Top Tweets for #BBCWatO

A Muslim passenger: "Excuse me, can you turn off the music?" The taxi driver: "Why?" The passenger: "Music is haram." The driver: "Why is music haram?" The passenger: "Because there wasn’t music in the time of prophet Muhammad." The driver: "Well, get off then. There were no cars back then either. A camel will come pick you up." 😂🤭😂

Paul Dacre, Chairman of Associated Newspapers Ltd and the former long-serving editor of the Daily Mail, has called Prince Harry’s failed $50 million privacy case against the publisher of the Daily Mail a “conspiracy against the free press”. Today’s landmark High Court ruling dismissed all claims brought by Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, and six other high-profile claimants, including Sir Elton John and Baroness Lawrence. Mr Dacre added: “Today’s verdict is not just a victory for Associated’s magnificent journalists – several of whom have had a terrible toll imposed on their health and lives – but for the free press generally. Make no mistake: this was a conspiracy, supported by Hacked Off, to destroy a paper.” The ruling also dampens any chance of reviving Part Two of the Leveson Inquiry — something Love Actually actor Hugh Grant and our Prime Minister-in-waiting, Andy Burnham, have long campaigned for. Read more below 👇

The Government’s plan for an Australian-style social media ban for under-16s is losing significant public support if it requires digital ID. An Ipsos poll has found that 69 per cent of the public support a law requiring social media companies to use age-verification tools to prevent children under the age of 16 from accessing social media. However, support for the ban falls to just half of the public if it means everyone in the UK must upload either an ID document or a credit card to tech companies to verify their age. Ofcom — the regulator with an unquenchable thirst for more power — is examining what technologies it will require social media companies to use to enforce age checks. Maya Thomas, Legal and Policy Officer at Big Brother Watch, told The Telegraph: “People are right to be concerned about handing over their IDs. The mass collection of ID information and biometric data will not keep children safe, but instead creates an entirely new set of cybersecurity risks that threaten the rights and freedoms of children and adults alike.” She added: “Rather than forcing British users to consistently put their sensitive personal data on the line, the Government should stand up to Big Tech directly, and tackle its harmful business practices at the source.” When Free Speech Union General Secretary Lord Young and Jan Macvarish recorded last week’s Q&A on Starmer’s social media ban, the overwhelming majority of the correspondence we received raised concerns about digital IDs being introduced through the back door. Read more below 👇

What is going on with Labour and social media? The Free Speech Union has been discussing internally whether Andy Burnham will be better or worse than Sir Keir Starmer when it comes to free speech. We’ve concluded that he’ll be just as bad — if not worse. Andy Burnham’s team has confirmed that he will push ahead with Starmer’s controversial social media ban for under-16s. We also know that the Technology Secretary, Liz Kendall, is looking into a potential ban on VPNs, which would put the UK in the same league as Iran, Iraq and North Korea. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, led by Burnham ally and constituency neighbour Lisa Nandy, has also published a Green Paper, Watch This Space, which proposes forcing social media companies to prioritise the promotion of what the Government deems to be “trustworthy” news sources — namely content from public service broadcasters such as the BBC. There is no evidence that Andy Burnham would abandon these plans when he enters Downing Street in just 13 days’ time. This is a deeply concerning proposal and an extraordinary interference with freedom of association and free speech on social media — one that the Free Speech Union opposes wholeheartedly. In another full-frontal assault on free speech and our right to engage in open political debate online, Labour’s Deputy Leader and close Burnham ally Lucy Powell wants to impose new legal duties through the Representation of the People Bill that would effectively treat private citizens as broadcasters and censor social media platforms during election periods. This raises serious practical questions. Would individuals be prevented from expressing political views on social media during elections? The Free Speech Union also cannot see how such restrictions could realistically apply only to UK citizens. Surely they would have to extend to overseas users as well? President Trump and JD Vance would almost certainly have something to say about that. This all seems to be part of Labour’s explanation for why it is struggling in the polls. Rather than recognising that people are concerned about issues such as mass uncontrolled migration, higher taxes, unemployment and soaring energy bills, Labour ministers appear to believe that voters are simply being misled by misinformation and disinformation on platforms such as X. Last Thursday, Lisa Nandy flounced off X, citing an increase in abuse and the spread of misinformation and disinformation. If Government ministers — particularly those responsible for the media — are concerned about misinformation, they should remain on the platform and challenge it. Trying to suppress it is not the answer. As Louis Brandeis famously said, “The remedy to harmful speech is more speech, not enforced silence.” Watch Free Speech Union General Secretary Lord Young below 👇

Lisa Nandy and Lucy Powell are leading Labour’s tinpot free speech crackdown. The two senior Labour figures — Lucy Powell and Lisa Nandy — are working in lockstep to bring social media companies to heel and muzzle people who wish to point out the Government’s failures. Last week, Lisa Nandy flounced off X, taking her department with her. The Secretary of State responsible for media called the spread of misinformation and disinformation a threat to democracy and free speech, then vacated the stage. If Nandy really did care about misinformation, surely she should have stayed on the platform and engaged in debate? This dramatic move came just a week after she announced plans in the House of Commons, as part of the Government’s Green Paper, to force social media companies to prioritise and promote what they deem to be “trustworthy” news sources. Now, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party Lucy Powell is pushing for greater restrictions on social media during election periods. Her proposals would see private citizens treated like broadcasters and could result in the censorship of those who wish to engage in political debate online. Will we see private citizens — both domestic and foreign — hauled before Ofcom to answer for their tweets? Gareth Roberts writes that “these plans feel like the activities of a failing, flailing kleptocracy of the last century”. He adds: “It turns out that the hard-won freedoms of the British people – achieved by reformers and free thinkers long dead – are to be ended not by legions of brutes rolling down Regent Street in tanks, but by a gaggle of gormless supply teachers. Where Goebbels failed, Miss Hoolie from Balamory has triumphed. “The nerve of the Labour Party trying to muzzle its political opponents – under an obviously spurious claim of public safety – is disorienting. Nobody can quite believe their audacity, the absence of a scintilla of self-awareness.” This is a full-fledged assault on our right to free speech and open political debate. Gareth writes: “A propagandist of communism or fascism at least states openly that they are manufacturing a narrative for ideological control. The truly terrifying thought about Labour is that Nandy and Powell genuinely think that their worldview, such as it is, is the only correct one. “We are, then, to have our public square adjudicated by the very same people who thought that rapists should be housed in women’s prisons (Nandy), and that mere mention of the unshiftable moral stain of the Pakistani rape gangs was ‘getting a little dog whistle out’ (Powell).” Read more below 👇

It’s happened again PLEASE SHARE 🚨 More shocking unprovoked police brutality this time on a unarmed white British man in Worcestershire. They can be seen slamming his face down to the concrete while holding his arms causing him to face plant . These out of control police need to be arrested #TwoTierPolicing #JusticeForAll #EqualTreatment #Britain #UKNews #London #PublicSafety #LawAndOrder #BritishValues #Fairness

We can't stop climate change. So why are we making ourselves poorer trying? If we want flood defences, resilient infrastructure, and the ability to adapt to a changing climate, we need a prosperous economy first. Instead, we're pursuing policies like Net Zero that make us poorer, while the planet continues to warm because the world's biggest emitters have no intention of following our example.