Healey to Let HMRC Raid Bank Accounts Without a Court Order order-order.com/2026/10/23/h…

🚨🚨They told you digital ID had been cancelled.... really? page 5, of The government’s plans for digital ID, under “Intelligence sharing” the Home Affairs Committee states... “Intelligence that is currently being gathered by digital identity providers should clearly be informing Home Office enforcement.” ... what?? The Government responded by confirming that the Home Office will continue working with the Office for Digital Identities and Attributes and private digital verification providers on how intelligence gathered through digital checks can be reported and acted upon. Now think about what that could mean... As digital identity verification spreads across employment, banking, insurance, mortgages, travel and other services, private providers could accumulate those records. Those records of your activities can include identifiers, IP addresses, timestamps and other verification metadata. And then they could be compelled to GIVE THEM TO THE HOME OFFICE. And the Government is explicitly discussing mechanisms for passing intelligence from those providers to the Home Office. I thought you should know this 🚨🚨

Britain has entered a state of anarcho-tyranny mattgoodwin.org/p/gosport-sh…

🚨 OFCOM, X, META AND TIKTOK HEAD TO COURT — HOW FAR CAN THE STATE REACH INTO ONLINE SPEECH? On Monday, X, Meta and TikTok are due in court challenging information demands made by Ofcom under Britain’s Online Safety Act. The platforms argue that some of those demands go beyond what is necessary or proportionate. Ofcom says they are within its legal powers. And the timing matters. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has just described the government’s under-16 social-media ban as only a “staging post” toward a more “active interventionist state” policing and regulating the online space. So this is no longer just a technical argument about paperwork. It raises a much bigger question: How much information should the state be able to compel from the platforms that host political debate, journalism and public dissent? What exactly is Ofcom demanding? What limits exist on those demands? And what happens if the courts decide the regulator has gone too far? Monday’s hearing could become an important test of the balance between online safety, regulatory power and freedom of expression. I’ll be watching this very closely.

🚨🇺🇸 Republican Congressman and Trump ally Michael Rulli has introduced a bill to protect US websites from British regulators. Allies of President Trump have backed legislation that would block British regulators from enforcing online-speech penalties against websites based in the US. The bill would prevent regulators — namely Ofcom — from enforcing foreign fines relating to online speech through US courts. This is the latest development in the ongoing transatlantic free speech battle. The US has consistently voiced concerns about the plight of free speech in the UK and Europe — particularly over legislative regimes such as the Online Safety Act and the EU’s Digital Services Act, which critics argue have infringed upon the free speech rights of US citizens and targeted American businesses. The bill is known as the GRANITE Act — an acronym for “Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion”. It is thought to have the support of senior members of the Trump administration who have criticised the UK’s censorious online regime. Rulli told The Times: “Foreign bureaucrats do not get to decide what Americans can say. My bill makes clear that if a foreign government tries to punish an American for speech protected by the First Amendment, that judgment is dead on arrival in our courts.” Under the Online Safety Act, Ofcom can fine social media companies that breach its rules £18 million or up to 10 per cent of their global annual turnover, whichever is higher. Ofcom has repeatedly gone after US websites for alleged breaches of the Online Safety Act — notably 4chan and Kiwi Farms. In March, Ofcom fined 4chan £520,000 after finding that it had failed to comply with its duties under the Act. Both 4chan and Kiwi Farms have launched legal action in the US seeking an injunction against Ofcom. The regulator responded by asking for the case to be dismissed, arguing that, as a foreign governmental body, it was protected from being sued under US law. Rulli’s bill would remove that protection. Ofcom is threatening the UK-US relationship and has strayed far beyond its traditional role as the UK’s media regulator into the realm of foreign affairs. The Online Safety Act was introduced and sold as a means of protecting children online. Yet Ofcom has demonstrated extraterritorial ambitions that risk infringing upon the First Amendment rights of US citizens. Read more in @thetimes 👇