Tag: united kingdom

Epstein and the coming “age of accountability” psy-op

In the wake Prince Andrew’s arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer gave an interview in which he said “nobody is above the law.”

And the media lost no time in proving my point. Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson echoed it in an interview of her own. Everyone from Al Jazeera to the South China Morning Post has taken up the cry.

In one of those curiously timed coincidences, the UN actually used the same exact phrase just a day before Sir Keir.

Then there’s this long article in the Atlantic, I won’t sport with your intelligence by relating the bulk of the text, we concern ourselves only with the concluding paragraph:

The former Prince Andrew acted as he did because he lived in a world in which someone like him never faced consequences. That isn’t true anymore.

That’s the narrative in a nutshell. The system is fair and treats everyone the same. Old Guard bad, corruption being rooted out, accountability for the old boys club. Like #MeToo on crack.

In this vein we have the arrest of Peter Mandelson.

The investigation, and alleged attempted suicide, of Norway’s former PM Thorbjørn Jagland

The resignation of World Economic Forum chief Børge Brende over his “Epstein links”

The “retirement” of Harvard President and former Treasury Secretary of Larry Summers

Even stuff as small as the revelation of Bill Gates’ affairs with a couple of Russian women.

None of those latter four come close to actual arrests, of course. And the story is very much that while the UK (and Europe in general) are willing to act on Epstein, the US is lagging behind.

Keep reading

Britain is Trying to Censor Americans – But America is Fighting Back

Ofcom has confirmed it is referring 4chan to a final enforcement decision under the Online Safety Act. The target is a Delaware company that runs an entirely anonymous imageboard from the United States, with no offices, staff, servers or assets in Britain. The demand: install age-verification systems and content filters so that British children cannot access the site or face daily fines levied from London on an American platform. This case is not an outlier. It is the clearest real-world demonstration of what the new generation of “online safety” laws requires: private companies must build automated filters that decide, in advance, which legal speech is too harmful for minors to see. The question the regulators never quite answer is simple: what exactly does the filter catch?

In the early 2020s, a political consensus formed on both sides of the Atlantic: social media is harming children and something must be done. The result in Washington was the Kids’ Online Safety Act (KOSA); in Westminster, the Online Safety Act (OSA), which received Royal Assent in October 2023 and began enforcement in 2025. The political appeal of both measures is genuine. Adolescent mental health deteriorated in the 2010s, parents are alarmed and platforms have appeared indifferent. But good intentions do not make good law, and the form these interventions took is constitutionally and morally indefensible. Both KOSA and the OSA rest on a duty-of-care model: platforms must take “reasonable measures” or implement “proportionate systems” to prevent minors from encountering content associated with depression, anxiety, eating disorders, self-harm and suicide. This is not a regulation of conduct. It is a mandate to suppress speech based on its topic and its predicted emotional effect on a reader: the very definition of content-based regulation.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stated the constitutional problem plainly in its July 2023 letter opposing KOSA: the bill “is a content-based regulation of constitutionally protected speech” that “will silence important conversations, limit minors’ access to potentially vital resources and violate the First Amendment”.  Under Reed v. Town of Gilbert, a law is content-based if it “applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed”. Content-based regulations are “presumptively unconstitutional”.

Keep reading

UK Consults on Social Media Age Verification While Directing Parents to Report “Hate Speech” to Big Tech

The British government launched a consultation this week that could require age verification for anyone using social media, gaming sites, or AI chatbots.

The consultation, titled “Growing up in the online world,” opened on March 2nd and closes May 26, 2026. It asks the public whether the government should ban under-16s from social media entirely, impose mandatory overnight curfews on platform access, restrict AI chatbot features for minors, and require platforms to disable “addictive design features” like infinite scrolling and autoplay.

The government says it will respond in summer 2026, and Parliament has already handed ministers new legal powers to act on the findings without waiting for fresh primary legislation.

The Prime Minister announced those powers on February 16, weeks before the consultation even opened. The government can now move faster once it decides what it wants. What the public thinks determines the packaging, not the destination.

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall framed it this way: “The path to a good life is a great childhood, one full of love, learning, and play. That applies just as much to the online world as it does to the real one.”

The actual policy tools being considered are a different matter.

Age verification, as a mechanism, works by proving identity. Every user proves who they are.

A social media platform that must exclude under-16s must verify the age of its over-16s. That means collecting identity documents, linking browsing activity to real identities, or building infrastructure that a government can later compel to serve other purposes.

The surveillance architecture required to enforce a children’s safety law is the same architecture required to surveil adults. It gets built for one reason. It gets used for others.

Then there’s the “Help your child stay safe online” campaign site, the government launched alongside the consultation. The site includes a page directing parents to report “bullying, threats, harassment, hate speech, and content promoting self-harm or suicide” directly to platforms, with links to the reporting tools of Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok, Discord, YouTube, and Twitch.

Keep reading

UK COUNTER-TERROR Police Ad Warns Teens Sharing ‘Funny’ Content Could Be TERRORISM

The UK’s Counter Terrorism Police have released a disturbing advertisement depicting a white teenager facing police seizure of devices and a potential criminal record simply for sharing a link he found “funny”—content, we are told, was later deemed terrorist material.

This move, part of the broader Prevent anti-radicalization strategy, underscores the UK regime’s push to police online activity among youth, framing it as a gateway to extremism while ignoring surging real-world dangers from mass migration.

In the ad, a teen laments: “I just got all my device taken away by the police… My mom couldn’t believe it. I might get a criminal record and not be able to go to college.” He then explains: “I only shared a link. I just thought it was funny, but it was terrorist content.”

Counter Terrorism Policing describes itself as “a collaboration of UK police forces working with the UK intelligence community to help protect the public and our national security by preventing, deterring, and investigating terrorist activity.”

A recent academic analysis in the Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism highlights the escalating involvement of family courts and Prevent in childhood radicalization cases, noting “the number of children referred to Prevent and Channel due to concerns that they might be at risk of, or from, radicalisation has been steadily increasing since 2015.”

It adds that professionals like teachers are “legally obligated to refer that child to the police under the auspices of Prevent” if suspecting risk.

Government guidance on Prevent duty in schools urges communication with parents to spot signs, but also empowers referrals if family members show vulnerability. As one factsheet states, referrals can come from “a family member, friend, colleague, or a professional.”

Keep reading

Politician Rory Amon admits sex with a 13-year-old boy in a ‘dirty, hidden car park toilet’ – as he faces rape charges and jury hears his explanation

A teen lied about his age to a former Liberal MP before the pair had sex on the floor of a dirty car park bathroom, jurors have been told.

Rory Amon was a 27-year-old aspiring politician when he met the teenager at his Sydney apartment block in July 2017.

He admits having sex with the 13-year-old on one occasion at night in the underground car park bathroom.

But this was far from a case of a man lurking in a space for children, a NSW Supreme Court jury was told on Tuesday.

Amon met the teen on a gay dating website where users had to be over 18 to sign up, defence barrister Matthew Johnston SC said.

‘This is not a case … where there is an adult who’s on a chatroom that’s frequented by 13-year-olds and is tricking them into a meeting,’ he told the jury.

The alleged victim admitted lying about his age, once in signing up to the website and again when chatting to Amon, Mr Johnston said.

This was the only reason his client had met the boy, he argued.

If the teen had said he was 15 – as he claimed in the witness box – the former politician would have ceased chatting to him immediately, the barrister said. 

Instead, the 13-year-old bolstered his lies by sending photos and messages, which made him seem older with the intent of meeting Amon for sex, Mr Johnston said.

‘I’m raising that not to, in any way, say that (the alleged victim’s) to blame for anything,’ he told the jury.

‘He was 13 … adolescents make stupid decisions all the time.’

But the jury was urged by prosecutors to reject Amon’s evidence he thought the teen was above the age of consent.

‘Using your common sense and experience, you may have very little difficulty finding this accused is guilty,’ crown prosecutor Meaghan Fleeton said.

It would have been obvious to Amon when he met the boy in person he was under 16, she argued.

She said the intelligent, articulate former MP had lied about his age to manipulate the boy before pursuing and sexually assaulting him.

The alleged victim was a child with no sexual experience at the time, she said.

Now 36, Amon has pleaded not guilty to 10 child sexual abuse, child rape and indecent assault charges.

He admits meeting the boy for sex once, but denies allegations of a second meet-up where a towel was brought to the bathroom.

Mr Johnston suggested the incident had ‘grown’ in the complainant’s mind over the years as he grappled with its impact.

‘Some witnesses – they believe they’re telling the truth … but they’re genuinely mistaken about some things,’ he said.

But the Crown portrayed the key witness as honest and who broke down when testifying.

‘You saw (him) get upset when shown the photos of the car park toilet – that dirty, hidden car park toilet – where he had his first sexual experience,’ Ms Fleeton said.

‘It was a significant and life-changing course of events.’

There would have been a window of opportunity in July 2017 for both of these ‘hasty hook-ups’ to have taken place, she argued.

Soon after the alleged sexual abuse, he gave some details of what occurred to his mother, friends, school counsellor and psychologist, she noted.

The complainant first became aware of Amon’s identity in 2020 through a COVID-19 announcement when the former Liberal was a councillor.

The two reconnected on Snapchat in 2019 and then on Grindr in 2022 when Amon sent him some photos, including one in his volunteer firefighter uniform.

The trial continues on Wednesday.

Keep reading

Hundreds of cases of child abuse involving beliefs in witchcraft and evil spirits go unreported every year in UK, experts reveal

Hundreds of cases of group ritual abuse against children are going unreported every year in the UK, a leading researcher has revealed. 

Victims have been contacting support services to describe abuse at the hands of paedophile rings who use claims of witchcraft and possession to cower them into submission.

In a twisted inversion of reality, acts of rape, sexual abuse or torture are then characterised as ‘cleansing’ rituals to rid the victim of a demon or evil spirit – with perpetrators sometimes wearing costumes or masks.

While so-called ‘organised ritual abuse’ is described as a ‘rare but real phenomenon’ in Britain, police are concerned that it is heavily underreported and rarely appears in official data.

Dr Elly Hanson, a clinical psychologist and researcher, said victims often do not report ritual abuse to police because they feared their claims would appear too fantastical to be believed.

Others have become ‘disassociated’, a process that sees abuse victims adopt a different identity as a way of separating themselves from the reality of what has happened to them, or simply feel too traumatised to ‘give a coherent narrative’.

‘There are so many hurdles facing victims that nearly all of them end up falling out of the system,’ Dr Hanson told a media briefing held today by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC).

An analysis of police data by the NPCC found that just seven ritual abuse cases were investigated in 2024 out of 4,450 instances of child abuse, marking just 0.2 per cent of all investigations.

However, the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC) found that out of a sample of 36,700 calls to their helpline between July 2016 and January 2025, 1,311 (3.57 per cent) mentioned ritual abuse.

Dr Hanson said organised ritual abuse typically involves family members and starts when children are young.

Perpetrators frequently do not believe the supernatural belief systems they are espousing and simply use them as a means too gain control over their victims, the psychologist explained.

This form of abuse regularly involves torture or extreme acts of violence and may end in murder or animal sacrifice.

While beliefs about witchcraft and spirit possession are often linked to ethnic groups, such as those with links to sub-Saharan Africa, many offenders have British backgrounds.

According to Dr Hanson, ‘cultural sensitivities’ are one factor holding back police and social services, but she believes the issue works both ways.

‘You’ve potentially got a desire to be culturally sensitive with certain cultural communities, then you’ve got the other direction where someone who is British and not from a particular community they are not seen as someone who might be suffering ritual abuse,’ she said.

One recent case saw a seven-strong child sex ring in Glasgow prey on children as young as 13 in a drug den nicknamed the ‘Beastie House’.

The trial heard how the group performed ‘spells’ on the children and convinced them they had been metamorphosed into various animals.

Richard Fewkes, the director of the NPCC’s Hydrant programme targeting child sexual abuse, said the case was an example of paedophiles using claims of witchcraft as a means of control.

‘Those individuals did not necessarily believe in witchcraft, but they used the ritual of it to control the children,’ he said.

Keep reading

UK Government Secretly Tracked 25 Million People as Potential EV Owners

The UK government spent two years tracking 25 million mobile devices to build a picture of who drives electric cars. Not suspects or criminals. Just ordinary people whose browsing history mentioned EVs often enough to flag them as worth following.

The Department for Transport paid telecoms company O2 £600,000 ($809,000) to run the operation. According to the Telegraph, O2 trawled through its customers’ web browsing histories and app records, flagging anyone who visited an EV-related site at least once a month across two or more months.

That pool extended beyond O2’s own customers to include people on Tesco Mobile, GiffGaff, and Virgin Mobile, networks that run on O2’s infrastructure and whose users had no idea their data was being packaged and sold to a government agency.

Once flagged as a “potential EV owner,” your physical movements were traced across the country. London, the North-West, and the East of England received particular attention.

The techniques are standard in serious organized crime investigations. The DfT applied them to people buying environmentally friendly cars.

Andy Palmer, former executive at Nissan and Aston Martin, put it plainly: “I’m told it’s anonymized and aggregated, and that may well satisfy legal thresholds. But legality and legitimacy are not the same thing.” He added: “If you erode public trust in how that data is gathered, you undermine the very transition you are trying to accelerate.”

The idea of “anonymized” data means very little.

The surveillance ran for two years before the DfT quietly admitted defeat in April 2024, conceding that “mobile data cannot directly be used to provide information around charging behaviour or travel time.”

The program ended not because anyone questioned whether mass tracking of innocent people was appropriate, but because the data turned out to be useless for its stated purpose.

Civil servants from the DfT and Treasury were simultaneously exploring new EV taxes to replace fuel duty revenue. The people being surveilled were doing exactly what government policy encouraged them to do.

Conservative MP Sir David Davis drew the obvious conclusion: “It’s an object lesson in why you can’t trust the state with unfettered access to people’s information, because they’ve obviously taken this information without people’s permission with the objective of disadvantaging them, either by tax or other policy matters. If they’ll do it on this, with people who are doing what the government wants in policy terms, namely, pursuing green policies, what on Earth will they do elsewhere?”

Keep reading

Britain and Europe are struggling economically; their response? Regulate the world

It used to be said that the sun never set on the British Empire, so far-flung were its possessions. Britain has long since retreated from most of those territories, most recently, and controversially, in its attempt to relinquish control of the Chagos Islands. Yet even as it sheds physical dominion, Britain appears increasingly eager to export something else: its laws and regulations. 

In that project, it is joined enthusiastically by its former partners in the European Union. If the Old World has one major export left, it is bureaucracy.

The most obvious current target is X, Elon Musk’s platform, and its Grok AI tool. Some users of questionable taste quickly discovered that Grok could be used to generate deepfake images of celebrities in revealing attire. More seriously, it was alleged that the technology had been used to generate sexualised images of children. In response, last month the UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, opened a formal investigation under the Online Safety Act, citing potential failures to prevent illegal content. The possible penalties are severe, ranging from multi-million-pound fines, based on the company’s global revenue, to a complete ban on the platform in the UK.

Senior British officials were quick to escalate the rhetoric. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Technology Secretary Liz Kendall publicly condemned X and emphasised that all options, including nationwide blocking, were on the table. The message was unmistakable; compliance would be enforced, one way or another.

Two days later, X announced new restrictions to prevent Grok from editing images of real people into revealing scenarios and to introduce geo-blocking in jurisdictions where such content is illegal. Ofcom described these changes as “welcome” but insufficient, insisting its investigation would continue. Meanwhile, pressure spread outward. Other governments announced restrictions, and the European Commission expanded its own probes under the Digital Services Act. What began as a British enforcement action quickly morphed into coordinated global pressure, effectively pushing X toward worldwide policy changes.

This is the crucial point. British regulators were not merely seeking compliance for British users. They were pressing for changes to X’s global policies and technical architecture to govern speech and expression far beyond the UK’s borders. What might initially have been framed as a failure to impose sensible safeguards on a powerful new tool has become a test case for whether regulators in one jurisdiction can dictate technological limits everywhere else.

This pattern is not new. Ofcom has already attempted to extend its reach directly into the United States, brushing aside the constitutional protections afforded to Americans. Since the Online Safety Act came into force in 2025, Ofcom has adopted an aggressively expansive interpretation of its authority, asserting that any online service “with links to the UK,” meaning merely accessible to UK users and deemed to pose “risks” to them, must comply with detailed duties to assess, mitigate, and report on illegal harms. Services provided entirely from abroad are explicitly deemed “in scope” if they meet these criteria.

The flashpoints have been 4chan and Kiwi Farms, two US-based forums notorious for unmoderated speech and even harassment campaigns. In mid-2025, Ofcom initiated investigations into both for failing to respond to statutory information requests and for failing to complete the required risk assessments. It ultimately issued a confirmation decision against 4chan, imposing a £20,000 fine plus daily penalties for continued non-compliance, despite the site having no physical presence, staff, or infrastructure in the UK.

Rather than comply, the operators of both sites filed suit in US federal court, arguing that Ofcom’s actions violate the First Amendment and that the regulator lacks jurisdiction to enforce British law against American companies. The litigation frames the dispute starkly: whether a foreign regulator may, through regulatory pressure, compel changes to lawful American speech.

That question has now spilt into US politics. Senior American officials have criticised Ofcom’s posture as an extraterritorial threat to free speech, and at least one member of Congress has threatened retaliatory legislation. What Britain views as online safety increasingly appears, from across the Atlantic, to be regulatory imperialism.

Keep reading

Britain, France and Germany Say They Could Join Attacks on Iran Through ‘Necessary and Proportionate Defensive Action’

Britain, France and Germany have said they may be willing to join U.S. military action in Iran.

In a joint statement on Sunday, the three countries pledged to protect their interests and those of their Gulf allies, stating the possible need “defensive action” against Iran if required.

“E3 leaders are appalled by the indiscriminate and disproportionate missile attacks launched by Iran against countries in the region, including those who were not involved in initial US and Israeli military operations,” they wrote.

The statement continued:

Iran’s reckless attacks have targeted our close allies and are threatening our service personnel and our civilians across the region.We call on Iran to stop these reckless attacks immediately.

We will take steps to defend our interests and those of our allies in the region, potentially through enabling necessary and proportionate defensive action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones at their source.

We have agreed to work together with the US and allies in the region on this matter.

France has already deployed its Charles De Gaulle aircraft carrier from the Baltic Sea to the eastern Mediterranean in anticipation of joining the operation.

The joint statement came as the U.S. and Israel continued to pound targets across Iran on Sunday, with U.S. B-2 stealth bombers striking ballistic missile facilities using 2,000-pound bombs.

President Trump announced on social media that nine Iranian warships had been sunk and that Iran’s naval headquarters had been “largely destroyed.”

Keep reading

Republican Lawmakers Demand Answers on UK’s iCloud Encryption Backdoor Order

Two senior Republican lawmakers are demanding answers from the British government about its secret order forcing Apple to break its own encryption. The UK has until March 11 to respond.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast sent a joint letter on Wednesday to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, pressing for a formal briefing on the Technical Capability Notice (TCN) served on Apple under the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

It’s the latest move in a surveillance fight that began over a year ago and has rattled the US-UK relationship at the highest levels.

In January 2025, UK security officials secretly ordered Apple to build a backdoor into iCloud that would allow them to decrypt any user’s data, anywhere in the world. Not just suspected criminals, not just UK citizens. Everyone.

The order targeted Apple’s Advanced Data Protection (ADP) feature, the optional end-to-end encryption that ensures even Apple can’t read iCloud backups. Apple’s response was to pull ADP from the UK market entirely in February 2025, stripping strong encryption options from roughly 35 million iPhone users rather than comply with a demand it couldn’t legally discuss.

UK law makes it a criminal offense for companies to confirm or deny the existence of such orders, even to their own government.

Apple couldn’t tell the US Department of Justice that the order existed. The DOJ couldn’t verify whether it complied with the CLOUD Act, the bilateral agreement governing how the two countries share access to digital evidence. That agreement explicitly states it “shall not create any obligation that providers be capable of decrypting data.” The UK’s order appears to do exactly that.

The reaction in Washington was bipartisan. Senator Ron Wyden and Congressman Andy Biggs slammed the order as “effectively a foreign cyber attack waged through political means.”

President Trump compared the UK’s conduct directly to China’s. Speaking to the Spectator after meeting Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Trump said: “We actually told [Starmer] . . . that’s incredible. That’s something, you know, that you hear about with China.” DNI Secretary Tulsi Gabbard called any attempt to compel Apple to create security weaknesses an “egregious violation” of privacy and confirmed legal and intelligence teams were assessing the implications.

Keep reading