UK Police Officer Threatens a Man With Section 35 But Can’t Explain What Section 35 Is 🤦‍♂️ Officer: “It’s under Section 35 Act.” Man: “Section 35 of what?” Officer: “It doesn’t matter what.” Unbelievable. When calmly asked to specify the law behind her threat, she clearly didn’t know and got defensive instead of professional. Of course it matters what power you’re threatening arrest under. Officers should know the basics of the laws they quote, not brush it off like it’s irrelevant.

It's like banning telephones. This is insane levels of state control By a demonstrably incompetent and nasty state.

Nobody voted for this. Normalising facial recognition, surveillance and zero privacy for the next generation. I hate this government (and the last) for their weakness in buying all of these controlling measures, sold to them by vested interests @UN & @wef under the guise of "keeping kids safe. " A chosen few will make perverse amounts of profit during this process. But what can you do...? They have weaponised our children to turn against their parents. And @Keir_Starmer couldn't care less. It really is that serious. telegraph.co.uk/politics/202…

Don’t let free speech be the victim of the Belfast riots, writes Hugo Timms. This Labour Government has once again jumped at the opportunity to use civil unrest to clamp down on social media. In a fractured governing party, they are united by a belief that problems can be solved by controlling what people say — increasingly online. In the aftermath of the first night of rioting in Belfast — after a Sudanese immigrant attempted to behead an innocent man in the street — Technology Secretary Liz Kendall took to X and said: “Those who use social media to incite violence and disorder are breaking the law. Next week we will lay before Parliament an update to the Online Safety Act requiring services to take quicker action to remove illegal content circulating during times of crisis.” She added: “I have explicitly asked Ofcom to discuss urgently with X and other platforms how they will comply with the Online Safety Act.” Following the Southport riots in 2024, Starmer’s Government launched a fierce assault on free speech, with many individuals convicted for statements made online being treated more harshly than the rioters themselves. This Government has used the Orwellian Online Safety Act as a tool to suppress free speech. Read more below in @spikedonline 👇

Sixteen Year Olds Get the Vote. They Do Not Get X. Today Keir Starmer announced a ban on under-16s using ten social media platforms. TikTok, Instagram, Threads, Facebook, X, YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit, Twitch and Kick. Bluesky is not on the list. Neither is Discord. This matters because of what we know about both platforms, and because of what Australia did about one of them. Bluesky has publicly acknowledged a "predictable uptick" in child sexual abuse material as its user base grew, serious enough that it partnered with the Internet Watch Foundation to deal with it. Discord was the subject of an NBC News investigation that found hundreds of active servers being used to groom and exploit children, a finding its own chief executive called "horrifying." The Australian government, the model Britain says it is following, agreed with that assessment of Bluesky. It was added to the restricted list there in November 2025, with the same minimum age of 16 that applies to the rest of the ban. The UK's preliminary list does not include it. This is not a case of Britain simply replicating that approach. The policy has been described as "Australian-style" and "Australia-plus," going further on curfews and chatbot restrictions than the original. On the one platform with a documented child safety problem that the original restricted, Britain has chosen to diverge. That is not an oversight in a policy carefully benchmarked against another country's model. It is a choice. X, meanwhile, made the list. The government itself uses X. So do the Green Party, the Liberal Democrats and Your Party. None of them are leaving the platform, yet figures from all four have called for tighter restrictions on it or for it to be banned outright. What changed is not who uses the platform but what gets said there and who says it. Footage of the Belfast stabbing first spread on X to millions of people within an hour of it happening. The government's record on immigration, asylum and policing is challenged there daily, by people it cannot easily silence. Bluesky, by contrast, has become known as a space where that kind of challenge is rare. The platforms are not being separated by risk to children. They are being separated by how comfortable the political class is with what gets said on each. A government can claim this is coincidence once. The pattern across this entire policy says otherwise. Yesterday it emerged the announcement had been brought forward by weeks. Ian Russell, Molly Russell's own father, could identify no reason for that beyond the Makerfield by-election. Today it emerges the platform list does not track the evidence of harm, even when that evidence comes from the government's own template. Reem Ibrahim of the Reason Foundation has already asked the obvious question. Is this overt political censorship. Sources tell the Guardian the government may face judicial review over precisely this inconsistency. Then there is the contradiction nobody in government has addressed. Starmer has discussed extending the vote to sixteen and seventeen year olds, on the basis that they are mature enough to weigh arguments and choose a government. The logic of this ban is that the same sixteen year olds cannot be trusted to read X without the state intervening on their behalf. A government that believes both of these things at once does not have a coherent theory of childhood. It has a theory of which platforms it would prefer young voters not to encounter before an election. The timing was political. The platform list, sparing on its own template's terms the platform that most deserved scrutiny, is harder still to explain. This was never only about Molly Russell and child safety. It is about who gets to talk to whom, and when, in the run-up to an election this government is increasingly afraid of losing. "Bluesky has publicly acknowledged a "predictable uptick" in child sexual abuse material as its user base grew"

It's great that the ban on Palestine Action has been upheld, but this question should never have been decided by judges in the first place. Parliament makes the law. It voted to ban Palestine Action. It's for the British people to hold Parliament accountable, not judges.

Yes

So let me get this straight: Leftists want 16 year olds to vote. They want 12 year olds to be able to consent to sex changes. But they don’t want those same teenagers to read conservative opinions on social media, only Blue Sky? Their agenda is pretty obvious.

This is absolutely horrendous. These people need to face the full force of the law.

According to this Labour Government 16 and 17 year olds are mature enough to vote, but not to serve on a jury. That is an "adult duty" apparently. They are old enough to vote, but are now subject to a government-mandated social media curfew at 8.30pm. The only consistent thing about Labour's votes at 16 policy is the blatant party political self interest.

Labour must go as soon as possible

Angela Eagle. 34 years of being wrong. 34 years of voting for every open-border policy, every EU power grab, every failed immigration scheme. She watched record boat arrivals on her watch and called it 'complexity.' She scrapped the Rwanda deterrent and replaced it with... nothing. She has never had an independent thought in 450 parliamentary votes. Not one rebellion. Not one principle she wouldn't sell for a promotion. And now she's Security Minister. The woman who couldn't secure a border is securing the entire realm. The woman who never stood up to her party is standing up to terrorists. The woman who failed at every metric is measuring success for the rest of us. This isn't government. This is jobs for the girls/boys who never questioned the boys/girls. 34 years of failure, rewarded with a Damehood and a promotion. Angela Eagle isn't a security expert. She's a careerist who secured the only thing that matters to her: her own advancement.

What a disgraceful tweet from anyone let alone the Leader of a British Political party. They should have got much longer in my view. Attacking a police officer is totally abhorrent as a starter!

The man who wants to ban social media for spreading misinformation @Keir_Starmer has been community noted 27 times for lying.

The Government’s jury trial reforms are deeply unfair. Under these proposals, a repeat offender could be more likely to receive a jury trial than a first-time offender facing the same charge. David Lammy is trying to push these controversial reforms through Parliament at breakneck speed, despite repeated warnings from judges, lawyers, opposition MPs, Labour MPs and victims of crime that they will undermine public trust in the criminal justice system. Labour does not have a mandate for such a sweeping overhaul of our criminal justice system. We cannot let the Government get away with restricting our ancient right to trial by jury. Read more below 👇

Now it emerges Hadi Alodid was born in Saudi Arabia, got a boat across the Med from Libya before flying into Ireland from Paris. First he was Somali, then Sudanese, then Saudi. First he flew directly from Khartoum, now he got a boat to EU. We have NO IDEA who these people are!

The year is 1949. The Nobel Prize in Medicine has just gone to the man who invented the lobotomy. Your doctor suggests one for your sister, who has not been herself since the baby came. It is the most celebrated advance in psychiatry of the age, and he is simply current. By the time the prize curdles into an embarrassment, close to twenty thousand Americans have had the operation, and proportionally more here in Britain. The year is 1956. Lay the baby down on his front, the doctor says. So does the most trusted childcare book ever written, the one on every new mother's shelf. On his back he might choke, the reasoning goes. Millions obey. The advice holds for nearly thirty years, long after the evidence has quietly turned, and a generation of cot deaths is counted before anyone thinks to roll the babies over. The year is 1966. A bestselling book informs your wife that menopause is a disease, that she is, in the author's word, a castrate, and that a small daily pill will keep her youthful and tolerable to live with. Her doctor agrees. The drug becomes one of the most prescribed in the country. Nobody mentions that the author sat on the payroll of the company that made it. That detail surfaces decades later, in the same year the landmark trial is halted early for raising rates of breast cancer, stroke and clots. The year is 1979. Your ulcer is caused by stress and sharp food, the doctor explains. Calm down, drink milk, take the antacid that happens to be the best-selling medicine on earth. Two Australians are about to prove that most ulcers are caused by a bacterium and cured by a fortnight of antibiotics. The profession laughs. One of them eventually drinks a beaker of the stuff to settle the matter. The establishment takes the better part of twenty years to stop laughing. The Nobel lands in 2005. The year is 1985. Butter is dangerous, the doctor says. Switch to margarine, it is modern, it is heart-healthy, the experts are united. The spread he nudges you toward is loaded with trans fats, which the next decade will identify as the genuinely dangerous one, and which will eventually be banned outright. The butter goes quietly back in the fridge. No correction is ever printed at the volume of the original warning. The year is 1992. There is a pyramid on the surgery wall, and the very same one in your grandchild's classroom. Bread, cereal, rice and pasta form the broad virtuous base, up to eleven servings a day. Fat is exiled to the tiny tip. The chart was reportedly held back a year while the relevant industries had their say. It is wrong at the bottom and wrong at the top. Now it is today. Your doctor has new guidelines, new studies, a fresh consensus, delivered with precisely the steady confidence of every guideline above. He believes it, and he has good reason to. So did every doctor in this thread. None of them were villains. Each was sincere, most were kind, and all were certain, reading from a map that somebody else had drawn and handed them. That is the part worth sitting with. So when the man in the white coat tells you what to eat, what to fear, and what to swallow every morning for the rest of your life, you are allowed to ask. Who paid for the study. What the evidence says beneath the headline. What he was just as certain about thirty years ago, and where that advice sits now. Then make up your own mind. Call it scepticism, or call it whatever your grandmother called it when she ignored the advert, kept the butter where it was, and lived to ninety-one. It has outlasted every consensus on this list. It will outlast this one too.

This really worries me A month ago in Wales I suffered a ruptured aneurysm in my abdomen. I lost over 2 units of blood But the Welsh ambulance service refused to send an ambulance. I was still breathing so apparently didn't need one I spent 7 hours lying on the ground in a car park. Every time I moved I threw up from the pain. The owners of the car park called 999 6x One of the people there was a fireman. He couldn't believe that 999 treated each call as a separate incident and couldn't see the details or link to previous calls. He was frustrated because they could see I was seriously ill but you can't see internal bleeding and so there was no way to persuade 999 that it actually was an emergency Eventually my husband arrived by taxi, journey of more than 3 hours from our home He gave me my pain meds (the car park people were worried about liability and I was too ill to get them myself). This meant I was able to crawl into the car and he drove me to A&E He got me into a wheelchair. We waited 75 minutes to see a doctor. I was shivering, heaped with blankets and threw up all over the floor As soon as a doctor looked at me I was taken straight to resus. The next day I was transfered by blue light ambulance to another hospital, had a blood transfusion and spent 5 days on the high dependency unit If my husband hadn't been able to come and look after me I have no idea how I would have survived. As it was I nearly didn't I would not have been able to get myself to hospital nor would I have been able to log into some digital triage system This scheme seems to assume if you're seriously ill you'll arrive by ambulance and if not you're well enough to navigate a digital portal My experience suggests that's a dangerous assumption A week later, back home in England I had another ruptured aneurysm. This time an ambulance came in 2 hours and again I was taken straight to resus It wasn't the same because I had a recent diagnosis of a ruptured aneurysm so we could tell 999 I was almost certainly bleeding internally. But I was too ill to get myself down the stairs and out to the car. We still needed that ambulance and I still wouldn't have been able to fiddle around with an ipad Proper triage REQUIRES an actual doctor to look at the patient. It takes a matter of minutes to differentiate between a life threatening emergency and not a life threatening emergency. That's not minutes to get a diagnosis but to know that the person is stable or not stable and if not that needs immediate attention Seriously ill people can't do it themselves. It doesn't matter how smart or articulate they are normally. Or how tough. Expecting people to manage their own emergency care isn't what a modern health service should do telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06…

This is a painful, car crash interview. Peter Kyle: I believe in the plan! Naga Munchetty: When did you seen the plan? Kyle: I haven’t. Naga: Did Mr Healey and Al Carns see the plan? Kyle: Of course! Naga: So they’ve both seen the plan and resigned.

Clueless Labour No progress can be made till they're gone