I was going to say that Guido’s headline cannot be improved upon, but, on second thoughts, the headline-writer really should have mentioned that the hamster was dressed as Godzilla. Details matter.
|
|||||
|
March 20th, 2026 | 13 comments
 This letter appeared in today’s Guardian:
This is a good argument against digital ID in itself and is also likely to work well in the public sphere. I welcome any blow against digital ID, and I sympathise with Ms Rodrigues, but I must acknowledge that there is a problem for libertarians here. As the letter says, the UK’s old Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) landline phone network is in the process of being replaced. This link takes you to the government guidance page on “Moving landlines to digital technologies”. The government and the phone companies present this transition to “Digital Voice” as being un upgrade for which we should be grateful. It is not an upgrade for me and I am not grateful. Compared to some, I am not badly affected, but I have lost the convenient ability to dial six digits instead of eleven for a local number, and, more worryingly, Digital Effing Voice doesn’t work when there is a power cut, which we have fairly often. For those who live in rural areas, such as the writer of the above letter, it will be much worse. A friend of mine lives in Scotland, has very poor mobile signal at the best of times, and regularly experiences days-long power cuts due to snow. That’ll be fun when the landline doesn’t work. Next year’s papers will be full of stories about old people in isolated houses who died because they could not call for help in an emergency. This change is not being done for the benefit of the customers. It is being done because the “new digital technologies using the internet such as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), Digital Voice or All-IP telephony” cost less to run than the old technologies. What to do? If I was a socialist or a big-state Conservative, I would immediately say that the old copper phone lines must be maintained despite the expense in order to protect the vulnerable and to keep the system working in the face of attack or disaster. As a minarchist, I might be able to say the same, but given that the actual socialists in power and the big-state Conservatives who preceded them have not taken that route, when I have no doubt that they would have been happy to trumpet that they were doing so, I would guess that the extra expense of maintaining the old system must be insupportable. Or am I wrong? March 16th, 2026 | 26 comments
Maybe I imagined it. I thought I saw the first few seconds of a scary video, either put out by the Home Office “Prevent” scheme or by some NGO with a similar remit. The video featured a teenage actor – white and male, obviously – portraying a boy lamenting that he had got a criminal record after impulsively posting hate speech online. I remembered the title as being something like “It just takes a few seconds to get a criminal record” or “It only takes a few words to get a criminal record”. From what little I saw of it, the video seemed more sinister than 99% of the hate speech it aimed to combat – because it was not put out by some Twitter-addled rando with thirteen followers but by His Majesty’s government, or an organisation closely associated with the same. Ya know how it is. I just saw a second or two and thought, “I might blog about that”, but I was too busy to note it down. And now it’s disappeared. I put a query into CoPilot, which might have been unwise, and got this:
The link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8hE1G9FqJw says “This video isn’t available anymore” That “anymore” suggests it did once exist, but I am beginning to wonder if I did not hallucinate the whole thing and spur the A.I. to join in my hallucination by means of my prompts. Assuming I did not imagine it, can I get this video back from the void? I’ve tried the Wayback Machine without success. UPDATE: That was quick. My thanks to commenter nbc who said, “This one?” Yes. This one. https://xcancel.com/Steve_Laws_/status/2029317472059359438 It took me about a second of scrolling down from that post to find views expressed by Steve Laws that I strongly disagreed with. For instance, he mocks Laurence Fox for saying, in the context of the child-killer Ian Huntley being attacked and killed by another prisoner, that even the most depraved criminals should be protected from vigilante justice in prison. Steve Laws appears to be an actual far-right person. They do exist. But as I have said before, “if there is a truth respectable people shy away from mentioning, do not be surprised when the despicable people who will say it aloud are listened to.” The video appears to have been put out by the police rather than the Home Office, and shows a boy – not “a boy” in the sense of “a young man”; a child of about thirteen – tearfully saying “I just got all my devices taken away by the police. My mum couldn’t believe it. I might get a criminal record and not be able to go to college. I only shared a link. I just thought it was funny. But it was terrorist content, and that is not a game, it’s real life.” That is a deeply sinister message for the police to be putting out, particularly in that it is aimed at children. ANOTHER UPDATE: Ted Schuerzinger has provided a direct link to the video: https://www.instagram.com/terrorismpolice/reel/DVd1g1bkg7I/. It came from an Instagram account called “terrorismpolice”. The final frame shows a police logo and the words:
and the caption to the Instagram video says,
Two questions occur to me: 1) Why was the video removed from YouTube? Hostile comments? 2) Is the video an accurate portrayal of the likely “real-world consequences of sharing harmful extremist content online” when the sharer is a child and the content is something the child shares because they think it is funny? If it is not an accurate portrayal, then the police officers or police employees who made the video are deliberately frightening children with misinformation regarding the law. People have had the police turn up at their doors to issue a “friendly warning” for less. If, however, it is an accurate portrayal of the real world – that is, if children really are being given criminal records for sharing (not creating, sharing) comic memes of whose extremist origin they were unaware, then we are further along than even I thought. March 7th, 2026 | 11 comments
Message from BitChute: Due to what we view as ongoing harassment from Ofcom, as well as our unwillingness to cooperate with a regime we view as hostile to our values and principles, we have disabled all remaining comment access entirely for UK video creators. To our valued users in the United Kingdom, after careful review and ongoing evaluation of the regulatory landscape in the United Kingdom, we regret to inform you that BitChute will be discontinuing its video sharing service for UK residents. The introduction of the UK Online Safety Act of 2023 has brought about significant changes in the regulatory framework governing online content and community interactions. Notably, the Act contains sweeping provisions and onerous corrective measures with respect to content moderation and enforcement. In particular, the broad enforcement powers granted to the regulator of communication services, Ofcom, have raised concerns regarding the open-ended and unpredictable nature of regulatory compliance for our platform. The BitChute platform has always operated on principles of freedom of speech, expression and association, and strived to foster an open and inclusive environment for content creators and audiences alike. However, the evolving regulatory pressures—including strict enforcement mechanisms and potential liabilities—have created an operational landscape in which continuing to serve the UK market exposes our company to unacceptable legal and compliance risks. Despite our best efforts to navigate these challenges, the uncertainty surrounding the OSA’s enforcement by Ofcom and its far-reaching implications leaves us no viable alternative but to cease normal operations in the UK. Therefore, effective immediately, BitChute platform users in the UK will no longer be available to view content produced by any other BitChute user. Because the OSA’s primary concern is that members of the public will view content deemed unsafe, however, we will permit UK BitChute users to continue to post content. The significant change will be that this UK user-posted content will not be viewable by any other UK user, but will be visible to other users outside of the UK. Users outside the UK may comment on that content, which the creator will continue to be able to read, delete, block, reply and flag. Users outside the UK may share UK-user produced content to other users outside of the UK as normal. In other words, for users in the UK, including content creators, the BitChute platform is no longer a user-to-UK user video sharing service. We deeply regret the inconvenience and disappointment this decision may cause to our UK users and partners. This decision was not taken lightly. It reflects our commitment to maintaining the highest standards of compliance, protecting our community, and ensuring that our platform remains a safe and sustainable space for creative expression globally. We recognize the value of our UK community and extend our sincerest apologies for the disruption caused by this necessary step. Our support team remains available to answer any queries or concerns regarding this transition. Thank you for your understanding. So… use a VPN if you are in the UK to access BitChute videos (of which there are many on Samizdata). March 6th, 2026 | 9 comments
This tweet (https://x.com/nicolelampert/status/2026017118341263795) from Nicole Lampert shows a 45 second video of Jeremy Corbyn, former Leader of the Opposition and twice the Labour Party’s candidate to be Prime Minister. In it, he says,
As Alex Hearn said said in the comments, “He won’t believe British intelligence about a Russian chemical attack in Salisbury but he’ll believe a fantasy from Hamas run Gaza.” There is a slightly longer version of the same video from CAMERA UK here: https://x.com/CAMERAorgUK/status/2026229835803107332. This starts a few seconds earlier than Nicole Lampert’s video and includes Mr Corbyn saying that he got the message from the director of Al Shifa Hospital on Thursday or Friday morning. In case you are wondering, no, I do not believe the director of Al Shifa Hospital (who appears to be Dr Mohammed Abu Salmiya, although I would like Mr Corbyn to specify who gave him this message) for a moment. Not just because he is the head of an organisation controlled by Hamas, although that would be enough in itself to make me disbelieve him, but because this claim is identical in form to a centuries long stream of anti-Jewish blood libels about Jews murdering Christians or Muslims to harvest their bodies. The old version, exemplified by Little St Hugh of Lincoln had the Jews killing Christians as human sacrifices, usually with the additional detail that the Jews baked the victims’ bodies into their matzos, the unleavened bread served at Passover. This religious version of the blood libel is almost dead in Europe but still commonplace among Palestinians, including academics like Dr Samar Maqusi, formerly of University College London. The slightly updated version drops the matzos and has organ-harvesting as the motive instead. This one is very common among Palestinians and increasingly common among Westerners – witness the Right Honourable Jeremy Corbyn MP speaking in February 2026. Why does Corbyn think the IDF would bring these boxes of skulls and dismembered corpses to Al Shifa hospital? [Update: OK, someone in the comments to the CAMERA post says the ceasefire agreement required the IDF return unidentified human remains to Gaza. But in that case the director of Al-Shifa hospital would know perfectly well what was going on, and it does not explain why there were claimed to be boxes of skulls in particular, nor why a medical doctor would specifically claim that women’s internal organs had been removed.] Did Corbyn think to ask the director of Al-Shifa Hospital what he did with them? If the IDF ever deliver any boxes of skulls and corpses with missing organs to me, I’ll be sure and contact all the world’s most eminent forensic pathologists so they can carry out post mortems and give the evidence to the world. Another update: This was no “misspeaking”. Jeremy Corbyn has publicly made the same allegation in more detail within the last few days. In the comments to the CAMERA post, someone called SHO_MY links to a video posted at 3:03pm on 23 Feb 2026 (https://x.com/EL4JC/status/2025949713292296383) from a pro-Corbyn account called #EL4C @EL4JC:
In the video Corbyn is addressing a public meeting. In his speech he says,
I do. And I ask again, what has the director of Al-Shifa Medical Complex done with these bodies that he says show credible indications of organ theft? What action has he taken to get what he believes to be evidence of a horrible crime out to the world so that impartial outside observers can assess it? What is he doing to get these “credible indications” of organ theft either proved or disproved? February 24th, 2026 | 26 comments
February 16th, 2026 | 23 comments
Officials with the lowest approval ratings in the world (Macron, Starmer, Merz, Sanchez) are the loudest champions of social media bans for teens and ‘misinformation’ crackdowns. February 8th, 2026 | 10 comments
The future is choice. No more reverence. – Russ February 3rd, 2026 | 12 comments
“The First Amendment doesn’t stop at the water’s edge just because a foreign bureaucrat sends a threatening letter. If you’re in Wyoming, you speak freely. Period.” February 2nd, 2026 | 27 comments
Keir Starmer is mulling a ban on X, formerly Twitter. This would be a shocking, draconian move, bringing the UK into line with states as authoritarian as Russia, China and North Korea. Yet the only real surprise here is that he hasn’t tried it sooner. As I argue today on spiked, the PM’s claim that this is about protecting children from X-generated AI deepfakes is incredibly weak sauce. Every man and his AI companion knows that X and its owner, Elon Musk, have been a constant thorn in the side of this loathsome Labour government. Starmer holds X responsible for reviving interest in the grooming gangs and even stoking the Southport riots. We should take his threat to ban it incredibly seriously. January 9th, 2026 | 30 comments - (Comments are closed)
This is a real tweet from the European Commission:
This is an excerpt from a scholarly article about the history of Islam:
– Joseph Schacht, quoted by Wael B. Hallaq in Was the Gate of Ijtihad Closed? If you think that the ability of the European Commission to recognise when something has reached a point where no improvement is possible is good enough to allow it to safely close the door of ijtihad on charger cable design, consider the evident fact that none of the multiple people in the Berlaymont building over whose desks the draft of that tweet must have passed knew enough history to veto that title. December 26th, 2025 | 18 comments - (Comments are closed)
In what might come as a surprise to some, and I would suggest is a counter to a broad narrative, an Employment Tribunal (a form of Labour Court) in England has upheld the principle that criticism of ‘unreformed’ Islam is legally protected. The Tribunal considered a preliminary point as to whether or not the Claimant (Plaintiff in old, sound [ 🙂 ] money) could in principle bring a claim on the basis that he held a belief that had sufficient cogency as to be worthy of respect in a democratic society. As far as can be discerned from the judgment, there was an issue (which is very much now an issue for a determination on the merits at a later hearing) as to whether the employer was taking action against the Claimant (the circumstances of which we know nothing) because of his manifestation of his belief, (which is permissible) rather than because he simply held those beliefs, which is not permissible; e.g. a nurse who is a devout Christian being sacked for being a Christian rather than specifically, sacked for e.g. saying to a seriously-ill patient ‘Convert or face Hell-fire soon!‘ which could well be a manifestation of a belief at which offence might be taken. The issue that the Tribunal considered is set out in the judgment (linked above) as follows: “The belief that Islam, particularly in a traditional form – rather than a reformed, modernised, moderate and Westernised form – is problematic and deserving of criticism in so far as it fails: (i) To recognise a separation between religion (sacred) and politics (secular) and/or the Church and state, (ii) To value and respect fundamental human rights such as: • freedom of conscience and of speech, • to eschew and condemn violence in the name of religion (Islam), • to treat and respect women and girls equally when compared to men and boys.” The Claimant appears to have been ‘hauled up’ by his employer over his Twitter/X usage, there is reference to a file of 141 pages showing his Twitter feed, which the employer sought (at this stage) to use to argue that his belief in the need for a ‘reformation’ of ‘unreformed Islam’ was not genuinely held, i.e. that he was using this ‘belief’ as a shield for views that would not be protected. That is yet to be determined, if it is continued with by the employer. The main points of the Claimant’s case were the following which he considered problematic were noted at paragraph 13 in the judgment: ‘In his witness statement [C/14], the Claimant has cited the following “traditional and unreformed Islamic belief[s]” that are that are incompatible with “Western values” in that they: (i) advocate or justify violence against non-believers or apostates; (ii) promote unequal legal status for women; (iii) call for the death penalty for apostasy, blasphemy or homosexuality; (iv) reject the separation of religion and state, and seek to impose religious law; (v) promote antisemitism or hatred towards groups including reformed Muslims; (vi) condone child marriage; (vii) permit forms of slavery or indentured servitude; (viii) justify domestic violence, including wife-beating and female genital mutilation (“FGM”).’ It is important to note here that the Claimant’s belief isn’t about hostility towards Muslims as such, but to the holding and promotion of the ‘unreformed’ version of Islam that he is objecting to. The issue for the Tribunal hearing the final case is summed up at paragraph 17: ‘The degree to which the Claimant will be able to establish that these tweets were a manifestation of the pleaded belief or that the Respondent will be able to show that these were inappropriate manifestations of, or otherwise separable from, the belief, are matters which fall to be decided at the final hearing.’ I.e. was the Claimant criticism of the ‘unreformed’ Islam that he weighs in against inappropriate, which takes into account the position that he held in the employer that he worked or works for. There is nothing in this judgment that surprises me, it seems to be a legally-sound decision that the principle of criticising a belief on the basis of its incompatibility with ‘Western values’ (whatever they might be) is one where not only is it lawful, but an employer who acts against an employee for doing so (unless the manifestation is inappropriate) is itself acting unlawfully. Clearly, given that Courts are holding that such expression is legally-protected in principle, any notion that such comments are criminally unlawful are unfounded so any police action arising from those Tweets would be wholly unlawful. December 25th, 2025 | 25 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
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. |
|||||