DAW

Former Mech Engineer
My views ≠ yours. RT = Have a look over this.
Likes = interesting

[DAW @DavidAW123]

@BlondeKbf “It's a rare person who wants to hear what he doesn't want to hear. ”
Dick Cavett

[Michael Warburton @For_Film_Fans]

Remembering the wonderful RIK MAYALL — who left us 12yrs ago today, aged just 56.

[DAW @DavidAW123]

@For_Film_Fans Interview abt the making of ‘One by One’:
https://t.co/3MJPq01b0z

[ETHICAL APPROACH UK @EthicalApproach]

Where Britain is now, ought to act as a warning sign to other nations, about what widespread public apathy does to a State.

[DAW @DavidAW123]

@EthicalApproach If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
Thomas Jefferson

[DAW @DavidAW123]

@davidkurten https://t.co/mt7XoJgFPa

[DAW @DavidAW123]

@janekin24 @Stan2415loveu According to item below: road wear attributable to vehicles is normally assumed to be proportional to the FOURTH POWER of the axle weight.
https://t.co/jagypxxY3l

[DAW @DavidAW123]

@911Revisionist https://t.co/mt7XoJgFPa

[Wide Awake Media @wideawake_media]

"Online safety" laws and age verification mandates have absolutely NOTHING to do with protecting children.

You cannot stop under-16s from accessing a website without checking the age of everyone who visits it. And you cannot check everyone's age without forcing them to prove who they are.

"Child safety" is the cheese in the mousetrap.

Laws sold under the banner of "child protection" constitute a Trojan horse for a system requiring every adult to verify their identity before they can speak, read, or post online. The child is merely an emotional shield. The adult is the real target.

And once that infrastructure exists, the pretext can be swapped out at will.

Today it is pornography, social media and "harmful content". Tomorrow it is messaging apps and online banking. Soon after it is your ability to access the internet at all—each incremental step gated behind a digital ID you are required to keep in good standing.

It's no accident that the exact same "online safety" agenda is being rolled out across the entire Western world simultaneously, with each national government reaching for a slightly different pretext to justify the same outcome—a verified digital identity standing between you and the open internet.

Different countries. Different pretexts. Same infrastructure.

They are not building a system to keep children safe. They are building the identity layer for a permission-based internet—orchestrated from the supranational level by people you never elected—where access to information itself becomes conditional on obedience.

The point is not to make the internet safer. The point is to make anonymous access impossible.

Because a person who can read, speak, organise and dissent anonymously is difficult to control. A person whose most intimate online activity is anchored to a state-monitored digital ID is not.

Once every account, search, post, payment, message and website visit is tied to a verified identity, the internet stops being a public square and becomes a monitored enclosure.

But the gate only closes if people accept "online safety" laws at face value.

[DAW @DavidAW123]

@pitzwang https://t.co/RjLvg4V8i6

[Johnny Midnight ⚡️ @its_The_Dr]

Climate Change is a Scam.

[DAW @DavidAW123]

@mrjamesskinner @ClarkeMicah @bo66ie29 https://t.co/8apodTA8LF

[ETHICAL APPROACH UK @EthicalApproach]

There is now a profoundly uncomfortable constitutional contradiction emerging in Britain.

Outside the courtroom, Operation Talla was:

• celebrated;
• nationally coordinated;
• strategically managed;
• operationally embedded;
• intelligence-linked;
• and treated internally as one of the most significant policing operations in modern British history.

Inside the courtroom however, something very different appears to happen.

Increasingly, when citizens attempt placing the operational reality of Talla onto the court record in meaningful evidential form, the operation suddenly appears:

• irrelevant;
• excessive context;
• procedurally inconvenient;
• or somehow disconnected from the issues requiring determination.

That contradiction is becoming impossible to ignore because if Operation Talla was lawful, proportionate and constitutionally legitimate, why would British courts appear institutionally reluctant to permit full scrutiny of it?

That question may already be one of the defining constitutional questions of modern Britain.

My latest paper examines a question directly:

“Why Do British Courts Appear Determined to Keep Operation Talla Off the Court Record?”

Available here: https://t.co/2BgkOvuqcb

[DAW @DavidAW123]

@pitzwang +
https://t.co/X8CUphb8TL

[DAW @DavidAW123]

@nicholashannig2 @OlooneyJohn https://t.co/j4DvM0nd9V

[DAW @DavidAW123]

@jbulldogs4 Interview abt the making of ‘One by One’:
https://t.co/3MJPq01b0z

[DAW @DavidAW123]

@silvertrader44 @JacquiDeevoy1 https://t.co/j4DvM0nd9V

[DAW @DavidAW123]

@JacquiDeevoy1 @silvertrader44 https://t.co/X8CUphb8TL

[Bernie @Artemisfornow]

Listen when they tell you!

CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, under 0.02% plant life DIES OFF.

You are being forced to believe CO2 is an existential threat to humanity, by people spending £TRILLIONS of our tax on a UN project.

[James Delingpole @JMCDelingpole]

As ever, the brilliant Miri AF is first out of the blocks to tell it like it is: Henry No Whack [They have to tell you] is another psyop