Tag: police state

Mum jailed for ‘racist’ migrant hotel tweet ‘not allowed to visit ailing husband’

A woman who was jailed for over two years after tweeting about mass deportation and setting fire to migrant hotels has been refused temporary leave to visit her sick husband. Lucy Connolly, 42, was sentenced to 31 months behind bars after an inflammatory post on social media during the Southport riots last summer.

Demonstrations broke out across the country following the vicious killing of three children at a dance class on July 29, fuelled by false claims that the attacker was an illegal immigrant. Connolly’s post, which was later deleted, read: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the b******s for all I care … If that makes me racist, so be it.” The 42-year-old has reportedly been denied temporary leave to visit her husband Ray, who is suffering from bone marrow failure, and has also had her pleas to be with her 12-year-old daughter, whose behaviour at school has been “out of character”, rejected by authorities.

Documents suggest that Connolly has been denied leave for reasons linked to concerns over public and media interest in her case, rather than issues meeting the necessary criteria, The Telegraph reported.

Prison service sources denied her application for temporary release was blocked, insisting it was being considered by the governor at HMP Drake Hall in Staffordshire, to which she has recently been transferred

A spokesperson said: “Decisions on release on temporary licence and home detention curfew are made following uncompromising risk assessments to prioritise public safety.

“These are discretionary schemes, and each case is rigorously scrutinised, considering the severity of the offence, the prisoner’s conduct and the potential impact on victims and the community.”

However, internal notes at her previous prison, HMP Peterborough, suggested that the temporary release was “not necessarily going to happen due to the public interest” and that “the media interest has been raised as an issue in terms of any future Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) applications”.

Keep reading

UK creating ‘murder prediction’ tool to identify people most likely to kill

The UK government is developing a “murder prediction” programme which it hopes can use personal data of those known to the authorities to identify the people most likely to become killers.

Researchers are alleged to be using algorithms to analyse the information of thousands of people, including victims of crime, as they try to identify those at greatest risk of committing serious violent offences.

The scheme was originally called the “homicide prediction project”, but its name has been changed to “sharing data to improve risk assessment”. The Ministry of Justice hopes the project will help boost public safety but campaigners have called it “chilling and dystopian”.

The existence of the project was discovered by the pressure group Statewatch, and some of its workings uncovered through documents obtained by Freedom of Information requests.

Statewatch says data from people not convicted of any criminal offence will be used as part of the project, including personal information about self-harm and details relating to domestic abuse. Officials strongly deny this, insisting only data about people with at least one criminal conviction has been used.

The government says the project is at this stage for research only, but campaigners claim the data used would build bias into the predictions against minority-ethnic and poor people.

The MoJ says the scheme will “review offender characteristics that increase the risk of committing homicide” and “explore alternative and innovative data science techniques to risk assessment of homicide”.

The project would “provide evidence towards improving risk assessment of serious crime, and ultimately contribute to protecting the public via better analysis”, a spokesperson added.

The project, which was commissioned by the prime minister’s office when Rishi Sunak was in power, is using data about crime from various official sources including the Probation Service and data from Greater Manchester police before 2015.

The types of information processed includes names, dates of birth, gender and ethnicity, and a number that identifies people on the police national computer.

Statewatch’s claim that data from innocent people and those who have gone to the police for help will be used is based on a part of the data-sharing agreement between the MoJ and GMP.

A section marked: “type of personal data to be shared” by police with the government includes various types of criminal convictions, but also listed is the age a person first appeared as a victim, including for domestic violence, and the age a person was when they first had contact with police.

Also to be shared – and listed under “special categories of personal data” – are “health markers which are expected to have significant predictive power”, such as data relating to mental health, addiction, suicide and vulnerability, and self-harm, as well as disability.

Sofia Lyall, a researcher for Statewatch, said: “The Ministry of Justice’s attempt to build this murder prediction system is the latest chilling and dystopian example of the government’s intent to develop so-called crime ‘prediction’ systems.

“Time and again, research shows that algorithmic systems for ‘predicting’ crime are inherently flawed.

Keep reading

Affluent New Jersey city considers controversial ordinance that would fine or jail homeless people for sleeping outside

A tony New Jersey city is considering approving a controversial new ordinance that would fine or jail homeless people found sleeping in public spaces.

Summit Councilman Jamel Boyer, a Republican, introduced the ordinance last Tuesday, claiming it serves to “preserve the safe and accessible use of public property for all residents, pedestrians and businesses.”

The ordinance in Summit would prohibit the homeless from camping in public areas, including parks, sidewalks, alleyways, and benches.

If approved, anyone found violating the ordinance would face a fine of up to $2,000 “and/or imprisonment or community service for a term not to exceed ninety days,” the order says.

A similar ordinance was presented in Morristown, NJ, in February but was struck down following massive backlash from the community and advocacy groups, NJ.com reported.

Keep reading

UK Tribunal Blocks Government’s Attempt to Keep Apple Surveillance Case Secret

With a necessary reality check, a UK tribunal has told the government that, no, it cannot hold a secret legal battle against Apple over encryption. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), the body meant to oversee the country’s surveillance powers, has dismissed efforts by the Home Office to keep the entire case hidden from public view. And in doing so, it has delivered a quietly important win for press freedom and digital rights. Although, things are far from over.

The case revolves around Apple’s Advanced Data Protection system, or ADP. It’s a security feature that gives users the option to encrypt their iCloud data in a way that even Apple itself cannot access. Not through a backdoor, not with a master key, not at all. It’s the kind of robust end-to-end encryption that governments around the world have grown increasingly nervous about.

The UK, it turns out, is no exception.

Keep reading

North Dakota Senate Committee Rejects Bill To Expand Marijuana Decriminalization That Had Already Passed House

A North Dakota Senate committee has defeated a House-passed bill that sought to reduce the state penalty for low-level marijuana possession to a $150 civil fine.

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday voted 5–2 to reject the bill, HB 1596, from Rep. Liz Conmy (D). While the proposal had support from county prosecutors and defense attorneys in the state, police and sheriffs departments were broadly opposed.

“The voters have spoken on this issue,” Stephanie Ingebretsen, who testified on behalf of the Chiefs of Police Association of North Dakota. “They’re not interested in legalization and would like it to stay a criminal offense.”

While North Dakota in 2019 enacted what advocacy groups refer to as a marijuana decriminalization law that removed the risk of jail time for possessing under a half-ounce of cannabis, possession nevertheless remains a criminal infraction and carries a fine of up to $1,000.

While voters have not weighed in on decriminalization itself, last year they rejected an adult-use legalization ballot initiative that would have created a commercial cannabis market. Voters also rejected an earlier legalization proposal at the ballot box in 2022.

The newly rejected bill, HB 1596, would have made simple possession of up to half an ounce of marijuana a civil citation. That change would remove the need for courtroom appearances, which proponents said would help decongest the state’s clogged court system and free up prosecutorial resources for more pressing concerns.

“To give you an idea of the magnitude of time, energy and resources extended,” sponsor Conmy told colleagues, “between January 1, 2021 and December 31, 2024—four years in North Dakota—there were 8,676 marijuana charges, 7,365 cases opened, 17,000 hearings, 2,357 cases with a public defender appointed. And all of these cases were handled by our state’s attorneys.”

More than 90 percent of cases involved possession of less than half an ounce of marijuana, she said.

Keep reading

UK Halts “Legal but Harmful” Censorship Rule Amid US Trade Pressure, But Online Safety Act Still Fuels Free Speech and Privacy Fears

Plans to implement sweeping content moderation powers for tech companies have been put on hold by the UK government, as concerns grow that reintroducing speech controls could disrupt sensitive trade discussions with President Donald Trump’s allies.

The British Government had been exploring a return to the abandoned “legal but harmful” proposal, a measure that would have forced online platforms to purge content deemed “harmful” yet not unlawful. But after internal pushback and a wary eye on Washington’s stance, the idea has been quietly dropped.

The original measure, introduced under Conservative leadership in 2022, triggered significant dissent, including from within the party itself. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, then serving as business secretary, dismissed the idea, warning it could mean “legislating for hurt feelings.” The proposal was ultimately replaced with tools that give individuals more choice over the material they encounter online rather than imposing top-down restrictions.

According to reports, the recent move to distance the government from any revival of the censorship clause comes amid Labour’s review of the Online Safety Act, launched after riots last summer linked to false claims about a Southport attacker. While that review sparked fresh debate over “misinformation,” officials have opted not to revisit the “legal but harmful” language, choosing instead to emphasize online protections for children.

Labour appears focused on building upon new safety measures coming into force this summer, including mandatory age checks for adult content. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle is working on a package aimed at strengthening youth safeguards, though these proposals stop well short of any return to compelled content takedowns.

“We are really committed to keeping children safe,” a government insider said. “Finally, the Online Safety Act is starting to have an impact, and we will see some enforcement action shortly. Age assurance will also be a massive step forward when it comes in the summer, but we’re actively exploring other ways of protecting children.”

​While the UK government’s removal of the “legal but harmful” provision from the Online Safety Act was intended to address concerns over free speech and censorship, significant issues remain. The Act still imposes broad duties on online platforms to assess and mitigate risks associated with user-generated content.

Keep reading

Two MPs ‘astounded’ after being denied entry to Israel

Two Labour MPs say they are “astounded” to have been denied entry to Israel while on a trip to visit the occupied West Bank.

Abtisam Mohamed and Yuan Yang said it was “vital” parliamentarians were able to witness the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory first-hand.

They were refused entry because they intended to “spread hate speech” against Israel, the nation’s population and immigration authority said.

Foreign Secretary David Lammy criticised Israeli authorities, describing the move as “unacceptable, counterproductive, and deeply concerning”.

But Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said Israel had a right to “control its borders”, adding it was “significant” there were Labour MPs other countries did not want to let in.

Yang, the MP for Earley and Woodley, and Mohamed, the MP for Sheffield Central, flew to Israel from London Luton Airport with two aides on Saturday afternoon.

The Israeli immigration authority said Interior Minister Moshe Arbel denied entry to all four passengers after they were questioned. It accused them of travelling to “document the security forces”.

The Israeli embassy in London said in a statement on Saturday that the country “will not allow the entry of individuals or entities that act against the state and its citizens”.

It said Mohamed and Yang had “accused Israel of false claims” and were “actively involved in promoting sanctions against Israeli ministers”.

It also said they had supported campaigns aimed at boycotting the country “at a time when Israel is at war and under attack on seven fronts”.

The UK Foreign Office said the group was part of a parliamentary delegation. However, Israel’s immigration authority said the delegation had not been acknowledged by an Israeli official.

Keep reading

Michael G. Seidel — The Face of FBI Corruption

Let’s talk about the man who buries the truth for a living — not in some dark alley, but in broad daylight behind a badge, a clearance, and a stack of sealed affidavits.

Michael G. Seidel, Section Chief of RIDS (Records Management Division, FBI), is not a bureaucrat. He is the regime’s professional liar, the FBI’s high priest of concealment, and the living proof that corruption doesn’t hide — it gets promoted.

He doesn’t serve the law. He smothers it. One FOIA denial, one redacted page, one perjured affidavit at a time.

I. The Architect of Institutional Obfuscation

Michael G. Seidel is not an anomaly. He is the rot at the core of the DOJ and FBI — a man who turned federal authority into a shield for the corrupt and a weapon against the truth. Legalese is his camouflage. Misleading courts is his sport. Burying evidence is his career.
Seth Rich’s case? Seidel didn’t just mishandle it — he buried it under 20,000+ unreleased pages. This isn’t red tape. This is regime protection.

II. The Seth Rich Lie: Perjury in a Suit and Tie

In Ty Clevenger’s FOIA suit, the FBI — through Seidel — claimed they had “no records” on Seth Rich. No laptop. No emails. Nothing. Reality? They were sitting on a motherlode.

When exposed, Seidel didn’t admit to the lie. He pivoted. Suddenly, Rich’s laptop wasn’t a “record.” It was “just evidence” — somehow exempt from FOIA.

This wasn’t a legal interpretation. This was coordinated federal gaslighting.

III. The Redaction Game: How the Truth Dies in Black Ink

Even when forced to release documents, Seidel didn’t comply — he slow-walked, stonewalled, and blacked out critical information. Judges raised their eyebrows. Still, no sanctions. No accountability.

This is not incompetence. It’s policy. A deliberate playbook to protect the Bureau at the cost of justice.

IV. Weaponized Paperwork: FOIA as a Blunt Instrument

Every affidavit Seidel signs is a bureaucratic smoke grenade — engineered not to inform but to obscure. FOIA, under his watch, is no longer a transparency tool. It’s a regime-controlled narrative management system.

His filings aren’t honest attempts to comply with the law. They’re sabotage operations, paper bullets fired at the truth.

Keep reading

A Powerful Government and a Weak Nation

For many Americans, it is an article of faith that a vast and powerful federal government equals a great and strong nation. Actually, it’s the exact opposite. The more powerful the federal government, the weaker the nation. Contrariwise, the smaller and weaker the federal government, the more powerful the nation.

Part of the problem here is that many Americans have been taught to believe that the federal government and the nation are one and the same thing. They aren’t. They are two completely separate and distinct entities.

A good confirmation of this phenomenon is the Bill of Rights. Many Americans believe that it gives Americans their rights. Actually, the Bill of Rights protects the nation — that is, the American people — from the federal government, which confirms that we are dealing with two separate and distinct entities.

The Constitution called the federal government into existence. The type of government it established was what we call a limited-government republic. It was a very small government whose powers were extremely limited — that is, limited to the few powers that were enumerated in the Constitution itself.

That was how the Framers and our American ancestors wanted it. They wanted a small, weak federal government — one with very few powers.

One of the most important features of this new government was its lack of a vast, permanent military establishment. That was the last thing the Framers and our American ancestors wanted. They knew that a vast-permanent military establishment would convert the federal government into a powerful government. They didn’t want that. They felt that such a powerful government would constitute a grave threat to the freedom and well-being of the nation. Thus, they fiercely opposed what they called “standing armies.” That’s why throughout the 19th century, America had a relatively small, basic army.

This unusual governmental structure brought into existence the most unique economic and political system in the history of man. By the time the 1880s arrived, the United States was a land of no income taxation or IRS, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, education grants, Federal Reserve, paper money, (minimal) immigration control, gun control, drug war, minimum-wage laws, occupational licensure, (minimal) economic regulations, national-security state, Pentagon, CIA, NSA, torture, indefinite detention, compulsory school-attendance laws, (minimal) public (i.e., government) schooling systems, war on terrorism, foreign wars, foreign aid, foreign interventions, and state-sponsored assassinations.

The result of this unique governmental structure and economic and political system was the most powerful nation in history. The American people were characterized by a strong sense of independence, toughness, self-reliance, and can-do. They put their faith in themselves, in others, in free markets, in voluntary charity, in their families, and in God. They were fearless. No one dared to attack and invade the United States because to do so would be like swallowing a porcupine. The American people were simply too strong, precisely because their government was so small and weak.

It’s worth noting that this one-of-a-kind-system brought into existence the most prosperous and the most charitable nation in the history of mankind. From 1880-1910, real wage rates increased by 50 percent. When people were free to accumulate unlimited amounts of weath, the result was the greatest amount of voluntary charity that mankind had ever seen. One man — John D. Rockefeller — actually gave away $500 million in his lifetime.

Keep reading

Judge awards $6.6M to whistleblowers who were fired after reporting Texas AG Ken Paxton to FBI

A district court judge awarded $6.6 million combined to four whistleblowers who sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on claims he fired them in retaliation for reporting him to the FBI.

Blake Brickman, David Maxwell, Mark Penley and Ryan Vassar notified Paxton and his office on Oct. 1, 2020, that they had reported him to the FBI for allegedly abusing his office. The four were all fired by mid-November.

Travis County Judge Catherine Mauzy ruled Friday that by a “preponderance of the evidence,” the whistleblowers proved liability, damages and attorney’s fees in their complaint against the attorney general’s office.

The judgment says the former aides made their reports to federal law enforcement “in good faith” and that Paxton’s office did not dispute any claims or damages in the lawsuit.

“Because the Office of the Attorney General violated the Texas Whistleblower Act by firing and otherwise retaliating against the plaintiff for in good faith reporting violations of law by Ken Paxton and OAG, the court hereby renders judgment for plaintiffs,” Mauzy wrote in her judgment.

The court found that the four former aides of the attorney general were fired in retaliation for reporting allegations that he was using his office to accept bribes from Austin real estate developer and political donor Nate Paul, who employed a woman with whom Paxton was having an extramarital affair.

Paxton has denied allegations that he accepted bribes or misused his office to help Paul.

“It should shock all Texans that their chief law enforcement officer, Ken Paxton, admitted to violating the law, but that is exactly what happened in this case,” Tom Nesbitt, an attorney representing Brickman, and TJ Turner, an attorney representing Maxwell, said in a joint statement.

Keep reading