Tag: police state

Harry Miller Accused of Hate Crime – for Tweet Celebrating Dismissal of Trans Police Officer Who Stalked Him

Harry Miller, a former police officer who now campaigns for free speech, was accused of a hate crime by police for a tweet celebrating the dismissal of a trans police officer who had stalked him. The Telegraph has the story.

Harry Miller, a former police officer who now campaigns for free speech, was questioned under caution by Lincolnshire Police for a tweet welcoming the officer’s removal.

Mr Miller had been the victim of a sustained campaign of harassment by Lynsay Watson, a transgender constable with the Leicestershire force who was the complainant behind the arrest last week of Graham Linehan, the comedy writer.

Watson was sacked for gross misconduct in October 2023 after being found guilty of sending more than 1,200 messages to Mr Miller over an 18-month period, branding him a “Nazi”, a “bigot” and “wife beater”.

Mr Miller, who set up the Fair Cop campaign group to remove politics from policing, posted a tweet welcoming the decision. However, in November 2024, more than a year later, he was accused of having committed a criminal offence over the wording of the tweet and questioned under caution.

He was accused of having impersonated the Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police in his online remarks, seemingly because the offending tweet began: “Statement re the dismissal of PC Watson from @leicspolice”. The detective sergeant who interviewed him suggested the post read as though it was a statement being issued on behalf of Leicestershire Police.

Mr Miller was also accused of misgendering Watson in an article he had written about his stalking ordeal for the Critic magazine.

He was informed he was being questioned on suspicion of a breach of the Online Safety Act, which makes it a criminal offence to send a message knowing it to be false and intending it cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm without a reasonable excuse.

The Online Safety Act gained Royal Assent on October 26th 2023, the day before Mr Miller posted the tweet, but did not become law until January 31st last year, so could not have been applied in this case.

Mr Miller was subsequently released with no further action.

Keep reading

6 more officers fired over handling of domestic violence-fueled triple homicide in South Florida

A South Florida sheriff’s office has fired six more deputies and disciplined 11 others for their handling of the case of Mary Gingles, a woman who investigators say was murdered by her estranged husband after she had warned officers for months that she feared he would kill her. Two officers had previously been dismissed for their role in the case.

An internal investigation found that multiple Broward Sheriff’s Office deputies failed to properly investigate Gingles’ reports of domestic violence perpetrated by her husband, Nathan Gingles, before he allegedly carried out the triple homicide of his wife, her father, David Ponzer, and her neighbor Andrew Ferrin, as the Gingles’ four-year-old daughter begged her father to stop.

Nathan Gingles has pleaded not guilty. If convicted, he could face the death penalty.

The killings – despite Mary Gingles’ repeated pleas for help – have shaken the South Florida community of Tamarac and ignited fresh scrutiny of officers’ failure to use the state’s red flag law to remove firearms from a person deemed a danger to themselves or others.

Following through on threats that Mary Gingles had repeatedly reported, on Feb. 16, 2025, Nathan Gingles fatally shot his father-in-law as he was drinking coffee on the back patio of the family’s home, before chasing Mary down the street and killing her and Ferrin, a neighbor whose home she fled to, according to investigators.

“We had multiple opportunities to protect Mary during the months preceding her death when she alerted us to the domestic violence she was experiencing. The deputies and detectives assigned to investigate these cases failed their training and, ultimately, failed to handle Mary’s repeated cries for help with the urgency required,” Broward Sheriff Gregory Tony said in a statement.

According to an investigation by the Miami Herald, in the year leading up to her murder, Mary Gingles had confided in friends, family and law enforcement officers that she feared her estranged husband would kill her.

He repeatedly violated restraining orders barring him from the family’s home, terrorizing his wife by putting a tracker on her car and leaving a backpack full of supplies like duct tape and zip ties in the garage, the investigation found.

Gingles’ alleged behavior in the months leading up to the killings was consistent with what experts say are known risk factors for further abuse, including deadly violence. More female intimate partners are killed by firearms than by all other means combined, according to a Department of Justice analysis of a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“One of the most crucial steps to prevent lethal violence is to disarm abusers and keep them disarmed,” the Justice Department’s report stated.

Keep reading

US Condemns Prosecution of Finnish Lawmaker Over Bible Verse Tweet

Finland’s prosecution of Päivi Räsänen has drawn sharp condemnation from the US State Department, which labeled the charges “baseless” and included a Bible verse in a rare public gesture of support.

This comes as Finland’s Supreme Court prepares to hear a case widely regarded as a test of whether expressing religious beliefs can be treated as a criminal act in a democratic nation.

The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor made its position clear on X, stating: “In a democracy, no one should face trial for peacefully sharing their beliefs. The case against Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen, which accuses her of hate speech for simply posting a Bible verse, is baseless, as two courts have unanimously found.”

The post included a verse from Matthew 5:11: “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.”

Keep reading

“Art Must Always Tell The Truth”

Popular artist Banksy created a graffiti mural in London depicting the current state of the UK censorship system using the courts to trample the rights of British citizens…

As ‘sundance’ writes at TheConservativeTreeHouse.com, it did not take long for the authorities to cover the mural and eventually attempt to remove it.

I particularly like the fact the govt turned the CCTV camera, so they can monitor who might visit the scene of the criminal dissent.

Apparently, the British government doesn’t quite see the irony.

Keep reading

Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s super-complaints scheme will be used to censor “emerging online harms”

Introduction

Ofcom is a public corporation accountable to the UK Parliament.  It is the UK’s regulator for communications services.  It regulates the UK’s broadband, home phone and mobile services, TV, radio and video on demand services, oversees the universal postal service and looks after the airwaves used by wireless devices such as cordless phones, walkie-talkies and even some car keys and doorbells.

With the introduction of the Online Safety Act (“the Act”) in 2023, Ofcom became the regulator for online safety.  The aim is that Ofcom will become the online regulator not only in the UK but globally.

The Act gives Ofcom the powers they need to take appropriate action against all companies in scope, no matter where they are based, where services have relevant links with the UK. This means services with a significant number of UK users or where UK users are a target market, as well as other services which have in-scope content that presents a risk of significant harm to people in the UK.Online Safety Act: explainer, Department for Science, Innovation & Technology, UK Government, 24 April 2025

What are Super-Complaints?

A super-complaint is a formal mechanism established under the Online Safety Act that allows designated organisations to raise concerns about systemic issues affecting users of regulated online services.  Unlike individual complaints, super-complaints focus on broad, emerging trends or widespread problems across multiple platforms, rather than isolated incidents. 

Eligible entities, such as consumer protection bodies or organisations representing users, can submit these complaints to trigger a specific regulatory response from Ofcom.  The super-complaints regime is designed to complement Ofcom’s own research and horizon scanning, a forward-looking assessment of emerging risks and trends in digital services.

“The super-complaints regime, in line with the Act and recent Government regulations … will enable eligible entities to raise systemic issues that arise across services or, in exceptional circumstances, on one service, to our attention. We expect to consult on draft guidance for potential super-complainants in September 2025 and publish our final guidance in early 2026,” Ofcom’s roadmap to regulation of “online safety” states.

From November 2023 to 11 January 2024, the Government ran a public consultation on the eligible entity criteria and procedure for super-complaints.  The Government’s response to the consultation was published on 9 June 2025; the Ministerial Foreword by Baroness Maggie Jones stated:

The objective of the super-complaints regime is to ensure that eligible entities can make complaints to Ofcom, as regulator, to make them aware of existing or emerging online harms. This will also support Ofcom’s horizon scanning function, supporting Ofcom in taking an agile approach to regulating online harms.

Once approved by both Houses of Parliament, the super-complaints regime will come into force on 31 December 2025.Ministerial Foreword, Consultation Outcome: Super-complaints eligible entity criteria and procedural requirements: government response, UK Government, 9 June 2025

Keep reading

Thailand – A Case Study for Biometric Data Control

Thailand has become a test case for the use of biometric data in every facet of life. Facial recognition data is required for any single transfer above 50,000 baht (around $1,580), daily transfers above 200,000 baht, and any international transfers from personal accounts.  All major Thai banks, such as Bangkok Bank, Kasikorn (KBank), SCB, Krungthai, and Krungsri, require customers to submit biometric data, and the Bank of Thailand (BOT) provides the general guidelines that these banks must follow.

It may begin with banking and documentation, but the ultimate goal is to develop digital IDs that are stored on a centralized database. The board of Thailand’s National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) proposed that users must submit biometric data to register SIM cards. The rule went into effect in August and applies to everyone in Thailand, including tourists.

The Thai Ministry of Public Health (MOPH), the Thai Red Cross Society, and the National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) has implemented the use of biometric data to track undocumented persons. Health agencies claim the technology can identify the spread of disease and assist in providing humanitarian aid and medical services. The MOPH claims the technology is 99.75% accurate. According to the Department of Labour’s Bureau of Alien Workers Administration, over 1 million undocumented migrants were in the nation as of July 2025.

“The application of biometric technology not only improves healthcare, disease prevention and control, medical services, and humanitarian aid with accuracy and inclusivity, but also reflects the protection of human rights and dignity of undocumented people in Thailand. It also creates opportunities for education and research by Thai public health professionals to develop further benefits for the general population,” Health Minister Somsak Thepsuthin stated.

The Thai Red Cross Society is a branch of the global Red Cross agency. Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) claims all personal data will be securely protected, but they have already begun sharing with international agencies.

Keep reading

The Freedoms Lost Under the Patriot Act

The Patriot Act was drafted and pushed through with lightning speed, something that could not have been written overnight. This was the beginning of warrantless surveillance, indefinite detention, and a wholesale reversal of constitutional rights. I have said many times: governments do not waste a good crisis. They wait for the right moment to impose measures that would never pass during normal times. Americans may be unaware of the freedoms that have been stripped away from them after October 26, 2001, when the Patriot Act was signed into law.

The Patriot Act, officially titled “the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,” provided the government with unlimited surveillance powers. Terrorism became the premise to bypass the checks and balances of the legal system. Need a warrant? One could be obtained in any district or area where terrorism was suspected. Of course, warrantless searches were permitted under the guise of terrorism and deemed “sneak and peek” searches, where the government could enter a business or personal residence immediately and without warning to conduct an investigation.

Neither party has repealed the Patriot Act, and politicians on both sides of the aisle will NEVER relinquish these powers. The Patriot Act destroyed the Fourth Amendment and legally permitted the NSA to spy on all Americans. October 26, 2001, marked the day that the United States of America officially became a surveillance state. We The People were branded as potential terrorists, and “the land of the free” was permanently placed under the watchful eye of government. “The War on Terror” has no clear end or defined enemy. The real target was always domestic — the American people themselves. By creating an atmosphere of fear, Washington justified trillions in spending, the invasion of foreign countries, and the slow strangulation of the very liberties the terrorists supposedly hated.

Keep reading

Von der Leyen Unveils New EU Censorship Push, Online Digital ID Plans, in 2025 State of the Union Speech

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen used her 2025 State of the Union speech to unveil a raft of new regulatory measures that introduce new challenges for digital rights and freedom of expression across the continent and the world.

Framed as measures for public health, democracy, and child protection, the Commission is pushing the EU deeper into institutionalized censorship and online regulation.

Addressing the European Parliament, von der Leyen declared she is “appalled by the disinformation that threatens global progress on everything from measles to polio.”

Citing fears of a global health crisis, she introduced a “Global Health Resilience Initiative,” which she said the EU would lead.

This initiative is expected to tie online speech more tightly to global health narratives, laying the groundwork for broader suppression of dissenting views under the label of medical misinformation.

Another centerpiece of her address was the so-called “European Democracy Shield,” a program that we’ve covered in great detail, intended to streamline and centralize the Commission’s censorship machinery under the banner of fighting “foreign information manipulation and interference.”

Framing the internet as a battlefield, she said: “Our democracy is under attack. The rise in information manipulation and disinformation is dividing our societies.”

Expanding on that framework, she announced the creation of a new institution, the European Centre for Democratic Resilience.

According to von der Leyen, this center will allow the EU to scale up its ability “to monitor and detect information manipulation and disinformation.”

But the agenda didn’t stop there. She introduced the Media Resilience Program, which she claimed would support “independent journalism and media literacy.”

In practice, however, such efforts often result in government-approved messaging being amplified, while dissenting outlets don’t get funded.

Von der Leyen pointed to declining local journalism in rural communities and claimed: “This has created many news deserts where disinformation thrives…This is why we will launch a new Media Resilience Program – it will support independent journalism and media literacy.”

Despite the existing Digital Services Act already mandating age verification (and therefore digital ID) online, von der Leyen floated a new, even more restrictive direction for internet access among young people.

Keep reading

Huge legal cannabis farm told to cut smell or risk closure

A massive legal cannabis farm in the Netherlands has been told to reduce the odor coming from its facility or risk closure after more than 2,000 complaints from hundreds of residents, according to a regional Dutch environmental agency.

If the farm fails to sufficiently limit the smell, CanAdelaar – the company that operates the farm – could face fines of up to €3.5 million ($4.1 million) or risk being shut down, local authorities said after a court ruling earlier this week.

The farm is located west of the Netherlands’ second largest city Rotterdam. It opened in 2023 as part of a government scheme permitting several companies to grow cannabis under strict conditions, said DCMR Environmental Protection Agency, which monitors the business on behalf of the municipality of Voorne aan Zee, where the farm is located.

Reports of “odor nuisance” were received immediately after the farm’s opening, DCMR said in a statement first published in December but amended Wednesday.

“By August 2025, DCMR had received approximately 2,000 reports from nearly 300 different residents,” the agency said. Rotterdam’s judiciary court said in a statement Wednesday that more than 2,000 complaints had been filed.

The company has previously promised to implement “odor mitigation measures” to tackle the issue, according to DCMR.

According to DCMR, inspectors observed “odor nuisance” during multiple inspections and concluded that the company was “not always” complying with the appropriate regulations. As a result, Voorne aan Zee municipality imposed customized regulations on the farm to reduce odor, DCMR said.

Keep reading

The House Just Passed a Bill Punishing “Politically Motivated” Boycotts of Israel

In a first step toward a federal law punishing criticism of Israel, the House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a massive defense budget that would bar companies engaged in “politically motivated” boycotts of the country from Pentagon contracts.

The bill would effectively ban contractors boycotting Israel from tapping most federal contract dollars, since more than half of the $755 billion the U.S. government spent on contracts last year flowed through the Defense Department.

The ban, the latest legislative attempt to target the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel’s human rights violations, or BDS, would still have to pass the Senate. The upper chamber was debating its own version of the budget bill on Thursday that does not include an anti-BDS provision.

Critics predict a court challenge if the anti-boycott provision makes it into law.

“This amendment is really designed to shield Israel from any accountability by penalizing those who protest its violations of Palestinian human rights through boycotts, which should be protected by the First Amendment,” said Hassan El-Tayyab, the legislative director for Middle East policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

Keep reading