We must take over the whole of Birmingham, the whole of the West Midlands, the whole of the UK… we will not be taken for granted, and we will win.
– Iqbal Mohamed MP, Jezbollah Party er, I mean “Your Party”
|
|||||
|
We must take over the whole of Birmingham, the whole of the West Midlands, the whole of the UK… we will not be taken for granted, and we will win. – Iqbal Mohamed MP, Jezbollah Party er, I mean “Your Party” Kruger’s presentation began with the announcement of Reform’s intention to develop a far more detailed agenda for government than any incoming administration in recent memory, including a range of pre-written legislation to give them a running start to their first term in office. In addition, the party will have candidates lined up for key appointments, bringing in ‘expertise, advice and executive capacity’ from outside Whitehall, to both civil service leadership and ministerial roles. The intention, according to Kruger, is to ensure that a Reform Government is positioned to give a clear list of priorities to civil servants upon entering Downing Street — not the other way around. – Pimlico Journal newsletter Across all these laws, the pattern is the same: more data collection, more sharing between agencies, and more pressure on companies to watch what users do. The justification is usually ‘national security or ‘protecting the public,’ but once these systems are in place, they rarely stay limited to their original goals. The Parliament Act was passed to limit the powers of the Lords in cases of ‘vital national emergency.; Tony Blair used it to force through a ban on fox-hunting. From intercepting letters centuries ago to scanning emails and social media today, governments have always found reasons to pry. The technology has changed, but the instinct remains the same, and so does the question: how much surveillance is too much? The next time someone asks what we mean when we say ‘Islamo-left’, I’m going to show them footage from yesterday’s protest in Whitechapel in East London. What a morally suicidal schlep that was. What an unholy union of witless leftists and menacing Islamists. ‘Refugees welcome here!’, cried the granola-fed grads of the limp-wristed left. ‘Allahu Akbar!’, barked the masked mob of religious hotheads. Rarely has the lethal idiocy of the left’s bed-hopping with Islamism been so starkly exposed. This day is call’d the feast of Crispian. – William Shakespeare Asked for his own judgement on Britain’s prospects, Cummings claimed there is a “black pill” in the fact that few societies escape the dynamics of decline that the country now appears trapped in; the “white pill”, on the other hand, is that Britain’s system has proven surprisingly resilient and adaptable in the past. He then implored the Looking for Growth membership to put aside their start-ups and to help rejuvenate the establishment. Whether and how they respond to this call will be of some consequence to the country’s future. Engaging with the Great Reform Bill 2029 idea, it’s a masterstroke. In an era of short-termism, Lee’s proposal for a omnibus bill echoes the 1832 Act’s transformative power, bundling fixes to overwhelm opposition and deliver systemic reset. It’s not pie-in-the-sky; it’s pragmatic radicalism, recognising that piecemeal tweaks won’t cut it against the “malign web.” There is no offence of blasphemy in our law. Burning a Koran may be an act that many Muslims find desperately upsetting and offensive. The criminal law, however, is not a mechanism that seeks to avoid people being upset, even grievously upset. The right to freedom of expression, if it is a right worth having, must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb. We live in a liberal democracy. One of the precious rights that affords us is to express our own views and read, hear and consider ideas without the state intervening to stop us doing so. The price we pay for that is having to allow others to exercise the same rights, even if that upsets, offends or shocks us. Sign this petition against Digital ID for what it’s worth… make the issue politically radioactive. Let me make my position unequivocally clear: I will not comply. If this scheme becomes law, I will resist it with every fibre of my being, joining the ranks of those who have historically stood against arbitrary power. This is a fight we cannot afford to lose, for it edges us closer to the continental nightmare of citizens as compliant serfs, beholden to an all-seeing state. To understand the gravity of this threat, we must first confront the profound dangers it poses to our civil liberties. At its core, a mandatory digital ID transforms the relationship between citizen and state from one of mutual respect to one of constant suspicion and control. Imagine a world where accessing basic services, banking, healthcare, employment, or even public transport, requires scanning a digital credential that logs your every move. This isn’t hyperbole; civil liberties organisations like Big Brother Watch have warned that such a system would create a “bonfire of our civil liberties,” enabling mass surveillance on an unprecedented scale. |
|||||
![]()
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||