No to Digital ID

Join the global campaign: No To Digital ID. Anti-Censorship and Control. “Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull” – G. Orwell |

[No to Digital ID @NoToDigitalID]

BREAKING: PM scraps plans to cancel Jury Trials in in England.

[Preston Byrne @prestonjbyrne]

You've got to give it to Toby for fighting the good fight, but remember that the weight of Parliament and British officialdom is against him.

Sending support and love for friends of freedom trapped behind enemy lines.

[Michael Reiners @MCRReiners]

Lindsay Hoyle attempts to introduce a US State Senator without thinking about @prestonjbyrne or the GRANITE Act

(difficulty: impossible)

[No to Digital ID @NoToDigitalID]

BREAKING: David Walliams named as the celebrity who lost super-injunction.

[Sebastian Huxley 🇬🇧🇺🇦 @sebastian_hux]

I’m considering creating a platform where ex-Muslims can voice their fears about the religion and tell their story about how they left. Who would be up for this?

So many 2nd generation Muslims feel trapped by their family’s faith or lack the right role models.

[Preston Byrne @prestonjbyrne]

Google throwing American refusers of the Online Safety Act under the bus in its submissions to Parliament.

Translating: "Don't go after us, an international conglomerate with a huge UK footprint, go after 4chan who told you to pound sand."
https://t.co/JQUWDg5DDW

[Michael Reiners @MCRReiners]

Remember, remember the fifth of November – a fitting date for proposals of constitutional reform.

This time the intended bonfire is for the permanent state, not Parliament.

The legislative offerings at @ReinersProject were written for that purpose:

-The Free Speech (Restoration) Bill clears the minefield of speech offences.

-The Bonfire of the Quangocracy Act brings the arms-length bodies back under ministerial control.

-The British Indigeneity, Nationality & Citizenship Act resets the post-imperial settlement.

-The Oblivion Act forces the permanent state to justify every law it keeps since 1900, or watch it expire.

-The ECHR (Withdrawal and Workplace Rights) Act removes the external veto.

They are offered freely for any government, party, or entity prepared to use them. Two have already been considerably imported into the offerings of thinktanks already.

All are available for adaptation and adoption, saving years of work and legal fees for those who broadly believe in the offerings.

You can download, and read the explainers, here: https://t.co/wkgcP9eIaE

[No to Digital ID @NoToDigitalID]

Britain has two paths:

A) A system of digital ID, whereby your online activity & speech are tracked and used against you in the manner of a social credit system.

or..

B) A Freedom of Speech Bill, like that suggested here by @prestonjbyrne, @MCRReiners and @legalstyleblog.

[Preston Byrne @prestonjbyrne]

UK Ofcom's "crisis protocol" mandate kicked in yesterday.

To wit, when the British government determines a "crisis" is occurring, platforms have to censor their platforms more aggressively.

None of this is constitutionally permissible in America
https://t.co/LGGIzJrfc7

[Preston Byrne @prestonjbyrne]

Think Labour blames the US government for the fact that U.S. companies are successfully resisting the UK’s Online Safety Act.

Speaking as 4chan’s lawyer, we needed no help from the U.S. government - and received none - when running rings around UK Internet regulation.

The problem with the Online Safety Act is that, in enacting it, the UK charted a collision course with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The two rulesets are structurally incompatible, and the UK should not be surprised when U.S. firms successfully resist it. No additional formal power the UK state can apply will overcome a determined American refuser.

[Michael Reiners @MCRReiners]

Everything You Wanted to Know About Hope Not Hate* (*But Were Afraid To Ask)

Hope Not Hate is an organisation which continuously flirts with criminality appearing to enjoy CPS immunity in the process. HNH routinely deals in the defamation of ordinary Englishmen; through its exploitation of English law it seeks to further the ambitions of the Labour Party and British censorship state by whatever means necessary. Now, its personnel are embedded in Burnham's government.

Read it here in @ReinersProject: https://t.co/Qo5vtjqhJb

This article presents the definitive case against the organisation, their activities over 2026 and discusses the necessary steps for de-fanging organisations like this once and for all.

[No to Digital ID @NoToDigitalID]

NEW: EU Member States must create at least one Digital wallet before the end of 2026.

Via @Forbes

[No to Digital ID @NoToDigitalID]

A disappointing u-turn from Mahmood on the ILR reforms, designed to address the Boriswave (2020-23).

Those political players wishing to address that influx in migration will now be forced to change primary law surrounding citizenship to do so.

[Preston Byrne @prestonjbyrne]

Think Labour writes an article about the hamster without understanding it

"Because these sites aren’t British, we have far less control over how they behave. We should support homegrown firms to grow."

Have you ever wondered *why* Britain has so few tech companies?

[Michael Reiners @MCRReiners]

Everything You Wanted to Know About Hope Not Hate* (*But Were Afraid To Ask)

Hope Not Hate is an organisation which continuously flirts with criminality and appears to enjoy CPS immunity. Its exploitation of English law seeks to further the ambitions of the Labour Party by whatever means, and now, it is embedded explicitly in Burnham's government.

Read it here in @ReinersProject: https://t.co/Qo5vtjqhJb

[No to Digital ID @NoToDigitalID]

Never underestimate the British government's eagerness to give the British government greater censorship powers.

Repeat after me, say NO to Digital ID, and the sheer desire for control which underpins it.

[No to Digital ID @NoToDigitalID]

A disappointing u-turn from Mahmood on the ILR reforms, designed to address the Boriswave (2020-23).

Those political players wishing to address that influx in migration will now be forced to change primary law surrounding citizenship to do so.

[Michael Reiners @MCRReiners]

On the ILR reforms; 'BINCA' is now necessary:

For 3 years (2020-2023) the domestic population was placed under house arrest conditions, given criminal penalty for meeting in groups, denied opportunity and the trappings of liberty and life itself in the largest suspension of 'human rights' ever witnessed in British history. Life never returned to normal.

During that time of house arrest conditions for the domestic population, who could not even enjoy air travel, over 3.9 million people were allowed to enter Britain. Many of those on farcical 'care work' visas, frequently purchased, requiring no skills to obtain – though described as 'high skill' by the then home secretary @pritipatel. A hard truth for some, lax 'legal' migration is responsible Britain's demographic terraformation and welfare tourism problem.

Half of all visa providers for care work in that time have lost the ability to provide visas at all since, either due to fraud, or simply being opportunistic visa-printers during a time of domestic crisis.

Each 'social care migrant' carries an aproximate a net economic cost of about £30,000 per individual, assuming they work. Each dependent has a net cost of around £67,000. This does not address the opportunity cost to British people, who have seen wages in the care sector undercut and compressed by this influx, and accordingly, domestic job applications ignored due to schemes which preference lower-waged foreign work visa holders – often framed as 'heroes' for their unwitting role in such wage compression. Remember dear reader, migrant workers will endure extremely low pay for two reasons:

1) The promise of unlimited welfare after ILR is required is a huge incentive, and allows them to become an anchor for dependants.

2) The work itself is largely optional, and the Home Office is astonishingly lax on this.

[No to Digital ID @NoToDigitalID]

Britain has two paths:

A) A system of digital ID, whereby your online activity & speech are tracked and used against you in the manner of a social credit system.

or..

B) A Freedom of Speech Bill, like that suggested here by @prestonjbyrne, @MCRReiners and @legalstyleblog.

[Toby Young @toadmeister]

You can lose your job, your livelihood or even your liberty for saying the wrong thing in Britain. Michael Reiners argues it's time to rip up the censorship rulebook and bring back free speech. https://t.co/rPXXsAWOm8

[No to Digital ID @NoToDigitalID]

Never underestimate the British government's eagerness to give the British government greater censorship powers.

Repeat after me, say NO to Digital ID, and the sheer desire for control which underpins it.

[Preston Byrne @prestonjbyrne]

UK Ofcom's "crisis protocol" mandate kicked in yesterday.

To wit, when the British government determines a "crisis" is occurring, platforms have to censor their platforms more aggressively.

None of this is constitutionally permissible in America
https://t.co/LGGIzJrfc7

[Preston Byrne @prestonjbyrne]

"In other words, the Online Safety Act has one, and only one, genuinely good provision: it requires Ofcom to report the data showing that it doesn’t work."

https://t.co/Poy8o4jvsC

[Michael Reiners @MCRReiners]

Germany’s 2026 intelligence reform, approved by the cabinet in August and at time of writing before the Bundestag, would give the BfV (the German equivalent of Mi5) powers resembling those of a domestic secret police.

These include secretly entering private homes to plant state Trojans or “neutralise” objects, remotely searching devices and deleting data, injecting false information into the communications of people under surveillance, accessing private CCTV in real time and using AI for bulk analysis and biometric matching against the open internet.

These powers breach the longstanding separation between police and intelligence services in Germany, intended to prevent the abuses associated with the Gestapo and Stasi.

Across the EU (and notably in Britain), national-security exceptions and outsourcing of intelligence functions to the charity sector are being used to expand similar powers to address “hybrid threats”, “extremism” and “disinformation”. Speech, scepticism towards scientific claims and political opposition are consequently being treated as threats to the constitutional order in European nations.

Seibt's case shows how these powers can be used, with considerable prejudice, against an individual.

Source, the Bundestag (parliament) itself: https://t.co/KL55v59Blo