Jason Moore

My views may annoy you, anger you or perhaps make you think, who knows.

Reposting stuff of interest is not an endorsement

[Right over Left Everytime @RightSide_Uk]

Starmer’s master plan for the next generation:
Total social media ban for under-16s, nightly curfews for 16-17s.
Lower the voting age to 16 so they can vote while still in the system.
Roll out state AI teachers to shape what they learn.
Control what they see online → indoctrinate them through AI education → hand them the ballot.
Protecting children… or engineering compliant future voters?
The timing is not subtle.
Fight it. 🇬🇧
(image courtesy of @WasAcop)

[OmerC @StructSkeptic]

Britain is moving toward an under-16 social-media ban, and the headline understates the institutional shift behind it.

A rule framed as “keep children off social media” does not stay confined to children, because enforcement requires platforms to decide who counts as a child and who does not. Once that happens, age assurance stops being a niche safety tool and starts becoming a general access condition for the wider population. Reports say Starmer is preparing to announce the move after strong parental support in the government consultation, and ministers are also considering extending the logic beyond classic social apps toward gaming and chat-heavy platforms.

Access by underage users should be controlled. The problem begins with the enforcement architecture chosen to do it.

The story starts with politics. Starmer had been reluctant to back a blanket ban, then shifted after a consultation that drew heavy support from parents and after Australia��s under-16 ban became the international reference point. The likely scope is broad enough to matter: not only Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, X, and YouTube, but potentially Discord, Roblox, Fortnite, Minecraft, and other spaces where chat, discovery, and contact with strangers are central features. Once the category expands that far, the policy stops looking like a narrow fix for one corner of the internet and starts looking like a gateway rule for ordinary online participation.

The technical problem follows immediately. A platform cannot reliably exclude under-16s unless it can identify, classify, or verify everyone else as old enough. That is the hidden arithmetic of the policy. The public hears “ban children.” The platforms hear “verify the age of your whole user base or accept legal risk.” This is why age-gating for minors tends to become de facto age-checking for adults. Once a service must prove that minors are being kept out, self-declared ages and weak honor systems stop being enough.

Britain already has part of that infrastructure in motion. Under the Online Safety Act, platforms dealing with pornography and certain high-risk content have had to introduce highly effective age assurance, and real services have responded with face scans, ID uploads, and payment-card checks. Bluesky rolled out age verification in the UK using face scans, ID checks, or payment-card methods, and users who did not verify lost access to certain functions. Reddit was later fined by the ICO over children’s-data failures, with the regulator criticizing the company’s earlier reliance on weak age checks. The pattern is already visible: once legal liability rises, platforms move toward harder forms of age assurance.

That is why the under-16 ban points toward a much broader identity layer. The government can say this is not national digital ID because the checks are outsourced to private vendors and handled platform by platform. The user experience can still converge on the same reality: repeated proof-of-age requests, face scans, document uploads, third-party brokers, and growing pressure to standardize credentials across services. The distinction between age assurance and identity verification narrows in practice even when it remains neat on paper.

The strongest version of the concern does not depend on every platform suddenly demanding a passport. The concern is structural. Once platforms face fines for getting age wrong, they will prefer methods that are defensible, scalable, and hard to game. That pushes them toward biometric age estimation, ID-based checks, payment verification, carrier signals, or some combination of them. A government that wants a child-safety headline can therefore create the commercial and regulatory incentives for a general verification regime. Australia’s law already works in that direction, and the UK debate is openly borrowing from that model.

The privacy question comes later in the political sequence, but it is embedded from the beginning. A fragmented ecosystem of age-assurance vendors can still become a national identity layer by accumulation. More checks produce more pressure for interoperability, fewer repeated verifications, and eventually some standard credential or wallet. That is how a child-protection policy can become a de facto digital identity architecture without Parliament ever passing a law called digital ID. The formal target remains under-16s. The operational consequence falls on everyone old enough to stay.

The point to keep in view is simple. The story begins as online child safety. The implementation logic points toward universal age classification. The likely endpoint reaches far beyond children and pushes adults toward proving who or what they are before ordinary participation in large parts of digital life.

[🇬🇧UKJ0N🇬🇧 @ukJ0N]

Following the horrific stabbing of a 17-year-old girl in Brierfield.

Alex Phillips has a powerful message for Keir Starmer.

Well said.
@ThatAlexWoman @talktv

[Suffragent @Suffragent_]

NEVER FORGET‼️The BBC once broadcast anti-white propaganda to kids - claiming black people built Britain and have always been indigenous to the UK.

[Dr. Maalouf ‏ @realMaalouf]

A brave British woman tells it like it is to a Muslim man and a fake priest:

“One million British children have been raped by Muslim men in the last 20 years. How are we supposed to reconcile and accept that?”

[London & UK Street News @CrimeLdn]

Happened in London on a Saturday were Iranian protesters and Palestine protesters clash..

[Jason Moore @RedDevilJason]

@BasilTheGreat No because he embraces a foreign culture

He will most likely identify as Indian

[Lee Harris @LeeHarris]

SUPERB! Trevor Phillip's BEAUTIFULLY exposes David Lammy and Labour's sickening hypocrisy.

He shows him the receipts of them ALL saying it's ok to feel "fury" and "anger" over George Floyd, while they criticise Farage for saying the same about Henry Nowak.

Satisfying to watch.

[The English Remnant @Englishremnant]

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

[UKIP @UKIP]

We must end the era of two-tier policing.

[Alexandra @Alexandr4Denman]

The court heard glowing character references for the Manchester Airport brothers , praising their families standing in the community . One came from their elder brother , serving Greater Manchester Police officer Mohammed Abid . Today we learn Abid himself was suspended in July last year for making racist remarks about a colleagues accent .
The same system that locked up people from Facebook posts now bends over backwards for violent thugs , whilst quietly investigating its own for racism .
Two tier justice aren't conspiracy theory's anymore , They are just facts on the ground . Thoughts?

[Jonathan Wong @WONGthink]

"I'M BLACK! I'M BLACK! STAND BEHIND ME! I'M BLACK!"

He understood the privilege afforded to him under this anti-white regime and attempted to utilise it to protect his fellow men.

🎥 @UKSploosh

[StarmerOut @ForeverScept]

During the HareHills riots in Leeds there wasn’t a riot police to be seen. No men getting bashed in with shields or stomped in the head.

Police vans, buses were torched.

Wonder what the difference could have possibly been?

[Big Uncle Knobhead @willo_ian]

Still one of the best comedy scenes I've ever seen on the telly! 😂👍👊

[Cat Brown 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🚜🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇮🇪 @MrsBr0wn_82]

🚨BREAKING 999 call made from the killer of Henry Nowak.

@PatrickChristys has exclusively revealed the 999 call,

its absolutely shocking to listen to.

[Jason Moore @RedDevilJason]

@AlecLace Years of social engineering to be politically correct has done this in my opinion.

[Politics UK @PolitlcsUK]

🚨 NEW: Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden told Peter Mandelson that Labour MPs always ask "who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others"

[Jason Moore @RedDevilJason]

@JayUnited91 William Prunier

Does anyone remember him ?

[James Melville 🚜 @JamesMelville]

UK government national debt 1975-2026: (£billion):

1975
£59 billion

1980
£114 billion

1985
£169 billion

1990
£190 billion

1995
£384 billion

2000
£415 billion

2005
£573 billion

2008
£810 billion

2010
£1,220 billion

2015
£1,570 billion

2019
£1,800 billion

2021
£2,224 billion

2023
£2,619 billion

2026
£2,900 billion

An increase of almost £2.5 trillion in just 20 years. A tale of gross economic incompetence by successive UK governments to a point where interest payments on the national debt are now over £100 billion a year - funded by the taxpayer.

[Stu thats all you get🇺🇸🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @Boldyboy1975]

@Keir_Starmer