Tag: united kingdom

Substack Introduces ID Checks to Comply with UK Censorship Law

By now, you’ve probably realized the internet is being slowly fitted into a digital checkpoint.

Everything is being scrubbed down, sanitized, and locked behind a digital turnstile with a flashing sign that says: Show us your ID.

Substack, that cozy digital home where newsletter authors rant, muse, and argue about everything from politics to fan fiction of 19th-century philosophers, is the latest to be roped into the bureaucratic puppet show known as the UK’s Online Safety Act.

And the British government has decided that if you’re reading a mildly spicy newsletter, you must first present identification. No, really.

To access some of the platform’s content, you may soon have to upload a selfie and a government-issued ID.

What this means for readers in the UK is simple: prepare to be interrupted. You’re sitting down to read your favorite newsletter. Maybe it’s political commentary, maybe it’s a writer who occasionally uses words like “orgasmic” while referring to cake.

Either way, you click. And boom. Content blurred, comment section blocked, and your feed now behind a velvet rope manned by an algorithm with a clipboard.

Keep reading

UK Ofcom Pushes Rules Targeting “Misogynistic” Content, Prompting (Even More) Free Speech Concerns

Britain’s communications regulator, Ofcom, has unveiled a new framework urging social media and technology companies to censor so-called “misogynistic” content as part of its A Safer Life Online for Women and Girls campaign.

The initiative, framed as an effort to protect women from online abuse, further weakens the distinction between “harmful” conduct and lawful expression, a tension Ofcom itself acknowledges in its own documentation.

The regulator’s new guidance encourages platforms to adopt a wide range of “safety” measures, many of which would directly influence what users can post, see, and share.

These include inserting prompts that nudge users to “reconsider” certain comments, suppressing “misogynistic” material in recommendation feeds and search results, temporarily suspending users who post repeated “abuse,” and de-monetizing content flagged under this category.

Moderators would also receive special training on “gender-based harms,” while posting rates could be throttled to slow the spread of unwanted speech.

Ofcom’s document also endorses the use of automated scanning systems like “hash-matching” to locate and delete non-consensual intimate imagery.

While intended to prevent the circulation of explicit photos, such systems typically involve the mass analysis of user uploads and can wrongly flag legitimate material.

Additional proposals include “trusted flagger” partnerships with NGOs, identity verification options, and algorithmic “friction” mechanisms, small design barriers meant to deter impulsive posting.

Some of the ideas, such as warning prompts and educational links, are voluntary.

Yet several major advocacy groups, including Refuge and Internet Matters, are pressing for the government to make them binding on all platforms.

If adopted wholesale, these measures would effectively place Ofcom in a position to oversee the policing of legal speech, with tech firms acting as its enforcement arm.

In a letter announcing the guidance, Ofcom’s Chief Executive Melanie Dawes declared that “the digital world is not serving women and girls the way it should,” describing online misogyny and non-consensual deepfakes as pervasive problems that justify immediate “industry-wide action.”

She stated that Ofcom would “follow up to understand how you are applying this Guidance” and publish a progress report in 2027.

Keep reading

Were The Brits Behind Bloomberg’s Russian-US Leaks?

Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service warned earlier the same day as Bloomberg’s report that the Brits are hellbent on discrediting Trump in order to undermine his latest peace efforts for resolving the conflict from which they profit.

Bloomberg shared what it claimed to be the transcripts of calls between Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Putin’s top foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov as well as between Ushakov and Putin’s other advisor Kirill Dmitriev about the Ukrainian peace process. The gist of the Witkoff-Ushakov call was Witkoff’s proposal to have Putin suggest a Gaza-like 20-point peace deal for Ukraine during an upcoming call with Trump while the Ushakov-Dmitriev one implied that the leaked draft was Russian-influenced.

Ushakov declined to comment on his talks with Witkoff but said that “Somebody tapped, somebody leaked, but not us” whereas Dmitriev flat-out described his purported call with Ushakov as “fake”. For his part, Trump defended Witkoff’s alleged “coaching” of Ushakov on how Putin should deal with him by reminding everyone “That’s what a dealmaker does. You got to say, ‘Look, they want this – you got to convince them with this.’ That’s a very standard form of negotiations.”

As regards the possibility that the draft framework was Russian-influenced, the notion of which has been pushed by the legacy media to discredit the proposed mutual compromises therein, that was already debunked. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also serves as National Security Advisor, said that “The peace proposal was authored by the U.S. It is offered as a strong framework for ongoing negotiations It is based on input from the Russian side. But it is also based on previous and ongoing input from Ukraine.”

Therefore, neither transcript is scandalous even if their contents were accurately reported, yet the question arises of who might have tapped and leaked these calls. Intriguingly, earlier the same day that Bloomberg later published their report, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service warned that the UK “aims to undermine Trump’s efforts to resolve the conflict by discrediting him.” Readers will recall the UK’s role in Russiagate, which they conspired with the CIA, FBI, and the Clinton camp to cook up to against him.

Seeing as how they can no longer collude in this way with their three prior conspirators, the UK might therefore have resorted to leaking those two calls with Ushakov that they might have tapped (possibly among many others) as a last-ditch attempt to discredit the latest unprecedented progress towards peace. This provocation might also have been meant to make Trump panic and fire Witkoff out of fear of another Russiagate 2.0 investigation if this scandal helps the Democrats flip Congress next year.

Keep reading

Economic Doom Loop: Leftist UK Gov’t to Raise Taxes to All Time High, While Increasing Welfare and Migration Handouts

The leftist Labour Party government in Britain announced £26 billion in tax hikes as a part of its autumn budget, which will take the tax burden to an all time high over the next five years.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves, the Labour government’s top cabinet minister on the economy, unveiled Wednesday her long-anticipated budget, which will see millions of Britons see their taxes increased despite the leftist party’s promise to focus on growth and to protect workers from paying more in tax.

While Reeves did not technically raise income taxes — as it would have been a direct contradiction of the party’s 2024 election manifesto — her budget extends the income tax threshold freeze, resulting in what is known as fiscal drag, a process by which workers are brought into higher tax bands as a result of inflation or pay growth.

According to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which controversially leaked the details of Reeves’ plan prior to the announcement, the extension of the freeze announced on Wednesday will see an estimated 920,000 more workers paying the 40 per cent income tax rate by 2029-30 compared to projections in March. Similarly, some 780,000 more people will be forced into paying income tax for the first time at the lowest 20 per cent rate, The Times reported.

As a result, income tax will increase from 10.5 per cent of GDP to 11.8 per cent by 2030-31. In total, the overall tax burden will climb from 34.7 per cent to an all time high of 38 per cent of GDP by 2031 after the £26 billion in tax hikes are factored in.

The government attempted to ameliorate anger over the cost of living by announcing q £150 reduction in energy payments, and an increase to the national minimum wage, which critics warn may hurt employment numbers. In a further populist measure, the government will introduce a so-called “mansion tax” on properties worth over £2 million. However, some have warned that this will further exacerbate the exodus of millionaires from the country.

Keep reading

NHS Greenlights Controversial Puberty Blocker Trials, Will Inject Over 200 Kids as Young as 10

The UK’s National Health Service (NHS) has approved two clinical trials to study the effects of puberty blockers on children, involving up to 226 participants, with some as young as 10 years old.

The trials, set to begin recruitment in early 2025, aim to “gather evidence” on the impacts of these drugs after a ban on their routine NHS prescription earlier this year.

The Daily Mail reports:

They will be injected with the drugs to examine whether they could safely be used in future to help young people change their bodies and become more like the gender they self-identify as, rather than their gender at birth.

Researchers dismissed accusations that the trial could amount to ‘coercing’ children into taking the drugs, which potentially damage fertility, bone density and brain development.

They insisted it would be safe because they have planned the ‘most rigorous and safest study design’ which will involve ‘close monitoring’ of any potential side-effects and risks.

But campaigners branded the study’s launch ‘outrageous’, saying it should be halted.

The primary trial, led by King’s College London and the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, will divide participants into two groups: one receiving puberty blockers immediately for two years, and the other delayed by one year.

Children must be under 16, have a formal diagnosis of “gender incongruence,” and obtain parental consent.

“The youngest patients in the study, being led by researchers at King’s College London, will typically be ten to 11 years old for girls and 11 to 12 years old for boys. The maximum age will be 15 years and eleven months,” the Daily Mail reports.

The drugs, such as Triptorelin, administered via injection every six months, will be monitored for side effects.

A second, smaller trial with about 100 participants will focus on potential brain development effects by comparing blocked and unblocked groups.

These studies follow the 2024 Cass Review, an independent report commissioned by NHS England that criticized the lack of high-quality evidence supporting the use of puberty blockers and led to their prohibition outside research settings.

The review highlighted risks to bone density, fertility, and mental health from prior use at the Tavistock clinic’s Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS).

The trials are part of a £10.7 million NHS-funded research program. Results are expected in about four years.

Keep reading

UK Government “Resist” Program Monitors Citizens’ Online Posts

Let’s begin with a simple question. What do you get when you cross a bloated PR department with a clipboard-wielding surveillance unit?

The answer, apparently, is the British Government Communications Service (GCS). Once a benign squad of slogan-crafting, policy-promoting clipboard enthusiasts, they’ve now evolved (or perhaps mutated) into what can only be described as a cross between MI5 and a neighborhood Reddit moderator with delusions of grandeur.

Yes, your friendly local bureaucrat is now scrolling through Facebook groups, lurking in comment sections, and watching your aunt’s status update about the “new hotel down the road filling up with strangers” like it’s a scene from Homeland. All in the name of “societal cohesion,” of course.

Once upon a time, the GCS churned out posters with perky slogans like Stay Alert or Get Boosted Now, like a government-powered BuzzFeed.

But now, under the updated “Resist” framework (yes, it’s actually called that), the GCS has been reprogrammed to patrol the internet for what they’re calling “high-risk narratives.”

Not terrorism. Not hacking. No, according to The Telegraph, the new public enemy is your neighbor questioning things like whether the council’s sudden housing development has anything to do with the 200 migrants housed in the local hotel.

It’s all in the manual: if your neighbor posts that “certain communities are getting priority housing while local families wait years,” this, apparently, is a red flag. An ideological IED. The sort of thing that could “deepen community divisions” and “create new tensions.”

This isn’t surveillance, we’re told. It’s “risk assessment.” Just a casual read-through of what that lady from your yoga class posted about a planning application. The framework warns of “local parental associations” and “concerned citizens” forming forums.

And why the sudden urgency? The new guidance came hot on the heels of a real incident, protests outside hotels housing asylum seekers, following the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl by Hadush Kebatu, an Ethiopian migrant.

Now, instead of looking at how that tragedy happened or what policies allowed it, the government’s solution is to scan the reaction to it.

What we are witnessing is the rhetorical equivalent of chucking all dissent into a bin labelled “disinformation” and slamming the lid shut.

Keep reading

Are the Grooming Gangs a Muslim Phenomenon?

The many prosecutions of grooming gangs have shocked the UK public. There is the sheer scale of the abuse, in which thousands of abusers have raped, intimidated, controlled, tortured and sexually exploited thousands of underage girls. Also shocking are the repeated failures of both the criminal justice system and numerous reviews to bring about lasting change.

The expression ‘grooming gangs’ has been challenged, as it could be taken to imply some kind of consent. Although ‘rape gangs’ is not inaccurate, ‘grooming gang’ does capture the element of psychological control over victims, many of whom have been subjected to repeated rapes over an extended period of time. 

Is ethnicity the key to this epidemic? The 2014 Jay report about grooming gangs in Rotherham stated that “the majority of known perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage”. At the time around 3% of the town’s population was Pakistani. However, while it is true that most of the convicted gangs have consisted of men of Pakistani heritage, for example in Oxfordshire, Rotherham and Telford, the published lists of members of Pakistani gangs have shown that the ‘Pakistani’ men are all also Muslims.

Moreover, several non-Pakistani grooming gangs have been made up of men with Muslim names, including two Somali gangs in Bristol, a gang composed mainly of Africans in Banbury, a gang of three Iranians in Chelmsford, a gang of three Syrians and a Kuwaiti in Newcastle, a pair of Turkish men in Somerset and a gang of 17 men in Newcastle of Albanian, Kurdish, Bangladeshi, Indian, Turkish, Iranian, Iraqi and Pakistani heritage. In the last case, all the men’s names were Islamic, with the exception of one Hindu. Although there have been a handful of smaller gangs made up of non-Muslim perpetrators, the clear majority of gangs overall and all the larger gangs have been made up of Muslim men. Peter McLoughlin, who compiled a list of grooming gang convictions from 1997 to 2018, found that 87% of those convicted had Muslim names.

The label ‘Pakistani’ for these gangs is both too narrow and too broad. Too broad because overwhelmingly it has been Muslim Pakistani men involved in these gangs, not Pakistani Christians, Hindus or Sikhs. Too narrow because of the gangs made up of non-Pakistani Muslims. The label ‘Asian’ is also a misnomer: there has been no Indian, Japanese or Chinese grooming gang. 

Trevor Phillips, writing for the Telegraph in 2017, rightly said: “What the perpetrators have in common is their proclaimed faith. They are Muslims, and many of them would claim to be practising.” This has become apparent despite the best efforts of the authorities to conceal any connection of these crimes with Islam.

Unfortunately, Western secular people are handicapped by a deeply entrenched religious illiteracy which can make it hard for them to discern and analyse the influence of religions. Rafael L. Bardají, former National Security Advisor to the Spanish Prime Minister, put his finger on the issue: “A population that has fundamentally turned its back on its faith cannot understand the religious motivations of others.” At the same time some Western people are blind to certain features of Islam because they project their impressions of a benign Christianity onto it. There is also is dominant strand of Western thought which dismisses the influence of religions altogether, relegating faith to the domain of private spirituality.

Another handicap impacting public officials’ understanding has been the fear of being labelled Islamophobic. 

Keep reading

The UK and Canada Lead the West’s Descent into Digital Authoritarianism

“Big Brother is watching you.” These chilling words from George Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece, 1984, no longer read as fiction but are becoming a bleak reality in the UK and Canada—where digital dystopian measures are unravelling the fabric of freedom in two of the West’s oldest democracies.

Under the guise of safety and innovation, the UK and Canada are deploying invasive tools that undermine privacy, stifle free expression, and foster a culture of self-censorship. Both nations are exporting their digital control frameworks through the Five Eyes alliance, a covert intelligence-sharing network uniting the UK, Canada, US, Australia, and New Zealand, established during the Cold War.

Simultaneously, their alignment with the United Nations’ Agenda 2030, particularly Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16.9—which mandates universal legal identity by 2030—supports a global policy for digital IDs, such as the UK’s proposed Brit Card and Canada’s Digital Identity Program, which funnel personal data into centralized systems under the pretext of “efficiency and inclusion.” By championing expansive digital regulations, such as the UK’s Online Safety Act and Canada’s pending Bill C-8, which prioritize state-defined “safety” over individual liberties, both nations are not just embracing digital authoritarianism—they’re accelerating the West’s descent into it.

The UK’s Digital Dragnet

The United Kingdom has long positioned itself as a global leader in surveillance. The British spy agency, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), runs the formerly secret mass surveillance programme, code-named Tempora, operational since 2011, which intercepts and stores vast amounts of global internet and phone traffic by tapping into transatlantic fibre-optic cables. Knowledge of its existence only came about in 2013, thanks to the bombshell documents leaked by the former National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence contractor and whistleblower, Edward Snowden. “It’s not just a US problem. The UK has a huge dog in this fight,” Snowden told the Guardian in a June 2013 report. “They [GCHQ] are worse than the US.”

Following that is the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) 2016, also dubbed the “Snooper’s Charter,” which mandates that internet service providers store users’ browsing histories, emails, texts, and phone calls for up to a year. Government agencies, including police and intelligence services (like MI5, MI6, and GCHQ) can access this data without a warrant in many cases, enabling bulk collection of communications metadata. This has been criticized for enabling mass surveillance on a scale that invades everyday privacy.

Recent expansions under the Online Safety Act (OSA) further empower authorities to demand backdoors to encrypted apps like WhatsApp, potentially scanning private messages for vaguely defined “harmful” content—a move critics like Big Brother Watch, a privacy advocacy group, decry as a gateway to mass surveillance. The OSA, which received Royal Assent on October 26, 2023, represents a sprawling piece of legislation by the UK government to regulate online content and “protect” users, particularly children, from “illegal and harmful material.”

Implemented in phases by Ofcom, the UK’s communications watchdog, it imposes duties on a vast array of internet services, including social media, search engines, messaging apps, gaming platforms, and sites with user-generated content, forcing compliance through risk assessments and hefty fines. By July 2025, the OSA was considered “fully in force” for most major provisions. This sweeping regime, aligned with global surveillance trends via Agenda 2030’s push for digital control, threatens to entrench a state-sanctioned digital dragnet, prioritizing “safety” over fundamental freedoms.

Elon Musk’s platform X has warned that the act risks “seriously infringing” on free speech, with the threat of fines up to £18 million or 10% of global annual turnover for non-compliance, encouraging platforms to censor legitimate content to avoid punishment. Musk took to X to express his personal view on the act’s true purpose: “suppression of the people.”

Keep reading

Parents Accuse BBC of HARMING KIDS Through Pro-Trans Bias In Children’s Programming

In a mounting controversy, 650 families have accused the BBC of saturating children’s programming with pro-transgender ideology, claiming it has led vulnerable young people toward social and irreversible medical transitions.

The allegations, detailed in a letter from the Bayswater Support Group (BSG) to broadcasting regulator Ofcom, highlight a “constant drip-feed” of biased content that parents say has caused lasting harm. This comes amid broader scrutiny of the BBC’s impartiality.

The BSG, representing parents of primary school-aged children and teenagers who identify as trans, argues that the BBC’s coverage over nearly a decade has promoted trans lifestyles without balance, objectivity, or adequate safeguarding.

A spokesman for the group stated: “For the past decade, the constant stream of propaganda about gender and trans activism the BBC has transmitted has played a significant role in creating a dangerous culture for children.”

Keep reading

Free speech documentary cancelled by London cinema

A London cinema has banned a documentary about free speech because it does not “align with our values and mission”.

Think Before You Post was due to play at Rich Mix in east London on November 25, followed by a Q&A session with contributors, before its producers were informed that the venue had decided against hosting the event.

Tom Slater, the editor of Spiked magazine, the libertarian publication behind the film, said he was sadly not surprised by the decision.

He said: “The event could only be considered controversial by those who think free speech is controversial. The cultural sector is overrun with woke scolds who wouldn’t know what free speech is if it bit them on the Birkenstocks.

“I suppose we should be happy to have been proven right. But vindication is cold comfort when it comes at the cost of a great evening of screening the film and discussing it with our contributors, friends and supporters.”

Rich Mix told Slater that it had revoked his booking on Monday in an email seen by The Times.

The email said: “Since confirming your booking, it has come to light that the content and speakers featured do not align with our values and mission here at Rich Mix. Our founding objectives are to support marginalised communities (primarily communities facing racial inequity), promote intercultural understanding, eliminate racial discrimination and foster equality of opportunity through arts and culture.”

Keep reading