Dr Clare Craig

Co-Chair HART: pathologist, lover of data, digital pathology and AI, sceptical but optimistic. Views my own not the RCPath's.

[Dr Clare Craig @ClareCraigPath]

My book on covid vaccines is now available on Amazon.

Spiked: A shot in the dark

https://t.co/Dr0kn3CIMp

[Sonia Elijah @sonia_elijah]

My latest ✍️🚨
"This is not protection. This is conditioning. Conditioning a generation and ultimately the whole population to accept digital ID as the price of participation in modern life."
https://t.co/GzAMVHrlcG

[Alex Armstrong @Alexarmstrong]

So banning social media for under 16’s is a “movement”?

They might as well openly admit that this is part of their coordinated globalist policy agenda, using children’s safety as the main justification for expanded surveillance and censorship online.

[Andrew Doyle @andrewdoyle_com]

So sinister…

[Alex Mitchell @ake2306]

The current system protects the government and the pharmaceutical companies and not the poor families of a lost loved one or those who have been severely disabled by a vaccine.

Proper reform of the UK's vdps into a system with a fitting redress and properly supports those who are harmed or killed by any vaccine.

[Steve Loftus @LoftusSteve]

Have Labour thought this through even a little bit?

They are going to ban every 13-16 year old from Youtube, causing every single one of them to hate this Government, and then allow all of them to vote in 3 years time.

They are just so bad at politics.

[Dr Clare Craig @ClareCraigPath]

@MatterRichLives Anti lockdown first.

[Dr Clare Craig @ClareCraigPath]

There is a big difference between lockdown sceptics and vaccine sceptics.

Even in retrospect, even after being surrounded by freedom fighters for years, some people just do not (cannot?) get it.

[Dr Aseem Malhotra @DrAseemMalhotra]

👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽

[Montgomery Toms @MontgomeryToms]

The UK governments under-16 social media ban is not genuine child protection. It is a deliberate expansion of state power that strips parents of authority over their own families and hands it to bureaucrats in Whitehall.

This policy will demand biometric age verification, facial scans, and digital ID systems to enforce compliance. That infrastructure does not stop at teenagers. Once built, it becomes the foundation for tracking, controlling, and restricting speech and access for every citizen.

Parents, not politicians, are best placed to judge what content suits their children. Real safeguarding comes from strong families and personal responsibility.

Today they target under sixteens. Tomorrow the same digital ID regime will gatekeep news, forums, and political discussion for adults. Reject it outright.

Families decide. The state does not.

[ib @Indian_Bronson]

Btw even China and Iran don’t do this.

Only North Korea does this.

[Alan @A1an_M]

People saw it was a scam from the very beginning, from the same scamsters as the previous scam, and they refused to engage with it.
That's why we're not living through a "hantavirus disaster".

[Melissa Chen @MsMelChen]

Under the pretext of banning under-16s from social media to “protect the children,” Keir Starmer has snuck in some small print that should make Americans really glad that all the tea was dumped into the Boston harbour back in 1773.

Adults will still be “allowed” to use the platforms… once they’ve handed over facial recognition, digital ID, passport, or credit card details to prove they’re not a child.

So it was never really about the kids. It was about making sure every single person who wants to speak online has to first tell the government exactly who they are.

Step 1: Link your real identity to your speech

Step 2: police have a lovely searchable database of every spicy take, meme, or complaint you’ve ever posted

Step 3: bring in the consequences - arrests, travel ban, debunking, for out-of-bounds speech

The UK is in a free fall.

[Nat @Arwenstar]

It’s up to us Gen X (& older Millennials) to oppose Digital ID. The generations that followed were brought up with computers, the internet - and the habit of sharing data freely - and they simply do not understand the concept of privacy like we do. The silver lining is that they are trying to introduce digital ID while there are still enough of us around who are totally aware of the risks and what it means for future generations.

[Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1]

This. From a doctor. Is terrifying.

[Laila Cunningham @policylaila]

“Adults can still access social media through age checks like facial recognition, digital IDs, passports and credit cards”
This is what Labour and the Conservatives now call freedom: proving who you are before you can speak, read or participate online.

They say this ban protects children from online predators. I’ve prosecuted those predators. Here’s what they don’t tell you.

We catch him. We charge him. Then he’s released on bail while the case crawls through the courts for a year. When he’s convicted, he doesn’t go to prison, he gets a suspended sentence or a community order.
Successive governments won’t lock up the actual predator, won’t take away the groomer’s freedom. But won’t hesitate to curb ours.

[Ranty Man @RanTeeThree]

It’s important to know that the social media ban for under 16s is not a ban for under 16s.

It is a ban on *selected* social media for EVERYONE. Until you identify yourself.

[The View From Here @nicevyoo]

Oh great.

We're at the pedo-normalising stage.

Again.

Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt will be thrilled.

[Luciana Berger @lucianaberger]

Here’s what all the organisations have said about the Bill :

[BRITAIN IS BROKEN 🇬🇧 @BROKENBRITAIN0]

🚨NEW: Buckinghamshire council has spent nearly £1 BILLION on taxis in 5 years 🇬🇧

£819 million in 5 years works out at around £163 million per year which is absolutely RIDICULOUS numbers for a council to spend on taxis!

This is absolutely ABSURD 😮

Credit: @LostinAylesbury

[Sonia Elijah @sonia_elijah]

Thank you @zoeharcombe for your review of 3/11 VIRAL TAKEOVER

[UK Decline Statistics @UKDecline]

£5,778,570 from Buckinghamshire Council to one taxi firm in 2025, across 3,215 transactions.

That's an average of £1,797.38 per transaction.

And yet people are saying there is nothing wrong here.