Tag: united kingdom

Paedophiles: A Protected Class

Let’s dive straight in by quoting from some mainstream outlets.

Via The Guardian (31st July 2024):

How the Huw Edwards scandal might affect the BBC’s reputation

As it faces accusations of being caught out, corporation has decisions to take on pay and use of archive footage.

Mark Sweney

Wed 31 Jul 2024 17.14 BST

The former BBC presenter Huw Edwards’ guilty plea to charges of making indecent images of children has sent the corporation into damage limitation mode, raising questions about management’s handling of the scandal and the impact on its reputation.

“The BBC is shocked to hear the details which have emerged in court today,” said a spokesperson for the corporation. “There can be no place for such abhorrent behaviour and our thoughts are with all those affected.”

The 62-year-old, the face of the BBC’s coverage of national events including the funeral of the late queen and the coronation of King Charles and a main presenter on BBC One’s News at Ten, admitted to having 41 indecent images of children that had been sent to him at his request by another man on WhatsApp.

They included seven category A images, the most serious, showing abuse including penetrative sexual activity, two of which showed a child aged between about seven and nine.

Edwards, who is facing a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and will be sentenced on 16 September, was the BBC’s highest-paid newsreader, pocketing between £475,000 and £479,000 in the year to 31 March.

He continued to be paid, including receiving a £40,000 pay rise, despite not working for most of that time, having been suspended by the BBC since last July.

It is just unreal. Edwards continued to get paid the whole time throughout his suspension. With British taxpayer money. Should the British Broadcasting Corporation be renamed as the ‘Paedophile Broadcasting Corporation’ aka PBC?

It is sick.

Keep reading

UK Using Terrorism Law To Silence Journalists, Protestors Who Commit ‘Speech Crimes’

British police and prosecutors are relying on a recently adopted “speech crime” provision in terrorism legislation to target journalists, commentators, activists, and protesters.

The crackdown accelerated after Israel launched its genocidal campaign against Palestinians following the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023. Among the most well-known examples of this crackdown is the case of British-Syrian journalist and commentator Richard Medhurst. 

Medhurst, the son of two United Nations peacekeepers, was arrested on August 15 by counter-terrorism police after his plane landed at London’s Heathrow airport. He was due to participate in a panel at the Better Days Festival in Devon.

“Something in my gut told me something was up,” Medhurst told The Dissenter, because there was an “unusually long gap” after the plane stopped and the doors opened. 

The pilot said that they were waiting for a plane to move out of their spot, but this turned out to be false. “One of the flight attendants said, ‘can Richard Medhurst please come to the front of the plane?’ I was literally in the front row.”

Officers, who were not in uniform, initially refused to answer any questions as to who they were and what they wanted and declined to identify themselves. Police demanded to know where Medhurst’s bags were and then took him and his property away. After he was taken to a small room, he was searched, placed in double-lock handcuffs in a painful manner, and transferred to a police station.

Medhurst, who is a member of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) as well as the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), is well-known for his coverage of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s extradition case as well as his reporting on geopolitics as it relates to West Asia.

This is the first known example of British authorities invoking section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 to justify arresting and interrogating a journalist, which was passed in 2019 as part of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act.

Keep reading

Digitally Manipulated Humans and Medically Assisted Death – Set to Become the Flagship Policy of the British National Health Service

I can’t help wondering, is Medically Assisted Death (MAD) a symbol of the state of mind of Great Britain today?

Have the citizens of this storm-lashed island finally put their lives completely in the hands of those who devise so called ‘national health policies’ – 100% reliant on the pharmaceutical/vaccine industry to keep people alive?

‘Alive’? Surely not, this is a misnomer. Let us not denigrate life to a description of human beings becoming dumbed down replicas of the walking dead.

Ex Prime Minister and war criminal Tony Blair, has lent his voice to the latest proclamations of the newly elected Starmer government, that a fully IT based healthcare system is the future of the British National Health Service (NHS).

The emphasis is on replacing general practitioners (GPs) with non-human digital health diagnoses and treatments. Just as in the food and farming world, farmers are to be replaced by robots and real food by synthetic laboratory lookalikes, under the mantle of the World Economic Forum’s Green New Deal.

Tony Blair recently got together with Keir Starmer and his medical/health advisory panels to help spread the word that a new emphasis must be placed on legalising medically assisted death in the UK. A highly controversial issue which has been simmering under the surface for some time.

With brain targeted ‘behavioural adjustment’ technologies now being part of the cult’s expanding medical armoury, and mass media’s continuous pushing the story of ‘human vulnerability’ to new diseases – only being preventable by big pharma’s vax programme – doesn’t this add up to the calculated destruction of our human instinct to support our natural health and freedom of choice?

Of course it does.

Keep reading

UK’s Starmer, Canada’s Trudeau, Pressure Biden To Escalate With Russia Despite Putin Warning Of ‘War’ With NATO

Kirby came out on Friday and told reporters that there’s been no change in US policy regarding Ukraine using Western arms for long-rage strikes inside Russia. But the pressure is quickly ramping up: first Canada’s Trudeau said he supports greenlighting this, despite Putin making clear this would mean ‘direct war’ between Russia and NATO, and now UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is coming out in support. According to breaking reporting in The Wall Street Journal: 

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer is expected to urge President Biden on Friday during a visit to Washington to sign off on allowing Ukraine to use long-range European-made cruise missiles to strike targets deep inside Russia, according to U.S. and Western officials.

…A decision to lift a ban on Kyiv using the Storm Shadow missile, which can hit targets 155 miles away, to fire into Russia would be a major win for Ukraine, which has been urging Western countries for months to loosen restrictions on long-range weapons.

Yes, Zelensky has been essentially begging for it, but we highly doubt a “win” will follow especially given as we detailed below Putin still holds many cards, and would likely escalate attacks on Kiev in a big way.

“While the final decision on Storm Shadow will be made by the U.K. government, British officials will ask for the Biden administration to weigh in because some components of the missiles are made in the U.S.,” WSJ continues in the Friday afternoon report.

Hours earlier, PM Trudeau made his position clear: 

Canada fully supports Ukraine using long-range weaponry to “prevent and interdict Russia’s continued ability to degrade Ukrainian civilian infrastructure”, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Friday.

Trudeau told reporters that Russian President Vladimir Putin was trying to deeply destabilize the international rules-based order and added: “That’s why Canada and others are unequivocal that Ukraine must win this war against Russia.”

Keep reading

Behind Closed Doors: The UK and US Plot Global Speech Crackdown

America First Legal (AFL) has pulled back the curtain on yet another government meeting that makes “free speech” sound like some quaint idea from the past. AFL has released documents from a 2021 interagency get-together where the UK’s top experts on “disinformation” offered a master class in censorship, all under the guise of “protecting democracy.” And because nothing screams transparency quite like a secret strategy session on silencing opposing voices, the revelations come with just a hint of irony.

On August 10, 2021, the Biden-Harris National Security Council (NSC) hosted a cozy little chat with the United Kingdom’s “Counter Disinformation Unit” (CDU). The occasion? An instructional session on how to manage—read: censor—COVID-related speech in the US. But why stop at the pandemic when there’s so much more to control? This wasn’t just about virus talk; it was a step-by-step guide on how to choke off the flow of any inconvenient truth that might muddy the government’s preferred narrative.

Keep reading

Government Refuses to Publish Data on Crime and Welfare By Immigration Status or Nationality

The Government is refusing to publish data on crime and welfare claims by immigration status or nationality, making it impossible to ascertain the impact of immigration on society and the economy, says Matt Goodwin on Substack. Here’s an excerpt.

There was a truly remarkable revelation in the U.K. Parliament this week and one you probably missed. … [It] was quietly made by a renegade Conservative Member of Parliament during a committee discussion about immigration, with Nigel Farage and Reform MPs looking on. What was the revelation? Well, brace yourself because there wasn’t one but a series of bombshells, each one more mind-boggling than the last and each one underlining how it’s not populists who are stoking misinformation — it’s the elite class.

The revelations — by the respected and rigorous Neil O’Brien, Conservative MP for Harborough, Oadby, and Wigston — really are devastating.

He pointed to not just a Government but an entire political system that is either deliberately concealing masses of information from voters about the impact of immigration, or is doing so through sheer incompetence.

Keep reading

The Folly of Criminalizing “Hate”

Many people were shocked when over 1,000 protesters were arrested in the UK and jailed for various offenses including “violent disorder” and stirring up racial hatred. Most shocking were the cases of those arrested for posting social media comments on the riots, despite not being present at the scene and there being no evidence that anybody who joined in the riots had read any of their comments.

In societies which uphold the value of individual liberty, the only purpose of the criminal law should be to restrain and punish those who commit acts of aggression against other people or their property. The criminal law should not be used to prevent people from “hating” others or to force them to “love” each other. In announcing yet another raft of laws “to expand the list of charges eligible to be prosecuted as hate crimes,” New York Governor Kathy Hochul said that “During these challenging times, we will continue to show up for each other. We are making it clear: love will always have the last word in New York.” To that end, she introduced “legislation to significantly expand eligibility for hate crime prosecution.”

Attempts to promote love between different racial or religious groups in society, for example, by charging people with stirring up “hate” when they protest against immigration, misunderstands the role of the criminal law. Threats to public order entail violating the person or property of others—as happens in a violent riot—not merely the exhibition of “hate” towards others. Yet increasingly, public order offenses are linked to hate speech or hate crimes.

Laws prohibiting hate speech and hate crimes typically define “hate” as hostility based on race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Often, hostility is understood simply as words that offend others. For example, in the UK, the Communications Act 2003 prohibits sending “a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.” The Online Safety Act 2023 targets illegal content online including both “inciting violence” and the publication of “racially or religiously aggravated public order offenses.” Conduct online includes writing posts or publishing blogs or articles on websites.

Given that inciting violence is already a crime—“conduct, words, or other means that urge or naturally lead others to riot, violence, or insurrection”—there seems to be no discernible purpose in adding the concept of “hate” to such crimes. To give an example, writing “burn down the store” on social media might be seen as inciting violence, but writing “burn down the Muslim store” in the same circumstances would be categorized as a hate crime. Arson (actually burning down the store) is a crime, but based on the racial or religious identity of the store owner arson is deemed to be a “worse” crime—a hate crime—even though the harm in both cases and the loss suffered by store owners who are victims of arson does not vary based purely on their race or religion.

Keep reading

Woman Attacked By Migrant Lectured By Police Over HER ‘Offensive’ Language

A woman who accused a migrant of attacking her in the street was subjected to a lecture from police about her use of politically incorrect language in the aftermath of the incident.

Footage shot by the woman shows three Metropolitan Police officers questioning her on Kings Road in London.

She told the officers that a “filthy migrant” had confronted her and spat at her.

While the officers said they were willing to investigate the incident, they appeared more concerned with policing the woman’s language, telling her “we have a duty to challenge that language, because we are police officers and that is the law.”

“You’re saying the two things together, which is offensive isn’t it?” one of the male officers stated, referring to the woman’s words.

“We can’t not challenge that language because people in the public might find that offensive,” the officers further told the woman.

“So you find my language offensive?” the woman asked, to which the female officer responded “Yes I do actually.”

“I’m not interested in a PC lecture,” the woman told the officers, prompting one to respond, “we’re not here to give you a lecture.”

Keep reading

Guardian Writer Eviscerated For Headline “We Still Don’t Know Why Britons Rioted A Month Ago”

A writer for the far left Guardian newspaper in the UK prompted massive backlash Wednesday by penning a piece claiming that no one really knows why British people angrily took to the streets last month.

Here is the article by Tim Newburn.

It happened largely in poorer working class areas because they’re sick of being treated like second hand citizens in favour of mass unchecked migration, with the trigger point being the brutal murder of three children at a Taylor Swift-themed dance camp in Southport by a second generation Rwandan migrant.

Everyone who expressed anger was immediately labelled a “far right extremist.”

It’s not some sort of mystery as to why this happened.

Keep reading

SHOCKING: Over 50,000 British Citizens Have Been Charged For Using “Illegal Words Or Writing”

Over the last month, the United Kingdom has been hit hard by a wave of protests following the gruesome stabbing murder of three little girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport, England on July 29, 2024.

 Axel Rudakubana, a 17-year-old male and the son of Rwandan nationals, murdered these young girls in cold blood. Protests immediately popped off the next day in Southport and spread across the UK. 

The frustration expressed by protesters represents a general hostility towards the overwhelming wave of non-white immigration that has landed on Albion’s shores in the last 70 years. 

As a result of these protests, the regime of Prime Minister Keir Starmer has started to arrest people for making posts on social media that explain uncomfortable truths about the troubling demographic situation in the UK and the harsh realities of non-white crime.

Before the Southport protests kicked off, X user ~~datahazard~~ noted on March 5, that “3300 people [were] arrested in Britain last year for saying naughty words online.” 

X owner Elon Musk was surprised by these revelations which he responded to in a tweet in disbelief saying, “3300?”

~~datahazard~~ then responded with an even more revealing analysis of these prosecutions, by posting a bar chart noting that “Over 50,000 Brits in the past decade have been charged with Illegal Words or Writing (Race/Religion subset)”

Keep reading