Starmer Announces Yet More Censorship

 Even more censorship is on the way. The Government has announced plans to force AI chatbots to comply with malicious communications laws – and to give itself Orwellian powers to bring in yet more speech restrictions without Parliamentary oversight. Toby writes about the moves in the Telegraph.

The Government intends to bring forward amendments of its own to the schools Bill that will supposedly close a loophole in the Online Safety Act to make sure AI chatbots comply with Britain’s draconian censorship laws. That will mean that if Grok says something in response to a user prompt that breaches, say, the Malicious Communications Act 1988, which was designed to protect women from obscene phone calls, Ofcom can fine its parent company £18 million or 10% of its annual global turnover. Whichever is the highest.

This will be the death knell of Britain’s burgeoning AI sector, particularly as chatbots become more autonomous. What tech entrepreneur will risk setting up an AI company in the UK, knowing that if a chatbot shares an anti-immigration meme or misgenders a trans person, it could mean a swingeing fine?

Indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised if xAI, along with OpenAI and Anthropic, decide to withdraw access to their chatbots from UK residents. At the very least, we’ll be saddled with lobotomised versions that trot out progressive bromides whenever they’re asked a political question.

In addition, the Government has said it will pass a new law to stop children sending or receiving nude images. Needless to say, that’s already a criminal offence under the Protection of Children Act 1978, so what does the Government have in mind?

It has not said, but I fear it means embedding surveillance software in every smartphone to enable the authorities to monitor users’ activity, no doubt accompanied by mandatory digital ID so no one will be able to hide. Not even the People’s Republic of China does that.

The Government unveiled some other Orwellian measures, but rather than bring them in as revisions to the schools Bill, it will put through amendments that will enable it to make further changes to Britain’s censorship regime via secondary legislation, i.e., it will grant itself sweeping Henry VIII powers.

It’s worth bearing in mind that secondary legislation cannot be amended and allows little time for debate. The Government’s excessive reliance on secondary legislation has been criticised by the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee....<<<Read More>>>...

They Said it Was to Protect Kids. Now Your Passport’s on the Dark Web – and Your NHS Record is Next

On July 25th 2025, the Online Safety Act’s children’s safety duties came into force, and the British internet changed overnight. 

Parliament had intended to shield children from pornography, self-harm forums and algorithmic bullying. Instead, it required every major platform likely to be accessed by under-18s to implement “highly effective” age verification for harmful content, on pain of fines up to 10% of global turnover. 

Ofcom, newly armed with the powers of a financial regulator, wasted no time. Within hours, Reddit demanded facial scans or government ID for NSFW sections — those areas of the site marked ‘not safe for work’, containing adult material such as pornography or graphic imagery — Spotify locked explicit lyrics and music videos behind biometric checks, and Pornhub gated all UK access with ID checks. Within days, thousands of Spotify users faced account deletion. Safety? No. A national firewall was born.

The first crack appeared at dawn. Proton VPN, a Swiss service long recommended by the National Cyber Security Centre for its no-logs policy, recorded a 1,400% surge in British sign-ups minutes after midnight on July 25th. Google searches for ‘VPN UK’ followed the same curve. 

Three weeks later, the Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, was on BBC Newsnight declaring virtual private networks “an absolute loophole that needs closing“. Ofcom, reading the mood, issued guidance warning platforms that any encouragement of circumvention tools would be treated as a breach of duty. The message was clear, evasion was now a regulatory offence. The law that gated Pornhub just paved the way for your digital ID....<<<Read More>>>...

UK’s Online Safety Act is restricting speech globally; the UK government is censoring the world

 There was once a time (Late 1990's and earlier) when there was no internet. Life was so much better then. Now after years of being given the internet and free access to everywhere, they are now slowly taking it away from us. I say bring it on .... we don't need the control that the internet represents.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The UK’s Online Safety Act became fully operational in July 2025. It is being used to restrict content globally.

It has caused global and significant concerns about censorship of information that is of public interest. Technology companies are implementing broad age verification and content filtering measures to comply with the law, leading to the restriction of posts on topics like the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts, parliamentary debates on serious crimes and even historical art.

In the following, Public and Politico raise the alarm as to what this means for Americans. However, as well as from the USA, the impact of the UK’s new law is also being keenly watched in Australia, but for different reasons, because Australia is preparing to ban under-16s from social media...<<<Read More>>>...

Censorship, NOT Safety: Revealing the Truth Behind UK Online Agenda

 In the UK, the Online Safety Act (OSA) was sold to the public as a way to shield vulnerable people from harmful content, and protect children from internet predators. It sounded like it would ensure a safer, more accountable online experience. The true motivation for its implementation is revealing itself, and is being met by waves of backlash – not only by privacy campaigners, but from regular internet users, tech professionals, artists, and whole sections of parliament. Hundreds of thousands have signed petitions, and legal challenges are underway.  

Increasingly, then, the question is being asked: was this ever really about safety? 

The OSA gives Ofcom (the UK’s communications regulator) unprecedented power over the country’s digital content. It now mandates that platforms proactively monitor, censor and remove any content it deems “harmful”, even if there’s nothing illegal about it. This includes, by increasingly blurry definitions, hate speech, misinformation and bullying – and can even introduce jailtime for companies failing to comply with them. 

Among the most vocal opponents are the encrypted messaging apps, Whatsapp and Signal. The OSA means government regulators can compel these services to install backdoor services to scan the content of messages, which fundamentally undermines the core principle of their end-to-end encryption offerings. Any companies found refusing to comply may now be fined, blocked, or even criminalised. In short: the privacy we were promised is now being mandated against. 

This Act also criminalises “unauthorised access” to online content, which critics say could affect basic functions like right-clicking certain things, viewing source code, or accessing archived information.  

It’s legislation with sweeping intent, but vague definitions....<<<Read More>>>...

We risk a two-tier blasphemy law, fit for Starmer’s two-tier Britain, Robert Jenrick MP warns

 Citing a recent incident of a man who was charged for burning a Quran, Robert Jenrick MP argues that burning a religious text as an act of protest should not be a criminal offence, and that doing so would create a two-tier blasphemy law that only applies to one particular religion – Islam. “It’s a two-tier blasphemy law, fit for Keir Starmer’s two-tier Britain,” he writes.

It’s not only the Crown Prosecution Service that is attempting to introduce blasphemy laws. Senior Labour Party figures, including Keir Starmer, have been promoting the idea of introducing blasphemy laws to protect Islam.

Blasphemy laws were abolished in the UK as a signal that in a free society, no religion should be shielded from insult, irreverence or ridicule. “We knew then, as we know now, that freedom of speech means nothing without the right to cause offence,” Mr. Jenrick says. “We must be much stronger in our defence of free speech – including, and especially, when that speech is offensive....<<<Read More>>>...

Starmer lied: Riots after Southport murders were not caused by the “far right,” new report finds

 A Fire and Rescue Services report found no conclusive evidence that any organised extremist network premeditated or orchestrated the unrest after the 2024 Southport murders, contradicting Sir Keir Starmer’s earlier statements, which were parroted by corporate media.

The report stated that the causes of the disorder were complex, including social deprivation, austerity and decreasing trust in policing, and that it was mostly disaffected individuals and influencers who incited people to act violently.

Sir Keir Starmer’s initial statement, which labelled the unrest as “far right thuggery,” misled the public and potentially led to miscarriages of justice for non-violent protestors.

Past Prime Ministers have arguably resigned for less, JJ Starky writes....<<<Read More>>>...

Ed Miliband’s Ongoing Fight with Reality (and Now Tony Blair)

 “The critics need to know that if they want to fight about this, this Government says ‘bring it on’,” said a triumphant Ed Miliband at the conclusion of the international Conference on the Future of Energy Security last week. Fighting talk, perhaps, from the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who was the meeting’s co-host, alongside the International Energy Agency’s Fatih Birol. Is this a sign that the green zealot will actually respond to his critics?

Never mind ‘lower bills’ and ‘green jobs’. The claim that he or the Government is either willing or able to ‘fight’ critics is the biggest lie Miliband has ever told. I can say this with such confidence because I and many other Net Zero critics have begged for such a debate, and have been seeking it since Miliband last had the energy brief. Countless requests to Miliband’s DESNZ have put challenging questions to him, the Government and his wonk underlings, and many reports, articles and analyses have summarised the shortcomings of his favoured approach....<<<Read More>>>...

UK’s Crime and Policing Bill could unleash terrifying new censorship powers

 The UK government’s Crime and Policing Bill poses a formidable threat to free speech in the UK. The bill, which is currently at the committee stage in the House of Commons, promises to keep our streets “safe” by giving courts a new power to issue “respect orders.” These orders are potentially so draconian and wide-ranging that they could well end up being used for very different purposes – including silencing anyone who says anything online that the authorities disapprove of.

Under the bill, police, local authorities and a number of other bodies will be empowered to ask courts for “respect orders” that can either prohibit someone from doing or require them to do “anything described in the order.” You read that right – anything. The only condition that needs to be satisfied is that the court thinks, on a balance of probabilities, that the person “has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.” This essentially amounts to “precrime.” There won’t even be a need to warn people. The court can issue an interim order without notice. Once the order (which can be indefinite in duration) is there, breaching it carries an unlimited fine or two years in prison.

This spectacularly authoritarian measure is supposedly aimed at street hoodlums, but it is not restricted in any meaningful way. It is a racing certainty that the courts will not apply any limits to its scope.

This bill is a particular threat to free speech. Already, you have to worry that police might turn up at your door over a controversial social media post. At least at present, the poster has a reasonable chance of defending themselves. While our hate speech laws are vaguely worded and authoritarian, at least the onus is on the authorities to investigate and prosecute.

This changes dramatically under the Crime and Policing Bill. If it passes, all the police would have to do is persuade a county court judge that people are distressed by the post in question. Then, the poster can be compelled, on pain of prosecution, to delete the offending content, not refer to the subject concerned online again and even stay off social media altogether. They might even be forced to provide an official with the passwords to all of their internet-enabled devices....<<<Read More>>>...

U.K.’s Advanced Censorship Laws Force Small Websites To Shut Down!

The United Kingdom’s rulers created an online censorship law that has now advanced to the point where small websites are being shut down. The authoritarians who authored the U.K.’s “Online Safety Act” are citing disproportionate liability and risk under the new law when it comes to these smaller web pages.

The new legislative landscape in the country, which is supposed to go into effect in full force in March is already claiming victims, according to a report by Reclaim the Net. The law is not providing any kind of safety for hundreds of small websites, including non-profit forums, that will be forced to shut down because they are unable to comply with the act. Specifically, the websites are faced with what reports refer to as “disproportionate personal liability.”

The massive global censorship campaign has not slowed down as we inch our way to 2025. Much of it is still done, but it’s become a behind-the-scenes issue as those reporting on it have been more focused on who will rule over the United States for the next four years instead.

The fines for not complying with the U.K.’s new law go up to the equivalent of $25 million U.S. dollars, while the law also introduces new criminal offenses.

Ofcom, who is responsible for enforcing this act, has published dozens of measures that online services are supposed to implement by March 16th, 2025. Some of these measures include naming a person responsible and accountable for making sure a website or an online platform complies with the ruling class’s edicts.

The law is presented as a new way to efficiently tackle illegal content, and in particular, provide new ways to ensure the safety of children online, including by age verification (“age checking”), but many have pointed out it is just another way to censor things that those in charge don’t want others focused on....<<<Read More>>>...

British government mulling SOCIAL MEDIA BAN for teenagers 16 and younger

The British government under Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is considering a crackdown on social media use for teenagers aged 16 and younger – with a ban said to be one of the options on the table.

Despite bringing new controls with the Online Safety Act (OSA) which received Parliament approval in October, ministers are considering the pros and cons of further actions to limit children’s exposure to social media’s harmful content.

British Science Secretary Michelle Donelan said the legislation meant the U.K. would become "the safest place to be online in the world." She added that the OSA's passage "will go down as an historic moment that ensures the online safety of British society not only now, but for decades to come."

The British government is reportedly ready to begin a consultation in January of next year to look at the evidence of social media harm to young teens. According to Bloomberg, a ban on social media use by those under 16 and improved parental controls are two options under discussion.

"We're looking at ways to empower parents, rather than crack down on anything in particular," said a government spokesperson. "We've identified that there is a gap in research, so we'll be looking at what more research into it needs to be done. But nothing is yet signed off by ministers."...<<<Read More>>>...

Biosecurity State: Another Right-wing Conspiracy Theory or How the Left Was Won Over

 Why is it that in the UK, which initially implemented the regulations and programmes of biosecurity under the most right-wing Government in living memory — a cabinet of criminals led by the serial liar, Boris Johnson — the accusation made against anyone who questioned the official justifications for our unquestioning obedience was that you are a “Right-wing conspiracy theorist”?

Typically, when a Western government and its media want to dismiss or delegitimise criticism of its actions, it does so by calling those who question their authority “Loony Lefties” (in the UK) or “Commies” (in the USA). This time, however, the “loonies” are officially “Right-wing.”

It’s true, of course, that the governments in power and parties in opposition that enforced or voted for masks, lockdown restrictions and “vaccine” mandates with the greatest zealotry and violence, and are now pushing hardest for the roll-out of Digital Identity and Central Bank Digital Currency, have identified themselves to their electorates as “Left-wing.” These include the governments of Justin Trudeau in Canada, Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand, Pedro Sánchez in Spain, António Costa in Portugal and, in opposition parties, Keir Starmer in the UK, where the always obedient trades unions have also supported the lockdown of businesses and “vaccine” mandates for the workers whose rights they are supposed to be defending. In doing so, the Left hasn’t hesitated to align itself with the Right-wing and anti-working-class governments of first Boris Johnson and now the globalist puppet Rishi Sunak in the UK, the Gilets jaunes-mutilating Emmanuel Macron in France, Giuseppe Conte and the former EU banker Mario Draghi in Italy, Sebastian Kurz and Karl Nehammer in Austria, and Viktor Orbán in Hungary.

All these governments, officially on both the Right and the Left of the almost closed Overton window of Western politics, as well as nominally liberal and conservative governments in Germany, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland and Greece, continue to describe those who oppose the regulations and programmes of biosecurity as “Right-wing conspiracy theorists.” And this accusation isn’t limited to governments and media aligned across the political spectrum of the West but is also made by transnational organisations of global governance, including the United Nations, the European Commission, the World Health Organisation and the World Economic Forum. Why?

One of the consequences of this political hegemony among the at least nominally politically differentiated nation-states implementing the Global Biosecurity State in the West, is that those opposed to its authoritarianism and creeping totalitarianism from a broadly libertarian standpoint describe it as a form of “communism” modelled on, if not actually instigated by, the People’s Republic of China. However, not only does this widespread accusation fail to explain the global financial crisis and the economic forces driving this revolution in Western capitalism, but it also allows its architects and promoters to dismiss such a description of the Global Biosecurity State — with some accuracy — as a “right-wing conspiracy theory.”...<<<Read More>>>...

Online laws threaten freedom of speech of 'millions of Britons'

[David Icke]: Critics of the government’s flagship internet regulation policy are warning it could lead to a North Korean-style censorship regime, where regulators decide which websites Britons are allowed to visit, because of how broad the proposals are.

The mooted legislation, launched on Monday in the Online Harms white paper, covers any website that “allows users to share or discover user-generated content, or interact with each other online”, a definition which potentially covers vast tranches of the internet.

As well as social media companies and discussion forums, any site with comment sections, crowdsourced reviews or individual user profile pages falls under that definition, encompassing everything from online news sites to video game stores.

The regulation imposes a “duty of care” on affected sites, holding them liable for restricting “behaviours which are harmful but not necessarily illegal”. Those sites which don’t meet that duty of care can be fined, their senior managers can be held criminally liable, or the regulator can demand the site be blocked entirely.

Critics from across the political spectrum have warned the legislation could threaten freedom of speech. Jim Killock, the executive director of the Open Rights Group, said: “The government’s proposals would create state regulation of the speech of millions of British citizens. We have to expect that the duty of care will end up widely drawn, with serious implications for legal content that is deemed potentially risky, whether it really is nor not.”

On Monday, government ministers sought to reassure critics. Sajid Javid, the home secretary, told the Guardian that “press freedom is absolutely sacrosanct in this country” and that “there is nothing in this white paper that challenges that in any way whatsoever”.

Online harms white paper: could regulation kill innovation?

Earlier, Jeremy Wright, the culture secretary, promised the government’s plans to regulate online harms would not descend into “North Korean-style censorship”, even though the government was planning to introduce new powers to allow regulators to block companies from operating in the UK....read more>>>...