Tag: united kingdom

UK Cities Roll Out More Diversity Barriers; Vehicle-Ramming Threat Now The Norm

A family summer beach event in the UK city of Nottingham now sits behind portable anti-ram steel barrier, the latest admission that open borders have turned public spaces into soft targets.

Local authorities across Britain are quietly installing more of what critics now call “diversity barriers” – heavy portable steel devices designed to stop vehicles being driven into crowds.

The annual artificial “Nottingham Beach” event opened this week behind a line of bright red Husson H-Stop units.

About 15 of the barriers now block the four main entrances. They tip upward on impact, changing a vehicle’s trajectory and generating enough friction to halt a three-and-a-half-tonne truck travelling at 30 mph.

Councillors and organisers insist the move is simply a precaution. The multi-agency safety group that approved them included counter-terrorism officers.

Councillor Neghat Khan, leader of Nottingham City Council, described them as an “additional safety measure” installed “following advice from the multi-agency events safety advisory group, which includes counter-terrorism colleagues.”

Event organiser James Mellors was more blunt: “I don’t think they look very pretty. But the Market Square is a very high footfall area. It’s not always about how things look, it’s about keeping people safe.”

A regular visitor, Amanda Hose Hawley, said she was “not surprised” and called the barriers “a sign of the climate we live in.”

The language is careful, the justification technical. Yet the reason these barriers exist is no mystery.

Keep reading

Meet Britain’s New Cabinet Of Fakers, Fraudsters And Hangers-On

Britons are struggling to characterize their new Cabinet, following the arrival of a new prime minister on Monday. The Cabinet is not as northern or female as Andy Burnham signaled. Most members have certainly changed. Most are not loyalists to Keir Starmer, even less so to Tony Blair. Like Burnham, many hark back to a mythical golden age of socialism in the 1970s. Like him, most are alarmingly deficient in popular mandate, external qualifications, and even political trust for their new responsibilities.

Let’s start with Burnham himself, a man born in Liverpool who pretended to be Mancunian to win the mayoralty of Manchester. He claims to represent the north but has not lived north or east of Manchester. At best, he represents a narrow part of west-central England, just north of the Midlands.

Burnham has always looked south while talking up the north. Burnham was most newsworthy for agitating for changes in national government, despite sharing a party with Starmer.

As Starmer continued to trip himself up with both feet, Burnham was one of the Labourites who prevailed on ministers to brief against their PM. After Starmer blocked Burnham’s candidacy for an accidental by-election in February, Burnham prevailed on a local MP to resign from Makerfield to force a by-election in June, which Burnham won easily, to return to Parliament, which would allow him to challenge Starmer for the leadership (less than two years into Starmer’s five-year term). Starmer initially vowed to fight on but announced his intent to quit this month. No MP stepped up to challenge Burnham’s presumptive run.

Thus, Burnham has no popular mandate to be PM, even within the party, except in the form of pledges by more Parliamentary partisans in support than against. Opposition parties rightly called for a general election to confirm his premiership, but the constitution does not oblige him.

Burnham’s supporters pretend that his easy rise proves the strength of his candidacy. In reality, it proves the weakness of his party. It could not find a new leader within its own MPs, despite a whopping majority. It triggered an expensive by-election and a more expensive mayoral election to reach outside of Parliament. Meanwhile, Burnham unwittingly poured scorn on that same Parliamentary party by criticizing normal politics and the London elite. (Since then, he has aired the idea of moving the Cabinet from London to Manchester. His current plan is to spend at least one day per work week there. That’s neither efficient nor effective.)

In the many weeks that Burnham enjoyed as rising PM, he remained vague about his Cabinet and his policies.

On Monday, he spent hours appointing just the highest roles in the Cabinet. The other appointments look set to continue for days.

Of the first day’s picks, I must start with the only selectee who can be coded as qualified and mandated (although not loyal).

John Healey becomes Chancellor of the Exchequer, the second most powerful position in government. He had quit as defense secretary six weeks ago, over Starmer’s procrastination on filling a hole in defense spending. Healey said that Britain should spend 3 percent of GDP on defense by 2030, which means he will need to find a couple dozen billion pounds per year. Previously, he advocated issuing “war bonds,” but who would buy them when the government is running record debt? He will need to cut other departments or raise taxes (probably both). On Monday, Healey said “fiscal control” would be his “first duty.” You could see the markets’ confidence decline immediately.

Healey’s resignation suggests a certain loyalty to Burnham, but otherwise they barely know each other. More usefully, he was a minister in the Treasury under Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Yes, Healey is actually qualified by experience! This is remarkable given that his predecessor, Rachel Reeves, falsified her CV, couldn’t add, and quickly became the most U-turn-prone and hated chancellor ever, as well as the most tearful.

Healey remains constrained by record government debt and his party’s suicidal unwillingness to cut spending. Remember that Starmer increased spending on welfare and benefits, after backbenchers rejected his proposal to cut them. (That was within Starmer’s first year of premiership.)

Burnham is an out-and-proud socialist who had already signaled that his government would spend and tax more. By Tuesday, his administration revealed plans to cut VAT (a sales tax) on electricity, to be funded by cutting the Starmer administration’s planned digital ID. But the minister responsible for that plan, Darren Jones, revealed, after being fired by Burnham, that digital ID was never funded. So Burnham is either ignorant or dishonest. This . . . doesn’t . . . bode . . . well.

In any case, scrapping VAT on electricity doesn’t make much difference to a household electricity bill in which most of the pricing goes to fund green initiatives, debt, stealth taxes, and administration.

Burnham already looks unprepared and unreliable.

Confirmation comes in the form of his deviation from his team’s prior briefings that he would appoint either Ed Miliband or Shabana Mahmood to the Treasury.

Red Ed goes to the Foreign Office, for which he is woefully unqualified and an undoubted liability. He infuriated the U.S. (and most Britons) as energy secretary, with his absolutism about reaching net-zero carbon by 2030, at whatever cost to the consumer. Ed also, by the way, reminds everybody of the weakness of the party’s leadership selection. He was leader from 2010 to 2015, when he literally and metaphorically stumbled at every election husting. Yet Burnham thinks Miliband is the best person to articulate British interests abroad? This won’t last long.

Miliband is already hurt. He has been denied the job he wanted, even though he was the first senior minister to call for Starmer to go, and he helped Burnham with an economic plan. (Some plan: it remains as vague as ever, except for the Soviet-style time horizon of 10 years.)

Meanwhile, Mahmood stays at the Home Office. Under-informed (or biased) souls read this as confirmation of her competence in pushing through controls on illegal immigration in the face of majority opposition from civil servants and backbenchers. In fact, she is hurdling a low bar after decades of government failures to control immigration, despite popular demands and almost every party’s commitments to lower net immigration.

Worse, Mahmood is duplicitous. She tells the right wing that her tweaks to the benefits and the timeline of asylum applications will dramatically control immigration. She tells the left wing that she will make the refugee route easier (which is the route by which almost all illegal immigrants get residency, with more privileges than citizens). Also concerning is Mahmood’s long history of Islamocentrism, which is bizarrely ignored by mainstream media. She tars normative Britons as racists (whites and Jews in particular: isn’t that racist?), campaigned against Israel, played up her status as the first Muslim home secretary, promised that her promotion would serve “her” community, and railed against supposedly routine experiences of racism in her hometown of Birmingham, where her demographic is the largest.

I doubt Mahmood will last much longer than Miliband within Team Burnham. He favors the left of the party, which has characterized her (ridiculously) as a Nigel Farage in Labour colors. For now, Burnham needs to be seen to reward her, if only because one of her allies in Parliament, Josh Simons, was the MP who resigned from Makerfield to make way for Burnham.

So the highest three officers in the land will not last as long as normal, in my estimation. Burnham’s administration will not bring the stability that Britons crave, let alone the competencies that the markets and foreign governments crave.

Talking of high ministers who won’t last long, we must go next to Wes Streeting, who had resigned as health secretary (the poisoned chalice of all ministerial appointments anyway), to build support for a challenge against Starmer. Yet after the by-election, Streeting said he wouldn’t run against Burnham, who now must reward him. Streeting becomes defense secretary. During the weekend’s rumor mill, the former chief of the British Army, Lord Dannatt, said that Streeting “knows the square root of nothing about defence.” Indeed. He’s one acquisition scandal away from a sacking. And that sort of scandal leaks every few months from Britain’s MOD.

From a turncoat Starmerite, we now turn to the loyal Starmerites who remain in government on borrowed time.

The highest-profile survivor is Pat McFadden, who will remain as work and pensions secretary – which is strange given that the government has decreased neither worklessness nor liabilities. Excuses abound for his early dismissal. And since Burnham is committed to the so-called triple lock on pensions and to increasing welfare (he talks about social care as the neglected component, but he’s not talking about cutting anything), McFadden has no obvious options except to increase spending. That’s the vicious cycle that these monkeys refuse to see, hear, or speak.

Jonathan Reynolds was Starmer’s chief whip, a role that Burnham talks about deleting (he must think that everybody will love him forever without whipping). Reynolds will take over the merged departments for Science and Technology, and Business and Trade. Burnham has a short-term interest in Reynolds. Reynolds was an ineffective whip, but in his previous role, as business secretary, he temporarily solved the collapse of British Steel by forbidding more foreign ownership and investing in government ownership. Burnham has always liked public ownership of heavy industry and transportation and has already confirmed a policy to fully nationalize British Steel. But once that process is complete, Reynolds-the-Starmerite won’t be needed. The backbenches are full of untested socialists who think closer to Burnham on public ownership.

For similar short-term reasons, Burnham kept Heidi Alexander as transport secretary and kept Lisa Nandy as secretary of state for digital, culture, media, and sport. The latter is one of the departments with its own unit for countering “disinformation” (i.e., criticism of government) by spreading disinformation. It’s also led the lawfare to punish social media companies for “harmful” content, to restrict children under 18 years of age from accessing social media (an age that makes a mockery of the same government’s plans to lower the voting age to 16), to restrict everybody’s access to VPNs, and to censor information during election season. Burnham supports such authoritarianism. His hopes for the general election in 2029 depend on it.

Yvette Cooper has been demoted from foreign secretary to health secretary, which seems designed to set her up for further failure. Ironically, she is the most qualified minister by experience, having served through the Blair and Brown administrations, but that experience is to the right of Burnham’s ideological bent. (Always strange to describe a Labourite as to the right of anything.) She already has a reputation for indecisiveness, invisibility, and foot-in-mouth disease. She must immediately deal with yet more strikes by medical unions unless exorbitant demands for pay raises are met. These have been going on for years. She won’t last years.

Keep reading

“Why I’m Writing This Anonymously And What That Says About Free Speech In Britain”

Ann Widdecombe’s murder has reopened a question that surfaces from time to time: should politicians with ‘unfashionable’ views get extra protection? The investigation continues, so I won’t comment on that, but the fact that the question is even being asked in response to a 78 year-old woman being killed in her own home tells you something regardless of how the investigation concludes. We have been here before. Jo Cox in 2016. David Amess in 2021. A pattern is forming, whatever the final facts of this particular case turn out to be.

The debate this triggers is usually framed narrowly: what security do MPs need? I want to push it wider: what if politicians are not actually the group most exposed? They have protection officers, party machinery and a public profile that makes an attack on them a national story. I have none of that. Neither does anyone else who simply has an opinion and a job to protect.

I recently listened to Professor David Betz of King’s College London’s Department of War Studies, who argued that Britain may be entering a period of increasing internal conflict in which political violence becomes more likely.

Whether or not one accepts his analysis, it’s difficult to ignore the growing sense that our public discourse has become more hostile and less forgiving.

If expressing political disagreement increasingly carries the risk of intimidation or worse, the answer cannot simply be to provide more security for an ever-expanding list of public figures.

That treats the symptom rather than the disease.

The view from nowhere and a nobody in particular

I consider myself an ordinary person.

Thirty-plus years ago I would have considered myself slightly Left-leaning. I liked to think of myself as one of the good guys.

But somewhere in the last three decades the Overton window slid sideways, and views I’ve quietly held throughout – that mass immigration, legal and illegal, hasn’t obviously benefited the culture I grew up in, that free speech should mean everyone’s speech, including the people I disagree with – are now filed under ‘Right-wing’.

I don’t think I’m unusual. Look at the Brexit vote, which for many people was as much about sovereignty and control over immigration as it was about Brussels. Look at any poll on migration levels. There is a large, ordinary, non-extreme constituency that holds views broadly like mine. And a good number of them, I suspect, keep quiet for the same reason I’m staying anonymous here: weighing up whether speaking out is worth the risk. Silence can easily be mistaken for consensus, and I suspect that’s exactly what’s happening here.

Which raises a question I’ve had to sit with while writing this: am I a coward? Publishing anonymously, after all, is a way of having the argument without paying for it. But I don’t think cowardice is really what’s on display here. A coward stays silent. What I’m doing is closer to something else entirely: deciding that saying this at all matters more than saying it under my own name, while still not being willing to bet my livelihood on it. If that’s cowardice, then I suspect it’s shared by a very large, very quiet number of people who hold perfectly mainstream opinions and have simply done the same calculations that I have. That, in itself, might be the more troubling finding than anything else in this piece.

Fear arrives before the crackdown

This is the part I think gets missed in the security debate. We talk about authoritarianism as something that happens to you: a knock on the door, a lost job, a police caution for a tweet. But before any of that, there’s the version that happens inside your own head. You draft the post and delete it. You bite your tongue at the dinner table. You calculate what a client, a neighbour, or a local WhatsApp group might do with an honest opinion, and you decide it isn’t worth finding out.

That calculation isn’t paranoid. The variables feeding it are laid out in article after article in the Daily Sceptic. Prevent’s own material cites “cultural nationalism”, defined as the belief that Western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by specific ethnic and cultural groups, as a sub-category of extreme Right-wing ideology. Two-tier policing is underpinned by the College of Policing and National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) Anti-Racism Commitment, which states that policing should not be “colour blind”, a principle many officers and members of the public have read as licence to treat people differently according to race. It is perhaps no coincidence that public trust in these institutions has been falling sharply. Gallup found that Britons’ confidence in the courts dropped 12 points in a single year to 57%, while confidence in local police fell 11 points to 64%, the largest year-on-year declines on record for either measure. When the referee looks like it’s picking sides, people stop trusting the game.

Campaigners have logged tens of thousands of ‘non-crime hate incidents’ a year, the great majority of them originating from something someone posted online. And after events like the Southport riots, an entire category of people were branded ‘far-Right thugs’ as a matter of editorial habit. None of this needs to end in a prosecution for it to work. Its function is to make you flinch before you speak, not after. And it’s working: a YouGov poll found that 57% of Britons admit to sometimes holding back their views for fear of a negative reaction, and research published earlier this year found the same pattern setting in even among teenagers, with around one in five saying they hide their political opinions at school to avoid being ‘cancelled’. Self-censorship of this kind isn’t a fringe habit. It’s now closer to a majority experience.

Nothing dramatic has happened to me. Nobody has knocked on my door. I have not been arrested, cautioned or sacked. I have simply chosen, before any of that could happen, to leave my name off this piece. That is precisely the point. Fear doesn’t need to become reality to change behaviour. The anticipation of it is enough.

That’s the self-censorship no one puts a number on, and I think it’s doing more to shrink public debate than any single policy or piece of legislation. Its success isn’t measured by how many people it punishes, but by how many quietly change their behaviour hoping never to be punished at all.

Keep reading

UK’s National Crime Agency Launches Investigation Into Itself over Leaked Financials of Farage’s Reform Party

Britain’s equivalent of the FBI has launched an investigation into itself after financial details of members of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party were leaked to the press.

Following accusations of illegally leaking banking information relating to Reform UK, including transactions involving deputy leader Richard Tice, the National Crime Agency (NCA) said on Friday that it has referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) for investigation, The Telegraph reported.

Earlier this month, a report from the Sunday Times accused Reform leader Nigel Farage of having failed to publicly declare financial support from longtime ally George Cottrell in the year leading up to the 2024 snap election, during which Mr Farage was mostly retired from frontline politics. While the party has denied that Farge broke any rules, questions have been raised, given Cottrell’s previous conviction for wire fraud in the United States and the alleged failure of Reform to declare the donations to the parliament.

Additionally, The Guardian revealed that Cottrell had also provided a brief loan of £80,000 to TisunInvestments, the real estate firm owned by Reform MP Richard Tice. Cottrell’s mother was also revealed to have donated £1 million to Tice’s think tank Britain Means Business, of which half was donated to Reform by Tice.

The transactions were reported flagged to the NCA under its suspicious activity report (SAR) scheme, which requires banks to flag large transactions.

However, Mr Tice said he was only made aware that the transactions had been flagged after he was approached by journalists from The Guardian, who also knew of other transactions from different bank accounts. He claims they would have been able to access such information only through leaks from the National Crime Agency.

Keep reading

UK government’s policy of adding folic acid to flour is not safe; studies show an increase in cancer

Why Cancer Is The Question

Folic acid forms the building blocks of DNA and drives cell division. Early embryos have cells dividing at enormous speed and they need a ready supply. Anything that helps cell division presents a hypothetical risk for people with cancer and also for the initiation of cancer in healthy people. Consequently, studies have been carried out to try and measure where that hypothetical concern is present in reality.

Measuring the Harm

The strongest test for harm is a randomised controlled trial, in which people are assigned by the toss of a coin to receive either the treatment or a placebo and are then followed up to see what happens. In 2013, researchers pooled every large folic acid trial, involving around fifty thousand people, into one analysis in The Lancet. They reported no significant effect on cancer. That result became the basis of the official safety verdict.

A year earlier, a separate, more careful review split the same trials by dose given. It found an increase in cancer in the trials using lower doses, close to the amount fortification delivers, but none in the trials using much higher doses.

That headline, a six per cent increase reported as no significant effect, is an average across every dose the trials used. Split the trials into three dose groups, on both the published figures and the patient-level data behind the 2013 analysis, and the average comes apart.

The increase is seen at the exact range that fortifying flour will deliver. That is the reverse of how a drug normally behaves, since a larger dose would usually carry more risk, not less. The result below 1 milligram is the same even if the single polyp-prevention trial that critics single out is excluded and it is seen in ordinary adults rather than just in high-risk groups. 

Prostate cancer in particular is a concern. In one trial, men given 1 milligram of folic acid a day were diagnosed with prostate cancer at 2.6 times the rate of those on a placebo, a ten-year risk of 9.7 per cent against 3.3 per cent. The trial had been designed to study bowel polyps rather than the prostate. Sixteen years later, there have still been no further trials to measure this properly. Instead, researchers re-examined the data from the other folic acid trials already run. Pooled together, six trials covering around 25,000 men showed a 24 per cent increase in prostate cancer among the men given folic acid (relative risk 1.24, 95 per cent confidence interval 1.03 to 1.49). A reanalysis at a case level claimed there was no signal but they specifically excluded dosages within the fortification range. Folate obtained from food carried no such risk, which points to the synthetic form rather than the vitamin as it occurs in the diet.

Keep reading

UK’s Ofcom Seeks Wider Powers After American Forum Fine Fails

Ofcom wasted months chasing a website it cannot reach, came up empty, and has decided the fix is more power.

Britain’s speech regulator closed its investigation into an American suicide discussion forum this week, admitted it has hit the outer wall of what the Online Safety Act censorship law allows, and used the same announcement to ask the government for tools that reach further.

The forum, which Ofcom will only call an “online suicide forum,” has allegedly been linked with more than 130 deaths in the UK and named in coroners’ reports.

Ofcom fined it £950,000, roughly $1.3 million, under the Act. The forum is based in the United States, holds no assets in Britain, is protected by the First Amendment, and has not paid. So the regulator is holding a penalty against a company it has no clear way to bill.

Ofcom thinks there’s a chance the money is still coming. It says it has “initiated work regarding the pursuit of this debt, as we have done with all companies that have not paid their fines by their deadlines.”

A separate post, cheerfully titled “What happens when a company doesn’t pay a fine,” lays out the plan. For a company with no UK assets, obtaining a judgment debt “is more complex and challenging,” and Ofcom says “it is often necessary to engage with law enforcement agencies and private specialists in other countries to identify individuals and assets against which Ofcom can take action.”

Whether Ofcom recovers a penny “can also depend on whether a court in that country will recognise a UK court judgment, and whether we can identify individuals on whom we can serve proceedings.”

That means, a British regulator wants American help to collect a British censorship fine from Americans, and even Ofcom concedes an American court might throw it straight out.

Ofcom has tried this before. It floated the same approach while chasing a fine against 4chan, a strategy that Preston Byrne, the US lawyer representing both sites, called “legally illiterate.” Byrne was just telling it like it is about the forum case. “Censorship fines are anathema to our Constitution,” he said, adding that “if Ofcom attempts to enforce the fine in a US court, which we do not expect, American law is on our side. As far as we can tell, however, this enforcement action is functionally over.”

Keep reading

U.K. government could remotely disable home heating or cooling

The Daily Telegraph is reporting that by the end of next year, British energy suppliers will be able to remotely turn down household heat pumps to help manage grid demand during winter cold snaps. Ezra Levant walked through what giving the government that ability means on Monday’s episode of The Ezra Levant Show, warning viewers where net-zero policy is actually headed.

Heat pumps, Ezra explained, are not furnaces. They move heat rather than generate it, which makes them energy-efficient in mild climates. But when temperatures drop below -20°C, they become effectively useless, something even the Weather Network has acknowledged.

An advertisement for heat pumps from BC Hydro came across more like a piece of Liberal Party propaganda rather than displaying a product, Ezra said.

“There’s a reason governments have to pay people thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars to take one,” he said. “I’ve never heard of a popular product in history that needed a subsidy to sell.”

The United Kingdom’s problem is now more acute than just product performance, however. Under a scheme being developed by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero — Ezra noted the irony of that name — licensed energy suppliers including Octopus Energy and British Gas will be able to remotely restrict heat pumps via internet connection during periods of peak demand.

Over 223,000 heat pumps are already installed in British homes, and all installations since April 2025 must be internet-connected. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has set a target of 450,000 installations per year by 2030.

“They won’t just have the ability to turn off the heat to your home,” Ezra cautioned. “They could turn off your car if it’s electric.”

Giving the government this ability is akin to a Chinese Communist Party-style social credit system — only by another name. “Do you think Ed Miliband would ever have his car turned off? Or just the little people?”

In the European Union, a Politico headline details how EU Commission headquarters was forced to shut down air conditioning amid a heatwave.

Reading further, Ezra found that only floors one through seven lost cooling — while Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on the 13th floor and her commissioners on floors eight and above kept full air conditioning throughout.

“The important people had air conditioning,” he said. “They literally made the junior staff sweat it out in the heatwave.”

Keep reading

Andy Burnham Scrapped Digital ID. His Internet Plans Say Otherwise.

The new UK Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, is in Downing Street, and he has spent twenty years telling you exactly what he wants to do to the internet. He won the Makerfield by-election on June 18 2026. He then collected the backing of roughly 349 Labour MPs, more than 85 percent of the parliamentary party. By the time he walked through the black door, the job had been settled for weeks.

His first big announcement was the one privacy campaigners had been hoping for. Starmer’s digital ID scheme for all adults is dead, scrapped before Burnham had finished unpacking, the money moved to the cost of living. The applause came quickly. Perhaps it should not have.

This is a read on a government barely a day old. On speech and privacy, the early signals point one way, and it is not the way that loosens the state’s grip. He is not about to tear up the settlement he inherits from Keir Starmer. The open question is how much further he carries it.

Burnham arrives with a long record on all this. He is one of the few senior British politicians with a documented, two-decade appetite for putting the government closer to what you can see, say and read online.

His first ministerial job, at the Home Office in 2005 and 2006, was pushing Tony Blair’s Identity Cards Bill through Parliament. He told the BBC that compulsory national ID cards would be a major breakthrough. Twenty years later, asked about it again, he was unembarrassed about the principle: “I’m not kind of arguing against the principle. I was very pro, actually, I thought there was a real clear case for it.”

Two decades of hindsight, and the case is still clear to him. What that case rests on is a claim about the relationship between a person and the state, and it is the same claim underneath every age check and identity gate now being built. The Identity Cards Act reached the statute book on 30 March 2006 and was repealed on 21 January 2011.

Then came 2008, and Culture Secretary Burnham produced a plan that looks like a blueprint for everything running today. The organizing idea was that online content should meet the same regulatory standards as television. He wanted taste and decency rules applied to the web, cinema-style age certificates and warning signs on anything featuring sex, violence or strong language, alerts bolted onto viral content, and ISP-level “child-safe” packages.

He floated making YouTube and Facebook delete offensive material within a set time once alerted, and changing libel law so suing an online publisher got easier. He even wanted to sound out the incoming Obama administration about international rules for English-language websites. Age gating, takedown clocks, regulator muscle aimed at platforms, it is all sitting there in 2008, waiting for the technology to catch up.

The plans died, and the body that killed them was Ofcom, which called them undesirable and unworkable online. This was back when the speech regulator was more levelheaded. The regulator that told Burnham in 2008 that broadcast rules could not be stretched over the internet is the regulator now enforcing the Online Safety Act. The intellectual weight at Ofcom has obviously severely declined.

Keep reading

UK: Historic pub accused of ‘misogyny’ as influencers complain of ‘sickening’ 200-year-old name

Ahistoric pub has been branded misogynistic as American influencers complain of its “sickening” 200-year-old name.

The Henry VIII pub sits opposite Hever Castle, the childhood home of Anne Boleyn, and has stood proudly in the heart of the Kent village for five centuries.

After going viral on social media, Londoners looking to have their fill of English history now run rampant through the manicured castle grounds, seeking out the perfect Instagram spot outside the Big Smoke.

Tourists’ gaze will often fall upon the country pub opposite the attraction, whose name some visitors blame on the “patriarchy”.

Deirdre Rae, an American self-acclaimed life coach who moved to London, was one of the first to rage over the pub’s name.

After going viral on social media, Londoners looking to have their fill of English history now run rampant through the manicured castle grounds, seeking out the perfect Instagram spot outside the Big Smoke.

Tourists’ gaze will often fall upon the country pub opposite the attraction, whose name some visitors blame on the “patriarchy”.

Deirdre Rae, an American self-acclaimed life coach who moved to London, was one of the first to rage over the pub’s name.

“Imagine being Anne Boleyn and finding out people thought it was a good idea to open a pub dedicated to the man who beheaded you right in front of your childhood home,” she said.

“I’m just finding out about this and I’m sickened by the disrespect,” one said, while others cried out for a petition to change the “disrespectful as f**k” name. Some proposed the “Anne Bole Inn”.

“It’s how they’ve always treated women, nothing changes if nothing changes,” another added.

“It’s ridiculous to say our pub’s misogynistic,” one local told Britain’s News Channel.

“It’s history. That’s what it is. If influencers out here think they know better than us, they have another thing coming.”

But Ms Rae’s claim was met with some mocking responses as others lamented the “deeply-ingrained misogyny” pervading through British history.

“When you get the chance to ask her, let me know,” one ridiculed, while another mused that the beheaded Queen was unlikely to find out.

Others condemned her “simplistic analysis”, while insisting the story was far more complicated than at first glance.

“I don’t think the pub’s name is intended as misogynistic or offensive to Anne, who was executed in 1536,” royal historian Gareth Russell told the People’s Channel.

“I’m not sure renaming it as ‘The Anne Bole Inn’ has quite the sense of gravitas you might want for honouring a Queen of England…

“But that being said, I’ve always thought it was an odd choice to name the pub opposite her childhood home after the husband who signed her death warrant,” he added.

The Henry VIII was named as such as far back as 1848, although the site has long-served as a boozer for the locals and dates all the way back to the 1500s.

The second Queen Consort to Henry VIII was executed for treason in 1536 following a three-year reign alongside the King.

She spent her early youth in Hever Castle after her father inherited the estate in 1505. The King’s fourth wife, Anne of Cleves, eventually took over ownership of the property as part of the couple’s annulment settlement.

The pub at that time was renamed to the “Bull and Butcher”, a pun on “Boleyn Butcher”, following her beheading, when the inn was still a part of the castle’s estate.

However, with the site serving as a popular tourist attraction, Hever Castle has embraced the Tudor times, with an extensive annual programme including jousting tournaments and archery displays.

Keep reading

28-Year-Old Radical Arrested for Bloody Assassination of 78-Year-Old British Conservative Ann Widdecombe

78-year-old former Tory minister and Brexit Party MEP Ann Widdecombe was found dead at her home in Haytor on Dartmoor on July 9th. According to authorities at the time the popular conservative suffered ‘serious injuries’ causing her brutal death. She was murdered on July 8th.

She had been due to appear via Zoom on a Channel 5 program that afternoon, but last made contact with the production team at 12:19 pm and failed to join the call.

The assassin from Rotherham drove his car to her home and rang the bell. When the elderly woman answered, the wicked leftist pushed his way into her home and bludgeoned her to death.

At first, local Devon and Cornwall Police alleged the murder was not politically motivated, but that call was obviously wrong.

Reform UK party, on their part, insisted that the attack may have been motivated by Widdecombe’s politics – a claim that was later vindicated.

Neighbors and sources have portrayed him as withdrawn and unremarkable in public life

Officials later announced that the death was being treated as terrorism.

Keep reading