Editor's note: Click on the images to zoom in.
On 20 May 2026, Actionable Truth Media published a discussion with former UK Column freelance contributors Debi Evans and Sandi Adams.
The discussion contained serious fabrications and complete perversions of the truth. As an initial response to the broadcast, UK Column must make it very clear that the allegations made are refuted in their entirety. The attacks made, many of which are extremely personal, are unfounded, unsubstantiated, and appear to betray an intent to harm the UK Column, the individuals running it, and the members supporting it. With regard to any further course of action, advice is being taken.
Host Michael Ginsburg made an attempt, and failed, to define a timeline of events. The problem is that when dealing with untruths, it becomes extremely difficult to challenge assertions without making the interviewee look silly.
The Ginsburg interview took the form of yet another 'investigation' into the association of Marcel Jahnke with UK Column in order to confirm the bias that the relationship is somehow ‘improper’. There appears to be a clear determination by a small clique within the so-called alternative media space to tarnish the reputation of Marcel, and any individual or organisation he has so generously supported over the years. It is up to the reader to decide the motivations for this, which may include bitterness, jealousy, or even, in this case, an organised effort to destroy UK Column. UK Column is ruling out none of these possibilities.
Allegation No. 1
The discussion begins with Debi Evans’ claim that she was unceremoniously “booted out” of her “job” with UK Column.
Debi Evans was never an employee. She was a freelance contributor. Here is an example invoice to demonstrate the relationship:
Having been initially very welcoming, Debi became extremely suspicious of Charles Malet shortly after he began working with UK Column. There was never any rational explanation for her suspicions. As 2024 progressed, and no progress was being made in her efforts to poison people's minds against Charles, or in her efforts to play team members off against each other, her focus shifted for a time onto Ben Rubin and then onto Diane Rasmussen. At various points, Debi refused to work with Ben and Diane, and she behaved in a very unpleasant manner towards both. Eventually, inevitably, the focus returned to Charles.
The UK Column management team invested significant time and effort in mitigating Debi’s unacceptable behaviour. Looking back on it, the management response to her complete lack of professionalism and her deliberate trouble-making should have come much sooner.
It was made clear to all staff during the first team meeting of 2025 that the behaviour displayed in the course of the previous year would not be accepted.
Yet within a few days, Debi began to play the same mind games once again. Following several efforts to resolve the issues, the following email was sent to her:
Note that the email states: “until such times”. Even at this stage, efforts were made to resolve whatever issues Debi had.
Debi responded with a letter asking for clarification of her employment status within the organisation. The following email was sent, answering her queries and terminating her freelance relationship with UK Column:
Debi was not “booted out”. The UK Column management team worked for over a year in an attempt to keep her on board as a freelance contributor, and all the while members of staff demonstrated huge restraint and patience dealing with her often disgusting personal attacks.
Allegation No. 1: FALSE
Allegation No. 2
In the course of the discussion with Ginsburg, Sandi Adams made the claim that the UK Column events manager, Jemma Cooper, had “brought Marcel Jahnke to the UK Column”.
For those unaware, long-time UK Column member Marcel Jahnke became a 20% shareholder of UK Column's operating company, Akita Media Ltd, in 2025. He has since made a significant financial contribution in the form of a shareholder loan, which has enabled the UK Column to develop much more quickly than would otherwise have been possible.
While it is true that Jemma was aware of who Marcel is though their past association with TNT Radio, Jemma could have played no part in “bringing Marcel to the UK Column” since she was not working with us, nor in communication with us, when discussions with Marcel began. Jemma was employed in April 2025. The first face-to-face meeting with Marcel took place in the autumn of 2024.
Moreover, Marcel had been a UK Column member for several years before Jemma was employed as events manager in April 2025. Charles and Marcel had exchanged emails on a regular basis in early 2024, in relation to permaculture.
The fact is that it was Mike Robinson who suggested contact with Marcel in the first instance, primarily to thank him in person for the amazing monthly donation he was making at that time, and also to invite Marcel to the Bristol UK Column On Location event. Charles Malet was asked to make the invitation specifically because Charles had made clear he would be visiting Hong Kong on holiday later in the year and may have the opportunity to meet with Marcel there.
Allegation No. 2: FALSE
Allegation No. 3
During the interview, Debi Evans was asked by Ginsburg about whether or not there had been an editorial shift at some point during her time as a UK Column contributor. It is likely he was hoping that she would say that an editorial shift occurred around the same time that Marcel Jahnke became a shareholder.
Unfortunately for such a narrative, Debi's response focussed on Charles Malet, who had joined the UK Column formally in early 2024, a year before Marcel Jahnke's financial involvement.
What Debi was apparently unable to do in the midst of her untruths was to explain the nature of this alleged editorial shift. This is hardly surprising.
The fact is that any time there are new people joining a media organisation as small as the UK Column, there will be some kind of editorial shift. New voices mean new perspectives. In the course of 2024 and 2025, Charles Malet, Ben Rubin, and Diane Rasmussen all contributed to a shift in emphasis.
Everyone in the production team, including external contributors like Patrick Henningsen, Vanessa Beeley, Basil Valentine, and others who are not part of the core team, has a say in the stories the UK Column cover and the way they are covered.
The one person who has no say editorially is Marcel Jahnke, and at no stage has he ever asked for such editorial control.
The running sub-theme in the course of the interview was that Marcel is forcing a pro-China position on the UK Column. Anyone who believes that hasn't been paying attention. As an example, Mike Robinson’s position on China hasn’t changed significantly for a decade and reflects a recognition that the UK public is subject to a sustained pro-war propaganda campaign focussed on China, Russia, and Iran which needs to be challenged.
It should be made clear, however, that Mike’s personal position on China does not equal UK Column editorial policy. Vanessa Beeley's China coverage, for example, is openly critical, and is becoming increasingly so. Vanessa has already stated on multiple occasions that the UK Column has at no point asked for, or demanded, any softening of her position.
Where the UK Column’s editorial line is crossed is if or when a contributor unquestioningly repeats unevidenced social media-informed talking points, which in all likelihood originate with state-run pro-war propaganda operations.
In a related editorial question, Debi made the claim in the interview that the UK Column spiked the final episode in the Green King video series because she was “exposing characters” from Eton College and further claimed that this was somehow connected to the fact that Charles Malet had arranged for Brian Gerrish to give a presentation there, and therefore the UK Column didn't want to publish that exposure. In fact, the Journalism Society at Eton College had made a specific request that Brian Gerrish speak to them about the UK Column. Given his connections to both Eton College and the UK Column, Charles Malet was asked to act as conduit for that request.
In fact, the Green King episode was spiked because of Debi’s lack of evidence about the target of her Green King research and the resulting libel risk. That decision had nothing whatsoever to do with Eton and Charles Malet took no part in the ‘spiking’.
Any responsible media organisation, including the UK Column, has to be sure of its facts and have the evidence to back them. Debi did not have that evidence and was blasé about libel risks to the UK Column.
Her claim that the “final episode of the Green King was spiked because she was exposing characters from Eton” is therefore untrue, and another smear seemingly aimed at Charles Malet.
Allegation No. 3: FALSE
Allegation No. 4
In the interview, Sandi Adams stated that there was secrecy around the circumstances of Debi’s departure. This is untrue, as evidenced by this internal email:
Freelance or not, UK Column has a duty of confidentiality when it comes to disciplinary matters. Significant care was taken to decide how to communicate the dismissal to the UK Column membership.
Debi claimed in the Ginsburg interview that the subsequent UK Column statement about her departure from the organisation said that she had ‘left’.
As can be seen from the forum post above, Debi was not described as having 'left'. There was a clear intention that the specific circumstances of her departure would remain confidential, even in the face of sustained demands from UK Column members that they were entitled to know.
Members’ demands were resisted until such times as Debi made a public statement, which she did on or around 15 Feb 2025. As a result, it was felt that the additional statement in the above forum post was appropriate.
Allegation No. 4: FALSE
Allegation No. 5
Sandi Adams infers during the interview that she was offered a ‘job’ with UK Column. This is not the case. She was asked if she would like to make contributions to the UK Column News programme on a freelance basis.
Sandi Adams complained that news production is stressful. That's one of the first true statements she had made by this point. News production is stressful. Deadlines are tight, and early preparation is not really possible because events move so quickly. It is unclear what she expected.
She also complained she received no training. Untrue.
Allegation No. 5: FALSE
Allegation No. 6
Sandi Adams stated that she and Mike Robinson attended a private screening of Mark Sharman's fantastic documentary The Agenda: Their Vision | Your Future.
Sandi claimed that once the film was over, that Mike said, “I can't have anything to do with this film” because it contains criticism of China. She claimed he “went ballistic”, and that he said that having recently been to China himself, “it's free; there is no social credit”.
The fact is that at the end of the film, Mike Robinson told Mark Sharman and Phil Wiseman that he thought their film was superb. He explained that the only minor issue for him was the question of social credit, on the basis that the framing of this as 'Chinese' was not quite right. He also made it clear that this was so far from being a deal-breaker that they shouldn’t worry too much about it.
Mike Robinson then — and this is critical — offered to host the film for them. Mark Sharman was considering how to distribute the film, and Mike suggested that UK Column could charge a fee for people to view so that he could recoup at least some of the cost of production.
The intention for that proposal was that Mark should receive all the funds raised, while UK Column would benefit from the marketing potential provided from the hosting of the film. Mike Robinson was completely comfortable with that film being associated with UK Column.
In the end, Mark preferred to get the film to as wide an audience as possible and keep it free of charge.
Mike Robinson has spoken to Phil Wiseman since the Ginsburg interview was published to confirm that his recollection of what took place at the screening is correct. But in any case, if what Sandi claimed were true, and Mike had reacted in the way she claimed, is it likely that Phil Wiseman would have been willing to film and livestream UK Column On Location events which all took place after this private viewing? Would he have agreed to record and edit all the fantastic promotional films that he and Jemma Cooper have produced for UK Column over the past couple of years?
Allegation No. 6: FALSE
Allegation No. 7
At this point in the interview, things begin to get very personal, with a clear attempt to throw Jemma Cooper under the bus.
Sandi Adams alleged that Jemma had told her that she had a 'love-hate' relationship with the UK Column and that she didn't like the way UK Column operated.
Even if Jemma said this to Sandi, so what? It’s completely understandable.
Working for the UK Column is mostly massive fun. But it is also often high pressure.
Improvements can be frustratingly slow because improvements can only happen in between the hamster wheel of the news and interview production cycle. A lot of what UK Column does involves shortcuts and workarounds, which is the only way we can get the job done with the resources we have. UK Column team members receive some really fantastically positive and supportive feedback, and some real unpleasantness. This can very easily add up to a ‘love-hate’ relationship.
It would be reasonable to assume that in Sandi, Jemma found someone she thought she could trust and with whom she could maybe vent a little.
The fact is that Jemma did nothing but support Sandi, and played no part in Sandi eventually leaving the UK Column. For her to be attacked in this way is a poor return for that support.
Allegation No. 7: DESPICABLE
Allegation No. 8
Sandi Adams complained about an episode of UK Column News Extra, where the conversation became a little heated, and in the course of which she found herself being challenged on the views she was expressing.
During the Ginsburg interview, she claimed two things. Firstly, she claimed that Mike Robinson said that “you're not getting it, Sandi ... migrants are being treated like Jews in the 1930s”.
And secondly, she claimed that the discussion that day was a planned attack on her by Mike, Charles Malet, and Vanessa Beeley.
The first is untrue. What Mike said right at the beginning of the programme with respect to people being deported from the US to El Salvador prisons with zero due process was:
What I'm saying the US regime is doing at the moment reminds me a lot of 1930s Germany, that'd be one point. The other point I would make is though, the reaction from the general public to this … they still view the Administration as being something heroic, and they are prepared to because they may not particularly agree with the — or they may not find themselves as natural allies with the people that are on the receiving end of this behaviour.(...) They seem to think that it's acceptable. And of course, this is exactly the type of thing that happened in 1930s Germany as well. And we all know where that led.
Twenty minutes later, in a completely different context, Mike said to Sandi, “No, you're still not quite grasp — I don't think you're still grasping what I'm saying”.
The two comments were completely separate. Mike said nothing about migrants being treated like Jews. In fact, the word 'Jew' was not mentioned once in the entire programme.
Anyone who is a UK Column member can go and watch again and confirm this.
The second is also totally untrue. There was no “planned attack”. In fact, Charles' first words were, “I think there might have been ... I see that you're actually talking about the same thing. I don't think there's a disagreement here”.
Sandi also claimed that Mike Robinson called her at 10:30pm that evening to apologise about what happened in Extra that day. This is true. She also stated that he called her “like a little boy” to let her know, “I got it completely wrong”. This is absolutely untrue. Contrary to her allegation in the interview, Mike called to apologise for how he handled the conversation, not at all for the opinions he expressed.
Allegation No. 8: FALSE
Allegation No. 9
Both Debi Evans and Sandi Adams claimed that Mike Robinson doesn't “hold the UK in high regard”. Sandi went as far as to say that he believes the UK should be “destroyed because of the City of London”.
Mike Robinson has never expressed such a view, either publicly or privately.
Allegation No. 9: FALSE
Allegation No. 10
Now the interview turned to the February 2026 UK Column trip to China as guests of Marcel Jahnke, attended by four members of staff.
Marcel had invited UK Column staff and contributors to visit Chongqing for his Chinese natural medicine company's annual dinner and prize giving. He had invited several of the individuals and organisations he is supporting.
In the interview, Sandi claimed she was reluctant to go. She claimed that at first she “thought it would be quite interesting to sort of spy on it all”.
Then, she said, she thought, “I don't want to do this”, and so she sent her passport to Charles “three days late”.
This claim is not credible. If someone has no intention to go somewhere, why do they send their passport at all, never mind three days late?
In fact, Sandi was “very happy” to go to China.
And very disappointed to have missed the deadline for getting her passport to the UK Column.
The second part of this allegation was Sandi's claim that UK Column staff were “really panicking because they didn't know how they were going to do the news from China”. She went on to claim that Mike Robinson and Charles Malet had broadcast live from China.
These claims are absolutely untrue. There was no panic. As normally happens when any team members are away on holiday or on business, someone else, in this case Brian Gerrish, stepped in to cover for the absent staff. Mike Robinson and Charles Malet pre-recorded material while they were in China for the news programme. No panic, no live broadcast from China.
Allegation No. 10: FALSE
Allegation No. 11
Apparently, Mike Robinson is not the only UK Column director who “goes ballistic”. According to Sandi Adams, Charles Malet “went ballistic” when Sandi suggested that UK Column live-stream the London farmers’ protest.
And this is where we move from simple untruths to something really clearly libellous. Sandi Adams accused Charles Malet of causing the police reversal on the decision to allow tractors into London. She accused Charles of being some kind of informant “because he is the only person I told”.
Viewers of the interview are asked to believe that she alone was in possession of information so sensitive that it would change a decision made by the upper echelons of the Metropolitan Police Service and that, had she not disclosed this to Charles Malet, the protest would have gone ahead as planned.
Allegation No. 11: FALSE
Allegation No. 12
Finally, Sandi Adams addresses her reasons for leaving UK Column. Recordings from the farmers’ protest took so long to be edited, she said, and “that's when I decided I'm done with UKC”. This is once again completely untrue.
The UK Column uses a platform called Riverside to record interviews with people over the internet. The reason is a technical one: Riverside records the audio and video of the participants on their own computers and then uploads those recordings to a central server once the interview is complete. By doing this, we get the best quality recordings we can.
When the interview is complete, it is important that participants don't close their browser window until the upload is done.
In this case, one of the farmers being interviewed had not waited for the upload to complete, and we only had 30% of his contribution. This made the video impossible to edit.
We tried to contact the interviewee, got no response, and asked Sandi to see what she could do.
It took a further two weeks for that message to be received and for the upload to complete. We edited the video and the video was broadcast.
In fact, in Sandi Adams’ resignation email, she stated clearly her reasons for leaving — to concentrate on her own projects.
At no point did Sandi Adams, verbally or in writing, state to the UK Column that the farmer interview had any bearing on her decision to leave.
Allegation No. 12: FALSE
Conclusion
It is deeply regrettable that the UK Column has had to write this rebuttal. For the UK Column, it is utterly reprehensible that Debi Evans in particular appears so determined to try and destroy its reputation. This betrayal is particularly galling for Brian Gerrish, who provided an enormous amount of support to Debi Evans. Brian made a number of monetary payments to her, totalling just under £2,000. These were freely given as gifts from his own personal resources to assist Debi and her family, and to help her move out of the benefits trap.
But worst of all is the manner in which both Debi and Sandi were prepared to manipulate the truth, assume bad faith, and infer connections and ulterior motives where none exist. That has come as a shock. There have been a significant number of attacks on the UK Column over the years, none of which has been dignified with a response. However, a line has been crossed in this instance by two individuals who were trusted to act in the best interests of the organisation and the members who support it. This trust has been betrayed in such a way as to suggest a wilful campaign to damage the UK Column, in both a reputational and financial manner.
Finally, it should be pointed out that contrary to his claims, Michael Ginsburg of Actionable Truth Media has made no attempt to engage in direct communication with the UK Column in relation to this published discussion. He challenged none of the many inconsistencies in the narratives of the two women, nor did he seek substantiation of the allegations made. Nonetheless, he decided to broadcast the discussion, which raises a number of questions about his agenda and what sort of due diligence was conducted on Debi Evans and Sandi Adams.
