe it's important not to overstep the life. this is really about saying we can have security without being a security state. we can have good policing without being a police state. and part of that is building trust with the community based on good community information, not on big brother technology or the

e. y ban runs counter to the policies of some of its members states which are keen on the use of the technology. police forces in several countries have long been against any restrictions claiming it's a useful additional tool in the fight against crime and not relied on solely as much as politicians suggests. they also site, it's helping, catching drug dealers solving murders and finding missing people. okay, let's sir discuss this complex issue with a couple of guess. we got senior research fellow, it leads beckett university's law school of us, david low and also retired police officer. dominic is a welcome to both gentlemen. ah, if i may, david, come to you 1st. we'll start with a simple one. we heard an m e p saying that this was good news for european citizens, but is it also good news for you or being criminals? this is good news. we are being criminals and terrorists and i think our terrorist

threat both in europe and now north america since what happened in afghan is down a bit of issue that the moment we are heading that way in the medium term to greater terrorist threat. so, you know, it is one of those issues. when i look at the european unit, which is again the european using the, i think the sort of a 27 member states, not every european. and i think i remember this with electronic communications of the, i don't know what it is with the, you know, when the legislative, you look at the charts of fundamental rights and freedoms not allow states to get involved. then you looked at the case of the call to justice europe in union. it was virtually festering police and security serves ability in particular to deal with terrorism and organized crime. i think facial recognition for serious organize trying my trafficking, kidnapping, child abduction of the terrorism. that's all it's for, and i think you need to say good legislation with safeguards, protecting privacy,

which in europe or the conventions. article of the european convention human rights . and having also some sort of judicial scrutiny on collateral data that's collected. if you have trouble legislation, then it is one of those weights used amongst all the tools for investigators. it won't be the so i think we have to be realistic and saying it will be a great addition. but as i said i was police were using it now supreme court stopped it because we haven't got sufficient safeguards or legislation to cover dominic when you are serving police officer. would you like to have this in as one of the tools at your disposal this have helped to catch more criminals? no, there's a great saying in law enforcement that when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. and all this does, it may have the great grand scheme idea of us. you're going after some very serious offences like child sex trafficking, a missing persons or

a terrorist activity. but i don't care who says what it will always be used down to your lowest common denominator, which is your citizen. and it will be abused like crazy. you're then actively putting a tool in the police's hands to look for crimes proactively in the wrong way. i think this is just, this is a door that's going to be open for some very abusive authority. i don't think it's a good idea and it should have put police in this mindset of that everybody is a criminal. we need to look at everybody as, as being a bad guy, so to speak. and we're going to use this technology for our favor. as i mentioned, the fact technology usually dumbs down law enforcement ability. any time they come up with a new tool, like the taser, when you have something that's used to be on the streets, wind up having cops more effectively in their air, use a force scale, so to speak. it takes away from their, their skill sets like their verbal dialogue, their ability to talk to people, their ability to effectively use their hands and body mechanics and rely on that one tool. so the more the technology comes along,

the more than it hinders the police, and it does white of aiding a criminal element, but not the way people thank. just want to pick up on something that you mentioned, david, you talked about, you know, disney's good robust legislation. mean, if we look at the, the performance of the big tech companies. and this is kind of like as a similar thing, we're talking about the use of technology again here. i'm not sure how many people trust that those big tech companies are faithful to all the trust that is placed in them to act in a legal and unethical manner. with private citizen cert, personal data to really trust that this information would not be abused and actually won't just end up with citizens movements being tracked from the moment. they leave the house to the moment they come back and, and basically there's a huge database of, of our lives will be compiled. yeah, obviously this is where i have a concern. what was interesting name there? i think if you did look, i mean i'm talking about dealing serious organized crime too much trafficking. i'm not about dealing with cs, drug trafficking, those type of fences in terrorism. and i think the point that was made there, but you know, it's only allowing, like counter terrorism agencies,

policing agencies here in the u. k. will be like the national crime one, you know, a big agency. those things you wouldn't give it to have a police force. it was like when we were in the european union, shang and information system, which was a database that wasn't available to every police force in the u. k. there was only a certain officer and certain departments and i, i'm not sure about taste. we've had stays in the u. k, but we still hear as do most european forces. they still use open hand and actually talk to individuals before they resort the like to places and sell. so i'm not too sure the argument will go. it's got to be about serious crime, but you're right. it's about giving who has access. where's the data stored? and also destroying data that has that the intelligence on it. and it's making sure those safeguards in place. and that's why i said, you need judicial scrutiny. i could do different commissioner that you have for it

. and certainly, no, the states look at the surveillance of electronic communications, scrutinizing this all the time, have to be off ortiz, on unlimited grounds. it's given. so wouldn't be car plans to have the police force every police officer. i would agree with that because then it could be misused. stillman, again, you made your point very clear that some of the concerns that you have, if, as david suggested this was for, for just very serious crime units. for example, trafficking terrorism. i mean, isn't the technology really already happening in a form? it wouldn't officers be looking at c c t, v cameras and trying to slowly. busy sort of piece together the movements of an individual would this not just like that process much more rapidly? carried out he would automated effectively. i would understand that you would save police officers know if a lot of manpower a lot of time, would it not then effectively just make me the whole process, which is already in effect, more efficient. i. i agree with david completely,

you're going get no argument for me at all. it everything he said is completely accurate. i just happen all of them in the united states. we're, we're abuse, we just abuse. so if it was, if it was utilized and executed for what it was written up more than a 100 percent of an oversight was proper on that i think would be a great tool. i think that, but we just, we always take something that's, that's meant to be some way and, and we just, we water it down and we abuse it. and that's, i'm guessing that too many times in law enforcement, where you'll get something as simple as you know, we do roadside safety checks out here in the united states. right? roadside safety checks to make sure everyone's wearing their seat belts. everybody's all got their driver's license insurance. what are we really hunting for? do you eyes drugs and contraband? so you know, we're, we're transparent to our citizens that i'm ok with anything. i think david sums it up perfectly. he gets no argument from me whatsoever. and i think if it was used for what he had said, a 100 percent would be great. would you be concerned ivy that this is just going to be one of those opportunities for all going police organizations to say,

you know what, we can get rid of some of our staff, hey, we're not going to need them. we can just use this automated system is actually cheaper and that society will be the ones that lose out by not having, as we used to say that bobby's on the bait that the policeman on the strays no, i don't think so. i think it's an additional tool you looked at, certainly the investigations i'm talking about how complex the and i would say in my previous experience when i was a police officer before retiring counter terrorism was my last posting. and you know, he was, i was seeing that this sort of march of technology then it's vance lately, since i've retired and i've kept in touch with former colleagues, hasn't replaced those colleagues. what it is is tools to help them in their job because we look at how for criminals upgrade, certainly those and both with organized crime and totally separate. they offer very covert matters. they have their own methods of trade crafts. so we can avoid

surveillance. all of them monitoring their movements, so it's not taking that away. and as i said, you look at policing policing is just a massive roll from everything from public order, community, neighborhood policing. i don't think it be replacing them and i think that's that's what could be a concern for some i don't think it would replace the neighborhood officer dominic e talked about jo concerns that this would go down to the lowest common denominator let's. let's assume that the system was brought in. so as i understand it, in theory, every citizen would have a potentially a database compiled of the every move. now maybe that would never be accessed if people don't bring themselves into suspicion. but wouldn't that be something that will be on everybody's mind, that in theory, just a couple of clicks away. somebody could track your every move and go back over the last 6 months or whatever. and they could know exactly the ins and outs of every element of your life. a lot of people wouldn't want anybody knowing those details as a 100 percent accurate. we live that now with our phones. we have compiled data in

law enforcement, you know, would depends upon your, your country in your state, your statute of limitations. if you're compiling that data, well, what's to make it? well, what's to make it say that it doesn't go all the way down. so again, the lowest common denominator, which is the citizen and a detective, or a street cop, shriek op as a bad day. and he wants to go through all the backlog of your activity for the last 6 months and charge you for a crime that you committed 34 months ago. i'm stretching it, but again, it has to be covered because that's a possibility. it's just dangerous. i think if it's, again david gets actually 0 argument with for me, whatever he spot on, if it's used it to that level. great. but we just happen to know, especially out in my area, you know, in the united states we take something we say what something is for. and there's a lot of times it's abuse and it's not use what they said. it was for a david o, we being luddite, sir, in the sense that you know, technology, we always resist it and it always finds a way of making its way into, into the modern life. i'm is, is it not just an inevitability?

this will happen. i think, yeah, it says good point you make their nail is whether we are low dates and that because there's always the fear of something. and that's why i think if you look at things, incrementally tested, properly selected the right area. i'm in the area of investigation as well. not just a geographical area. i'm molly correct. and luckily effectiveness, i think that is the way forward. so incrementally introduce it as a said, he's got to be good legislation, a straight behind has that balance right? of, you know, looking at the security of the state, protecting and preventing serious crime as well as protecting citizens rights as a sad story of data, destruction of data and judicial supervision. if you've got those things in place, you know that and, and if we do internationally, as i look at other legislation, whether it's comparative legislation between western states in particular has been

effective. that could be a way for what we're going to do incrementally. i think just it just a big bang and here we are. i don't think that will be the way forward on that. also do the incrementally but increase. perhaps trust them, they'll always be those who never trust when they always think they're being watched. perhaps to see too many too much fiction in films and television. but, you know, we, we have to have a point where most people say we are, well i can trust in this. well, i want to for, i want to be safe. i want, you know, that's the important point. you know, we talk the human rights article to him in your right to life. that's the most important human right. to preserve all chance love to wrap it up. i'm afraid, really enjoy speaking to you. but i think getting your views senior research fellow leads back at university little school david low on my left, that retired place of that on the case. i'm on the right. thanks back.