“In May 2026, the UK Government published a 136-page report that reads less like an objective “evidence review” and more like an instruction manual for expanding state control over speech.” Sonia Elijah.

False and misleading information: An Evidence Summary and Map for Policy and Practice.

On the excellent Substack Sonia Elijah Investigates, recently Sonia has drawn attention to a UK government report that is called “False and Misleading Information: An Evidence Summary and Map for Policy and Practice” [1] here. It was commissioned by the Government Office for Science and conducted as part of Behavioural Research UK ( 2] here. You can read Sonia’s report in full [3] here.

Sonia was a leading voice in revealing many of the inconsistencies in the governments Covid-19 narrative, and she exposed many of the most prominent actors, including Professor Susan Mitchiie, who now leads BR-UK. You can read the groundbreaking work revealing the way that the so called pandemic was enacted in Sonia’s best-selling book entitled “3/11 Viral Takeover”.

The BR-UK report was authored primarily by academics from the University of Sheffield and the University of Edinburgh. You may recall that in my Substack I have cited the work of the Natural Language Processing Unit at Sheffield as a major leader in censorship operations. Sonia states that the report:

“…synthesises (or claims to) 228 academic papers while admitting that not all full texts were reviewed due to time constraints. Ironically, while the report identifies AI-generated content as a major and growing source of false and misleading information, the authors themselves used AI chatbots to help produce the summaries of the evidence they cite.” [4] here.

The report, like the government, cites all and any dissenting voices as spreading false and misleading information, no matter how well sources are referenced. Many of the voices that offer alternatives to government narratives are indeed experts in their field. So when this report states that the spread of false and misleading information is one of the most pressing challenges facing governments and society worldwide, the statements that are being complained about are not necessarily false. But they do present problems to any government and world institutions such as the United Nations, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) that are trying to convince us of a different story. For example, the BR-UK report cites the WEF’s Global Risks Report [4] here, which states that certain narratives should be treated as ‘false and misleading’ and capable of ‘causing harm’. Among the categories flagged are “anti-LGBTQ+ narratives,” including claims that schools and public authorities have been captured by gender ideology, or questions about biological males in women’s sport. However, these are genuine concerns deserving discussion in a democratic society; most people still think that biological sex is relevant. Indeed, a Supreme Court ruling in 2025 ruled that the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equalities Act means biological sex, although this is still difficult to uphold in some workplaces, universities and public places [5] here.

Sonia states that the recent Government report is not neutral science. It is a selective, ideologically loaded framework that reframes legitimate debate as a “systemic national risk.” I think this is an excellent summary. She further states that the authors call for new “statutory frameworks,” greater monitoring, and a shift toward policing effects rather than intent. This seems to indicate that if for example a post describes a vaccine injury that is real, the person posting the story may be doing so in order to demonstrate his or her own suffering. But if the effect was to make more people ‘vaccine hesitant’ then this makes the person who posted the accurate story vulnerable to censorship, or even police action.

You may recall that I recently posted about the Green Paper that will ensure that social media prioritises ‘trustworthy’ news sources such as the BBC and ITV, over alternative news including for example reports on Substack [6] here. This sort of control over the media by the government has not been done since 1695, according to the Free Speech Union. According to Sonia “…this would hand the state greater influence over which media organisations are amplified and which are marginalised.” [7] here.

This evidence review does not provide new insights or new policy directions. It is part of the ongoing increasing system of censorship. The state is terrified of us the people, and it wants to make sure that we follow its narrative. It almost seems that nothing that the government says or does is in the interests of the British people, although it has to be dressed up so that the public believe that the government is acting to ‘protect’ them. A last word to Sonia. “When the state decides in advance which observations about biology, migration, elections, or public health constitute “harmful misinformation,” the result is not social cohesion. It is enforced orthodoxy, deep public distrust, and the disturbing criminalisation of dissent.” Well said.

The term ‘hasbara’ came into use at the point where the state of Israel was formed. It more or less means ‘explaining’ and it is the means to explain Israeli actions, good and bad. This has now permeated both the society in Israel, and the decision-making elites across the world. Although ordinary people listening to the news on television are not aware of Hasbara and the manner in which this system manipulates information, it nonetheless affects the way in which they view the world.

The Zionist lobby.

In the past year I read a book by Ilan Pappe, the Israeli-Jewish historian called ‘Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic’. I really recommend this publication. It reveals how the Zionist lobby has embedded itself in society and governments in the USA and in Britain, since the nineteenth century. It reveals how pressure is imposed on decision makers and influencers to ensure that support for Israel continues, whatever their military and political actions. It encourages the political class to deny Palestinian rights. Anyone who questions unconditional support for Israel, no matter how mild, become targets of relentless smear campaigns.

Recent effects of the lobby – one of its success stories.

For over two years, a genocide has been enacted by Israeli forces. This has been particularly well publicised in the Gaza Strip, a narrow piece of land into which Palestinians have been living under surveillance and control of Israel since 1967. The International Association of Genocide Scholars passed a resolution on 31 August 2025 to state that Israel’s policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide as described in Article 2 of the United Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide [1] here.

South Africa filed a case of genocide in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in December 2023. Two days of public hearing were heard in January 2024. The ICJ stated that there was a ‘plausible genocide’ which they would investigate. Although interim measures were imposed by the ICJ to restrict Israeli actions on several occasions, Israel has not complied with the ICJ directives. Although the case could not be more serious, the ICJ has not made a decision in over two years, leaving Palestinians to suffer both brutal attacks and restrictions on food, water, shelter, education, health care and sanitation [2] here.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has taken this case more seriously. The previous Chief Prosecutor of the ICC, Fatou BenSouda, stated that during her term she received threats to herself and her family when she tried to investigate Israeli war crimes. She was subjected to surveillance, pressure and threats during her term in office. When she reported this to the Dutch Authorities, no action was taken. However, the USA took actions against BenSouda because she refused to drop the Palestine case, including refusing her entry, which had serious issues on other aspects of her life, including banking and normal travel arrangements outside the USA [3] here.

Karim Khan took over from BenSouda, and last week he was dismissed as the head of the ICC. Khan issued arrest warrants for Israelis Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant accusing them of war crimes, plus warrants for three Palestinians who have since been killed. Following this event, Khan was accused of sexual misconduct. A fact-finding mission investigated the case through a legal process using three senior judges. They concluded that there was no evidence of sexual misconduct. Nonetheless, Khan was dismissed from his post; whether he is guilty or not, Khan’s dismissal was decided politically, not legally. As journalist Jonathon Cook states, we need an answer to a simple question – Who benefits? [4] here.

Since the arrest warrants were issued, the USA has threatened to close down the ICC. Although the ICC finds it hard to do its job properly due to push back from those whom it investigates for war crimes, without the ICC there is no way to uphold international law [5] here. The Zionist lobby seems to have won a case against Khan, and the ICC is under threat because of its protection of Israeli leaders who may be guilty of war crimes.

Now the good news – Zionism is a protected characteristic.

A good news case last week was the case of David Miller, previously a professor at Bristol University. Bristol University was put under pressure by the Zionist lobby, who accused Miller of antisemitism, and eventually despite two reports that stated that no evidence was found of antisemitism, he was dismissed under the false banner of gross misconduct. Miller took the university to an employment tribunal which reported in February 2024. The Tribunal found that Miller’s anti-Zionist beliefs were worthy of respect in a democratic society and he had been unfairly dismissed. This was a resounding victory, as the tribunal ruled in Miller’s favour on ten counts.

Despite the comprehensive win of Miller, Bristol University decided to appeal the decision, and this case was heard in London in November 2025. The decision was only released in July 2026.

According to Miller:

For nearly five years, the University of Bristol, operating under intense pressure from external Zionist lobby groups, sought to destroy my career, silence my sociological research, and establish a dangerous regime of censorship on campus. By dismissing me in October 2021 under the false banner of gross misconduct, the university administration threw its weight behind a targeted campaign of manufactured hysteria designed to conflate legitimate political critique with racial animus. In rejecting the university’s arguments, the court has delivered a forceful judgment that exposes the structural flaws, bad faith, and utter legal incompetence of the university’s strategy.

This case has wide implications. In all forms of employment, anti-Zionist beliefs are now a protected characteristic. No-one can be dismissed from their employment for supporting the Palestine cause, and no student can be penalised. The University has a month to decide whether it will take this to the Supreme Court, although it is unlikely that the ruling will be overturned because it was such a comprehensive defeat, and even the university’s legal team did not dispute Miller’s right to his opinions. It also makes a distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, or Judeophobia. The judgement stated that this belief did not threaten any person.

The university was admonished for not following normal legal standards, and by not promoting a suitable appeal, except to say that they disagreed with the findings of the Employment Tribunal. This means that Bristol wasted money on this appeal. In the face of this defeat, Miller now is planning to appeal his dismissal and to be returned to his employment. This is by any judgement a colossal defeat for the Zionist lobby.

Conclusion.

The Zionist lobby is not to be underestimated. For many years, war crimes have been committed in Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and in neighbouring countries especially Lebanon. This has not resulted in consistent pressure from any country in the world. The USA, UK, Europe, many Arab countries, and many other countries including those in the Global South have backed Israel even when evidence of war crimes are apparent. This is the effect of the lobby.

We have two cases here where pressure has been placed on people committed to fairness and justice; the ICC and Bristol University. In both cases there was legal evidence provided that should have protected the accused person. Nonetheless, the employers were prepared to give in to Zionist pressure, and penalise the person who was the target of the Zionist lobby.

This has a serious implication for freedom of speech. This does not only affect the accused. It also affects other employees who wish to protect their employment. People self-censor rather than losing their job, and not only losing their job, but also risking their reputation as persons of integrity.

I wish well to Karim Khan and Dr. David Miller.

I can’t read this book yet as its not produced on audible, but it is long overdue. I was first introduced to this subject by Dr. Gloria Moss, and I have since joined a few academic organisations that are either monitoring this subject or trying to counte the restrictions on academic freedom where they can do so. Gloria talks abot the manner in which universities are captured; they depend on government or corporate research funding that shapes their research and policies, and they depend on student satisfaction as students are now customers who also shape the university environment. You can see Gloria’s interviews on the UK Column website.

I certainly don’t agree with Norman on everything – he is rather more right-wing than I am, and also, he is not as sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians and Lebanese as I am. It is probably true that most free-speech advocates were from the political right, although I think left and right has no meaning in the current political climate. However, I strongly believe that each of us must listen to everything that people say and evaluate information against our own background of information, and we must then make up our minds independently. I have listened to a few interviews by Norman and listened to his Substack content, and I believe he is making a case for the way that academia has been captured by the rich and powerful.

This is extremely important as when people leave university, they have been through a system of indoctrination, and that influences the way they work in society after they graduate. It also influences the way they react to news and talk to their own children about world events.

So here is a long interview with Norman by Dr. John Campell, which covers some of the problems and concerns with academia that are covered in this book. Unfortunately, it is mainly older people such as myself and Dr. John Campbell and Dr. Norman Fenton who have retired and are free to look at the world objectively. I understand an audiobook is being produced and I look forward to that.

Meanwhile, this is the link to the podcast here, which explains many of the problems caused by the control of information in the British Universities.

Deepti is a long-standing colleague of UK Column (UKC) broadcaster Brian Gerrish, and she is an academic of Indian heritage who has been working at Cambridge University for 25 years. She is an ecologist who has been involved in testing soil samples in Ukraine and Russia for evidence of soil contamination during the war there. She also has colleagues who have high-ranking contacts, such as President Putin and President Trump, and together they formed a peace initiative named UNIT that aimed to be a facilitator between Russia and USA in a quest to find a solution to the ongoing war. She has recently had two interviews with Brian Gerrish that have been published on the UKC website; they are extremely interesting and reveal astonishing information. These can be located here and here. They are named “Unmasking the war in Ukraine” which is in two parts.

For her peaceful efforts, Deepti has revealed that she has been arrested on two occasions. She declined to provide any information about how she was treated during those arrests. After the first arrest she assumed that after the investigators had looked into her affairs and actions, she would be found to be innocent, and at first she saw this police involvement as a reasonable series of events given her high profile contacts. However, this was not to be. She has been restricted to staying in her home for several years, and she has also been restricted in whom she can speak to, and her excluded contacts include Trump, Putin, Andrew Bridgen, and others that she names in these interviews. She claims that the Ukraine war is being orchestrated by the British government, which is the key actor in keeping the war ongoing. Without revealing details, she states that her compliance with the gagging orders is in part enforced by threats concerning her family, and Brian adds some details to say that he has heard of similar allegations against family security from others.

Clearly, this is an attempt by government to silence Deepti, and to reduce any possibility of the end of this brutal war that is not in the interests of Ukraine nor Russia. Yet Deepti continues to organise in support of peace.

Those that act as intelligence agents; investigated by David Miller.

David Miller was a professor at Bristol University who was forced to leave his post due to pressure from the Zionist lobby. He has recently had an article published in Mint Press News which I am interested in because it updates information that I have already published on my Substack, concerning the actions of the deep state in Eastern Europe in particular. You can read the Mint Press News item here.

I have previously written about British intelligence linked programmes including the Integrity Initiative, and the Counter Disinformation and Media Development (CDMD) that have been active in controlling information in Eastern Europe and Russia on behalf of the UK. Miller writes that these programmes have now been extended to include Iran and China, and also include operations concerning Gaza on a semi-detached basis. Miller goes back further in history, to reveal that before the Integrity and CDMD programmes there was the Russian Language programme that began in 2014, under HMG Russia Unit. One of the programmes undertaken by such organisations was to discredit the then leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn; this was revealed in leaked information. When leaks occurred that revealed nefarious behaviour, then if this was a person, he or she was moved on to a new position, or if it involved an organisation this was renamed, or closed down. It is usual that a new organisation then takes on the same role, sometimes with enlarged or enhanced functions. Examples I have given in the past include the change of name of the Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU) to the National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT), and the closure of the Integrity Initiative and shortly afterwards the launch of a new organisation with similar functions, the Open Information Partnership (OIP).

There are several people named in this Miller article, such as Andy Pryce, Alicia Kearns, and journalist Paul Mason. Their role was to push government interests and control information concerning government activities. The activities mentioned in the Miller report published on Mint Press News included inaccurate stories concerning the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and the alleged Skripol poisoning event. Although leaks show that their activities were not always honest or legal, these high-profile actors have not suffered any significant consequences.

In Miller’s article, he states that another government propaganda unit was formed with the involvement of Pryce and MI6, called the Government Information Cell (GIC). This took over some of the operations of the Counter-Daesh Coalition Communication Cell (CCCC), that was active in Syria and Iraq. The overseer of the CCCC was Alicia Kearns, who later became an MP and headed the Foreign Affairs Committee. The GIC pooled cross-government expertise in analysis, intelligence, and strategic communications.

In March 2023 another intelligence/information control unit was formed by the British government, and Miller writes:

In March 2023 the FCDO created the Information Threats and Influence Directorate (ITID). It folded in the Counter Disinformation and Media Development (CDMD) Program, the GIC and related functions. At the same time the strategic need to broaden targets beyond Russia/Ukraine to Iran, China, and Gaza (on a semi-detached basis), helped trigger another reorganization.

This shows how the British government is expanding its operations to spread propaganda and censor information from selected sources. This control of the narrative is designed to gain consent for illegal war activities that are being undertaken by the UK government, along with other governments including the US and Europe.

This is an update on my previously reported information that I have published on this Substack. Miller also provides some information on the eye watering amount of money put into these information control activities by government agencies, including the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and the Conflict, Stability and Security fund, which Miller describes as a government slush fund. This is money that does not benefit UK businesses nor British people, but in the end, taxation pays for these government nefarious ventures that never appear on any election manifesto. Whilst the government maintains that these types of actions are to keep people safe, the never-ending march to war is not the way to protect British people from harm.

What these examples reveal is that those that offer truth in search of peace are punished and silenced, even though most people in UK want peace. Those that offer propaganda and censorship on behalf of the UK government (but not the British people) are rewarded, even though these lead to war, destruction and death.

Today, I happened to come across this recording of a speech by Ann Widdicombe at a debate at the Oxford Union. I was born a year before Ann; we experienced living in the same era. She was born in Bath, with a comfortable family life. I was born in the industrial midlands and lived in a slum, leaving school on my 15^th birthday. I went on to train as a nurse in Oxford, and at that time Ann was probably also in Oxford, where she studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics. I also shared her interest in politics, although my own interest was in socialism, whereas Ann joined the Conservative party, and later the Reform party.

When I read Ann’s speech at the Oxford Union, I was struck by how similar our life experiences had been despite the social chasm between us, and how much we had in common. Although we had big political differences, Ann has always been a politician that I respected; although I often profoundly disagreed with her political position, I admired her for being forthright and honest. We both believed in free speech, debate, and respecting the views of others, even when other people held opposing viewpoints. She noted that in Britain during those post war years that pro-Nazi and communist perspectives were tolerated; in my last post I discussed how there had been a tolerance of freedom of speech during the Irish troubles and times of war. The era Ann and I had lived through had influenced our perspectives on the need to allow those who oppose us to have a voice, even when we disagreed with what they were saying.

This speech was publicised on the website of the Academics for Academic Freedom (AFAF). AFAF said that Ann’s speech, delivered on 19 July 2019, helped to win the debate against the proposition “We should support no-platforming”. This is the text and at the bottom of this, I have put a link to a recording of the actual speech itself.

Ann Widdicombe’s speech in the debate “We should support no platforming”.

“Hello, Oxford Union! Here I am, right back where I started from fifty years ago. And do you know what the subject of my first Paper Speech was? It was Censorship. Plus ça change…

Now, tonight is crucial. This is not just any old Thursday debate at the Oxford Union. There was a moment in the past when what happened here had reverberations around the world, and that was when this House decided that it would not fight for King and Country, and it gave immense comfort to a rather nasty regime. And tonight it is crucial that this House, this bastion of freedom, this renowned historical organization that has always been devoted to free speech, does not go the other way and make a decision in favour of censorship. What we are debating here tonight is crucial.

Now, I speak with feeling. When I was growing up, it was in the immediate post-war period, when people had lost sons, husbands, fathers to the Nazis. They had lost limbs and faced a life of disability. They had lost homes. They had lost them to a vile regime called National Socialism; and yet, Oswald Moseley and Colin Jordan and other such charming souls were allowed in law to hold their rallies in this country. You think how much offence, how much hurt, how much insult that caused to people who had made such major sacrifices. But, the devotion to free speech and the recognition that we had spent six years fighting for liberty led us to believe that it was preferable to have free speech than not to be offended.

And then a few years later, when I was here, we were right at the height of the Cold War. And it is difficult to remember thirty years after the Berlin Wall came down, but we were actually at a stage when, all along the borders of what were then the Warsaw Pact countries, the Soviet Union had stationed weapons pointing straight at us. And yet, you could still stand for Parliament as a Communist — you probably wouldn’t get in, but you could still stand. You could stand on street corners and sell the Morning Star. You could subscribe openly to the Communist Party. And I expect that gave a lot of offence, and that caused a lot of hurt and probably also alarm, but we believed that free speech was more important.

Now, only two sorts of people oppose free speech, and they are at opposite ends of the scale: snowflakes and totalitarians. So there!

Nobody has the right to live their lives being protected from offence, or from insult, or from hurt feelings. It is an occupational hazard of living in society…

Celeste said there’s nothing wrong with being a snowflake. No, you can be as snowflake-ish as you like, providing you don’t try to impose that on other people.

I am offended, upset, insulted at least thirty times a day — tough! Celeste upset me, Celeste wounded me, Celeste has caused me trauma. She poured scorn on my Paso Doble. And does she realise that in fifteen years’ time I am still going to be traumatized, and I am going to form a movement, #MeTooDancers, who were insulted at the Oxford Union? Oh, come on! Nobody has the right to live their lives being protected from offence, or from insult, or from hurt feelings. It is an occupational hazard of living in society, and if you really can’t take it, become a hermit.

But, more seriously, on the opposite end from the snowflakes (poor little darlings), on the opposite end from them are the totalitarians. And that was how Hitler was so successful, because he did not allow any free speech whatever. And if you spoke out against that sickening regime, or indeed against the Soviet Union (bell rings...Two minutes more? No, I need at least five) you would end up in prison, if not worse.

Totalitarians like to curtail your right to disagree with state orthodoxy. Now, for state orthodoxy, substitute the words social orthodoxy, as exemplified by social media, Twitter, and other such places, where people decide what is and what is not acceptable.

Now, I would love to stand in the Union and oppose and argue with and take to pieces a Holocaust denier. But, if we say, “No, we can never have the holocaust denier, because his views are so offensive that he cannot be accorded a platform”, then what happens? That sort of viewpoint is driven underground, where it can quite often flourish. And people whisper behind their hands, “Oh, you know there is something in what he says, but we are not allowed to hear it.” Let’s hear it, and by hearing it we can destroy it. We should also remember that today’s heresy can become tomorrow’s credo. How fortunate we were that the Wilberforces of this world, the Pankhursts, the Martin Luther Kings, and everybody else who has, over time and with massive effort, changed society, how grateful we may be that they were not no-platformed because it offended the society of their time!

And just remember this: You may feel virtuous today in what you will not hear, but tomorrow somebody may feel virtuous in not hearing what you have to say. Free speech is for all, not for the privileged few.

Now, I recently was asked if I objected to sharing a platform with somebody who had spoken in favour of (had not been involved in, but had spoken in favour of) the IRA. Now, I lost a friend in the Brighton bomb. I missed the Brighton bomb by less than twenty minutes. And I looked at this person and I said, “So, you wanted to blow me up”, and she said, “Well, I didn’t want to do it myself”. I do not object to sharing a platform and arguing with her, because by arguing with her I can expose what is wrong. It is absolutely right that we should allow people, no matter how profoundly we disagree with them — I hate to utter cliches in this august debating hall, but I am going to utter one — that no matter how much we may disagree with somebody, we should defend to the hilt their right to say it, and that is something I have believed all my life. That you succeed by defeating your opponent, not by wishing him away. You get nowhere by trying not to hear what is being said, not to hear the arguments.

As I said at the beginning, and I do passionately appeal to you tonight, this is not about which side wins. This is about whether the Oxford Union, of all bodies, will vote in favour of the diminution of free speech. Whether we will agree (and I say “we” because I am a life member of this place) that somebody else may decide what we can and can’t hear. And just remember this: You may feel virtuous today in what you will not hear, but tomorrow somebody may feel virtuous in not hearing what you have to say. Free speech is for all, not for the privileged few.

You can listen to Ann’s speech here. I do not agree with all of the policial views Ann expressed in this speech, but I profoundly agree with her right to say them and defend them. I think that politicians were perfect during Ann’s time in parliament, but they were better prepared for their life of representing the British people, having fought in wars and held real jobs – everything from lorry drivers to teachers to doctors company directors. They bought a breadth of experience to their parliamentary role. Parliamentarians from all sides of the political debate are not now of the same calibre. Rest in Peace Ann Widdicombe.

This terrifying piece of censorship legislation has just cleared parliament and awaits royal assent. Remember this – during World Wars 1 and 2 we did not have such draconian legislation. During the Irish troubles when we had extensive acts of terrorism in our own cities we did not have this type of legislation – the government relied on its D-notices, a gentleman's agreement between the government and the press. Everyone was touched by frightening events in the 1970s and 1980s - when I was a night sister in a hospital in Oxford we frequently had alleged bomb threats, real or by copycat attention seekers, and my daughter was caught up in a terrorist event in London when she was at university. Yet the British media was not controlled in the way it is now.

The most terrifying thing is the purposeful vagueness of censorship legislation – the Online Safety Act (OSA), and now the National Security (State Threats) Act (NSSTA). They are not specific on what is, and what is not, against the law. This means that for the OSA those that are required to censor on behalf of the government – social media companies and search engines – are likely to be fined or even imprisoned for not obeying the laws. This does not only involve people and companies on British soil – it involves global companies whose websites or online activities can reach British citizens.

The NSSTA is similarly vague and this time the requirement is to self-censor, with journalists or those working overseas such as aid workers, restricting who they speak to. The main target seems to be Iran, a country that does not threaten British subjects at all – although British military assets in places like Cyprus may be targeted in the future by Iran. This legislation appears to be in the interests of Israel – a foreign country. Irrespective of your views on Israel, it seems illogical that censorship legislation is passed to protect a country outside our borders, when it was not deemed necessary to pass censorship laws when British people needed protection. If journalists cross the line – either intentionally or unintentionally – they could receive prison sentences as terrorists for up to 16 years.

A great article that criticises this bill – now an Act of Parliament – was written on the Canary website. Remember the Canary has been debanked by Lloyds recently for what reason we and they haven’t been told. You can read the Canary article here, and the article includes comments by the NGO Cage International, Jeremy Corbyn MP., Tribune Magazine, and the great Craig Murray, and ex-ambassador who has himself been subjected to prison sentences for his outspoken speech against injustices.

This reminds me of the imprisonment of Julian Assange, who was similarly jailed for publicising criminal behaviour by the US military. Assange was also subjected to a smear campaign in which he was accused of hacking and rape, neither of which had any substance, but many believed the official agenda. None of those that were captured taking parts in acts of murder have been subjected to any criminal charges - only the person who exposed the acts of ‘collateral murder’ was punished. At that time, Assange had not broken any law. Under the NSSTA it is possible that he could be found guilty under British law of receiving information from an American whistleblower -the Act is worded so vaguely.

In case you want an unbiased account of the campaign against Assange, the documentary The Trust Fall was released when Assange was imprisoned in Belmarsh Prison in UK. Some think the release of this film in Australia in particular was one of the reasons why pressure was put on the US government to drop charges against him, and in the end his ordeal was ended in a plea deal, in which Assange agreed to plead guilty to one small charge in return for his immediate release. This is a film that those who care about free speech should watch and you can find it here.

The Conversion Therapy bill.

Another bill restricting free speech is now going through parliament, and this time it is being publicised by an organisation to the political right, The Free Speech Union (FSU). This time it involves those who are speaking to children about their gender identity – again a vague notion that seems to be taken up by those who follow the agenda rather than thinking critically. I am a woman and have been female for nearly 80 years, but really, I don’t know how I ‘feel’ as a woman. I just am who I am. James Esses is a therapist who counsels children and young adults on gender identity issues, and fears that this bill could put therapists and parents at risk of imprisonment if they discuss gender identity. This can in itself include some challenging statements, including giving out accurate biological information. Again, this legislation that threatens free speech is written in vague terms, but with onerous punishments for offending, including fines, imprisonment, or the loss of work – or for parents watching their beloved children being subjected to persuasive gender identity information. There is a link to a petition against this bill if you want to sign it, you can find the podcast here.

Andy Burnham.

We are about to have a change of our British PM once again. There are some reports of favourable outcomes – such as the end of trials without juries, and possibly the end of Digital ID – although realistically it might be too late. There have been no suggestions that he would repeal the OSA or the NSSTA. There are no suggestions that the Green Party, Reform, Reclaim, or the Conservatives would do any better with free speech than Labour. We all need to be making sure that our communities and our politicians know that free speech is a treasured right that we are not prepared to give up.

Remember this - if people have been indoctrinated that we need to protect against speech - labelled as hate speech, antisemitism, conspiracy theories, and so forth, they do not know they have been indoctrinated. If they knew, they wouldn’t hold those views. It’s hard to change minds when people think what they say is right, even though they haven’t investigated legislation, biological facts, or original research. We all risk unpopularity and discrimination for standing for free speech, but its a price that must be paid to ensure a free world for our children and grandchildren.

Imagine waking up in the morning on a normal day. Nothing is unusual in any way. You decide to pay a bill or send some money to your daughter for her birthday. When you try to do this, for some reason the payment won’t go through. You ring your bank, and you are told that your account has been closed. You ask if you can access your own money that is in that account and you are told you cannot. The bank spokesman that you speak to cannot tell you how, or when, you can access your own money. You can’t pay for food, your council tax, your mortgage, your fuel provider. The only money you have is the small amount of cash that you hold in your wallet. You can’t pay a lawyer to assist you because you have no access to your own money. You go to the police but they can’t help you. If you are self-employed, your customers cannot pay you, and your business is likely to fail; your reputation is spoiled because people think you must have done something illegal. This is the scenario for a growing number of people across the world.

Transaction Denied – big finance’s power to punish speech. By Rainey Reitman.

For the last two weeks, I have been reading the above book, which is a new publication by Rainey Reitman, an ex-employee of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Civil liberties activist Rainey is the co-founder and president of the board of directors of the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), and she spent over a decade researching how financial companies like Visa, Mastercard, Chase, PayPal, and Stripe suppress speech. FPF assists any individuals or organisations that have been debanked in the USA.

The book exposes a pattern of extra-legal punishment by payment processors, such as companies that process salaries on behalf of employers, and banking corporations. She also reports on her own personal narrative of dealing with censorship when she was engaged in the campaign to free United States Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning.

One example of financial censorship involved WikiLeaks when it was targeted by a banking blockade in 2010 and 2011, and Rainey was particularly inspired to help circumvent this repression while the media organisation was in the crosshairs of the U.S. government. After she became involved in the Wikileaks case, she helped to form the Freedom of the Press Foundation in response to the blockade.

Amongst others, Rainey highlights activists, journalists, Muslims, individuals engaged in sexual speech, and even cannabis business owners, who have been targeted. She also offers some ways of circumventing this form of censorship, such as by using cash or cryptocurrency, and ways to lobby financial organisations and governments to protect legal and solvent customers.

Rainey was interviewed about her book, and the interview can be found [1] here.

Other forms of financial attacks.

In the past, I have written about a system of interfering with income by activities that reduce the ability of media outlets to raise income via advertising. There are many organisations that have been involved in this system, including the Global Disinformation Index, and Stop Funding Fake News, which is linked to the Centre for Countering Digital Hate. Many media outlets have suffered this form of attack, including the right of centre Unherd and the left of centre The Canary. For example, Unherd was attacked because of articles by gender critical activists on its website, and the Canary had taken a strong position in supporting the left-wing leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, yet these normal media activities precipitated financial censorship. O

The recent debanking of the Canary.

The Canary has again been attacked in the past few days. It is noted as a left wing and radical media organisation that has upset many political parties and organisations through its forthright and accurate reporting of embarrassing information. Its editor in chief, Steve Topple, was interviewed by another independent news provider, Double Down News, after its debanking by Lloyds Bank, after nearly a decade of banking with them. Lloyds has not released the monies held in the bank account of The Canary, which means it cannot pay its staff nor its contractors. Topple pointed out that he does not know why this action was taken. The mainstream media have not reported the debanking of The Canary, but it was reported by right wing independent organisations such as GB News and the Free Speech Union. His interview can be found [2] here.

The Substack Manufacturing Dissent reported The Canary debanking event recently as follows [3] here.

Banks have already targeted media before

• PayPal froze the accounts of Consortium News and MintPress News in 2022, citing vague “risk” language. Both outlets had published critical reporting on US foreign policy.

• HSBC and Barclays have repeatedly shut down accounts belonging to advocacy groups, migrant solidarity networks, and anti-war organisations in the UK.

• In Australia, Westpac froze the account of an environmental journalism collective after they published investigations into mining companies.

None of these cases came with clear explanations. None came with accountability. And none were covered by mainstream media with any seriousness.

Governments have already laid the groundwork

Financial pressure is now a standard tool of state power.

• The UK’s Counter-Disinformation Unit has been caught monitoring journalists and pressuring platforms to restrict their reach.

• The EU’s Digital Services Act gives governments broad authority to demand takedowns and restrict funding channels for media deemed “high risk.”

• The US Treasury has repeatedly used sanctions to block funding to foreign media outlets, including ones that publish content critical of US policy.

Once governments normalise financial punishment for journalism abroad, it becomes easier to justify similar tactics at home.

Platforms have already joined in

Tech companies have quietly become gatekeepers of financial survival.

• YouTube demonetised dozens of independent news channels during the Syria and Ukraine wars.

• Patreon banned political creators without warning, including journalists covering extremist movements.

• Facebook throttled traffic to independent outlets after its “news ecosystem” restructuring, while mainstream corporate media saw boosts.

When banks, governments, and platforms all adopt the same posture, it’s not coincidence. It’s coordination through shared incentives: control the narrative, starve dissent.

Why should we care?

The right to free speech and to receive information freely is the most basic civil right. People are gradually being taught that they are surrounded by hate speech, racist speech, antisemitism, misinformation, and disinformation. We are told that this is a threat to our democracy, and it causes antisocial behaviour. In effect, we cannot live in a democracy if we cannot say what we want to say, and hear voices that we agree with, and voices that we disagree with. We need to all return to the art of debate. Techniques are being used to indoctrinate minds so that the general population only accept information from approved sources, such as government, official bodies, and mainstream media.

Nonetheless, there is still an active dissenting community. There are many methods of setting groups against each other so that we fight each other rather than fighting a system of control that is encroaching upon us all. Racism versus concern over immigration; women’s rights versus transgender rights; those that favour vaccines and those who do not; those that support one side in a war, versus those that support the other side; and climate change critics versus climate change followers. The old divisions between right and left political views still are relevant to many, though these have been replaced by new divisions between woke and populists. These are examples of the ways that we are being controlled to think in a particular way, including being extremely critical of those that hold an alternative viewpoint. Those parts of the media that still encourage independent thought and respectful debate are being silenced, and the Canary is only one.

The Canary debanking event concerns us all, whatever our political perspective. Those who are dissidents can see the increasing censorship in the UK, and if we contribute independent thought in any way we could be putting our own financial security at risk. The only obvious way to avoid the risk of such catastrophic interference with personal income is to ensure that nothing is ever said that is critical of government policy, in other words to self-censor.

Thanks for reading The Control of Information! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

My last two postings described the increasing restrictions on free speech in the UK. These described the way that the police and courts are being used as a coercive arm of the censorship regime; I gave three examples of completely different cases where such powers were being used to silence dissenting voices [1] here. To me, it is irrelevant as to whether any British person agrees or disagrees with any of these causes. What is important to all of us is that our freedoms are being taken away by courts that are imposing the will of the government on ordinary British people, and British journalists.

The other article was an update on the current state of censorship in UK by the Foundation for Freedom Online (FFO). The FFO demonstrated that censorship proposals put UK in line with authoritarian regimes such as China, Russia, and Iran [2] here. This article gives information on the Online Safety Act, Age Verification, plans to force social media platforms to scan encrypted messages, and potential restrictions on the use of Virtual Private Networks (VPN). I often think, can things get any worse in the restrictions on our civil liberties, and then they do – the changes are becoming increasingly rapid. Sadly, three more serious events have happened this week, two involving more censorship legislation, and one involving financial censorship. I will deal with the financial censorship in my next post, but in this post I will deal with threats to publishing and broadcasting; but especially to journalists.

National Security (State Threats) Bill.

The first notification of the National Security (State Threats) bill was sent to me by Declassified on 2 July 2026, but since then I have noted that several other independent media outlets have showed similar alarm at the intentions of this piece of legislation.

The Declassified notification, authored by Hamza Yusuf, states the following [3] here.

New legislation being rushed through Parliament could criminalise British journalists for simply engaging with certain state-backed groups.

The National Security (State Threats) Bill, currently in its final stages, would grant the Home Secretary powers to designate any state-backed organisation as a threat if it is judged prejudicial to the UK’s “safety and interests”.

Independent reviewers of terrorism legislation have cautioned that the bill’s vague drafting could expose journalists and aid workers to prosecution simply for engaging with a designated organisation, with sentences of up to 14 years possible.

The legislation would target anyone who “supports, assists, or obtains material benefits” including information from a group classed as terrorist, and goes further by criminalising not just receiving such a benefit but agreeing to accept one.

Crucially, the bill removes any “reasonable excuse” defence, leaving little room for those who can show their contact was incidental or professionally necessary.

Critics have warned that the bill could criminalise journalists for reporting casualty figures from Iranian authorities, hospital data from Gaza health officials, or details of Israeli military operations relayed by armed factions in Lebanon.

Any information that is reported from a source that is deemed to be not acting in the UK government interests can be used as evidence for prosecution, even if it is factually correct. Jeremy Corbyn, retired leader of the Labour Party, calls this development “…an alarming expansion of state power, and an escalation of the chilling assault on the right to protest” [4] here. Corbyn and others point to the deliberate vagueness of definitions, which enables the home secretary to “criminalise political campaigns of their choosing”. David Anderson, a former UK independent reviewer of terrorism, said that the legislation could see foreign correspondents prosecuted for terrorism, and safeguards for journalists and NGOs are not included in the text [5] here. For example, ‘benefits’ could simply mean access to information, and is not restricted to any financial benefits.

The Green Paper on the Future of the Media.

The second piece of censorship legislation passing through parliament was reported in the Free Speech Union (FSU) newsletter dated 3 July 2026, it was also reported on in The Spectator and The Telegraph [6] here. The bill in question is the Green Paper on the Future of the Media [7] here. Whilst this bill describes its actions as protecting the British media by ensuring that social media gives greater emphasis to “trustworthy news providers”, Lord Young of the FSU questions whether the government can be trusted to select trustworthy sources. Lord Young states In the FSU newsletter and in his Spectator article that government control of the British press ended in 1695, but if the intent of this bill is to offer a trusted news status to those that bend the knee to the state regulator, then this would end the notion of a free press [8] here. In the same FSU newsletter it is reported that Andy Burnham, who seems to be designated as the next Prime Minister of the UK, is being pressured by Hacked Off members who supported his election campaign to increase state regulation [9] here. Hacked Off is a campaign group that wants more government control of the media.

Starmer, Burnham, and beyond.

Starmer has dealt blow after blow to freedom of expression in his term as prime minister, now coming to an end. However, I am not hopeful of improvements from either the forthcoming Burnham era, nor in the era of the next governing party, whoever it is. Policies that are enforced, but not selected, by governments all over the world are not the policies that suit ordinary people; they are designed to benefit those who have immense wealth, who want to introduce a global government. My dream is therefore not of a new leader, nor a new party, but of the day when the world throws away its mobile phones and just says “no”.

Mike Benz is an American researcher into censorship. In Trump’s first term as president he was an official in the State Department with a responsibility for international communications and information technology. Since then, he has founded the Foundation for Freedom Online (FFO), a civil society organisation that champions digital freedom online across the globe.

British censorship.

The UK has one of the most repressive systems of controlling information in the world. In consequence. Benz has published several pieces of work on how the UK exercises its control. This has become increasingly onerous during the past decade, and particularly since the Covid era.

Here Benz gives a summary of the recent infringements on liberty that have been introduced by the UK government, most of them making many of its methods to control information into legal requirements. You can find the original documents here. Underneath this I have copied many important features of Benz’s observations.

From the FFO website, published 24 June 2026.
Fines, Bans, Forced Newsfeed Changes: An Overview of UK Online Censorship

The UK government has announced plans to ban children under the age of sixteen from accessing major social media platforms from 2027. The proposal is the latest in a series of measures that have dramatically expanded Britain’s regulation of the internet over the past decade. Because many of the companies affected are American technology firms operating global platforms, Britain’s digital regulations increasingly have international consequences.

Existing and proposed UK regulations include:

• The Online Safety Act, a sweeping online censorship regime established last year, that imposes massive fines and potentially criminal consequences on platforms and executives for failing to censor disfavored content.

• A proposed ban on under-16s accessing major social media platforms, a proposal that would force every adult to subscribe to a digital ID scheme to prove their age.

• Proposals to force private messaging platforms like Signal and WhatsApp to proactively scan user messages, effectively destroying encrypted privacy on those services.

• Government restrictions on VPNs, which currently exist only in authoritarian regimes such as North Korea, Iran, and China.

The Online Safety Act

The foundation of Britain’s modern approach to internet regulation is the Online Safety Act, which came into force in 2023 and is now being implemented by Ofcom. Described by the government as world-leading legislation, it imposes some of the most extensive regulatory obligations placed on online platforms by a democratic country.

The Act establishes a statutory duty of care requiring online services to assess and mitigate risks faced by their users. Platforms ranging from social media companies and search engines to forums and file-sharing sites must conduct risk assessments, remove illegal content, and introduce measures designed to protect children.

Central to the legislation is mandatory age assurance. Services likely to host content deemed harmful to children must use “highly effective” methods of determining whether users are under eighteen. Rather than relying on self-declared ages, platforms are expected to deploy more robust systems such as facial age estimation, identity document verification or other approved methods.

The legislation also gives Ofcom sweeping enforcement powers. Companies found in breach face fines of up to £18 million or 10 percent of annual global turnover, whichever is greater, while senior managers can face criminal liability for failing to comply with certain statutory information requests.

Because major technology companies operate global products rather than country-specific versions of their services, compliance has required significant engineering changes by firms including Meta, Google, Apple, Microsoft and X. The age-assurance systems now being introduced under the Act also provide the technical foundation for newer proposals, including the government’s planned ban on under-16s accessing major social media platforms.

Ofcom immediately used its new powers to target American tech platforms, forcing the messageboard 4chan out of the country and requiring Elon Musk’s X to work with the same “disinformation” researchers that want to destroy his platform.

Banning Under-16s from Social Media

In June 2026, the UK government announced plans to prohibit children under the age of sixteen from accessing major social media platforms from 2027. If implemented, it would represent one of the most significant restrictions on young people’s use of the internet ever introduced in Britain.

The proposed ban is expected to apply to major platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, X and YouTube. Rather than requiring parental consent or limiting specific features, it would prevent under-16s from holding accounts altogether. Alongside the ban, ministers have also discussed restrictions on livestreaming, tighter controls on who can contact children online, and additional protections for users under eighteen.

The proposal relies on the age-assurance systems now being introduced under the Online Safety Act. To enforce the ban, platforms will need reliable methods of determining whether prospective users are under sixteen before allowing them to create or access accounts — effectively a digital ID system that threatens online anonymity.

The significance of the proposal extends beyond social media itself. Age verification was once largely confined to online pornography, but successive legislative proposals have steadily expanded its use across the wider internet. The under-16 ban would mark another major step in that process, requiring mainstream online platforms used by millions of people to determine users’ ages before granting access.

For young people, the policy would affect far more than entertainment. Social media platforms have become important sources of news, educational content, political discussion and online communities, meaning the restrictions would extend to an increasingly significant part of modern public life.

Device-Level Scanning and the Future of Encryption

Britain’s online safety agenda is increasingly influencing the design of the devices people use to access the internet. Earlier this year, Apple announced new child safety features for UK users, including age assurance for child accounts and technology capable of automatically detecting and blurring nude images sent to or received by children through Apple’s communication services.

The measures have drawn criticism from encrypted messaging providers, particularly Signal. Meredith Whittaker, Signal’s President, has repeatedly warned that requirements forcing providers to scan private communications or otherwise weaken end-to-end encryption would fundamentally undermine secure messaging. Signal has consistently maintained that it would rather leave the UK market than compromise its encryption.

This is not the first time the company has threatened to withdraw from Britain. During debates over the Online Safety Act, Signal argued that provisions allowing Ofcom to require the use of accredited technology to detect illegal content could become incompatible with genuinely end-to-end encrypted services. Although the government has said it does not intend to prohibit encryption itself, the dispute has highlighted the growing tension between online safety regulation and secure private communications.

VPN Restrictions

As the UK expands age-verification requirements and online safety obligations, ministers have also begun considering how users might circumvent those restrictions.

In June, Technology Secretary Peter Kyle confirmed that the government was examining measures to prevent children from using Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) to bypass online safety protections. Speaking before the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, Kyle acknowledged that VPNs have many legitimate uses but said ministers were exploring whether further action would be needed to stop children using them to evade online restrictions.

If the UK passed VPN restrictions, it would place the country in a small club of authoritarian regimes that do so, including China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Egypt, and Turkey.

These are some of the important points in the Benz article, but there is a lot more information if you go to the FFO website.

Meryl Nass is an American doctor who was delicensed for giving safe medication to patients during the Covid era. She has in the past extensively investigated bioweapons and she has amazing knowledge of this topic. Here she is talking about the American intelligence network in a podcast on the Children’s Health Defence website. The first fifteen minutes are about papers that the retiring chief of National Intelligence in the Trump administration, Tulsi Gabbard, released just before her departure. This reveals information about the American global network of biolabs and the nefarious activities of Dr. Fauci. No wonder this man was given a pardon by President Biden - otherwise he would be bound for some prison cell.

The second part is much more interesting. She discusses the findings of Mike Benz, who is the founder of the Foundation for Freedom Online. I have published lots of previous articles about Benz and used his research for evidence of censorship and information control. What I like about this particular podcast by Nass is the way that she offers a very clear summary of an interview between Benz and the American podcaster Joe Rogan. The Benz/Rogan interview is over three hours long but here Nass offers a clear insightful account of the main points that emerge in that interview in about fifteen minutes. It covers the changes in surveillance and censorship in the USA from a historical perspective – why they happened, how they happened. You can listen to Meryl Nass’s interview here. I really recommend it because it is so easy to follow and gives you lots of information in a relatively short sound bite.

If you want to listen to the full Rogan/Benz interview you can find it here. It is a great interview, and I have referred to this in earlier posts. However it is long (though very interesting and informative). It also is a little dated, for example, USAID had not been closed down at the time of this interview and so it is referred to as an existing organisation. But nonetheless, if you haven’t heard Benz speak before, he will blow your mind with the depth of knowledge he has on censorship. In fact there are two other Rogan/Benz interviews that cover other censorship topics if like me you really want to know what intelligence is hiding from you. You can follow Benz’s work by going to his website, the Foundation for Freedom Online, which you can find here. In fact he does a lot of work on European censorship and British censorship as well as following what is happening in the USA, and its on his website.

Today, often court cases are organised that on the surface appear to have a role in preventing the spread of dissenting information or discourage other activists from taking similar actions. Whilst it can be argued that this is the role of the police and the law, in the last few years activities that would previously have been called normal journalistic practices or legitimate dissenting activities have now been relabelled as crime.

Richard D. Hall and the Manchester Arena event.

Examples include the criminalising of the activities of journalist Richard D. Hall who investigated irregularities in the narrative surrounding the Manchester Arena Bombing event in 2017. Hall was eventually convicted of harassment of two people who had stated that they were injured at the Manchester Arena event. Despite having no contact with the two persons who claimed harassment, Hall was found guilty, jailed and was also subjected to huge court costs. Other investigators have found similar irregularities in the narrative surrounding the event, including the lack of evidence of bomb damage and emergency teams not being allowed into the hall where injured and dying people were located for several hours. There were also irregularities in the court hearing, with some key evidence not allowed. In effect, in the court proceedings all of the defendant’s evidence was struck down, and further defendant requests for evidence such as medical evidence and CCTV footage were refused. The two claimants in this case appeared to have both sustained injuries but without examining medical records or listening to accounts of medical practitioners, it is currently unclear how those injuries were sustained. The account of the regularities can be found on the Substack of investigator Iain Davis, who published an account of the court proceedings and its irregularities in five sections between 26 July 2024 and 3 August 2024, and a summary of Davis’s findings can be found in this interview [1] here. Davis himself describes this as a form of narrative control. Journalists who wish to investigate a case have to seek evidence, and when they do so they can no longer use the reason for their actions as normal professional activities. This in effect ties the hands of journalists who wish to challenge government narratives on any subject in the future.

Mark Sexton versus the Covid narrative.

Events relating to Covid-19 have also been dismissed after evidence was provided to the police of criminal misconduct. Former Police Officer Mark Sexton has on several occasions presented evidence to the police of criminal misconduct [2] here. Despite high profile and well qualified informants, the cases were not taken forward. It was later found out after investigations by Sexton that pressure was placed on the police not to take forward these cases [3] here. According to Sexton, the following offences were committed:

(1) Perverting the course of justice

(2) Misconduct in public office

(3) Nonfeasance in public office

(4) Misfeasance in public office

(5) Assisting offenders

(6) Corporate and negligence offences.

By not taking these cases which included genuine concerns by persons who were well qualified to make these allegations the Covid narrative was protected. However, a case was taken forward when a protester was arrested outside a vaccination centre. The case took three years and eight months before it was finally ruled upon. The defendant Dale Vincent was a retired soldier who suffered from complex PTSD; he had a Mckenzie friend to assist him in court. However, the judge removed the right of witnesses to provide evidence to support Vincent, and he also refused to allow the Mckenzie friend to assist him. He also forced Vincent to stand in the dock when being questioned, even though it had been agreed that due to his mental condition he would not be required to do so. The judge was clearly biased against Vincent and favoured the crown’s case. Despite the judge’s attempts to pervert the course of justice, the jury found Vincent not guilty. Vincent now has submitted a complaint against the judge and has been given a crime number, although the judge has not been arrested [4] here. Despite Vincent winning his case even after the judge’s biased actions, this has not been taken up in the mainstream media.

The Palestine Action proscription.

Another recent case that has received limited mainstream coverage has been the case of activists belonging to a group known as Palestine Action. Palestine Action was proscribed by the government as a terrorist group despite its actions focus on criminal damage to property, and its activities do not include violence towards people. Palestine Action activists primarily target and cause damage to drone factories that are owned by the Israeli company Elbit Systems, Elbit makes weapons that are used in the genocide in Gaza, including one that killed a number of British aid workers operating in Gaza. British courts initially stated that the proscription of Palestine Action was illegal, but on appeal the proscription was upheld. The case known as the Filton case concerned an event at an Elbit factory, in which the activists were attacked by factory security workers, who beat them and used their sledgehammers against them. One of the defendants was so badly injured that it is hard to understand why the guards were not charged. The Filton defendants were found not guilty at a first trial, but they were then required to undergo a second trial. The barrister in the first trial of the Palestine Action group successfully obtained a not guilty verdict for his clients, but he was then reported for contempt of court, although he was later acquitted.

In common with the two earlier cases described in this article, the court system was biased in favour of the crown and against the defendants. Many of the restrictions operating in this case are hidden from view, and they were not reported in the mainstream media. Unusually, for a case of criminal damage where the defendants had no previous convictions, they were held on remand for over a year, in onerous prison conditions. This unfair pre-trial detention caused six of the defendants to take part in a hunger strike, with two endangering their health and lives by refusing food for 73 days. Prior to their trial, MP Yvette Cooper made prejudicial statements; however this did not halt the trial as it should have done. Also the police allowed a highly selected video of edited scenes of the confrontation in the factory to be released, an abuse of the legal process that appeared to be designed to influence the public mood. During the confrontation, a police officer sustained a minor injury to her spine that occurred after an activist, Samuel Corner, was sprayed with a substance which caused a temporary loss of vision; he was not aware that a police officer was present at the time he caused the injury. The fracture was not detected by initial x-rays and scans, but after deep scans a small fracture was noted that was treated with six weeks rest and over the counter analgesics. However, this was reported in some parts of the media as a serious injury, again exerting negative pre-trial impressions. This was the government’s best hope for propping up the narrative that Palestine Action used violence, in order to justify its designation of the group as a terrorist organisation.

Again during the retrial there were serious restrictions on the defendants case. The jury were not told that although the defendants were on trial for criminal damage, the judge intended to sentence them as terrorists. He issued a gag order to prevent this from being reported. Again, the defendants were not allowed to use their defence, they could not use the words ‘genocide’ nor ‘ethnic cleansing’, nor were the defendants allowed to explain their motivations for their actions. In other words, as in the Richard D. Hall case, and as in the case of Dale Vincent, the jury could only hear the case of the prosecution. In the case of the Filton defendants, two were found not guilty, and four were found guilty and were sentenced as terrorists, even though the jury were unaware that this may happen and no suggestions of terrorism were included in the hearing. The jury refused to agree that Corner caused damage to the police officer intentionally, and stated that the grievous bodily harm was caused without intent.

In support of the activists, several thousand people protested by wearing placards stating “I am against genocide. I support Palestine Action.” Most of these protesters were pensioners, and included pastors, doctors, lawyers, and veterans. These were arrested by police taking up a considerable amount of police time. It has been announced that these defendants are to be tried in a court without a jury. They can be imprisoned for up to 14 years on terrorism charges. See further details of the case by journalist Jonathon Cook [5] here.

Similarities in the three cases.

All of these cases involve challenges to the government narrative on very varied issues, including an alleged bomb attack that may have been a false flag event, alternative perspectives on the Covid narrative, and challenging the government policies concerning events in the Middle East. One hearing was in a civil court, and the others were in Criminal Courts involving jury decisions.

In all three cases, the defendants were not allowed by the judge to present their defence. Whatever one’s views of these three sets of defendants and the controversial subjects that were core to their protests and reports, in the interests of justice defendants should have the right to submit their defence to the presiding judge and to the jury. This is a worrying trend that is clearly becoming more widespread.

All three cases have an effect on narrative control. In the case of Hall, media reports of his case do not describe him as an investigative journalist, but as a conspiracy theorist. Media accounts suggest that his evidence was false, and his actions were described in some media outlets as abhorrent. Court costs and damages that were awarded were significant; he may lose his home. These outcomes will have a serious impact on the choices of other journalists; the message is that the risks of challenging authority by investigative reporting are too great to be considered.

In the case of Mark Sexton and his co-protesters, which includes a number of well qualified medical personnel, a successful prosecution against those who imposed Covid-19 restrictions or claims of the safety of vaccines could have a big impact on future policies. Without a successful legal challenge, protesters are labelled a conspiracy theorists and will not be taken seriously by the majority of the population.

In the case of Palestinian activists, the conspiracy theory label is inappropriate due to overwhelming evidence of human rights abuses, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. In Israel, the actions of Palestinians fighting against a brutal military occupation are labelled as unprovoked violence, and terrorism. The same labels are now being attached to pro-Palestinian activists in the UK. Regular and peaceful demonstrations are called ‘hate marches’ and ‘antisemitic’ by Zionist sympathisers, including politicians, despite no evidence being provided to prove that hate is a feature of such events. Indeed pro-Palestinian demonstrations are regularly attended by Jews who clearly identify themselves as being part of the Jewish community. Palestinian demonstrators who are desperate to end Middle East violence have only recently resorted to using criminal damage to destroy parts of weapons factories.

In Britain, and in most other countries, there is considerable public sympathy for Palestinians, despite a powerful pro-Israeli lobby that has deep influence in political circles. This is well described by the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe in his recent book, “Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic”. The issue in the case of Palestine is not limited to preventing the spread of the pro-Israeli narrative, but also to prevent further grassroots pressures on politicians, who in the main strongly support the Zionist cause. In UK for example, all recent governments have provided weapons and intelligence to Israel, despite the well documented genocidal events taking place in Gaza. The Palestinian story will not go away, but by linking of the pro-Palestinian lobby to hate, antisemitism, terrorism and violence, and using the police and courts to amplify this message, clearly the intention is to intimidate the population to prevent the growth of pro-Palestinian activities.

However, the similarities in all three cases is that police and the courts have been used to punish and intimidate dissenting voices, and to discredit those that challenge approved narratives. The costs of the police and court actions will largely be borne by the tax-payer, but some of the costs may be recovered from those that challenge approved narratives.

Conclusion.

The police and the courts are now established as a part of the censorship regime in the UK. Politicians are increasingly creating policies that are not in the public interest; those in power are finding it increasingly difficult to control the population by propaganda alone – using the police and courts to enforce their will is a form of coercion. It demonstrates the those in control are losing the battle to control minds. However, the demand for change continues; the mainstream political parties are losing in the popular vote, and prime ministers no longer have long terms in office, as did Margaret Thatcher who stayed in power from 1979 to 1990, Tony Blair who remained prime minister from 1997 to 2007, and John Major who remained in power from 1990 to 1997. Since 2010 the UK has already had seven prime ministers, with a further change now in progress. This signifies public dissatisfaction. Unless policies change, the dissatisfaction will continue, coercion including force will become everyday occurrences. Changing parties or changing prime ministers is not enough to give people back a decent and dignified life, and although the fear of arrest and imprisonment may work to pacify the population for a time, it will not work in the long term.

Following recent activity by the government and Ofcom, there have been several reports on the increased surveillance and censorship activities that are likely to be imposed on us. I have read two recent reports by the journalist Sonya Elijah, who has been reporting detailed accounts of the Covid story and the side effects from the vaccines, including her detailed analysis of the report of early trials published by Pfizer, but only after a US court forced them to be released. She has at times mentioned the censorship regime, and in particular the Trusted News Initiative. The reason I have selected her two recent reports to publish here is because they reveal Sonya’s investigations and Sonya’s opinions following two recent events. The first is the two attacks in Southampton and Belfast that have been subject to full media coverage in the mainstream, and the second the announcement by Keir Starmer that he is going to protect children by stopping them from accessing Social Media until thy have passed the age of 16.

Sonya points to the reactions to the two recent reports of attacks made by two people of foreign descent on two indigenous white men, one resulting in a murder and the other ending in life changing injuries. As well as wide media coverage, these stories also resulted in extensive posts on social media. Protests erupted in many cities, which included both those critical of migration, and those defending migrants.

Sonya points to the reactions of the government and Ofcom, who stated that social media posts following such a crisis should be removed more rapidly by social media platforms. Sonya states that censorship began in the Covid era, although my own research shows that censorship existed long before then, but there is no doubt that this accelerated in March 2020. She points to the development of a public-private censorship complex that includes governments, Big Tech, NGOs, and fact checkers working in partnership to suppress dissenting voices.

She explains that the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA) legalises such censorship, with onerous obligations for social media platforms, and draconian fines if they do not comply. The Prime Minister had already given notice to social media companies to tighten up their practices further or more legislation would be enacted. The social media Signal that has been highly critical of the OSA commented that children are not protected by surveillance that takes away their privacy and government proposals will not keep children safe. Sonya states that the government is using this crisis to further their surveillance and censorship activities. She then goes on to state that the drivers of unrest are policies that are unfair and divisive, and controlling and fining social media platforms and jailing critical messengers will not help. You can read her excellent article here.

The second investigation by Sonya concerns the planned introduction of a social media ban for those under 16 in the UK, following a similar plan in Australia. She points out that in Australia children found ways to overcome the ban within days, and she does not think it will work in the UK either. Starmer uses, and weaponises, the protection of children, but this proposed action to protect children will result in all people using social media being forced to identify themselves on the internet. This will make it easier to control and survey the adult population, as well as children. Social media platforms will have to enforce ‘robust age assurance’, using information such as passports, credit cards, facial age recognitions, open banking data, or central digital identity wallets. Sonya states that this requirement reveals the real agenda; it supercharges the framework across social media, age verification will become embedded, and Sonya states that mission creep is the design.

She states that facial recognition and biometric data are not temporary child protection tools; they are the foundations of a digital identity system that will expand. Unlike passwords, biometric tests cannot be changed. She states this is not protection, but instead it is conditioning. This excuse is being used to shape society to suit the new digital masters. Another excellent piece – which includes opinion – by Sonya and I fully recommend. You can read it here.

Siegel states that most people see the ‘truth’ as information that accords with reality, but the disinformation industry has changed the notion of ‘truth’ to whether or not information causes harm. Siegel points out that this is a highly subjective criteria – and hence censorship has been used to erase views that they do not approve of – such as sceptics on climate change and vaccines, or alternative perspectives on the Ukraine war. He states information control has been rolled back somewhat under Trump, but the structures of information control remain.

My own view is that Trump has changed the system of censorship and propaganda, but he has not removed it. Inside the USA major censorship organisations such as large fact checking platforms, think tanks, and the International Fact-Checking Network still remain. Although Google and Facebook don’t fund censorship in the USA, they are active in fact checking and censorship across the globe still. So I don’t have such a positive view on Trump as Siegel’s does.

However, this is an extremely interesting interview for those who want to find out more about the way that information is censored and controlled in the USA. Siegel’s book is called “The Information State”. I’ve already bought it!

You can find the YouTube video here.

Personally I began to investigate the control of information in 2001, studying at Exeter and UWE universities. However, this meant that I was operating without contact with other dissidents, as although I guessed that there were others who shared the same concerns, I didn’t know how to contact them. The onset of the Covid era meant that at last I met people who lived locally who had similar concerns, as well as other academics who questioned the prevailing narrative. However, as time passed, I realised there were very few people who shared exactly the same views as I did. For example, our local “Stand in the Park” group included people who believed that the earth was flat, and people who idolised President Trump and truly believed that he was the saviour of the world. It has sometimes been more difficult to have an easy relationship with these dissidents than with people who did not question the Covid narrative. At the same time, people who fervently followed bizarre ideas that were not backed by evidence, in many ways made it more difficult to develop a meaningful campaign that could gather new supporters. This delays the formation of a movement that could overcome the impeding and dangerous political situation we find ourselves in.

More difficulties arose over political issues, such as the increase in migration and the horrific military events in Western Asia, which further divided the dissenting population. Personally, I have found I have had to walk a careful path; it has been stressful at times. Some issues are extremely polarising, and it is impossible to debate such subjects calmly and respectfully with certain people.

In recent months, further events have occurred that have further divided the dissenting community. This includes criticisms that may in fact have some basis of truth, but the manner in which they have been introduced have caused even more ill feelings to arise. For example, there have been some criticisms of the news platform UK Column, following investments from a wealthy outsider Marcel Yahnke who purchased a 20% share in the company that owns UK Column. Yahnke has business interests in China and Hong Kong. Criticisms include allegations from two people who were previously UKC presenters, who later asserted that the new investor had caused a change in editorial policy. An interview was presented on an alternative media platform, Actionable Truth media, hosted by Michael Ginsburg. However, past employees may themselves have a biased position, especially if they left after internal disagreements; memories can become distorted as time passes, sometimes without awareness.

Criticisms mainly centred around claims of presenting China in a more positive light than it deserved. UKC managers have strongly denied these claims and has put out a robust defence of their position. I personally value UK Column output, although I don’t agree with all viewpoints, but as a news medium, it is far more reliable than all mainstream media. My own view is that on the UKC news there has not been a significant change recently; most China perspectives in the UKC news come from foreign correspondent Vanessa Beeley, who in fact has been more critical of China in recent months. However, there are two new presenters who broadcast interviews in the evening. One of these is Carl Zia, who appears to have a specific interest in China and has a “Silk and Steel” series which has a pro-China perspective, and the other is Jerm Warfare who has a wide range of interviewees, of whom a minority discuss the Far East. Personally I rarely listen to their output. These two presenters began broadcasting on UKC after the change in the company ownership.

Other criticisms include the stress within the newsroom, the public-school accent of one presenter, and claims of favouritism shown to another presenter, Vanessa Beeley, by one of the directors. There have also been separate criticisms from an academic, Dr. David A. Hughes, who has forensically investigated UK Column for alleged bias; like the Actionable Truth platform, Hughes also uses evidence from the two past UKC presenters.

Although this is an assumption, it appears that neither Ginsburg nor Hughes approached UKC with their concerns before the UKC criticisms were broadcast. Unsurprisingly, UKC has taken a very defensive position in defending their news content. Their robust defence however did not include references to the “Silk and Steel” series, and this is an important omission.

Ginsburg’s media platform competes with UKC, which is currently the market leader in alternative news provision. Further, Hughes who has recently retired from academia and is now an independent researcher does not appear to have adjusted from his role in writing for academia and his new role in presenting evidence to his website and Substack readers. Some of his work has been designed to be divisive, such as his “three camps” notion that splits dissenters into two groups, a study of the circumstances around the imprisoned Covid investigator Reiner Fullmich, as well as investigating UKC’s editorial bias. Some people have seen Hughes’ output and have wondered if he has been paid to cause antagonism and division; Brian Gerrish of UKC has suggested a possible Zionist influence, but without providing evidence. My own view is that Hughes is simply naïve, but I believe that he has lost followers because of the manner in which he selects and presents his investigations, and hence he will be less influential in the future. I don’t think that was his intention, nor do I applaud this outcome.

As pointed out by David Charalambous, a behavioural scientist, presenting facts rarely changes minds, although it might influence a small number of people. There are techniques in which controversial information can be presented so that it is less confrontational and more persuasive. With the right approach, I think UKC managers would have been willing to listen to concerns and compromise. For example, a notice could be posted on the UK Column website to the effect that some co-presenters of discussion programmes and interviews have opinions that are not shared by all UKC staff, such as appears on the Children’s Health Defence website. It may be that UKC directors would have been willing to debate their editorial position with David Hughes or Michael Ginsburg, and recordings of the debate could have been posted on the UK Column website. It would have also united dissenters and demonstrated that UKC is open to constructive criticism, increasing UKC popularity. I believe Ginsburg would welcome an interview with UKC directors.

Looking at what was said by the two ex-UKC presenters, it seems to me that the problems that arose there were caused by a poor management structure, which meant that new people and changes were introduced into the UKC company without a proper introduction, and with some secrecy. In the case of Debi Evans, this caused her to become suspicious and uncooperative, causing the work atmosphere to deteriorate. Evans claims that she was sacked, although a letter posted online by UKC does not fully support this. In the case of Sandi Adams, she was recruited to replace Debi Evans whom she knew personally and liked, whilst not being informed that Debi had left. Additionally, new and inexperienced staff were not initially given training on the presentation of their investigations, although UKC has stated that training was offered at a later date. These unsettling factors caused Sandi Adams to decide to leave. It is not surprising that after an unpleasant work experience, both presenters looked for problems with UKC to justify their own positions. However, I am not sure whether their lack of loyalty to their past employer will bode well. In fairness to UKC, the sudden change in the size of their operations will have made it difficult to introduce good staff management practices, especially as they were under pressure themselves. However, this unpleasant experience will have taught them that cutting corners in staff management procedures brings problems further down the line.

Without doubt, financial backers will always influence any organisation that employs them. In my own research into fact checkers, every fact check platform that receives money from outside sources such as governments and wealthy investors say that this does not influence their conclusions, but it clearly does. Any alternative news station such as UKC needs to carefully assess those who offer financial support – being secretive about such things does not help. The directors need to ensure that they can pay off their investors and sponsors if they need to reclaim their sovereignty and independence, or their business will collapse. In my opinion, UKC is too important to fail.

The most important task of dissenters today is to try to find ways to work together. My own view is that we need to find ways of influencing others so that the numbers of dissenters can grow, forming a cohesive opposition to global powers. It will not be easy to persuade those with polarising positions to join together, but it is important that controversies are kept to a minimum, and opportunities for meaningful debate are grasped and those debates should be widely aired. We need to relearn the art of debate, which the mainstream has forgotten. UK Column has a proud record of challenging power. I think it would also respond positively to criticism that was presented to them in a fair manner. I do not think that the way that criticism has been aired recently has been at all fair.

Looking back on this sad story, there are important lessons to be learned by all. If all contributors to this sorry affair can learn from the situation that they find themselves in and move forward positively, then there will be renewed hope for those of us who think we have to fight a long and hard battle to regain sovereignty over our bodies and lives.

It is obvious that Russia would be controlling information inside its boundaries, but it has been difficult to find information about censorship that is reliable. For example, a very Russiaphobic fact checker has in the past described a “troll factory” in St. Petersburg, but I haven’t been able to find any further information on this institution from another source, although it may well exist. So this week I have found quite a bit of information after Russia banned VPN use by its citizens. There is of course a problem in searching for information from inside Russia because of the language, and those outside Russia often have a biased viewpoint.

Censorship in Russia is inevitable, as particularly in case of war, information is inevitably very tightly controlled, for example, for many years since the start of the Ukraine/Russia conflict we haven.t been able to easily access Russia Today in UK, although this is a pity as it had different perspectives which is always useful.

This is an article that was published this week by Medusa. You can find the link to it here, but I will also copy the whole content in full below.

Russia blocks VPN access to major platforms, moves to charge for mobile VPN traffic

The Kremlin has been fighting VPNs for nearly a decade: a law banning circumvention of blocked websites appeared in 2017, authorities began mass-banning VPN services from 2021, and in 2024 their advertising was banned. Authorities launched a new “crusade” against VPNs a month ago, against the backdrop of Telegram’s blocking. The Digital Development Ministry, acting on orders from either Putin or the FSB, devised several new restrictions. Some have already taken effect, while others officials have not yet managed to introduce — or are holding in reserve as a fallback.

What the authorities have already done

✅ Banned topping up Apple ID balances from a mobile phone account

Starting April 1, the telecom operators of the “big four” — MTS, Beeline, MegaFon, and T2 — at the Digital Development Ministry’s request, stripped customers of the ability to top up Apple ID balances from their mobile accounts. The move is designed to make purchasing VPNs through the App Store as difficult as possible. Russian authorities had taken steps in this direction before, though through Apple itself rather than the carriers — since 2022, the company has removed dozens of VPN clients from the Russian App Store at Roskomnadzor’s request.

✅ Banned access to Russian platforms via VPN

In late March, the Digital Development Ministry told major digital platforms they would be required to block access for users with an active VPN or lose their place on “white lists.” By mid-April, many popular websites and services had complied. Among those that began denying access to VPN users were Gosuslugi, Sberbank, Ozon, Wildberries, Aviasales, Yandex services, and Russian Railways. The restrictions also caught users who are simply located abroad.

What hasn’t happened yet

❌ Charging for mobile traffic when using a VPN

The Digital Development Ministry tried to impose an additional charge on carriers for mobile VPN traffic — a 15-gigabyte monthly limit, with each additional gigabyte costing 150 rubles. The system was supposed to launch as early as May 1, but carriers asked for a delay, saying they needed considerably more time to configure their billing systems. The Digital Development Ministry nonetheless confirmed it plans to charge for VPN traffic on mobile networks — and addressed the question many have been asking — how it will distinguish VPN traffic from ordinary foreign traffic: it won’t.

❌ Fining people for using a VPN

Digital Development Ministry head Maksut Shadayev explained the measures this way: his ministry had been tasked with reducing VPN use in Russia; administrative liability was an option, but the Digital Development Ministry dislikes that approach and is trying to find a “complex compromise.” The implication is that if the compromise fails, administrative liability could return to the agenda. Given how readily Russian authorities have embraced bans, fines for VPN users look like a very real threat — but no such measures are being publicly discussed for now. Using a VPN in Russia is still legal.

What else happened with VPNs this month

• The State Duma, the lower house of Russia’s parliament, plans to ban Russian hosting providers from supplying computing capacity to VPN services, the Russian business daily Kommersant found. According to the Telegram channel Kod Durova, VPN services are preparing for a mass blocking of their servers as a result.

• The independent Russian investigative outlet Verstka found the first criminal cases in which VPN use was recognized as an aggravating circumstance — a law to that effect was passed last year. Both cases involved purchasing drugs online.

• The Russian business news outlet RBC reported that carriers had agreed to freeze the expansion of communication channels running from Russia to Europe. The Digital Development Ministry’s calculation is that this will eventually make foreign traffic scarce and complicate the operation of VPN services.

• Russian schools began holding classes on the dangers of using VPN services.

As I suspected, Russia is just as bad a Western countries such as the USA and the UK in controlling information. I’d still like to know more abotu Russia’s troll factories and its fact check platforms, and I’ll keep on looking.

We seem to spend a lot of time in crisis. For most British people today, the crisis is paying the rent, finding a job, feeding the kids, worrying about deteriorating healthcare, and rising fuel costs. There ae others overseas whose worries are more concerning, for example, I worked in Lebanon some thirty years ago and now people I worked with are being ethnically cleansed from their homes, their livelihoods and security completely destroyed. But for Keir Starmer, his main concern these days seems to be on the rising antisemitism, particularly as criticism of Israel is now so commonly associated with hatred of jews by politicians and the press, which to my mind are two quite separate issues.

Let me put this straight. I don’t hate Jews, both the British kind nor those who live overseas. In fact, until I joined the Palestinian solidarity movement, I didn’t know any Jews, but there are many moral and ethical souls of the Jewish faith who support Palestinian rights. They appear at every demonstration, and are strongly supported by all other activists whatever their religion or ethnicity. I don’t support violence of any kind against civilians, whatever their religion, nationality, nor ethnicity. But I strongly feel that the miliary actions of Israel, supported by the US and British administration, are illegal and unethical, and in the case of Gaza, like many others I believe that there is an ongoing genocide. I strongly empathise with the Palestinian suffering, and I would like to do more to alleviate their suffering. On the other hand, I am extremely disappointed in the actions of the British administration on this issue.

As my readers will know, I believe in free expression, and that includes the right to protest. I have protested many times on many issues, but overall I think that i have been on far more demonstrations to support Palestinian rights than any other issue, over some thirty years. I have found over the years that these have been peaceful, even happy events where I am amongst people who think the same as I do. I personally have not seen any violence, nor have I spoken to anyone else who has witnessed such events. I have never met anyone at a Palestinian meeting who has expressed antisemitic opinions. I have also witnessed Israeli supporters who have tried to provoke Palestinian supporters who are protesting, but the supporters are generally well briefed and ignore such provocations, although I have occasionally heard a response to provocation, such as chants of “Shame on you” or “Free Free Palestine”. I personally think that this could be seen as confrontational, and the best action is to ignore such provocations.

Why is Starmer stating that antisemitism is increasing?

On 30 April, two Jewish men were stabbed in Golders Green, London, by a man who was identified as a Somali Muslim. He was later arrested on suspicion of attempted murder. This man has a long history of mental illness, and he has also stabbed other people who are not Jewish, including another Muslim. There have also been a series of arson attacks in recent weeks, which some consider to be false flag events, as can be seen in the Craig Murray report here. The government has surmised these attacks may be linked to Iran here.

What action has Starmer suggeested may be taken in response to these attacks?

Despite a lack of evidence that the detained suspect has ever been to a Palestinian support event, such as a protest march, Starmer announced plans of further restrictions on demonstrations supporting the Palestinian cause. These attacks were labelled as antisemitic by the Prime Minister, and called as a national crisis. It has been stated that phrases like “Globalise the Intifada” will be banned on marches. This will increase pressures on the police, who are already involved in arresting people who wear signs stating “I support Palestine Action”, which has already cost some £10 million, and created a backlog of court cases.

What do Palestine supporters think?

Palestinian supporters are mostly motivated by human rights abuses by the Israeli miliary forces and Israeli settlers, which mostly occur in Gaza, West Bank, and South Lebanon. This includes Crimes Against Humanity, a Plausible Genocide, and ethnic cleaning. They are also concerned of the British government’s complicity in these war crimes, which are funded through the taxation system. Although the government denies complicity in war crimes, some independent journalists have produced evidence that is compelling of UK government military involvement.

Palestinian supporters are likely to continue to hold regular demonstrations, and this is likely to produce more costs and more confrontation. Palestinian activists see any government interference in their right to protest and their ability to select their own choice of slogans as interference with their own human rights.

Conclusion.

It is hard to deny that the government is seriously challenging the rights to free speech on the issue of support for Palestinian human rights including the protests against genocide. However, all political parties seem to be taking a similar line on the issue of free expression and protest.

James Corbett, an American who lives in Japan, has a regular podcast in which he explores the often nefarious acts of those in power. Many of my readers will be familiar with his work.

A few years ago he had a propaganda watch series and he has recently reopened this investigation. The podcast I am drawing your attention to here is utterly unbelievable - James calls it the stupidest poll of all time. He reveals that two youngsters have a start up AI company that is now worth mega bucks, in which AI is programmed so that it responds like humans, which James describes as Silicon Sampling. The company is called “AARU”. The results of these polls are then reported on by mainstream media as if humans have been sampled - “An AARU poll published today said that …” So you get results like 100% of people in MAGA support Trump or 100% of people trust their doctor. This is quite ridiculous. If someone asked me if I trust my doctor as a human I might ask in which circumstances, or on what issue? The problem is that people are influenced by polls and so these clearly false reports might influence audiences, to say hate all MAGA supporters or think that doctors are always infallible.

The video in this report isn’t a long one and it is worth a quick listen. Even more reason not to trust anything the polls say! What makes me most disillusioned is the number of great people in their teens and twenties who spend their lives doing worthwhile things yet can’t afford look forward to a secure future, whereas these two young men are doing something worse than useless and are making a fortune.

You can watch the Corbett report Propaganda Watch video here.

Thonas Fazi is an Italian who investigates corruption and censorship in the European Union, and the undermining of the democratic process by the EU. He has become one of my heroes. His desdcribes himself as a journalist, dad, socialist, and writer.

To give you a taster, I am copying one of his articles here. This one was published in February this year.

Copies from Thomas Fazi’s Substack.

The European censorship-industrial complex

New US report confirms what many of us have been saying for years: that the EU has built a censorship-industrial complex of massive proportions — and is using it to interfere in democratic processes

Thomas Fazi

Feb 13, 2026

I’ve written for Compact about the recent US House Judiciary Committee report and how it confirms what many of us have been saying for years: that the EU has built a censorship-industrial complex of massive proportions designed to control the public narrative, marginalise critical voices — and even interfere directly in elections:

The critics should feel vindicated following the release of an interim staff report by the US House Judiciary Committee titled The Foreign Censorship Threat. Based on thousands of internal Big Tech documents and communications with European regulators, the report confirms in granular detail that Brussels has been engaged in what House Judiciary Republicans describe as “a decade-long campaign to achieve global online narrative control”.

These efforts—culminating in the 2022 implementation of the Digital Services Act (DSA), the most sweeping internet regulation regime ever introduced in the Western world—began as early as 2015, when the European Commission established a series of “codes” and “forums” through which it could pressure platforms to censor speech. These were not isolated initiatives but part of a deliberate strategy designed, in the words of the committee, to “silence political opposition and suppress online narratives that criticize the political establishment”.

Indeed, the release of internal communications from major technology platforms shows how Europe’s regulatory architecture—made up of an interlocking network of unelected EU institutions, Big Tech firms, and NGOs (most of them state- or EU-funded)—has narrowed the boundaries of permissible speech.

The EU leadership’s principal defense has been that its various “codes of practice” are voluntary. Yet the internal correspondence cited in the report challenges this claim. Emails from Google and other technology companies suggest that platforms felt they had to comply with Commission expectations. Companies deemed non-compliant may face fines of up to 6 percent of global annual revenue and, in extreme cases, suspension from the EU market. Such penalties create powerful incentives for companies to adopt stricter, globally applied moderation rules—even when those rules affect users far beyond Europe’s borders.

Internal files further indicate that the supposedly consensus-based forums often operated under “strong impetus from the EU Commission”. Debates on contentious political topics, from migration policy to gender issues, were focal points of regulatory attention.

The degree of interference described is striking, often resembling a granular, real-time supervision of political discourse. As the report highlights, for instance, the EU Internet Forum (EUIF)—officially a voluntary initiative—evolved from a narrow focus on counter-terrorism into a broader remit that included scrutiny of “political satire,” “populist rhetoric,” and even “meme subculture”. In other words, the emphasis slowly shifted from removing illegal content to discouraging politically inconvenient viewpoints. […]

Perhaps the most damning claim in the report is that the EU’s censorship-industrial complex has extended well beyond mere narrative control into direct electoral influence. Since the DSA came into force in 2023, the report shows, the Commission has pressed platforms to take heightened moderation measures ahead of elections in several EU member states, including Slovakia, the Netherlands, France, Moldova, Romania, and Ireland, as well as during the 2024 European Parliament elections. […]

The most damning case is that of the 2024 Romanian presidential election. The first round of voting—in which independent populist candidate Călin Georgescu finished ahead—was annulled after authorities raised allegations of coordinated Russian online influence, and Georgescu was later barred from participating in the rerun. However, no publicly verifiable evidence substantiating the interference claim was produced at the time and an internal document from TikTok explicitly informed the European Commission that it found “no evidence” of such a coordinated network. The annulment makes clear that the “Russian interference” narrative has become a catch-all justification for the suppression or delegitimization of political dissent and for straightforward electoral interference by Brussels.

Of course, Britain which has left the EU has an equal hold on the control of information and uses just as much censorship and propaganda as Europe. So leaving the EU was not a solution. We need to work together with those who censor us so that we can overthrow the system.

Thanks for reading The Control of Information! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

These two organisations do a great job in the USA, but I would also like to bring your attention to the role of the EFF in trying to help with Freedom of Speech in the UK. EFF has made representations advocating for free speech in opposition to forms of British censorship, such as the Online Safety Act. Of course, this is essential as the UK’s legislation has a global reach, with some Americans posting information in America finding themselves subjects of arrest warrants in the UK, or having large fines imposed for speech that is legal in the USA. In this podcast interview, Nico Perrino of FIRE interviews Cindy Cohn who was the EFF executive executive for many years. She has now had a book published, entitled “Privacy’s defender, My thirty-Four Year Fight Against Digital Surveillance. It’s a great interview, I recommend it.

Surveillance is the means of censorship. Without the means to follow everything you say in real life and on the internet, including social media, you could not be censored. Your opinions inevitably would be freely expressed and shared as you wish.

This is a wide-ranging interview covering some of the work of EFF and FIRE. Interestingly, during the last Democrat administration, FIRE demonstrated that Republican voices were being censored. I think many Republicans and MAGA supporters assumed they shared their political views. But of course, when the latest Republican party began censoring information, FIRE still supported free speech, which some Trump supporters found very difficult to come to terms with.

I’ve already bought the book!

As Cindy states, it is only by fighting for freedom of speech and privacy that you can have any control over your government. Indeed, I would say that if you don’t fight for freedom and privacy, your government (or a world government) will control you.

You can listen to the interview here.

Sayer Ji, an American who for many years ran a well-respected company Green Med Info, believes in natural health and his website did not agree with many of the measures that were introduced during the Covid era. As a consequence, he was targeted by a British censorship organisation that was heavily funded by philanthropists with immense wealth. A list was compiled of twelve people who were accused of spreading ‘misinformation’ and he was on that list; it was passed to the American president. In consequence, his social media accounts were closed, and his business was severely impacted. Not surprisingly, he is now fighting back and has produced many excellent articles on his website. My article is based on one of his latest articles published on his Substack.

Censorship, Morgan McSweeney, and the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH)/

On Tuesday, April 28, 2026, Morgan McSweeney, who was forced to resign as the Chief of Staff to Keir Starmer over the Peter Mandelson affair, will sit before the UK Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Select Committee and answer questions under oath for the first time in his career [1] here. McSweeney and CCDH listed twelve Americans as spreaders of dangerous information, a list that President Biden used to call the twelve named Americans killers.

On April 24, 2026, four days before McSweeney’s testimony, CCDH filed its motion to dismiss the federal civil rights lawsuit brought by six of the Americans it targeted. The motion argues that plaintiffs “do not allege that CCDH or Mr. Ahmed even communicated with the White House, the Surgeon General, or Meta, or any party mentioned” in the case. A conference attendee list documents Ahmed convening a White House Office of Science and Technology Policy advisor, State Department officials, congressional staffers, and the UN Under-Secretary-General for Communications at a private CCDH-organized event in Washington in the summer of 2024 [2] here.

Morgan McSweeney, Imran Ahmed, Peter Mandelson, and Jeffrey Epstein.

The Jeffrey Epstein files that have so far been released have demonstrated links between the financier and sex trafficker Epstein, the disgraced UK politician Mandelson, the CEO of CCDH Imran Ahmed, and the former Chief of Staff to the British Prime Minister, McSweeney. This has resulted in hearings on both sides of the Atlantic, in a similar time frame. Sayer Ji gives a very detailed account of the story which you can read on his Substack [3] here.

I personally think that the Epstein case is important because it demonstrates the way that those with power and immense wealth control the world. People – and Keir Starmer – have apologised to the female victims of sex trafficking. But this is not the point. The point is that those with immense wealth find ways to control what is said, and what is done, and they don’t care who they damage in the process of getting their way. They find weak points in individuals – their need for financial support, their sexual fantasies – and are then able to trap those who join their ‘club’ so that they will never betray their controllers, and they will always keep to an agenda that is required. Epstein was the middleman who arranged the control system. He is not in that position now, but you can bet on the fact that someone else has already taken his place. What was significant was not Epstein nor Mandelson. The leverage system has been exposed and the media have ignored it, instead concentrating on female victims, and the death of Epstein as if the whole thing is now dealt with.

I hope that you can at least read part of Sayer Ji’s long detailed article, which is extremely well referenced. He is one of the plaintiff’s who are taking the CCDH case to court. The section where he described how his life changed is highly significant, as victims of censorship have their lives destroyed and have to start again, if they can.

If like me you want to see Morgan McSweeney try to talk his way out of the mess he placed himself in, you can watch on TV from 9am on Tuesday 28^th May. This article tells you more about the hearing [4] here.