Q. How much danger are the public really in by allowing the deeply corrupted, greedy officials & co to continue to control our lives?
A. We are all in grave danger if we do not unite to drag them out of their lucrative positions. Whatever has been done to us up to date, is nothing compared with what they are planning behind closed doors.
They are only interested in generating more wealth and opportunities to abuse their positions for themselves; using all the resources & taking extreme measures so they avoid accountability [ e.g. Jail time for operating as a Serious Organised Crime network. etc] Coercion, Bribery & Corruption is very expensive to maintain. I wonder what is the actual cost to the taxpayer; for having police, regulators, judiciary, foreign leaders, auditors, International Bodies, NGO’s, charities etc… ‘in their back pockets.’
They (and some of their donors) create the biggest carbon footprint every time they meet with their global partners in crime. Example: Their climate change agenda (scam) they (fraudulently) claim is to protect the planet. If they cared so much about the world, why is it they have spent many decades in destroying it? E.g. expensive wind farms need massive amounts of concrete which prevents rain from seeping into the earth, causing more floods. Concrete & Turbine blades are not easily recycled. They also need fossil fuels to operate and £billions are wasted when they are regularly turned off due to high winds. They are obviously dangerous if damaged.
They are actually discussing more reckless and cruel ways to extort money from the innocent public – they return to their own countries with plans for the next stage of their life-changing abuse: leading to Totalitarianism.
https://www.gbnews.com/news/british-taxpayers-huge-bill-energy-turbines-switched-off-high-winds
“The mounting costs stem from payments made to wind farm operators when they are asked to halt generation during periods of high wind output.”
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/notes/division/2
4. Serious and organised crime includes drug trafficking, human trafficking, organised illegal immigration, child sexual exploitation, high value fraud and other financial crime, counterfeiting, organised acquisitive crime and cyber crime. Organised crime costs the United Kingdom at least £24 billion each year. As at December 2013, there are some 36,600 organised criminals in 5,300 groups currently operating in ways that directly affect the UK(1). In October 2013, the Government published its Serious and Organised Crime Strategy (Cm 8715)(2). The aim of the Strategy is to reduce substantially the level of serious and organised crime affecting the UK and its interests. The strategy has four components: prosecuting and disrupting people engaging in serious and organised crime (Pursue); preventing people from engaging in such activity (Prevent); increasing protection against serious and organised crime (Protect); and reducing the impact of such criminality where it takes place (Prepare). Under the Pursue strand of the strategy, the document set out proposals to:
- Strengthen the operation of the asset recovery process by closing loopholes in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
- Better tackle people who actively support, and benefit from, participating in organised crime;
- Create new powers to seize and detain chemical substances suspected of being used as cutting agents for illegal drugs; and
- Amend the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to update the existing offences to cover importing tools for cyber crime (such as data programmes designed for unlawfully accessing a computer system).
5.The principal objective of the Act is to ensure that law enforcement agencies have effective legal powers to deal with the threat from serious and organised crime. In particular, it gives effect to the above proposals in the Serious and Organised Crime Strategy.
6.The Act is in six Parts. Part 1 makes further provision in respect of the recovery of property derived from the proceeds of crime. Part 2 makes amendments to the Computer Misuse Act 1990. Part 3 provides for a new offence of participating in the activities of an organised crime group and strengthens the arrangements for protecting the public from serious crime and gang-related activity provided for in Part 1 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 and Part 4 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 respectively. Part 4 provides for the seizure and forfeiture of substances used as drug-cutting agents. Part 5 amends the criminal law in relation to the offence of child cruelty, provides for new offences in respect of sexual communication with a child and the possession of “paedophile manuals”, amends the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to remove references to child prostitution and child pornography, makes further provision for combating female genital mutilation and provides for new offence in respect of domestic abuse. Part 6 makes provision to strengthen prison security , provides for or extends extra-territorial jurisdiction in respect of the offences in sections 5 (preparation of terrorist acts) and 6 (training for terrorism) of the Terrorism Act 2006, confers parliamentary approval (as required by section 8 of the European Union Act 2011) for two draft Council Decisions under Article 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”), specifies the matters that must be addressed in a code of practice in respect of the exercise of powers under Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and places a duty on the Secretary of State to assess the evidence of abortions taking place on the grounds of the sex of the foetus. Part 6 also contains minor and consequential amendments to other enactments and general provisions, including provisions about territorial application and commencement.
7.This Act updates existing law dealing with proceeds of crime, cyber crime, serious crime prevention orders, gang injunctions, child cruelty, child sexual offences, female genital mutilation, and prison security, the commission of certain terrorism offences abroad and the regulation of investigatory powers. The main enactments affected by the Act are:
- Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (cruelty to persons under sixteen);
- Prison Act 1952;
- Section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959 (loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution);
- Computer Misuse Act 1990;
- Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA”);
- Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“POCA”);
- Sexual Offences Act 2003;
- Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 and the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Act 2005;
- Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (“SOCPA”) (financial reporting orders (“FROs”));
- Section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (commission of terrorism offences abroad);
- Part 1 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (serious crime prevention orders (“SCPOs”)); and
- Part 4 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 (injunctions: gang-related violence).
1 National Strategic Assessment of Serious and Organised Crime 2014, National Crime Agency, 1 May 2014
1 National Strategic Assessment of Serious and Organised Crime 2014, National Crime Agency, 1 May 2014 (http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/publications/207-nca-strategic-assessment-of-serious-and-organised-crime/file)
2 http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm87/8715/8715.pdfBack [2]
SERIOUS AND ORGANISED CRIME STRATEGY 2023 TO 2028
CATEGORIES AND DEFINITIONS OF SERIOUS ORGANISED CRIME
Ch.2 CATEGORIES AND DEFINITIONS OF SERIOUS ORGANISED CRIME.
22/10/25 We are ALL In Danger! video by The BlackBeltBarrister.
“In this video, I expose serious concerns surrounding the GOV.UK One Login system — the UK Government’s new digital identity platform that is supposed to unify access to all online government services. Yet, behind the scenes, the system’s security operations have been outsourced to a company based in Romania, raising major questions about data protection, privacy, cybersecurity, and national security. I explain what GOV.UK One Login (GOVUK1) is, how it works, and why experts are warning that outsourcing sensitive personal data verification and authentication overseas could leave millions of British citizens vulnerable to data breaches, hacking, and identity theft.”
Many years ago, I remember when Clinical Commissioning Groups were responsible for planning and paying for health care services, one MP and his wife who was a GP, diverted NHS money to assist their private business by outsourcing their patients data to India. There are so many examples of how we do not know who is handling and abusing our data (and taxpayer money). The authorities even had the audacity to charge patients for Subject Access Requests to access their own patient records – when they give it to anyone they like. However, as a direct result of authorities making these kind of decisions, THEY ARE ENTIRELY to blame for putting our data at risk – no matter what they may claim.
On top of everything else, as a result of giving many contracts/& wealth to foreign countries they also deprive the UK employment opportunities for our citizens. Are our ministers getting kickbacks from these countries because they send them so much of our money and data❓
It looks like I may be targeted by govt censors again as a few days ago, I received this message whilst looking up legislation ( I spoke about this in Ch. 2 THE DIGITAL ID TRAP – Another power grab to abuse & exploit the public. )
“Dear Customer, We hope this message finds you well. We wanted to inform you that you have encountered an error: 436 Too Many Requests. This occurs when the number of HTTP requests exceeds the allowed number of 2000 [❗] within a 5-minute period. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause. To resolve this issue, you have a couple of initial options available: 1. Wait for the specified time to elapse before making further requests. 2. Decrease the number of searches. Alternatively, if you need assistance or have any questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our support team at legislation@nationalarchives.gov.uk. They will be more than happy to help you. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.”
and today, 22/10/25 after a few minutes of being on the internet, I tried to log in to my email account and a white page blocked it and in the top left corner it simply said “Edge: Too Many Requests.’ It shows the home page, but then when I tried later it still comes up with the same message. I wonder if others have similar problems.
https://insidegovuk.blog.gov.uk/2022/11/24/incident-report-some-gov-uk-urls-blocked-by-deceptive-site-warning/ I have found this from 2022 “On Friday 30 September the GOV.UK Team became aware that some users of GOV.UK were being prevented from accessing files hosted on GOV.UK. This was because some browsers were blocking the files with a message saying: “Deceptive site ahead”. The issue affected supplementary resources for government publications, such as PDF files.”
Bearing in mind they lie and deflect blame elsewhere about almost everything, why would we believe it is not them who are actually causing the problems and they are just trying to blame someone else; as per normal? That is the problem they have for destroying trust so many times, they can never get it back.
21/10/25 This is the best speech from Professor Tim Wilson, I have listened to. Apart from the main reason we should never accept this level of control by anyone; due to the sinister agendas of those ‘wielding the big stick’ – this one video exposes numerous other major flaws with Digital ID dependency.
the collapse of zoom and whatsapp today video by Professor Tim Wilson …”and how we depend on a system that is brittle and faulty…” ( he could also be describing all the public services run by or connected to the establishment!)
We must never comply with state control, because it will be incredibly easy for them, to bring about our complete downfall. Crucial data has already been easily falsified/ lost/ blocked/ & given away by them without our permission or stolen, because of those who are falsely (& fraudulently) claiming they are protecting it. Example: ICO reviews on Trustpilot who claim that the ICO may not know about the reviews. Which is untrue, as I sent it to them on their website about 6 years ago.
The ICO’s AI Hypocrisy: A Toothless Watchdog Playing with Algorithms by John Barwell from Legal Lens
“The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has unveiled its Internal AI Use Policy — a 30-page internal guide on how Britain’s data watchdog intends to “responsibly” embrace artificial intelligence.
It’s full of noble intentions: transparency, fairness, governance, accountability. But beneath the polished language lies a painful irony. This is a regulator that has failed to regulate — a body paralysed by bureaucracy, now claiming moral authority to lead the charge on AI ethics.”
“Ethics for Optics
The policy warns against using AI in any way that may cause “significant risk of harm to individuals, groups or the reputation of the ICO.”
That last phrase is revealing. The priority is not the public — but the regulator’s own image. Ethics have become performance art: safety defined not by outcomes, but by optics.
This is the same ICO that refuses to disclose complaint outcomes, hides behind legal privilege to avoid scrutiny, and routinely redacts responses under the Freedom of Information Act. Transparency, it seems, is always for someone else.” – John Barwell
Narcissists projection is a defence mechanism to avoid blame or accountability (as they believe they are ‘perfect in every way’) and one of many negative traits which can be observed on a daily basis, by our politicians and their enablers, when confronted with their wrongdoing. It is a manipulative tactic to deflect responsibility, commonly used by reckless egocentric, individuals who prefer to blame others, including their victims. To accept responsibility requires the genuine ability to feel empathy, demonstrate integrity, maturity and proof they have a conscience. None of the above positive signs apply to those in positions of power – especially those at the top of the hierarchy, because if they did, the UK citizens & globally, would not be living though the most dangerous times in history.
🙈🙉🙊
Just look at how they have always refused to take responsibility and pay compensation for the harm caused by their callous disregard, negligence, and incompetence, to victims of Covid vaccines, Thalidomide, and many other medical interventions over decades. Other examples of refusing to be accountable include the Post Office Scandal, the contaminated blood transfusions, sexual abuse, false imprisonment, and the misappropriation; theft, fraud, embezzlement, money laundering of public funds which has created the loss of millions of jobs, homes, services etc.
Time for change.
They have NOTHING to offer us, except even more grief. We need to be autonomous and directly look after ourselves, communities, and country, wherever it may be and all of us; made responsible and therefore accountable to each other.
If any videos or website pages fail to display, it is because of the big tech ‘friends of govt’ paid with taxpayer money, to censor, [those of us who speak the truth to protect the public], which is another reason we cannot trust any of them. I might add; that I have never accepted money or gifts from anyone and never will for my website, so anyone who claims that I am being paid or that I have an ulterior motive, is just projecting themselves. I do not need rewards for behaving like a decent human being.
