Tag: united kingdom

UK sucking resources out of Ukraine – Moscow

The British establishment views Ukraine as a source of cheap resources that can help alleviate the UK’s ongoing economic problems, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said.

Such a predatory attitude is typical of London, Zakharova said in an exclusive interview with RT on Wednesday.

Moscow considers the UK one of the main actors fueling the Ukraine conflict, claiming it collaborates with the EU to undermine diplomatic efforts made by US President Donald Trump.

“Britain has a history of aggressive colonialism and imperialism toward resource-rich countries,” she stated. “Ukraine holds significant potential in this regard, and Britain views it as a means of enrichment – or rather a lifeline given the current state of Western European economies.”

“London perceives Ukraine as merely a feeding trough, both now and in the future, from which it can extract essentially free minerals and refine them,” she added.

The Ukrainian leadership is not acting in the interests of its citizens, Zakharova claimed, but instead follows directives from “NATO, Western European elites, and local self-interested groups.”

Keep reading

Graham Linehan Arrested by Armed Police Over X Posts as UK Free Speech Crisis Deepens

There are many ways to return to Britain after a long-haul flight. Maybe you get a cup of tea, a mildly annoyed customs agent, and a taxi driver who tells you London’s gone to hell. Or, if you’re Graham Linehan, you’re met at Heathrow by five armed officers who then take you into custody over things you wrote on the internet.

The man who created Father Ted and The IT Crowd, shows that helped define British humor, was arrested, detained, and taken to hospital, all because of three tweets.

He wrote later: “I was arrested at an airport like a terrorist, locked in a cell like a criminal, taken to hospital because the stress nearly killed me, and banned from speaking online.”

The Metropolitan Police confirmed that Linehan was arrested on suspicion of inciting violence, related to posts he made on X. Armed officers from the Met’s Aviation Unit escorted Linehan off of a flight from Arizona and into custody.

The tweets in question included one joke suggesting that if a “trans-identified male” is found in a women-only space, people should “make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.”

Keep reading

UK Council Offers Emotional Support To Staff “Discomforted” By Seeing The National Flag

A council in the county of Essex, close to London, has been ridiculed for offering emotional support to employees they claim are feeling unsettled by seeing so many people raising the national flag in the streets of towns and cities across the country.

As we have highlighted, the action is being taken by everyday people in Britain who are sick to the back teeth of mass illegal immigration and the fallout it’s having on their communities.

An email sent to staff by Essex County Council states that it is “aware of the increasing visibility of St George’s and Union Jack flags displayed on road signs, bridges and trees in parts of Essex”.

The email continues, “While these symbols may hold different meanings for different people, we recognise that for many – particularly our colleagues of colour – they can evoke feelings of discomfort and be associated with anti-immigration rhetoric”.

Anti-illegal immigration, yes. Go on.

“We stand firmly against all forms of racism and discrimination, and we are committed to fostering a safe, inclusive, and respectful environment for everyone,” the email ridiculously states, as if being perturbed about boat loads of illegals washing up in dinghies and being put up in four star hotels at taxpayer expense and allowed to wander freely around local communities is “racist”.

As we highlighted yesterday, it’s the centrist position of most British people now.

Keep reading

UK free speech crackdown sees up to 30 people a day arrested for petty offenses such as retweets and cartoons

Bernadette Spofforth lay in jail on a blue gym mattress in a daze, finding it difficult to move, even breathe.

“I just closed down. But the other half of my brain went into Jack Reacher mode,” she said, referring to the fictional action hero. “Every single detail was in this very vivid, bright, sharp focus.”

She remembers noticing that you can’t drown yourself in the toilet, because there’s no standing water in it and the flush button is too far to reach if your head were in the bowl.  

She’d end up being detained for 36 hours in July 2024. Three girls had just been murdered in Southport, England, at a Taylor Swift-themed dance party. But Spofforth was not under suspicion for the crime.

Instead, horrified, and in the fog of a developing tragedy, she’d reposted on X another user’s content blaming newly arrived migrants for the ghastly crime — clarifying in her retweet, “If this is true.”

Hours later she realized she may have received bad information and deleted the post — but it had already been seen thousands of times. 

The murders resulted in widespread civil unrest in the UK, where mass migration is a central issue for citizens. Four police vehicles arrived at her home days later. Spofforth, 56, a successful businesswoman from Chester, was placed under arrest.

“We’re a year on now and I can honestly tell you that I don’t think I will ever recover,” she told The Post. “I don’t mean that as a victim. Those poor children were victims. But I will never trust anything the authorities say to me ever again.”

Her story is one repeated almost hourly in the UK, where data suggests over 30 people a day are arrested for speech crimes, about 12,000 a year, under laws written well before the age of social media that make crimes of sending “grossly offensive” messages or sharing content of an “indecent, obscene or menacing character.”

Social media continues to be flooded with videos of British cops banging on doors in the middle of the night and hauling parents off to jail—all over mean Facebook posts and agitated words on X.

Keep reading

4chan and Kiwi Farms Sue UK Regulator Ofcom Over Online Censorship Law, Citing First Amendment Violations

Two of the internet’s most free-speech supporting platforms, 4chan and Kiwi Farms, are taking their fight for online free speech to court, targeting the UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, for what they describe as an unconstitutional attempt to enforce British censorship laws on American websites.

In a lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the plaintiffs argue that the UK’s controversial Online Safety Act is not only an unlawful extraterritorial power grab but a direct attack on foundational American liberties.

Read the complaint here.

The suit calls Ofcom’s enforcement tactics a clear violation of the First Amendment and a dangerous attempt to establish global jurisdiction over online speech.

The complaint lays out how the UK’s censorship regime is being pushed onto American soil, despite the fact that both platforms operate entirely within the United States and are in full compliance with US law.

“Parliament does not have that authority. That issue was settled, decisively, 243 years ago in a war that the UK’s armies lost and are not in any position to relitigate,” Kiwi Farms stated bluntly in a letter responding to Ofcom’s demands.

Ofcom, under the new Online Safety Act, is demanding that platforms like 4chan and Kiwi Farms conduct written “risk assessments,” install content moderation systems, remove speech deemed “illegal” by UK standards, and verify the identities of their users.

The platforms face criminal penalties and steep fines of up to £18 million ($24M) or 10% of their global revenue if they refuse.

The plaintiffs argue these demands are not only legally unenforceable but blatantly unconstitutional. “Where Americans are concerned, the Online Safety Act purports to legislate the Constitution out of existence,” the lawsuit states.

Central to the challenge is the claim that Ofcom, a British corporate regulator funded by the very companies it polices, is attempting to impose UK-style speech control on a global scale.

According to the complaint, Ofcom has no lawful authority to regulate US platforms, let alone to compel speech or force the removal of content that is protected under the US Constitution.

The filing asserts that Ofcom’s threats of imprisonment and massive fines, coupled with demands for speech censorship and compelled disclosure of sensitive company information, constitute “egregious violations of Americans’ civil rights.”

The UK regulator has already targeted both platforms with a series of legal notices and threats, despite lacking jurisdiction or proper legal process.

These include multiple emails and letters declaring 4chan and Kiwi Farms in breach of UK law, none of which were served under the required UK-US Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.

The plaintiffs argue that these attempts at enforcement are not just improper, but “repugnant to United States public policy.”

“Ofcom purports to regulate content and interactions on platforms and services with which Plaintiffs’ users are voluntarily interacting,” the complaint says. “Ofcom seeks to control those interactions in order to satisfy the whims of Ofcom employees or the UK law enforcement or political apparatuses.”

Notably, both platforms have limited or no access for UK users in response to the threats. Kiwi Farms, for instance, blocked UK IPs entirely after receiving what it interpreted as an impending Section 100 order demanding compliance.

The lawsuit requests the court to block Ofcom from issuing further demands without going through proper international legal channels and to declare the Online Safety Act’s enforcement efforts unenforceable in the United States.

It also seeks a permanent injunction against any future attempts by Ofcom to impose UK regulations on the plaintiffs.

The case stands as a direct confrontation between two visions of the internet: one based on the US constitutional tradition of free speech and open access, and another that embraces government-mandated safety regimes that can be weaponized to silence speech on a global scale.

For the plaintiffs, the message is clear: they will not yield to foreign censors. As the suit puts it, “Delaware and West Virginia are not part of the UK. Their citizens, both natural and corporate, do not answer to the UK.”

Preston Byrne of Byrne & Storm, P.C., who represents the plaintiffs, told Reclaim The Net the platforms are refusing to comply with Ofcom’s demands because “American citizens do not surrender our constitutional rights just because Ofcom sends us an e-mail.”

He praised the decision by 4chan and Kiwi Farms to stand firm against the foreign regulator, stating, “In the face of these foreign demands, our clients have bravely chosen to assert their constitutional rights.”

Byrne characterized the UK’s censorship law as a calculated attack on the American tech sector, warning that “the UK Online Safety Act is a brazen attempt by a foreign country to hobble American competitiveness and suffocate American freedom by exporting the UK’s censorship laws to our shores.”

He made it clear that the legal team would not allow such interference to go unanswered: “The First Amendment bar is prepared to hale any foreign censor into federal court at any time to defend any American.”

In a statement to Reclaim The Net, Ronald Coleman of the Coleman Law Firm, P.C., co-counsel in the suit, framed the case as a broader defense of national sovereignty and individual liberty.

Keep reading

UNREAL- British pub owner refuses entry to people wearing the flag of their country

UNREAL- British pub owner refuses entry to people wearing the flag of their country

An unprecedented incident shook daily life in England when a British pub refused entry to customers carrying their own country’s flag. What might seem trivial has become a focus of debate about national identity, freedom of expression, and the growing imposition of arbitrary rules by certain local administrations. Witnesses and affected patrons reported that the ban is clear and direct: carrying the English flag in a pub located in England may result in being denied service, regardless of whether the visitors’ intent is simply to show national pride.

The pub owner claimed it was a “simple rule by management” and that not allowing entry with national flags is part of an internal policy that must be followed strictly. However, for many citizens, this represents an abuse of authority and a clear contradiction: how is it possible that in one’s own country, a basic symbol like the national flag can be prohibited? The incident quickly went viral on social media, where thousands expressed outrage over what they see as censorship and discrimination within Britain itself.

During the confrontation, a tense exchange took place between the customer and pub staff. Video recording was prohibited inside the establishment, while the visitor insisted on understanding the reason for the ban. Despite the owner’s persistence and administrative justification, the situation sparked public debate about the limits of private authority versus citizens’ rights. Additionally, the comparison with other foreign flags, such as the Palestinian flag, highlighted a double standard many find unacceptable: the English flag is banned, while others can be displayed without issue.

This case occurs amid a broader context of demographic changes in England due to increasing immigration pressure. Cities such as London, Birmingham, and Manchester have experienced significant growth in migrant populations, creating cultural and political tensions over preserving traditional British values. Many citizens feel that national identity is at risk and that imposing rules like banning the English flag reflects an increasing fear among establishments of cultural conflicts or political confrontations. For conservatives, the pub situation is a microcosm of a larger problem: mass immigration has altered social balance and incentivized administrative decisions that prioritize neutrality over protecting national identity.

The case has alarmed those who defend national pride and traditional British values. Conservative analysts argue that situations like this reflect a troubling trend of restricting patriotic symbols and silencing expressions of identity while ignoring the challenges of mass immigration. The controversy also raised questions about business owners’ freedom versus the obligation to respect customers’ fundamental rights, particularly in contexts where there is no conflict or real threat, only the display of a national emblem.

Keep reading

England Anti-Mass Migration Protests Get Heated as Open Borders Far-Left Clash With Police

Numerous of protests took place on Saturday throughout England against the government scheme of housing alleged asylum seekers in hotels in towns and cities across the country, sparking local concerns over the safety of women and girls.

Up to 30 protests were scheduled to take place over the weekend, the majority of which under the banner of “Abolish Asylum System” and opposing open borders counter-demonstrations also being swiftly organised by heavily funded leftist groups like Stand Up to Racism.

While the protest movement against migrant hotels has in fact, been largely peaceful since it broke out in Epping last month following the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl allegedly at the hands of an illegal from Ethiopia housed in a local hotel, several clashes were seen on Saturday involving police and the far-left counter-demonstrators.

Keep reading

Sequins, feathers… and a groundbreaking arrest using facial recognition cameras: The Daily Mail sees police deploy slick new technology at Notting Hill Carnival

Even the harshest critics of the Metropolitan Police admit the force has its work cut out with the Notting Hill Carnival.

Describing Europe’s biggest street party as a policing challenge would be a bit like referring to the Second World War as an unfortunate diplomatic incident.

Of course, it is not just the crowds of more than two million that put a strain on police resources every year on the August bank holiday. In recent years, it has also been the criminality – drugs, violence, knife crime, sexual offences, even murder – that all too frequently overshadows the celebrations.

So even with around 7,000 officers on duty, it is perhaps unsurprising that Met chiefs have introduced the use of live facial recognition (LFR) – previously deployed at the King’s coronation as well as Premier League matches – for the 2025 carnival.

Festivities officially began yesterday morning with the Children’s Day Parade. Thousands of revellers – many wearing ornate costumes of sequins and feathers – danced through the west London streets as drummers pounded unrelenting rhythms. Elsewhere, more than 30 sound systems blared out Caribbean and electronic dance music.

Meanwhile, officers were putting in place the final touches to their LFR system, which records images of people via sophisticated cameras. It uses biometric software to assess head size and other facial features, then converts these details into digital data. According to experts, any individual whose image scores 0.64 or higher (on a scale of zero to one) is highly likely to be a match for someone whose photo is on file.

At 6.23am yesterday, several hours before the parade got underway, specialists at the Met finalised a ‘watchlist’ of 16,231 individuals of interest to them. They included people wanted by the courts or being sought for alleged criminal activity that would merit jail time of ‘a year or more’.

Others on the list included those who have been freed under certain restrictions – including former prisoners released on licence from life sentences – to ensure they are sticking to the conditions imposed on them by the authorities.

Keep reading

Experts predict a civil war in the UK; there is no political solution

In a recent interview, Richard Kemp, an expert on security, intelligence, counter-terrorism and defence, issued a stark warning:

“The more it develops – and it is going to develop more and more – the more unrest we’re going to see … I would go as far as to predict not just civil unrest but civil war in the UK, in the coming years … I would hate to be right on this, but I believe I know that there is no political solution.”

At MCC Feszt in Hungary, Connor Tomlinson sat down with former British Army Colonel Richard Kemp to ask what the main threats facing the West from within are, why our politicians appear incapable of or unwilling to address them and whether ignoring problems caused by immigration and Islam will bring Britain to the brink of civil war.

Kemp issued a stark warning that the United Kingdom is on a trajectory towards civil war due to the failure of political leaders to address a growing threat from an alliance between far-left activists and Islamist extremists.  He stated that this alliance, which he believes is fostered and funded by hostile foreign powers like Russia, China and Iran, poses a significant danger to the nation’s cohesion, culture and political existence.

Kemp criticised UK politicians for being short-sighted and risk-averse, operating with a “horizon is four years” mentality focused on re-election rather than taking the decisive action needed to prevent societal collapse.

He emphasised that while he does not encourage violence, he believes the public may ultimately feel they have “no option” but to take matters into their own hands, leading to widespread unrest and potentially full-scale civil war if the current situation continues.

“The more it develops – and it is going to develop more and more – the more unrest we’re going to see … I would go as far as to predict not just civil unrest but civil war in the UK, in the coming years … I would hate to be right on this, but I believe I know that there is no political solution,” Kemp said.

Keep reading

Flag Wars Everywhere!

One of the curious aspects of moving from the UK to the US is adjusting to the everyday cultural differences. There’s the tipping, the peculiar phrases (waiters often say ‘I appreciate you’ rather than ‘thank you’), and the kind of generalised politeness from strangers that in London I would naturally treat with suspicion. For me, one of the most notable variations has been the unabashed patriotism. The Stars and Stripes is a common sight, fluttering above public buildings, as bunting on shops, and from huge flagpoles erected along the highway. It’s almost as though these people are actually proud of their country.

In the UK, by contrast, the national flag has long been distrusted. Some view it as a symbol of racism and the legacy of empire, but more often it evokes a kind of embarrassment, as if patriotism itself were a form of bad manners. This week the Labour-run council in Birmingham ordered the removal of British and English flags from lamp posts, claiming that such “unauthorised attachments” can be “dangerous”. At the same time, Palestinian flags are flown with impunity throughout the UK, and many suspect that the police are too frightened to take them down.

The backlash against Birmingham council has become an unexpected flashpoint in the culture wars, with locals in various towns and cities now hoisting the flags of the Union and St George in defiance. The movement has been dubbed ‘Operation Raise the Colours’, spreading rapidly to London, Bradford, Newcastle, Norwich, Swindon and beyond.

Inevitably, woke activists see the British flag as threatening and “unsafe”, a declaration of support for colonialism and slavery, as though a nation’s flag can only possibly represent the worst aspects of its history. These same activists do not seem to baulk at the raising of the Progress Pride flag in public, in spite of the fact that this design is associated with the mutilation of children, the destruction of women’s spaces and the rolling back of gay rights.

The hypocrisy has been particularly obvious in areas such as Tower Hamlets, a council that has consistently displayed the Palestine flag, but has now said that any UK equivalent will not be tolerated. But why should the national flag be considered controversial in any area of the country it represents? In military terms, it is unthinkable to allow a flag to fall, because that is to suggest surrender or defeat. But in places like Tower Hamlets, the concept of raising it in the first place seems anathema.

Of course, all of this comes down to what the flag signifies. To many, the Union flag serves as a rallying point, binding people to shared values within one nation. To others, it is a symbol of dominance and jingoistic supremacy. But the same could surely be said of the Palestinian flag. While some will argue that it is a show of solidarity for a cause, in many cases it appears to function less as a unifying symbol than as a political provocation, aimed at alienating those who dissent from its message.

Take for instance the example of Labour donor and entrepreneur Dale Vince, who is currently displaying an oversized 30-foot-long Palestinian flag outside his office in Stroud. He had previously hung the European Union flag at the same spot. For Vince, flags are not simply a means of declaring his political affiliations. They are also instruments for his culture war; a way to hammer home his point of view while goading his Cotswold neighbours in the process.

I have had some personal experience of how flags can be used to promote dissent rather than unity. When I was at university, my mother moved to a house in the Brandywell area of the city of Derry in Northern Ireland, not far from where she grew up. In the surrounding roads there were plenty of Irish Tricolours painted onto walls, and even some of the kerbstones were decorated in the green, white and gold. You could argue that this was all in celebration of Irish culture, but of course these were really territorial markings, a way to ensure that Unionists knew they were not welcome. In turn, the nearby Fountain Estate was plastered with the colours of the UK flag, and remains so to this day.

Keep reading