This week the most advanced AI model on the planet got switched off by a foreign government. British researchers were studying it. British companies were testing it. British hospitals were piloting it. Not any more. This isn't an AI story. It's the story of every industry we used to lead. Britain has some of the best AI talent in the world. DeepMind was built here. Our AI Safety Institute writes the rules other countries follow. We have the researchers, the universities, the standards. What we don't have is the power stations to run the data centres, the planning system to build them, or the industrial base to make the chips. So the work happens here and the value lands somewhere else. We invent. Others build. Others decide. Then we read about it on Saturday morning. Same story as the kit our soldiers don't have. Same story as the factories we used to. I spent nine months in government making this argument inside the room. I'll make it louder from outside.

Barnaby Philip John Webber 11/01/2004-13/06/2023 💔 If you can, share these images of the beautiful soul stolen from us by the worst of humanity. Let his face today burn bright. Barney, I promise you there will be accountability 💛💚 For You. For Grace. For Ian.

The decision to add folic acid to UK white flour has not been debated in parliament! Sign the petition for a debate. petition.parliament.uk/petit…

When industry managed to find a seat in the room where the recommended daily allowance for folates was decided - they got them to agree to an unachievable and clearly incorrect number. hartgroup.org/what-you-need-… Please sign the petition to stop folic acid: petition.parliament.uk/petit…

If you, or someone you love, has cancer, B12 deficiency, kidney dialysis or a stent you need to know they they must now avoid ALL white flour. They also need to check wholemeal and even gluten free products which also contain folic acid. Sign this petition to stop it being mandated in flour: petition.parliament.uk/petit…

Read this open statement by Signal and your jaw will hit the floor. Govts always use “protecting children” as their guise for more control and censorship. I interviewed a prev Govt minister, who wrote the Online Safety Bill, and asked if they could tell me how a VPN worked. They couldn’t. These are the people writing these laws. This new tool is another dangerous form of silent oppression that once again uses children’s safety as a guise to control the masses. We can protect children online, but that starts at home, with parents, not in the Home Office, GCHQ, Apple, Google, Microsoft or Samsung.

First target of 10,000 has been reached in 4 days. Now we have to get to 100,000 for a debate. If everyone who has signed could please find 9 friends...

Please sign the petition to stop the mass medication: petition.parliament.uk/petit…

The petition to stop folic acid entering our flour is on 7,337 votes after three days. Please keep sharing with friends and family. If we kept up the current rate we could reach the target by the end of July. petition.parliament.uk/petit…

We owe those who serve the UK the kit to do the job and the loyalty to stand by them when it's done. We are failing on both. I’ve spent my whole time in government making that case. Number 10 will not listen, so I am resigning as Minister for the Armed Forces. Letter to the PM below.🫡🫡🫡⬇️⬇️

Kaz, thank you. Agenda 2030 sounds like a conspiracy theory. It's not. It's a publicly available document adopted at a UN summit in September 2015 and signed by every member state including Britain, Australia and Canada. It contains 17 goals and 169 targets committing signatory nations to net zero, facilitating migration, eliminating inequality and embedding inclusive institutions across public life. No British parliament voted on it. No British public was consulted. It's been implemented ever since through regulatory frameworks, public sector guidance and institutional capture. The Race Action Plans. The DEI training. The asylum accommodation contracts. The net zero commitments that Ed Miliband refused to cut even when the Defence Secretary was asking for the money to defend the country. All of it flows from the same framework adopted without democratic consent at a UN summit eleven years ago. Healey's resignation is the moment that framework's cost became impossible to ignore. Britain cannot afford Agenda 2030 and its own defence simultaneously. Starmer has made his choice. The question is whether enough people now understand what that choice actually means.

Agenda 2030 Or The Defence Of The Realm. Starmer Has Made His Choice. John Healey Has Resigned Over It. This morning Britain woke up without a Defence Secretary. By lunchtime it knew why. The numbers tell the story precisely. The Ministry of Defence faces a £28 billion funding shortfall over four years. Healey wanted £18 billion. He was offered £13.5 billion of which defence chiefs regarded only £10 billion as real money. The remaining £3.5 billion was, in the words of the Telegraph, invented through magical accounting tricks. The Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Richard Knighton, took the unusual step of writing directly to Starmer to warn that the money was not enough. The head of the British armed forces writing directly to the Prime Minister is not a routine communication. It is a signal of desperation. Starmer told NATO last week that it is our intelligence assessment that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030. Those are his words. His government's assessment. Shared with our allies. Four years away. And his Treasury offered the man responsible for defending against that threat an accounting trick and a two page summary instead of a funded plan. Why. Because the money was needed elsewhere. In 2015 every United Nations member state including Britain signed the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Its 17 goals and 169 targets commit signatory nations to facilitating migration, eliminating inequality, achieving net zero and embedding inclusive institutions. No British parliament voted on it. No British public was consulted. It was adopted at a UN summit and has been implemented ever since through regulatory frameworks, public sector guidance and institutional capture rather than democratic mandate. It is not a conspiracy. It is a publicly available document on the UN website. And its priorities, net zero, welfare, migration, DEI, are precisely the budgets this government has protected while offering the defence of the realm an accounting trick. Ed Miliband refused to cut his net zero budget to fund defence. The Labour Party refused to cut welfare spending that would have freed up billions. The £10 billion in asylum accommodation contracts continues. The DEI infrastructure embedded across British policing, the NHS, the civil service and the education system continues to be funded. Every one of these is a commitment that takes precedence over the defence of the realm in this government's spending decisions. The hierarchy of priorities is now visible. A government that has spent two years embedding progressive transformation across British institutions, protecting the net zero agenda from cuts and managing mass migration has discovered that it cannot simultaneously do all of that and defend the country. When the moment of decision arrived the progressive agenda was protected and the armed forces were handed a two page summary and told to make do. Lord Robertson, the former Labour Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary General, warned in April that Britain was underprepared, underinsured and under attack. He said there was a corrosive complacency in Britain's political leadership. The army has been reduced to its smallest size in 200 years. Seven warships have been axed. The Defence Investment Plan was due last autumn, delayed through winter, missed its spring deadline and has now produced the resignation of the Defence Secretary on the day it was finally meant to be published. Healey's letter says without a plan that meets the moment he is being forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our forces, increase the risk to personnel on operations and could make the country less safe. He had no other option but to resign. In the most dangerous security environment since the Cold War a Labour government has chosen the globalist agenda over the defence of the realm. That choice has now cost it its Defence Secretary. The question is what it will cost the country.

The House of Commons Justice Committee has delivered its verdict on the Government’s plans to slash our ancient right to trial by jury. It is scathing — and will make tough reading for the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary, @DavidLammy. The Government has introduced the most sweeping constitutional reforms to the criminal justice system in years at breakneck speed, despite not having promised them in its manifesto. It seems to be allergic to scrutiny. The Justice Secretary claims that curbing our precious right to jury trial will save Crown Court time and reduce the backlog of cases. Yet the Committee acknowledges that there is no concrete evidential basis for this claim. In fact, the Institute for Government has said the reforms would save only 2 per cent of court time, not the 20 per cent ministers have promised. David Lammy’s 2017 review found that juries are one of the few parts of the criminal justice system where black and minority ethnic defendants do not face disproportionate outcomes. This Bill reduces the role of juries while simultaneously expanding that of the judiciary, despite only 1 per cent of Crown Court judges being black. Back in December 2025, Lammy himself said the reforms would not be applied retrospectively. That is no longer the case. Defendants expecting a jury trial could now have their mode of trial changed without a hearing. The Free Speech Union’s research has shown that those accused of speech-related offences are almost twice as likely to be found not guilty in the Crown Court before a jury than in a magistrates’ court without one. Judges, lawyers, opposition MPs, Labour MPs, and even victims of crime have warned that David Lammy’s reforms will undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system. We must defend our right to trial by jury. Read the Justice Committee’s report below 👇

Somebody has taped a powerfully-written letter to the road sign just outside Southampton police station that sends a very clear message about how we feel after the Henry Nowak murder. Image from @AuditingBritain latest video on his YouTube channel.

This is deeply troubling. I hope my union - @fbunational - will explain to fire service bosses that firefighters must be free to express their political views without fear of sanction by their employer. @manchesterfire has seriously overstepped the mark here.

Following the horrific murder of Henry Novak, the name Kriss Donald has come up. Many don’t know what happened to Kriss. And they certainly don’t have an update on his convicted murderers. You might be surprised by this. This all makes me rather angry. Hold on to your seat and here we go… On 15 March 2004, 15 year old Kriss was walking with a friend, Jamie Wallace, on Kenmure Street in Glasgow. A silver Mercedes with five men (led by Imran Shahid) pulled up and grabbed Kriss and his friend. Jamie managed to escape but Kriss was forced into the car. So what had Kriss done to upset these men? Absolutely nothing. Imran and his group of Pakistani thugs had been in an altercation with some other white men earlier at a nightclub. They were angry and picked on a random (and innocent) white boy to have their revenge. The gang drove him around for hours in the car before they took him to a secluded spot by the river. There they held his arms while they stabbed him 13 times, causing severe internal injuries - to a lung, the liver and a kidney. At this point, poor Kriss was already dying from blood loss but he was still fighting to stay alive. These horrific human beings then doused him in petrol and set him on fire. Kriss rolled on the floor, trying to extinguish the flame, but ultimately he died from blood loss and the impact of the burning. His body was found the next day. Some of the suspects fled to Pakistan but were eventually brought back to face justice for this barbaric racially motivated and heinous murder. So what happened to the five men? Imran Shahid (ringleader): he received life imprisonment, minimum 25 years. He has been as much of a bully inside prison as he was on the outside and has an additional 20 months added to his sentence for an assault when in prison. He also pretended to convert to Judaism so he can have better food and has sued the prison service over wanting a penis pump and having his Xbox removed (it was feared he was using it to access the internet). He is able to apply for parole in 2031 Zeeshan Shahid (his brother): received a life sentence with a 23 years minimum. Eligible for parole in 2029. Mohammed Faisal Mushtaq; received a life sentence with a 22 years minimum. Eligible for parole in 2028/2029. Daanish Zahid: received a life sentence with a minimum of 17 years but he also got an additional sentence for 6 years for lying to the court. He is eligible for parole in 2027 and there have been exploratory discussions for work placements/community work on his release. Zahid Mohammed was part of the kidnapping but left the group before the stabbing and burning. He received only 5 years and was set free after only 2.5 years. He then changed his name to Yusef Harris and was back in prison for 4 years in 2017 after he threatened to murder someone, was found carrying a knife and drove a car at a police officer. He is now free and nobody knows where he is. By 2031, most, if not all, of these menacing and violent men could be back on the streets in the UK. Kriss deserved better.

They told you the planet is dying… and you’re the problem. Your food. Your habits. Your existence. Meanwhile, behind closed doors, something else is growing. AI data centres in the UK alone could pump out 123 million tonnes of carbon emissions — the equivalent of millions of human lives over a decade. But where’s the outrage? Instead, they blame cows… tax farmers… and squeeze the people who actually feed you. While tech giants expand quietly… signing deals… building systems that never sleep… and never get questioned. Different rules. Different targets. Same script. So let me ask you… Why are everyday people being punished… while the biggest emitters keep getting rewarded? Is this really about saving the planet… or controlling who pays the price? Drop your thoughts below — I want to hear what you think. And if this made you stop and think for even a second… share it. More people need to see this.

▪️By 2030, the global data centres powering artificial intelligence (AI) are projected to consume 945 terawatt-hours of electricity. ▪️To produce that scale of electricity, AI data centres will produce a carbon footprint of nearly 400 million tonnes carbon dioxide, requiring the equivalent of 6.7 billion trees grown over a decade to offset. ▪️By 2030, the water footprint of AI data centres will equal the basic annual domestic water needs of all 1.3 billion people in Sub-Saharan Africa. ▪️AI infrastructure is projected to generate up to 2.5 million tonnes of e-waste annually by 2030. This is a staggering amount of natural resources being plundered and used for AI data centres combined with a huge environmental risk. It appears that governments are facilitating the greed needs of tech giants before the essential needs of people. So much for ‘environmental sustainability’ and ‘saving the planet’.

The True Story behind the Murder of Henry Nowak. The week's Brazier, with @ColinBrazierTV. Only on @OutpostStudios.

The woman speaks for the entire country right now. An absolutely glorious rant against Keir Starmer. And she signs off in the most quintessentially British way.