#nannystate — Public Fediverse posts

"So we have a mistargeted law, badly drafted to go after a theoretical problem that hasn’t proven to be real, combined with penalties harsh enough that companies like Anthropic comply in the broadest, bluntest way possible — and all of it dropped into a world that has increasingly decided that AI use is a binary good-vs-evil question, and where no nuance is allowed.

The watermark won’t actually catch the people it’s ostensibly aimed at — those seeking to deceive people. Those people will likely be sophisticated enough to remove any such watermark and walk away clean. However, it will likely catch the people who had every right to use the tool in the first place: the non-native speaker who ran their draft through Claude to sound more fluent, the assistive-tech user who needed help composing a sentence, or the writer who wants an extra level of review on any text they’ve written. They’re the ones who will wear the scarlet letter. The EU wanted to look tough on AI and Anthropic wanted to look compliant. But neither of them has to answer to the the disabled user who used the tech to help them communicate, who now gets accused of lying and cheating."

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/08/20/the-eu-wanted-a-deepfake-detector-it-got-an-ai-scarlet-letter/

#AI #EU #AIAct #GenerativeAI #Watermarking #Deepfakes #NannyState #Anthropic #Claude #LLMs

"So we have a mistargeted law, badly drafted to go after a theoretical problem that hasn’t proven to be real, combined with penalties harsh enough that companies like Anthropic comply in the broadest, bluntest way possible — and all of it dropped into a world that has increasingly decided that AI use is a binary good-vs-evil question, and where no nuance is allowed.

The watermark won’t actually catch the people it’s ostensibly aimed at — those seeking to deceive people. Those people will likely be sophisticated enough to remove any such watermark and walk away clean. However, it will likely catch the people who had every right to use the tool in the first place: the non-native speaker who ran their draft through Claude to sound more fluent, the assistive-tech user who needed help composing a sentence, or the writer who wants an extra level of review on any text they’ve written. They’re the ones who will wear the scarlet letter. The EU wanted to look tough on AI and Anthropic wanted to look compliant. But neither of them has to answer to the the disabled user who used the tech to help them communicate, who now gets accused of lying and cheating."

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/08/20/the-eu-wanted-a-deepfake-detector-it-got-an-ai-scarlet-letter/

#AI #EU #AIAct #GenerativeAI #Watermarking #Deepfakes #NannyState #Anthropic #Claude #LLMs

"So we have a mistargeted law, badly drafted to go after a theoretical problem that hasn’t proven to be real, combined with penalties harsh enough that companies like Anthropic comply in the broadest, bluntest way possible — and all of it dropped into a world that has increasingly decided that AI use is a binary good-vs-evil question, and where no nuance is allowed.

The watermark won’t actually catch the people it’s ostensibly aimed at — those seeking to deceive people. Those people will likely be sophisticated enough to remove any such watermark and walk away clean. However, it will likely catch the people who had every right to use the tool in the first place: the non-native speaker who ran their draft through Claude to sound more fluent, the assistive-tech user who needed help composing a sentence, or the writer who wants an extra level of review on any text they’ve written. They’re the ones who will wear the scarlet letter. The EU wanted to look tough on AI and Anthropic wanted to look compliant. But neither of them has to answer to the the disabled user who used the tech to help them communicate, who now gets accused of lying and cheating."

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/08/20/the-eu-wanted-a-deepfake-detector-it-got-an-ai-scarlet-letter/

#AI #EU #AIAct #GenerativeAI #Watermarking #Deepfakes #NannyState #Anthropic #Claude #LLMs

"So we have a mistargeted law, badly drafted to go after a theoretical problem that hasn’t proven to be real, combined with penalties harsh enough that companies like Anthropic comply in the broadest, bluntest way possible — and all of it dropped into a world that has increasingly decided that AI use is a binary good-vs-evil question, and where no nuance is allowed.

The watermark won’t actually catch the people it’s ostensibly aimed at — those seeking to deceive people. Those people will likely be sophisticated enough to remove any such watermark and walk away clean. However, it will likely catch the people who had every right to use the tool in the first place: the non-native speaker who ran their draft through Claude to sound more fluent, the assistive-tech user who needed help composing a sentence, or the writer who wants an extra level of review on any text they’ve written. They’re the ones who will wear the scarlet letter. The EU wanted to look tough on AI and Anthropic wanted to look compliant. But neither of them has to answer to the the disabled user who used the tech to help them communicate, who now gets accused of lying and cheating."

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/08/20/the-eu-wanted-a-deepfake-detector-it-got-an-ai-scarlet-letter/

#AI #EU #AIAct #GenerativeAI #Watermarking #Deepfakes #NannyState #Anthropic #Claude #LLMs

"So we have a mistargeted law, badly drafted to go after a theoretical problem that hasn’t proven to be real, combined with penalties harsh enough that companies like Anthropic comply in the broadest, bluntest way possible — and all of it dropped into a world that has increasingly decided that AI use is a binary good-vs-evil question, and where no nuance is allowed.

The watermark won’t actually catch the people it’s ostensibly aimed at — those seeking to deceive people. Those people will likely be sophisticated enough to remove any such watermark and walk away clean. However, it will likely catch the people who had every right to use the tool in the first place: the non-native speaker who ran their draft through Claude to sound more fluent, the assistive-tech user who needed help composing a sentence, or the writer who wants an extra level of review on any text they’ve written. They’re the ones who will wear the scarlet letter. The EU wanted to look tough on AI and Anthropic wanted to look compliant. But neither of them has to answer to the the disabled user who used the tech to help them communicate, who now gets accused of lying and cheating."

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/08/20/the-eu-wanted-a-deepfake-detector-it-got-an-ai-scarlet-letter/

#AI #EU #AIAct #GenerativeAI #Watermarking #Deepfakes #NannyState #Anthropic #Claude #LLMs

Wer gibt mir die Lebenszeit zurück, die ich Woche für Woche durch Warten auf die komplett sinnlose Empfängerprüfung bei SEPA-Überweisungen verliere?
Wann gibt es endlich Möglichkeit, diesen Paternalismus abzustellen?!
Ich möchte nicht in einem Land leben, das mich vor einem Risiko bewahrt, das nie eintritt oder dessen Eintritt ich tragen kann, wenn der Schutz mich in meinem Leben einschränkt.
#Nannystate

Wer gibt mir die Lebenszeit zurück, die ich Woche für Woche durch Warten auf die komplett sinnlose Empfängerprüfung bei SEPA-Überweisungen verliere?
Wann gibt es endlich Möglichkeit, diesen Paternalismus abzustellen?!
Ich möchte nicht in einem Land leben, das mich vor einem Risiko bewahrt, das nie eintritt oder dessen Eintritt ich tragen kann, wenn der Schutz mich in meinem Leben einschränkt.
#Nannystate

Wer gibt mir die Lebenszeit zurück, die ich Woche für Woche durch Warten auf die komplett sinnlose Empfängerprüfung bei SEPA-Überweisungen verliere?
Wann gibt es endlich Möglichkeit, diesen Paternalismus abzustellen?!
Ich möchte nicht in einem Land leben, das mich vor einem Risiko bewahrt, das nie eintritt oder dessen Eintritt ich tragen kann, wenn der Schutz mich in meinem Leben einschränkt.
#Nannystate

Wer gibt mir die Lebenszeit zurück, die ich Woche für Woche durch Warten auf die komplett sinnlose Empfängerprüfung bei SEPA-Überweisungen verliere?
Wann gibt es endlich Möglichkeit, diesen Paternalismus abzustellen?!
Ich möchte nicht in einem Land leben, das mich vor einem Risiko bewahrt, das nie eintritt oder dessen Eintritt ich tragen kann, wenn der Schutz mich in meinem Leben einschränkt.
#Nannystate

Abolish London’s fun police – spiked

Few familiar with Westminster City Council will be surprised by its draft proposal to refuse licenses for new…
#London #Britain #UnitedKingdom #UK #GB #England #Headlines #News #Europe #EU #Westminster #Alcohol #civilliberties #NannyState
https://www.europesays.com/gbr/london/10758/

ICE Is Using Data Broker Tools to ‘Identify Unaccompanied Minors’ and ‘Fraud’

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.wired.com/story/ice-unaccompanied-minors-fraud-suspects-trss-contract/

ICE Is Using Data Broker Tools to ‘Identify Unaccompanied Minors’ and ‘Fraud’

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.wired.com/story/ice-unaccompanied-minors-fraud-suspects-trss-contract/

ICE Is Using Data Broker Tools to ‘Identify Unaccompanied Minors’ and ‘Fraud’

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.wired.com/story/ice-unaccompanied-minors-fraud-suspects-trss-contract/

ICE Is Using Data Broker Tools to ‘Identify Unaccompanied Minors’ and ‘Fraud’

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.wired.com/story/ice-unaccompanied-minors-fraud-suspects-trss-contract/

ICE Is Using Data Broker Tools to ‘Identify Unaccompanied Minors’ and ‘Fraud’

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.wired.com/story/ice-unaccompanied-minors-fraud-suspects-trss-contract/

The nanny state is sanitising Britain to death

The UK’s landmark Tobacco and Vapes Act, which became law in April this year (and has since been…
#EuropeSays #Britain #Europe #EU #NannyState #smoking
https://www.europesays.com/britain/73953/

https://www.europesays.com/britain/73953/ The nanny state is sanitising Britain to death #Britain #NannyState #smoking

#Michigan parents charged with #murder & #torture in #death of autistic 255 lb morbidly obese 7 yr old who apparently lived in squalor and was fed mostly #FrenchFries & #PotatoChips 🍟

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/27/us/michgan-parents-charged-murder-obesity.html?unlocked_article_code=1.uFA.GVT-.CX0l4hmBrXUx #GiftLink #NYTimes #NannyState #ObesityEpidemic #Parenting #Autism #AmericanFamilyValues

#Michigan parents charged with #murder & #torture in #death of autistic 255 lb morbidly obese 7 yr old who apparently lived in squalor and was fed mostly #FrenchFries & #PotatoChips 🍟

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/27/us/michgan-parents-charged-murder-obesity.html?unlocked_article_code=1.uFA.GVT-.CX0l4hmBrXUx #GiftLink #NYTimes #NannyState #ObesityEpidemic #Parenting #Autism #AmericanFamilyValues

#Michigan parents charged with #murder & #torture in #death of autistic 255 lb morbidly obese 7 yr old who apparently lived in squalor and was fed mostly #FrenchFries & #PotatoChips 🍟

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/27/us/michgan-parents-charged-murder-obesity.html?unlocked_article_code=1.uFA.GVT-.CX0l4hmBrXUx #GiftLink #NYTimes #NannyState #ObesityEpidemic #Parenting #Autism #AmericanFamilyValues

#Michigan parents charged with #murder & #torture in #death of autistic 255 lb morbidly obese 7 yr old who apparently lived in squalor and was fed mostly #FrenchFries & #PotatoChips 🍟

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/27/us/michgan-parents-charged-murder-obesity.html?unlocked_article_code=1.uFA.GVT-.CX0l4hmBrXUx #GiftLink #NYTimes #NannyState #ObesityEpidemic #Parenting #Autism #AmericanFamilyValues

#Michigan parents charged with #murder & #torture in #death of autistic 255 lb morbidly obese 7 yr old who apparently lived in squalor and was fed mostly #FrenchFries & #PotatoChips 🍟

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/27/us/michgan-parents-charged-murder-obesity.html?unlocked_article_code=1.uFA.GVT-.CX0l4hmBrXUx #GiftLink #NYTimes #NannyState #ObesityEpidemic #Parenting #Autism #AmericanFamilyValues

Nanny State: Joshua Rosenberg on the UK Palestine Action ban and the politics of criminalising dissent!

Joshua Rosenberg’s attack on Palestine Action, published yesterday in the Law Society Gazette, gets one thing badly wrong from the start: it treats the state’s label as if it were the law itself. If the UK government calls disruptive protest “terrorism,” that does not make it so. The real legal question is whether the conduct fits the statute, whether the response is proportionate, and whether terrorism law is being stretched to protect political power rather than the public.¹

The label is not the law

Rosenberg’s article relies on a simple but powerful move: call the group dangerous, then present the ban as self-justifying. That is not legal analysis. It is a conclusion dressed up as common sense.

The state already has ordinary criminal offences for damage, trespass, obstruction, and conspiracy. What needs justification is the leap from protest-related wrongdoing to terrorism law.²

Gaza is the moral centre

The Gaza context is not background noise. It is the reason many people feel so strongly about these protests.

The International Court of Justice has indicated provisional measures in the genocide case and later reaffirmed them. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant on allegations including starvation as a method of warfare and crimes against humanity.³ UN experts have also warned that arms transfers to Israel that may be used in Gaza are likely to violate international humanitarian law and should stop immediately.⁴

That does not mean UK law currently permits criminal damage as a defence. It does not. But, it does mean the law should be honest about the moral urgency behind the protest instead of flattening it into vandalism.⁵

Direct action has a democratic pedigree

Rosenberg’s article also misses a basic historical truth: direct action has always played a major role in democratic reform. The abolition of slavery did not happen because people politely waited. The suffragettes did not win votes by being “reasonable” in the narrow, state-approved sense. Trade union and civil-rights movements, too, relied on pressure, disruption, and refusal.⁶

The same is true of the campaign to isolate apartheid South Africa, where boycotts, divestment, and sanctions helped force a political reckoning. That history matters because it shows that disruptive action is not automatically anti-democratic. Sometimes it is the route by which democracy forces power to listen.⁷ The idea that protest is only acceptable when it does not disrupt anything is not a principle of freedom; it is a principle of managed dissent.⁸

The double standard

The argument, developed in earlier Truthaholics posts, is that the UK state increasingly punishes anti-war dissent while shielding power-aligned interests.⁹ That concern becomes sharper when compared with the way climate protest and Just Stop Oil are usually charged under ordinary offences like criminal damage or obstruction, while anti-war direct action is pushed toward the language of extremism and terror.¹⁰

That is not consistency. It is selective severity.

HRA 1998 and ECHR rights

The Human Rights Act 1998 brings Convention rights into domestic law, especially Articles 10 and 11 on expression and peaceful assembly.¹¹ Those rights are qualified, so proportionality matters. In protest cases, courts have sometimes had to ask whether conviction is a justified interference with those rights.¹²

But this is where the current doctrine is uneven. After DPP v Ziegler, Article 10 and 11 analysis matters in some protest settings, especially where the offence itself turns on obstruction and the interference is non-violent.¹³ By contrast, the Court of Appeal’s 2024 criminal-damage ruling sharply narrows the room for using beliefs, urgency, or moral importance as a lawful excuse.¹⁴

That creates a real tension. The law recognises that disruptive protest can still fall within Convention protection, but it often refuses to let that protection do any serious work where criminal damage is concerned. A serious legal system should at least admit that this is a narrowing choice, not a neutral inevitability.¹⁵

What should change

A better legal approach would not create a blanket excuse for criminal damage. It would simply stop the state from using terrorism law where ordinary criminal law is enough. It would also force the system to distinguish properly between vandalism, civil disobedience, and genuine terrorism.¹⁶

That is the real issue Rosenberg’s article avoids. It assumes the conclusion it wants to prove: that state suppression equals public safety. But the legal and moral picture is more complicated than that.

Bottom line

If the law is to remain credible, it must be able to distinguish between protest, criminal damage, and terror. Rosenberg’s article blurs those lines. The law should not.

If the law is to retain any credibility, it must stop confusing protest with terror and inconvenience with danger. Palestine Action may be controversial and unlawful, but that is not the same as terrorism. The real scandal is not that people are protesting Gaza too loudly; it is that the state is reaching for the most draconian label available to protect itself from accountability. That is not the rule of law. It is the rule of power.

When a state calls dissent “terrorism” to protect its own complicity, the problem is no longer the protest movement — it is the political system itself.

Footnotes

1. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Terrorism Act 2000, s 1.
2. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Criminal Damage Act 1971, ss 1 and 5.
3. ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v Israel), Provisional Measures Order (26 January 2024); ICC, Situation in the State of Palestine (21 November 2024).
4. OHCHR, ‘Arms exports to Israel must stop immediately: UN experts’ (23 February 2024).
5. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Criminal Damage Act 1971, s 5(2)(a).
6. Truthaholics, ‘An Exploration of Arguable Routes of Appeal against the Outrageous Filton Trial Sentences & Criminalisation of Direct Action as Terrorism!’ (13 June 2026).
7. Truthaholics, ‘Drawing the Line: Why the Palestine Action Case Matters for the Future of British Dissent & Direct Action!’ (15 June 2026).
8. Truthaholics, ‘Asymmetry of UK State Impunity: Great Israeli Real Estate Event & the Constitutional Case Against Palestine Action Proscription!’ (16 June 2026).
9. Truthaholics, ‘Asymmetry of UK State Impunity …’; Truthaholics, ‘Criminalising Direct Action? Why the UK Supreme Court Should Reverse the Court of Appeal!’ (15 June 2026).
10. The Guardian, ‘Climate protesters in England and Wales lose criminal damage defence’ (18 March 2024).
11. Human Rights Act 1998, ss 2–3, 6; European Convention on Human Rights, arts 10, 11.
12. DPP v Ziegler UKSC 23.
13. ibid.
14. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023.
15. Human Rights Act 1998, s 3; DPP v Ziegler; Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023.
16. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Terrorism Act 2000, s 1.
    

Nanny State: Joshua Rosenberg on the UK Palestine Action ban and the politics of criminalising dissent!

Joshua Rosenberg’s attack on Palestine Action, published yesterday in the Law Society Gazette, gets one thing badly wrong from the start: it treats the state’s label as if it were the law itself. If the UK government calls disruptive protest “terrorism,” that does not make it so. The real legal question is whether the conduct fits the statute, whether the response is proportionate, and whether terrorism law is being stretched to protect political power rather than the public.¹

The label is not the law

Rosenberg’s article relies on a simple but powerful move: call the group dangerous, then present the ban as self-justifying. That is not legal analysis. It is a conclusion dressed up as common sense.

The state already has ordinary criminal offences for damage, trespass, obstruction, and conspiracy. What needs justification is the leap from protest-related wrongdoing to terrorism law.²

Gaza is the moral centre

The Gaza context is not background noise. It is the reason many people feel so strongly about these protests.

The International Court of Justice has indicated provisional measures in the genocide case and later reaffirmed them. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant on allegations including starvation as a method of warfare and crimes against humanity.³ UN experts have also warned that arms transfers to Israel that may be used in Gaza are likely to violate international humanitarian law and should stop immediately.⁴

That does not mean UK law currently permits criminal damage as a defence. It does not. But, it does mean the law should be honest about the moral urgency behind the protest instead of flattening it into vandalism.⁵

Direct action has a democratic pedigree

Rosenberg’s article also misses a basic historical truth: direct action has always played a major role in democratic reform. The abolition of slavery did not happen because people politely waited. The suffragettes did not win votes by being “reasonable” in the narrow, state-approved sense. Trade union and civil-rights movements, too, relied on pressure, disruption, and refusal.⁶

The same is true of the campaign to isolate apartheid South Africa, where boycotts, divestment, and sanctions helped force a political reckoning. That history matters because it shows that disruptive action is not automatically anti-democratic. Sometimes it is the route by which democracy forces power to listen.⁷ The idea that protest is only acceptable when it does not disrupt anything is not a principle of freedom; it is a principle of managed dissent.⁸

The double standard

The argument, developed in earlier Truthaholics posts, is that the UK state increasingly punishes anti-war dissent while shielding power-aligned interests.⁹ That concern becomes sharper when compared with the way climate protest and Just Stop Oil are usually charged under ordinary offences like criminal damage or obstruction, while anti-war direct action is pushed toward the language of extremism and terror.¹⁰

That is not consistency. It is selective severity.

HRA 1998 and ECHR rights

The Human Rights Act 1998 brings Convention rights into domestic law, especially Articles 10 and 11 on expression and peaceful assembly.¹¹ Those rights are qualified, so proportionality matters. In protest cases, courts have sometimes had to ask whether conviction is a justified interference with those rights.¹²

But this is where the current doctrine is uneven. After DPP v Ziegler, Article 10 and 11 analysis matters in some protest settings, especially where the offence itself turns on obstruction and the interference is non-violent.¹³ By contrast, the Court of Appeal’s 2024 criminal-damage ruling sharply narrows the room for using beliefs, urgency, or moral importance as a lawful excuse.¹⁴

That creates a real tension. The law recognises that disruptive protest can still fall within Convention protection, but it often refuses to let that protection do any serious work where criminal damage is concerned. A serious legal system should at least admit that this is a narrowing choice, not a neutral inevitability.¹⁵

What should change

A better legal approach would not create a blanket excuse for criminal damage. It would simply stop the state from using terrorism law where ordinary criminal law is enough. It would also force the system to distinguish properly between vandalism, civil disobedience, and genuine terrorism.¹⁶

That is the real issue Rosenberg’s article avoids. It assumes the conclusion it wants to prove: that state suppression equals public safety. But the legal and moral picture is more complicated than that.

Bottom line

If the law is to remain credible, it must be able to distinguish between protest, criminal damage, and terror. Rosenberg’s article blurs those lines. The law should not.

If the law is to retain any credibility, it must stop confusing protest with terror and inconvenience with danger. Palestine Action may be controversial and unlawful, but that is not the same as terrorism. The real scandal is not that people are protesting Gaza too loudly; it is that the state is reaching for the most draconian label available to protect itself from accountability. That is not the rule of law. It is the rule of power.

When a state calls dissent “terrorism” to protect its own complicity, the problem is no longer the protest movement — it is the political system itself.

Footnotes

1. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Terrorism Act 2000, s 1.
2. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Criminal Damage Act 1971, ss 1 and 5.
3. ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v Israel), Provisional Measures Order (26 January 2024); ICC, Situation in the State of Palestine (21 November 2024).
4. OHCHR, ‘Arms exports to Israel must stop immediately: UN experts’ (23 February 2024).
5. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Criminal Damage Act 1971, s 5(2)(a).
6. Truthaholics, ‘An Exploration of Arguable Routes of Appeal against the Outrageous Filton Trial Sentences & Criminalisation of Direct Action as Terrorism!’ (13 June 2026).
7. Truthaholics, ‘Drawing the Line: Why the Palestine Action Case Matters for the Future of British Dissent & Direct Action!’ (15 June 2026).
8. Truthaholics, ‘Asymmetry of UK State Impunity: Great Israeli Real Estate Event & the Constitutional Case Against Palestine Action Proscription!’ (16 June 2026).
9. Truthaholics, ‘Asymmetry of UK State Impunity …’; Truthaholics, ‘Criminalising Direct Action? Why the UK Supreme Court Should Reverse the Court of Appeal!’ (15 June 2026).
10. The Guardian, ‘Climate protesters in England and Wales lose criminal damage defence’ (18 March 2024).
11. Human Rights Act 1998, ss 2–3, 6; European Convention on Human Rights, arts 10, 11.
12. DPP v Ziegler UKSC 23.
13. ibid.
14. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023.
15. Human Rights Act 1998, s 3; DPP v Ziegler; Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023.
16. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Terrorism Act 2000, s 1.
    

Nanny State: Joshua Rosenberg on the UK Palestine Action ban and the politics of criminalising dissent!

Joshua Rosenberg’s attack on Palestine Action, published yesterday in the Law Society Gazette, gets one thing badly wrong from the start: it treats the state’s label as if it were the law itself. If the UK government calls disruptive protest “terrorism,” that does not make it so. The real legal question is whether the conduct fits the statute, whether the response is proportionate, and whether terrorism law is being stretched to protect political power rather than the public.¹

The label is not the law

Rosenberg’s article relies on a simple but powerful move: call the group dangerous, then present the ban as self-justifying. That is not legal analysis. It is a conclusion dressed up as common sense.

The state already has ordinary criminal offences for damage, trespass, obstruction, and conspiracy. What needs justification is the leap from protest-related wrongdoing to terrorism law.²

Gaza is the moral centre

The Gaza context is not background noise. It is the reason many people feel so strongly about these protests.

The International Court of Justice has indicated provisional measures in the genocide case and later reaffirmed them. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant on allegations including starvation as a method of warfare and crimes against humanity.³ UN experts have also warned that arms transfers to Israel that may be used in Gaza are likely to violate international humanitarian law and should stop immediately.⁴

That does not mean UK law currently permits criminal damage as a defence. It does not. But, it does mean the law should be honest about the moral urgency behind the protest instead of flattening it into vandalism.⁵

Direct action has a democratic pedigree

Rosenberg’s article also misses a basic historical truth: direct action has always played a major role in democratic reform. The abolition of slavery did not happen because people politely waited. The suffragettes did not win votes by being “reasonable” in the narrow, state-approved sense. Trade union and civil-rights movements, too, relied on pressure, disruption, and refusal.⁶

The same is true of the campaign to isolate apartheid South Africa, where boycotts, divestment, and sanctions helped force a political reckoning. That history matters because it shows that disruptive action is not automatically anti-democratic. Sometimes it is the route by which democracy forces power to listen.⁷ The idea that protest is only acceptable when it does not disrupt anything is not a principle of freedom; it is a principle of managed dissent.⁸

The double standard

The argument, developed in earlier Truthaholics posts, is that the UK state increasingly punishes anti-war dissent while shielding power-aligned interests.⁹ That concern becomes sharper when compared with the way climate protest and Just Stop Oil are usually charged under ordinary offences like criminal damage or obstruction, while anti-war direct action is pushed toward the language of extremism and terror.¹⁰

That is not consistency. It is selective severity.

HRA 1998 and ECHR rights

The Human Rights Act 1998 brings Convention rights into domestic law, especially Articles 10 and 11 on expression and peaceful assembly.¹¹ Those rights are qualified, so proportionality matters. In protest cases, courts have sometimes had to ask whether conviction is a justified interference with those rights.¹²

But this is where the current doctrine is uneven. After DPP v Ziegler, Article 10 and 11 analysis matters in some protest settings, especially where the offence itself turns on obstruction and the interference is non-violent.¹³ By contrast, the Court of Appeal’s 2024 criminal-damage ruling sharply narrows the room for using beliefs, urgency, or moral importance as a lawful excuse.¹⁴

That creates a real tension. The law recognises that disruptive protest can still fall within Convention protection, but it often refuses to let that protection do any serious work where criminal damage is concerned. A serious legal system should at least admit that this is a narrowing choice, not a neutral inevitability.¹⁵

What should change

A better legal approach would not create a blanket excuse for criminal damage. It would simply stop the state from using terrorism law where ordinary criminal law is enough. It would also force the system to distinguish properly between vandalism, civil disobedience, and genuine terrorism.¹⁶

That is the real issue Rosenberg’s article avoids. It assumes the conclusion it wants to prove: that state suppression equals public safety. But the legal and moral picture is more complicated than that.

Bottom line

If the law is to remain credible, it must be able to distinguish between protest, criminal damage, and terror. Rosenberg’s article blurs those lines. The law should not.

If the law is to retain any credibility, it must stop confusing protest with terror and inconvenience with danger. Palestine Action may be controversial and unlawful, but that is not the same as terrorism. The real scandal is not that people are protesting Gaza too loudly; it is that the state is reaching for the most draconian label available to protect itself from accountability. That is not the rule of law. It is the rule of power.

When a state calls dissent “terrorism” to protect its own complicity, the problem is no longer the protest movement — it is the political system itself.

Footnotes

1. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Terrorism Act 2000, s 1.
2. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Criminal Damage Act 1971, ss 1 and 5.
3. ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v Israel), Provisional Measures Order (26 January 2024); ICC, Situation in the State of Palestine (21 November 2024).
4. OHCHR, ‘Arms exports to Israel must stop immediately: UN experts’ (23 February 2024).
5. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Criminal Damage Act 1971, s 5(2)(a).
6. Truthaholics, ‘An Exploration of Arguable Routes of Appeal against the Outrageous Filton Trial Sentences & Criminalisation of Direct Action as Terrorism!’ (13 June 2026).
7. Truthaholics, ‘Drawing the Line: Why the Palestine Action Case Matters for the Future of British Dissent & Direct Action!’ (15 June 2026).
8. Truthaholics, ‘Asymmetry of UK State Impunity: Great Israeli Real Estate Event & the Constitutional Case Against Palestine Action Proscription!’ (16 June 2026).
9. Truthaholics, ‘Asymmetry of UK State Impunity …’; Truthaholics, ‘Criminalising Direct Action? Why the UK Supreme Court Should Reverse the Court of Appeal!’ (15 June 2026).
10. The Guardian, ‘Climate protesters in England and Wales lose criminal damage defence’ (18 March 2024).
11. Human Rights Act 1998, ss 2–3, 6; European Convention on Human Rights, arts 10, 11.
12. DPP v Ziegler UKSC 23.
13. ibid.
14. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023.
15. Human Rights Act 1998, s 3; DPP v Ziegler; Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023.
16. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Terrorism Act 2000, s 1.
    

Nanny State: Joshua Rosenberg on the UK Palestine Action ban and the politics of criminalising dissent!

Joshua Rosenberg’s attack on Palestine Action, published yesterday in the Law Society Gazette, gets one thing badly wrong from the start: it treats the state’s label as if it were the law itself. If the UK government calls disruptive protest “terrorism,” that does not make it so. The real legal question is whether the conduct fits the statute, whether the response is proportionate, and whether terrorism law is being stretched to protect political power rather than the public.¹

The label is not the law

Rosenberg’s article relies on a simple but powerful move: call the group dangerous, then present the ban as self-justifying. That is not legal analysis. It is a conclusion dressed up as common sense.

The state already has ordinary criminal offences for damage, trespass, obstruction, and conspiracy. What needs justification is the leap from protest-related wrongdoing to terrorism law.²

Gaza is the moral centre

The Gaza context is not background noise. It is the reason many people feel so strongly about these protests.

The International Court of Justice has indicated provisional measures in the genocide case and later reaffirmed them. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant on allegations including starvation as a method of warfare and crimes against humanity.³ UN experts have also warned that arms transfers to Israel that may be used in Gaza are likely to violate international humanitarian law and should stop immediately.⁴

That does not mean UK law currently permits criminal damage as a defence. It does not. But, it does mean the law should be honest about the moral urgency behind the protest instead of flattening it into vandalism.⁵

Direct action has a democratic pedigree

Rosenberg’s article also misses a basic historical truth: direct action has always played a major role in democratic reform. The abolition of slavery did not happen because people politely waited. The suffragettes did not win votes by being “reasonable” in the narrow, state-approved sense. Trade union and civil-rights movements, too, relied on pressure, disruption, and refusal.⁶

The same is true of the campaign to isolate apartheid South Africa, where boycotts, divestment, and sanctions helped force a political reckoning. That history matters because it shows that disruptive action is not automatically anti-democratic. Sometimes it is the route by which democracy forces power to listen.⁷ The idea that protest is only acceptable when it does not disrupt anything is not a principle of freedom; it is a principle of managed dissent.⁸

The double standard

The argument, developed in earlier Truthaholics posts, is that the UK state increasingly punishes anti-war dissent while shielding power-aligned interests.⁹ That concern becomes sharper when compared with the way climate protest and Just Stop Oil are usually charged under ordinary offences like criminal damage or obstruction, while anti-war direct action is pushed toward the language of extremism and terror.¹⁰

That is not consistency. It is selective severity.

HRA 1998 and ECHR rights

The Human Rights Act 1998 brings Convention rights into domestic law, especially Articles 10 and 11 on expression and peaceful assembly.¹¹ Those rights are qualified, so proportionality matters. In protest cases, courts have sometimes had to ask whether conviction is a justified interference with those rights.¹²

But this is where the current doctrine is uneven. After DPP v Ziegler, Article 10 and 11 analysis matters in some protest settings, especially where the offence itself turns on obstruction and the interference is non-violent.¹³ By contrast, the Court of Appeal’s 2024 criminal-damage ruling sharply narrows the room for using beliefs, urgency, or moral importance as a lawful excuse.¹⁴

That creates a real tension. The law recognises that disruptive protest can still fall within Convention protection, but it often refuses to let that protection do any serious work where criminal damage is concerned. A serious legal system should at least admit that this is a narrowing choice, not a neutral inevitability.¹⁵

What should change

A better legal approach would not create a blanket excuse for criminal damage. It would simply stop the state from using terrorism law where ordinary criminal law is enough. It would also force the system to distinguish properly between vandalism, civil disobedience, and genuine terrorism.¹⁶

That is the real issue Rosenberg’s article avoids. It assumes the conclusion it wants to prove: that state suppression equals public safety. But the legal and moral picture is more complicated than that.

Bottom line

If the law is to remain credible, it must be able to distinguish between protest, criminal damage, and terror. Rosenberg’s article blurs those lines. The law should not.

If the law is to retain any credibility, it must stop confusing protest with terror and inconvenience with danger. Palestine Action may be controversial and unlawful, but that is not the same as terrorism. The real scandal is not that people are protesting Gaza too loudly; it is that the state is reaching for the most draconian label available to protect itself from accountability. That is not the rule of law. It is the rule of power.

When a state calls dissent “terrorism” to protect its own complicity, the problem is no longer the protest movement — it is the political system itself.

Footnotes

1. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Terrorism Act 2000, s 1.
2. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Criminal Damage Act 1971, ss 1 and 5.
3. ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v Israel), Provisional Measures Order (26 January 2024); ICC, Situation in the State of Palestine (21 November 2024).
4. OHCHR, ‘Arms exports to Israel must stop immediately: UN experts’ (23 February 2024).
5. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Criminal Damage Act 1971, s 5(2)(a).
6. Truthaholics, ‘An Exploration of Arguable Routes of Appeal against the Outrageous Filton Trial Sentences & Criminalisation of Direct Action as Terrorism!’ (13 June 2026).
7. Truthaholics, ‘Drawing the Line: Why the Palestine Action Case Matters for the Future of British Dissent & Direct Action!’ (15 June 2026).
8. Truthaholics, ‘Asymmetry of UK State Impunity: Great Israeli Real Estate Event & the Constitutional Case Against Palestine Action Proscription!’ (16 June 2026).
9. Truthaholics, ‘Asymmetry of UK State Impunity …’; Truthaholics, ‘Criminalising Direct Action? Why the UK Supreme Court Should Reverse the Court of Appeal!’ (15 June 2026).
10. The Guardian, ‘Climate protesters in England and Wales lose criminal damage defence’ (18 March 2024).
11. Human Rights Act 1998, ss 2–3, 6; European Convention on Human Rights, arts 10, 11.
12. DPP v Ziegler UKSC 23.
13. ibid.
14. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023.
15. Human Rights Act 1998, s 3; DPP v Ziegler; Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023.
16. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Terrorism Act 2000, s 1.
    

Nanny State: Joshua Rosenberg on the UK Palestine Action ban and the politics of criminalising dissent!

Joshua Rosenberg’s attack on Palestine Action, published yesterday in the Law Society Gazette, gets one thing badly wrong from the start: it treats the state’s label as if it were the law itself. If the UK government calls disruptive protest “terrorism,” that does not make it so. The real legal question is whether the conduct fits the statute, whether the response is proportionate, and whether terrorism law is being stretched to protect political power rather than the public.¹

The label is not the law

Rosenberg’s article relies on a simple but powerful move: call the group dangerous, then present the ban as self-justifying. That is not legal analysis. It is a conclusion dressed up as common sense.

The state already has ordinary criminal offences for damage, trespass, obstruction, and conspiracy. What needs justification is the leap from protest-related wrongdoing to terrorism law.²

Gaza is the moral centre

The Gaza context is not background noise. It is the reason many people feel so strongly about these protests.

The International Court of Justice has indicated provisional measures in the genocide case and later reaffirmed them. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant on allegations including starvation as a method of warfare and crimes against humanity.³ UN experts have also warned that arms transfers to Israel that may be used in Gaza are likely to violate international humanitarian law and should stop immediately.⁴

That does not mean UK law currently permits criminal damage as a defence. It does not. But, it does mean the law should be honest about the moral urgency behind the protest instead of flattening it into vandalism.⁵

Direct action has a democratic pedigree

Rosenberg’s article also misses a basic historical truth: direct action has always played a major role in democratic reform. The abolition of slavery did not happen because people politely waited. The suffragettes did not win votes by being “reasonable” in the narrow, state-approved sense. Trade union and civil-rights movements, too, relied on pressure, disruption, and refusal.⁶

The same is true of the campaign to isolate apartheid South Africa, where boycotts, divestment, and sanctions helped force a political reckoning. That history matters because it shows that disruptive action is not automatically anti-democratic. Sometimes it is the route by which democracy forces power to listen.⁷ The idea that protest is only acceptable when it does not disrupt anything is not a principle of freedom; it is a principle of managed dissent.⁸

The double standard

The argument, developed in earlier Truthaholics posts, is that the UK state increasingly punishes anti-war dissent while shielding power-aligned interests.⁹ That concern becomes sharper when compared with the way climate protest and Just Stop Oil are usually charged under ordinary offences like criminal damage or obstruction, while anti-war direct action is pushed toward the language of extremism and terror.¹⁰

That is not consistency. It is selective severity.

HRA 1998 and ECHR rights

The Human Rights Act 1998 brings Convention rights into domestic law, especially Articles 10 and 11 on expression and peaceful assembly.¹¹ Those rights are qualified, so proportionality matters. In protest cases, courts have sometimes had to ask whether conviction is a justified interference with those rights.¹²

But this is where the current doctrine is uneven. After DPP v Ziegler, Article 10 and 11 analysis matters in some protest settings, especially where the offence itself turns on obstruction and the interference is non-violent.¹³ By contrast, the Court of Appeal’s 2024 criminal-damage ruling sharply narrows the room for using beliefs, urgency, or moral importance as a lawful excuse.¹⁴

That creates a real tension. The law recognises that disruptive protest can still fall within Convention protection, but it often refuses to let that protection do any serious work where criminal damage is concerned. A serious legal system should at least admit that this is a narrowing choice, not a neutral inevitability.¹⁵

What should change

A better legal approach would not create a blanket excuse for criminal damage. It would simply stop the state from using terrorism law where ordinary criminal law is enough. It would also force the system to distinguish properly between vandalism, civil disobedience, and genuine terrorism.¹⁶

That is the real issue Rosenberg’s article avoids. It assumes the conclusion it wants to prove: that state suppression equals public safety. But the legal and moral picture is more complicated than that.

Bottom line

If the law is to remain credible, it must be able to distinguish between protest, criminal damage, and terror. Rosenberg’s article blurs those lines. The law should not.

If the law is to retain any credibility, it must stop confusing protest with terror and inconvenience with danger. Palestine Action may be controversial and unlawful, but that is not the same as terrorism. The real scandal is not that people are protesting Gaza too loudly; it is that the state is reaching for the most draconian label available to protect itself from accountability. That is not the rule of law. It is the rule of power.

When a state calls dissent “terrorism” to protect its own complicity, the problem is no longer the protest movement — it is the political system itself.

Footnotes

1. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Terrorism Act 2000, s 1.
2. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Criminal Damage Act 1971, ss 1 and 5.
3. ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v Israel), Provisional Measures Order (26 January 2024); ICC, Situation in the State of Palestine (21 November 2024).
4. OHCHR, ‘Arms exports to Israel must stop immediately: UN experts’ (23 February 2024).
5. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Criminal Damage Act 1971, s 5(2)(a).
6. Truthaholics, ‘An Exploration of Arguable Routes of Appeal against the Outrageous Filton Trial Sentences & Criminalisation of Direct Action as Terrorism!’ (13 June 2026).
7. Truthaholics, ‘Drawing the Line: Why the Palestine Action Case Matters for the Future of British Dissent & Direct Action!’ (15 June 2026).
8. Truthaholics, ‘Asymmetry of UK State Impunity: Great Israeli Real Estate Event & the Constitutional Case Against Palestine Action Proscription!’ (16 June 2026).
9. Truthaholics, ‘Asymmetry of UK State Impunity …’; Truthaholics, ‘Criminalising Direct Action? Why the UK Supreme Court Should Reverse the Court of Appeal!’ (15 June 2026).
10. The Guardian, ‘Climate protesters in England and Wales lose criminal damage defence’ (18 March 2024).
11. Human Rights Act 1998, ss 2–3, 6; European Convention on Human Rights, arts 10, 11.
12. DPP v Ziegler UKSC 23.
13. ibid.
14. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023.
15. Human Rights Act 1998, s 3; DPP v Ziegler; Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023.
16. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Terrorism Act 2000, s 1.
    

https://www.europesays.com/videos/47015/ ‘Millions were LIED TO!’ | New files REIGNITE claims that Congress were misled over Covid origins #Analysis #BenLeo #BreakingNews #CoronaVirus #covid #Covid19 #GBNews #GBNewsLive #GBN #lockdown #NannyState #news #NewsUpdate #politics #Reports #TulsiGobbard #uk #WorldNews

"A VPN ban could be on the table as part of the ongoing internet safety crackdown, which has already seen the Government announce a social media ban for under-16s.On Monday, Technology Secretary Liz Kendall announced a law change, set to be put in place by 2027, which will ban children from social media and AI chatbots as well as introduce ‘curfews’ to stop ‘doomscrolling’.

The ban was announced in response to concerns that social media is unsafe, making children miserable, and could cause lasting damage to their mental health. On Tuesday morning, Ms Kendall hinted that further restrictions could be introduced on Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).

VPNs have become increasingly popular in the UK since the Online Safety Act was enacted. Often used by employers to create a network to share resources, VPNs can also be used to spoof or hide your browsing location, thereby sidestepping geographical restrictions. A VPN is a system which connects somebody’s device – normally a computer or smartphone – to a server in a different location. This means that the websites that person visits cannot see their IP address.

It is used by many people for privacy or to get around restrictions that websites place on who can visit a page. It can also be useful for allowing people to work from home and still access their workplace’s resources."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2217934/vpn-ban-table-july-labour

#UK #VPNs #Privacy #NannyState #Surveillance #BigBrother #AgeVerification #DigitalID

"A VPN ban could be on the table as part of the ongoing internet safety crackdown, which has already seen the Government announce a social media ban for under-16s.On Monday, Technology Secretary Liz Kendall announced a law change, set to be put in place by 2027, which will ban children from social media and AI chatbots as well as introduce ‘curfews’ to stop ‘doomscrolling’.

The ban was announced in response to concerns that social media is unsafe, making children miserable, and could cause lasting damage to their mental health. On Tuesday morning, Ms Kendall hinted that further restrictions could be introduced on Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).

VPNs have become increasingly popular in the UK since the Online Safety Act was enacted. Often used by employers to create a network to share resources, VPNs can also be used to spoof or hide your browsing location, thereby sidestepping geographical restrictions. A VPN is a system which connects somebody’s device – normally a computer or smartphone – to a server in a different location. This means that the websites that person visits cannot see their IP address.

It is used by many people for privacy or to get around restrictions that websites place on who can visit a page. It can also be useful for allowing people to work from home and still access their workplace’s resources."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2217934/vpn-ban-table-july-labour

#UK #VPNs #Privacy #NannyState #Surveillance #BigBrother #AgeVerification #DigitalID

"A VPN ban could be on the table as part of the ongoing internet safety crackdown, which has already seen the Government announce a social media ban for under-16s.On Monday, Technology Secretary Liz Kendall announced a law change, set to be put in place by 2027, which will ban children from social media and AI chatbots as well as introduce ‘curfews’ to stop ‘doomscrolling’.

The ban was announced in response to concerns that social media is unsafe, making children miserable, and could cause lasting damage to their mental health. On Tuesday morning, Ms Kendall hinted that further restrictions could be introduced on Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).

VPNs have become increasingly popular in the UK since the Online Safety Act was enacted. Often used by employers to create a network to share resources, VPNs can also be used to spoof or hide your browsing location, thereby sidestepping geographical restrictions. A VPN is a system which connects somebody’s device – normally a computer or smartphone – to a server in a different location. This means that the websites that person visits cannot see their IP address.

It is used by many people for privacy or to get around restrictions that websites place on who can visit a page. It can also be useful for allowing people to work from home and still access their workplace’s resources."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2217934/vpn-ban-table-july-labour

#UK #VPNs #Privacy #NannyState #Surveillance #BigBrother #AgeVerification #DigitalID

"A VPN ban could be on the table as part of the ongoing internet safety crackdown, which has already seen the Government announce a social media ban for under-16s.On Monday, Technology Secretary Liz Kendall announced a law change, set to be put in place by 2027, which will ban children from social media and AI chatbots as well as introduce ‘curfews’ to stop ‘doomscrolling’.

The ban was announced in response to concerns that social media is unsafe, making children miserable, and could cause lasting damage to their mental health. On Tuesday morning, Ms Kendall hinted that further restrictions could be introduced on Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).

VPNs have become increasingly popular in the UK since the Online Safety Act was enacted. Often used by employers to create a network to share resources, VPNs can also be used to spoof or hide your browsing location, thereby sidestepping geographical restrictions. A VPN is a system which connects somebody’s device – normally a computer or smartphone – to a server in a different location. This means that the websites that person visits cannot see their IP address.

It is used by many people for privacy or to get around restrictions that websites place on who can visit a page. It can also be useful for allowing people to work from home and still access their workplace’s resources."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2217934/vpn-ban-table-july-labour

#UK #VPNs #Privacy #NannyState #Surveillance #BigBrother #AgeVerification #DigitalID

"A VPN ban could be on the table as part of the ongoing internet safety crackdown, which has already seen the Government announce a social media ban for under-16s.On Monday, Technology Secretary Liz Kendall announced a law change, set to be put in place by 2027, which will ban children from social media and AI chatbots as well as introduce ‘curfews’ to stop ‘doomscrolling’.

The ban was announced in response to concerns that social media is unsafe, making children miserable, and could cause lasting damage to their mental health. On Tuesday morning, Ms Kendall hinted that further restrictions could be introduced on Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).

VPNs have become increasingly popular in the UK since the Online Safety Act was enacted. Often used by employers to create a network to share resources, VPNs can also be used to spoof or hide your browsing location, thereby sidestepping geographical restrictions. A VPN is a system which connects somebody’s device – normally a computer or smartphone – to a server in a different location. This means that the websites that person visits cannot see their IP address.

It is used by many people for privacy or to get around restrictions that websites place on who can visit a page. It can also be useful for allowing people to work from home and still access their workplace’s resources."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2217934/vpn-ban-table-july-labour

#UK #VPNs #Privacy #NannyState #Surveillance #BigBrother #AgeVerification #DigitalID

Rhys Hurley: Britain is pricing smokers into the black market

Rhys Hurley is investigative lead at the New Zealand Taxpayers Union There is a point where a sin…
#EuropeSays #Britain #Europe #EU #NannyState #smoking #Smokinglegislation #TobaccoandVapesBill
https://www.europesays.com/britain/65454/

https://www.europesays.com/britain/65454/ Rhys Hurley: Britain is pricing smokers into the black market #Britain #NannyState #smoking #SmokingLegislation #TobaccoAndVapesBill

#sarcasm Thanks, Grandpa Britain. I would have been a train wreck of an adult without your daddy approach to social media. https://www.techdirt.com/2026/06/16/the-uks-teen-social-media-ban-is-political-theater-not-child-safety-policy/
#UnitedKingdom #socialMedia #ageVerification #Australia #dataPrivacy #KeirStarmer #LabourParty #nannyState

#sarcasm Thanks, Grandpa Britain. I would have been a train wreck of an adult without your daddy approach to social media. https://www.techdirt.com/2026/06/16/the-uks-teen-social-media-ban-is-political-theater-not-child-safety-policy/
#UnitedKingdom #socialMedia #ageVerification #Australia #dataPrivacy #KeirStarmer #LabourParty #nannyState

#sarcasm Thanks, Grandpa Britain. I would have been a train wreck of an adult without your daddy approach to social media. https://www.techdirt.com/2026/06/16/the-uks-teen-social-media-ban-is-political-theater-not-child-safety-policy/
#UnitedKingdom #socialMedia #ageVerification #Australia #dataPrivacy #KeirStarmer #LabourParty #nannyState

#sarcasm Thanks, Grandpa Britain. I would have been a train wreck of an adult without your daddy approach to social media. https://www.techdirt.com/2026/06/16/the-uks-teen-social-media-ban-is-political-theater-not-child-safety-policy/
#UnitedKingdom #socialMedia #ageVerification #Australia #dataPrivacy #KeirStarmer #LabourParty #nannyState

#sarcasm Thanks, Grandpa Britain. I would have been a train wreck of an adult without your daddy approach to social media. https://www.techdirt.com/2026/06/16/the-uks-teen-social-media-ban-is-political-theater-not-child-safety-policy/
#UnitedKingdom #socialMedia #ageVerification #Australia #dataPrivacy #KeirStarmer #LabourParty #nannyState

""Every failed attempt to make children safer online is followed by more surveillance and censorship," he said. "Children have rights too and these policies will harm their free expression and privacy rights, and push them into less regulated spaces. Meanwhile the business models driving harms are untouched."

Others questioned whether the measures can realistically be enforced. Mark Jones, an online harms specialist and partner at law firm Payne Hicks Beach, noted that the consultation closed only weeks ago and warned that determined teenagers have a habit of finding ways around restrictions.

"A social media ban only helps if it is genuinely enforceable," Jones said. "If large numbers of young people simply circumvent the restrictions, parents will just lose visibility into where their children are actually spending time online rather than reclaiming any control."

The political case for the crackdown appears relatively straightforward, but the practical one is less so. The government now has to persuade social media companies to enforce the rules and teenagers not to find ways around them."

https://www.theregister.com/personal-tech/2026/06/15/britain-plots-digital-bedtime-after-kicking-under-16s-off-social-media/5255341

#UK #AgeVerification #NannyState #Surveillance #Oligopolies #Censorship #BigBrother #BigTech #Privacy #Anonymity

""Every failed attempt to make children safer online is followed by more surveillance and censorship," he said. "Children have rights too and these policies will harm their free expression and privacy rights, and push them into less regulated spaces. Meanwhile the business models driving harms are untouched."

Others questioned whether the measures can realistically be enforced. Mark Jones, an online harms specialist and partner at law firm Payne Hicks Beach, noted that the consultation closed only weeks ago and warned that determined teenagers have a habit of finding ways around restrictions.

"A social media ban only helps if it is genuinely enforceable," Jones said. "If large numbers of young people simply circumvent the restrictions, parents will just lose visibility into where their children are actually spending time online rather than reclaiming any control."

The political case for the crackdown appears relatively straightforward, but the practical one is less so. The government now has to persuade social media companies to enforce the rules and teenagers not to find ways around them."

https://www.theregister.com/personal-tech/2026/06/15/britain-plots-digital-bedtime-after-kicking-under-16s-off-social-media/5255341

#UK #AgeVerification #NannyState #Surveillance #Oligopolies #Censorship #BigBrother #BigTech #Privacy #Anonymity

""Every failed attempt to make children safer online is followed by more surveillance and censorship," he said. "Children have rights too and these policies will harm their free expression and privacy rights, and push them into less regulated spaces. Meanwhile the business models driving harms are untouched."

Others questioned whether the measures can realistically be enforced. Mark Jones, an online harms specialist and partner at law firm Payne Hicks Beach, noted that the consultation closed only weeks ago and warned that determined teenagers have a habit of finding ways around restrictions.

"A social media ban only helps if it is genuinely enforceable," Jones said. "If large numbers of young people simply circumvent the restrictions, parents will just lose visibility into where their children are actually spending time online rather than reclaiming any control."

The political case for the crackdown appears relatively straightforward, but the practical one is less so. The government now has to persuade social media companies to enforce the rules and teenagers not to find ways around them."

https://www.theregister.com/personal-tech/2026/06/15/britain-plots-digital-bedtime-after-kicking-under-16s-off-social-media/5255341

#UK #AgeVerification #NannyState #Surveillance #Oligopolies #Censorship #BigBrother #BigTech #Privacy #Anonymity

""Every failed attempt to make children safer online is followed by more surveillance and censorship," he said. "Children have rights too and these policies will harm their free expression and privacy rights, and push them into less regulated spaces. Meanwhile the business models driving harms are untouched."

Others questioned whether the measures can realistically be enforced. Mark Jones, an online harms specialist and partner at law firm Payne Hicks Beach, noted that the consultation closed only weeks ago and warned that determined teenagers have a habit of finding ways around restrictions.

"A social media ban only helps if it is genuinely enforceable," Jones said. "If large numbers of young people simply circumvent the restrictions, parents will just lose visibility into where their children are actually spending time online rather than reclaiming any control."

The political case for the crackdown appears relatively straightforward, but the practical one is less so. The government now has to persuade social media companies to enforce the rules and teenagers not to find ways around them."

https://www.theregister.com/personal-tech/2026/06/15/britain-plots-digital-bedtime-after-kicking-under-16s-off-social-media/5255341

#UK #AgeVerification #NannyState #Surveillance #Oligopolies #Censorship #BigBrother #BigTech #Privacy #Anonymity

""Every failed attempt to make children safer online is followed by more surveillance and censorship," he said. "Children have rights too and these policies will harm their free expression and privacy rights, and push them into less regulated spaces. Meanwhile the business models driving harms are untouched."

Others questioned whether the measures can realistically be enforced. Mark Jones, an online harms specialist and partner at law firm Payne Hicks Beach, noted that the consultation closed only weeks ago and warned that determined teenagers have a habit of finding ways around restrictions.

"A social media ban only helps if it is genuinely enforceable," Jones said. "If large numbers of young people simply circumvent the restrictions, parents will just lose visibility into where their children are actually spending time online rather than reclaiming any control."

The political case for the crackdown appears relatively straightforward, but the practical one is less so. The government now has to persuade social media companies to enforce the rules and teenagers not to find ways around them."

https://www.theregister.com/personal-tech/2026/06/15/britain-plots-digital-bedtime-after-kicking-under-16s-off-social-media/5255341

#UK #AgeVerification #NannyState #Surveillance #Oligopolies #Censorship #BigBrother #BigTech #Privacy #Anonymity

Given the ineptitude of Starmer and his ill considered rules on social media this made me smile immensely.

https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2026/06/new-social-media-restrictions.html

#nannystate

Given the ineptitude of Starmer and his ill considered rules on social media this made me smile immensely.

https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2026/06/new-social-media-restrictions.html

#nannystate

Given the ineptitude of Starmer and his ill considered rules on social media this made me smile immensely.

https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2026/06/new-social-media-restrictions.html

#nannystate

Given the ineptitude of Starmer and his ill considered rules on social media this made me smile immensely.

https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2026/06/new-social-media-restrictions.html

#nannystate

Given the ineptitude of Starmer and his ill considered rules on social media this made me smile immensely.

https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2026/06/new-social-media-restrictions.html

#nannystate

Driver Aids Have Ruined Driving: How Far Will This Go?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-S76WEl25k

...an examination of the #UX of the current Toyota Prius which segues into an epic rant from #Driving4Answers which is definitely on-topic for the Surfhosting orbit.

#Cars #UXfail #NannyTech #NannyState #Safety #Technology #Unpredictability #Control

Driver Aids Have Ruined Driving: How Far Will This Go?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-S76WEl25k

...an examination of the #UX of the current Toyota Prius which segues into an epic rant from #Driving4Answers which is definitely on-topic for the Surfhosting orbit.

#Cars #UXfail #NannyTech #NannyState #Safety #Technology #Unpredictability #Control

Driver Aids Have Ruined Driving: How Far Will This Go?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-S76WEl25k

...an examination of the #UX of the current Toyota Prius which segues into an epic rant from #Driving4Answers which is definitely on-topic for the Surfhosting orbit.

#Cars #UXfail #NannyTech #NannyState #Safety #Technology #Unpredictability #Control

Driver Aids Have Ruined Driving: How Far Will This Go?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-S76WEl25k

...an examination of the #UX of the current Toyota Prius which segues into an epic rant from #Driving4Answers which is definitely on-topic for the Surfhosting orbit.

#Cars #UXfail #NannyTech #NannyState #Safety #Technology #Unpredictability #Control

Driver Aids Have Ruined Driving: How Far Will This Go?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-S76WEl25k

...an examination of the #UX of the current Toyota Prius which segues into an epic rant from #Driving4Answers which is definitely on-topic for the Surfhosting orbit.

#Cars #UXfail #NannyTech #NannyState #Safety #Technology #Unpredictability #Control

From ‘Living life online’ to ‘Being respectful and responsible’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/zx24xg8/articles/znv4dnb#zfbkjfr

What better defence of the ‘Nanny State’ in support of billionaire fascist techno creeps could you possibly get?

Let’s face it, it didn’t take bad and evil actors long to realise the internet was fertile ground for intelligence, surveillance, scamming, espionage, expropriation of resources, sex traffickers, money laundering, troll farms, bots, racketeering and spawning fascist cults, by amplifying grievance and hate towards minorities. Just to add, who have had their Nations repeatedly decimated by Empires. The argument that people are too apathetic to care or take responsibilities for their interests is perhaps the most spurious ever conceived. Nevertheless if you accept the people have been sucker punched into accepting an unbelievably diabolical shit show, it has popular support. It is possible that the fascist creeps can hold onto their cherished inequality and injustice and avoid revolution, but they are begging for it. How else to end it, the contagion of their Hydra then by giving diverse interests democratic rights? #RepublicSovereignty #PeoplePower #NannyState #EndingCorporateEvil #Foundation #Ethics #Philosophy #DialecticPrinciple
#TheFederation #SovereignRepublics

From ‘Living life online’ to ‘Being respectful and responsible’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/zx24xg8/articles/znv4dnb#zfbkjfr

What better defence of the ‘Nanny State’ in support of billionaire fascist techno creeps could you possibly get?

Let’s face it, it didn’t take bad and evil actors long to realise the internet was fertile ground for intelligence, surveillance, scamming, espionage, expropriation of resources, sex traffickers, money laundering, troll farms, bots, racketeering and spawning fascist cults, by amplifying grievance and hate towards minorities. Just to add, who have had their Nations repeatedly decimated by Empires. The argument that people are too apathetic to care or take responsibilities for their interests is perhaps the most spurious ever conceived. Nevertheless if you accept the people have been sucker punched into accepting an unbelievably diabolical shit show, it has popular support. It is possible that the fascist creeps can hold onto their cherished inequality and injustice and avoid revolution, but they are begging for it. How else to end it, the contagion of their Hydra then by giving diverse interests democratic rights? #RepublicSovereignty #PeoplePower #NannyState #EndingCorporateEvil #Foundation #Ethics #Philosophy #DialecticPrinciple
#TheFederation #SovereignRepublics

From ‘Living life online’ to ‘Being respectful and responsible’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/zx24xg8/articles/znv4dnb#zfbkjfr

What better defence of the ‘Nanny State’ in support of billionaire fascist techno creeps could you possibly get?

Let’s face it, it didn’t take bad and evil actors long to realise the internet was fertile ground for intelligence, surveillance, scamming, espionage, expropriation of resources, sex traffickers, money laundering, troll farms, bots, racketeering and spawning fascist cults, by amplifying grievance and hate towards minorities. Just to add, who have had their Nations repeatedly decimated by Empires. The argument that people are too apathetic to care or take responsibilities for their interests is perhaps the most spurious ever conceived. Nevertheless if you accept the people have been sucker punched into accepting an unbelievably diabolical shit show, it has popular support. It is possible that the fascist creeps can hold onto their cherished inequality and injustice and avoid revolution, but they are begging for it. How else to end it, the contagion of their Hydra then by giving diverse interests democratic rights? #RepublicSovereignty #PeoplePower #NannyState #EndingCorporateEvil #Foundation #Ethics #Philosophy #DialecticPrinciple
#TheFederation #SovereignRepublics

From ‘Living life online’ to ‘Being respectful and responsible’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/zx24xg8/articles/znv4dnb#zfbkjfr

What better defence of the ‘Nanny State’ in support of billionaire fascist techno creeps could you possibly get?

Let’s face it, it didn’t take bad and evil actors long to realise the internet was fertile ground for intelligence, surveillance, scamming, espionage, expropriation of resources, sex traffickers, money laundering, troll farms, bots, racketeering and spawning fascist cults, by amplifying grievance and hate towards minorities. Just to add, who have had their Nations repeatedly decimated by Empires. The argument that people are too apathetic to care or take responsibilities for their interests is perhaps the most spurious ever conceived. Nevertheless if you accept the people have been sucker punched into accepting an unbelievably diabolical shit show, it has popular support. It is possible that the fascist creeps can hold onto their cherished inequality and injustice and avoid revolution, but they are begging for it. How else to end it, the contagion of their Hydra then by giving diverse interests democratic rights? #RepublicSovereignty #PeoplePower #NannyState #EndingCorporateEvil #Foundation #Ethics #Philosophy #DialecticPrinciple
#TheFederation #SovereignRepublics

From ‘Living life online’ to ‘Being respectful and responsible’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/zx24xg8/articles/znv4dnb#zfbkjfr

What better defence of the ‘Nanny State’ in support of billionaire fascist techno creeps could you possibly get?

Let’s face it, it didn’t take bad and evil actors long to realise the internet was fertile ground for intelligence, surveillance, scamming, espionage, expropriation of resources, sex traffickers, money laundering, troll farms, bots, racketeering and spawning fascist cults, by amplifying grievance and hate towards minorities. Just to add, who have had their Nations repeatedly decimated by Empires. The argument that people are too apathetic to care or take responsibilities for their interests is perhaps the most spurious ever conceived. Nevertheless if you accept the people have been sucker punched into accepting an unbelievably diabolical shit show, it has popular support. It is possible that the fascist creeps can hold onto their cherished inequality and injustice and avoid revolution, but they are begging for it. How else to end it, the contagion of their Hydra then by giving diverse interests democratic rights? #RepublicSovereignty #PeoplePower #NannyState #EndingCorporateEvil #Foundation #Ethics #Philosophy #DialecticPrinciple
#TheFederation #SovereignRepublics