The UK Government has used the claimed Covid–19 crisis (or pseudopandemic) to quietly establish all necessary components for a British dictatorship. The construction phase is nearing completion and, unless the people engage in mass non-compliance and petition their representatives to stop it, the UK dictatorship will be in full force soon.
The Global Governance Dictatorship
A dictionary definition of “dictatorship” is:
Government by a dictator […] A country governed by a dictator […] Absolute authority in any sphere.
The British dictatorship is not unique. Its emergence has been mirrored in the US, EU member states and elsewhere. This is a global model of dictatorship run by a coalition of public and private organisations. National governments are the implementing partners.
The nebulous structure of the Global Public-Private Partnership (G3P) makes political opposition to it almost impossible. It maintains the offer of so-called democratic elections and even purports to enhance democratic accountability through new forms of claimed democracy.
The “New Abnormal” dictatorship is elusive. It does not have a single, identifiable dictator. There is no despot to depose. The architects of the technocratic dictatorship have learned from history. The modern, worldwide control system is one of governance, not government. Government is the lens which brings it into focus for all of us.
Talk of devolution and sortition (federalisation and citizens' assemblies) and other suggested improvements to “local governance” and political engagement are not remedies for but rather part of this new tyranny. These offers are illusions of representative democracy, confining policy debates to that which has already been decided by the G3P. You can choose net zero by 2030 or net zero by 2050, but whatever you choose it is going to be net zero.
This makes it difficult for some people to recognise the nature of the totalitarianism that is being stamped upon our societies. This is a technocracy, more akin to the neocolonialism of a mega-corporation than history's previous autocratic military regimes. However, this dictatorship will, by corporate fiat, have absolute authority in any sphere and will be just as cruel and oppressive as any that preceded it.
Perhaps a fuller explanation of the kind of dictatorship we face can be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica:
[A] […] form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations […] Dictators usually resort to force or fraud to gain despotic political power, which they maintain through the use of intimidation, terror, and the suppression of basic civil liberties. They may also employ techniques of mass propaganda in order to sustain their public support.
The G3P is a web of multinational corporations, tax-exempt foundations (philanthropists), private investors, think tanks, governments, non-governmental organisations, civil society groups and alleged charities. The G3P's globalist think tanks—for example, the Club of Rome, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) and the World Economic Forum—set the global governance policy agenda.
This then cascades down through the policy distributors, like the IMF, World Bank and the IPCC, to be enforced by governments and their selected scientific bodies, such as the FDA and the MHRA. Government and the G3P are partners, and it is government's role to convert the policy agenda into hard legislation and local government policy.
It is this which we are subject to. Governments don’t form policy, they simply impose it.
Wherever you look in the former western “democracies”, be it the US, France, Germany, Italy or the UK, the objective of their individual models of dictatorship are the same: to create a global system of biosecurity-based digital identity, to be linked, eventually, to payment of central bank digital currency (CBDC). This digital gulag, or technocracy, will mimic the current social credit system in China.
The UK Dictatorship Takes Shape
Less than a week after Public Health England (now the UK Health Security Agency) downgraded Covid-19 from a High-Consequence Impact Disease, due to low overall mortality, the UK Government claimed that the country was in an emergency situation. Emergency legislation was suddenly presented.
Despite the claimed urgency, the Government chose not to use the existing legislation designed for precisely such a crisis. By ignoring the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (CCA), the Government sidestepped the required regular thirty-day parliamentary scrutiny of permitted plenary power.
In not invoking the CCA, the UK Government was among many executives around the world that did not formally declare a state of emergency in response to Covid-19. This remains the case.
In legal terms, the Covid-19 pandemic is not, and never was, a national emergency. Instead, the UK Government presented legislation that had obviously taken many months to draft, which gave it at least six months of absolute executive power.
No MPs voted to pass the Coronavirus Act 2020. It was fast-tracked through Parliament in just four sitting days. At more than 340 pages, there was no opportunity for MPs or peers to scrutinise it in any depth.
Our parliamentarians thus blithely permitted the UK Government to snatch extraordinary power. Among its many new powers, the Coronavirus Act allowed the Government to detain people without trial and to section people in mental health institutions with far greater ease; it extended mass surveillance powers and the retention of biometric data; it created, Erewhon-like, the crime of being ill ("spreading infectious diseases"). With the Act, the Government took the power to halt legal gatherings, including protests, whenever they chose; and it removed all the safeguards surrounding NHS care assessments and death registration.
On 19 October 2021, the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, Rosie Winterton, accepted a voice vote among the few MPs present, to wave through the third renewal of the Coronavirus Act. The “ayes” had it easily, in the practically deserted chamber.
There is no reason to imagine that a formal division would have produced a different result. In the preceding March renewal vote, despite a small Tory backbench rebellion, the Coronavirus Act was extended with overwhelming support as the Government secured a 484 to 76 majority vote on the issue.
As the journalist and former British diplomat Craig Murray correctly observed:
It is a recognised pattern for dictatorship to commence with emergency measures designed to combat a threat. Those emergency measures then become normalised and people exercising arbitrary power find it addictive. A new threat is then found to justify the continuation.
The normalisation of dictatorial powers is precisely where we stand at the moment. There is no meaningful political opposition to the Coronavirus Act tyranny. The granting of semi-annual renewal on a rolling basis currently appears to be a fait accompli.
The UK Dictatorship Allows Itself to Torture and Murder with Impunity
However, the Coronavirus Act isn't the only dictatorial law which MPs have enacted and continue to accept without any qualms.
In October 2020, the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill sailed through its third Commons (and Lords) readings, virtually unopposed. In the Commons, most opposition MPs didn’t even bother to vote.
The opposition leader, Sir Keir Starmer, whipped his parliamentary colleagues not to oppose the bill. Just 20 Labour MPs defied the whip to vote against this tyrannical bill. The Act (CHIS) subsequently became law in March 2021.
On behalf of the G3P, the UK Government has given itself and its agencies under this law the authority to commit any crime it likes without fear of prosecution. The Joint Committee on Human Rights spelled out the purpose of the CHIS:
The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill provides a statutory basis for a variety of public authorities to authorise informants, covert agents and undercover officers to engage in criminal conduct […] by explicitly making authorised conduct ‘lawful for all purposes’ […]
There is no express limit within the Bill on the type of criminal conduct that can be authorised. This raises the abhorrent possibility of serious crimes such as rape, murder or torture being carried out under an authorisation.
The CHIS amends the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and means that government bodies ranging from the intelligence services, the police and the military to the Department of Health and Social Care, the Food Standards Agency and, ironically, the Ministry of Justice can commit crimes against the people with total abandon.
The State doesn’t need to justify its criminal activity but, if anyone asks, it can simply say that it broke the law “in the interests of national security; for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder; or in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”. In essence, it can make up any excuse it likes.
Not that asking the question will serve any practical purpose. The CHIS gives agents of the State immunity from prosecution and so, even if you had a watertight case proving state crimes, there would be no defendant to bring it against.
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which remains in UK statute law after Brexit, claims to guarantee the right to a court hearing for cases of civil rights abuses. In addition, Article 8 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states:
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Such violations might include, for example, the police planting evidence and then concocting false witness statements. However, as no crimes are ruled out in the CHIS, the violations concerned could also include murder.
The pretty words in the ECHR and the UDHR transpire to mean nothing. The concept of "human rights" is a total charade. The CHIS demonstrates that whenever government so chooses, it can completely ignore these so-called rights. They are not worth the paper they are written on.
"Human rights" are just an empty marketing strategy to convince you to trust in the institutions of government. They are scribbled on bits of paper by politicians and lawyers to make people imagine that their rights emanate from politicians and lawyers, thus affording them alleged authority over said rights. "Human rights" are not rights. They are government permits. What government grants, government can take away.
The only form of rights that actually exist are inalienable (or unalienable) rights. They are ours from birth and have nothing whatsoever to do with government. Government can respect or ignore them, and we can judge government accordingly.
Government cannot alter, amend or claim any dominion over inalienable rights. Hence the global, decades-long propaganda campaign to convince us all the believe in the asinine promise of "human rights".
We must not allow those who claim authority to continue to use duplicitous language unchallenged. Whenever they speak of "human rights", we should refute this deception. "Human rights" do not exist. The CHIS proves this beyond dispute in a particularly pure form.
When Britain set up the post-war "human rights" model for Europe, it went along with enshrining in several international treaties the right not to be killed or tortured as the untouchable "absolute human rights" with no scope for curtailment no matter what the claimed emergency, but Britain has now given itself a "human rights" model in which not even the right not to be killed or tortured turns out be "unqualified". They were touted as "absolute" until they were decided not to be "absolute".
Together the Coronavirus Act and the CHIS form the basis for the rest of the UK dictatorship. When combined with the other Bills and amendments currently gliding effortlessly towards the status of legislation, it ensures the kind of dictatorship that we are familiar with from the annals of history—just one cloaked in the faux democracy of “civil society”.
The CHIS provides the context for the forthcoming dictatorial powers. All are to be set within an environment of unfettered criminality to be exercised by the UK state.
The UK Dictatorship To End The Right of Protest
The Police, Crimes, Sentencing and Courts Bill (PCSC) has at least been opposed by opposition parties. It could be argued that this fact makes the total lack of resistance to the CHIS even more notable. Clearly, all major political parties want the power to commit crime.
Among its many dictatorial measures, Section 61(2)(a) states that it is an offence if, by your acts or omission, you create a situation where another person:
suffers death, personal injury or disease.
This raises the distinct possibility of arrest for the crime of being unvaccinated in a public space. This may be hard for many to accept. Perhaps proving this charge in court would be difficult, but the possibility is certainly raised by the PCSC.
This is a huge, sprawling piece of legislation. It makes provisions on a multitude of judicial, law-enforcement and penal powers and regulations. As this is all encapsulated in one Bill, it will be extremely difficult for most MPs to grasp its implications in full before they vote on it. To do so, they would have to devote practically all their time to nothing else.
Moreover, we see the continual process of adding to what is already a hefty Bill. The Home Secretary stacked it with an additional eighteen amendments after it had passed the second Commons reading stage, consistently limiting MPs' opportunity to scrutinise it.
The surreptitious extensions include: outlawing "lock-ons", where protesters chain themselves to trees and machinery to stop the activity they oppose, such as fracking: any obstruction of a corporation's normal activity, which is the whole point of direct action, could land a protester with nearly twelve months in prison. The Bill also extends police stop-and-search powers, lets the authorities prevent people going to a protest in the first place, and ultimately allows them simply to ban named individuals or groups from protesting.
The green activist and raconteur of the chattering, progressive left, George Monbiot, wrote a well-composed article expressing his concern at the Bill. In a moment of almost jaw-dropping irony, he concluded his piece thus:
So where is everyone? Why isn’t this all over the front pages? Why aren’t we out on the streets in our millions, protesting while we still can? We use our freedoms or we lose them. And we are very close to losing them.
Of course, people have been out in their millions protesting "out on the streets" against the establishment of a dictatorship. That is precisely what eighteen months of pro-freedom protests have been about.
However—because these enormous protests, uniting left and right, black and white, old and young, also opposed the use of the Government's Covid-19 narrative to bring about this emerging dictatorship—Monbiot called the very protesters he now pleads for far right, anti-vaxxer, white supremacists, just three months earlier.
While they were out in their millions, across the globe, fighting for the rights which he belatedly bemoaned the loss of, Monbiot—and almost the entire mainstream media he works for, especially the Guardian—were attacking them. They were literally making up fake news to deliberately divert public attention away from the protestors' entirely legitimate concerns.
As Monbiot and many others are now coming to understand, the PCSC will make protest and other forms of direct action practically illegal in the UK. The right to protest, in any kind of meaningful sense, will be terminated when this Bill is enacted.
We may have thought that the right to peaceful protest was a democratic right. Indeed it was, but once the PCSC is enacted that particular Human Right won’t exist in the UK any more.
The inalienable rights of freedom of expression, freedom to congregate and freedom to roam will still exist.
Part 3 of the Bill deals with public order. No-one will be able to cause anyone else “unease, alarm or distress” by protesting noisily. So no whistles or drums. Silent protest is all it permits. No-one will be able to disrupt the “activities of an organisation”, or even impact normal “life in a community”.
The crime of “intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance” is created, with up to ten years in prison for protesters who dare to raise their voices. You don’t even need to have made any noise. If it is deemed likely that you might cause “serious annoyance” or “serious inconvenience”, then the jail sentence for you could be twelve months.
Protests movements of all kinds have a long history of infiltration and surveillance by the police and intelligence agencies. A 2016 investigation discovered that undercover British police officers had infiltrated more than a thousand UK-based political movements over the span of some decades. Their activities included being active leaders of these movements, and went as far as having families with the activists they were spying on and manipulating.
With the CHIS in place, such police infiltrators are now free to steer protest movements in any direction they wish and can use any means, criminal or otherwise, to achieve government objectives. Agent provocateurs can cause the right kind of “annoyance” or “inconvenience” in order to trigger their colleagues' powers under the Act.
As they are deemed to be “emergency workers”, an assault on the police receives in increased tariff of up to two years in prison. So while the state can beat, extort, defraud or even murder protestors, if anyone lays a finger on its agents they can expect a harsh custodial penalty—as they can for protesting in the first place.
The UK Government already allows the police to control protest routes or even ban marches and other forms of protests. To do so, they must currently demonstrate evidence which leads them to have a reasonable suspicion that “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community” will occur.
The PCSC goes way beyond existing authoritarian powers to limit potentially dangerous protests that threaten public safety, such as those blocking roads. Westminster, in particular, is protected with an exclusion zone, promised in the PCSC, ensuring that the people can no longer protest before their own parliament.
In order to ban a march or protest, the police will no longer need to bother with any deliberations or present any evidence to the courts. They can stipulate when, where and if a protest is “allowed”. They can decree its duration and can deny a protest for any reason they choose.
Other measures in the Bill render protesting ineffective anyway. Most people won’t even know a protest has taken place, thus utterly defeating the objective of protesting. It also makes protesting an extremely high risk activity. The majority of ordinary people with families won’t be able to afford to take those risks.
Under the PCSC, democratic protest is finished. Therefore, it also ends any pretence that we live in a democracy.
We have already seen the mainstream media completely ignore huge global pro-freedom marches. Meanwhile they eagerly report much smaller protests by groups like Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain. They do so because these groups are protesting in support of the G3P agenda, not standing against it.
Under the rule of the PCSC, any high profile demonstrations should be viewed with suspicion. The legislation will give the G3P complete control of protest in the UK. Only the chosen protests will be “approved.” Primarily to maintain the farcical allusion to democracy in our new abnormal civil society.
As the dictatorship unfolds, with agents of the G3P state able to act like the Stasi, and with real protest curtailed, the only place left to challenge G3P authority will be online. However, the UK government are very close to passing legislation to censor the Internet and aim to put a stop to that too.
The UK Dictatorship An End To Freedom Of Speech Online
The Online Safety Bill (OSB) exploits people’s legitimate concerns about online child sexual exploitation and abuse (CSEA) and terrorist propaganda. The UK Government claims that the proposed Online Safety Act will contribute to tackling these crimes. It achieves no such thing.
This deceptive piece of legislation does nothing to address CSEA or alleged online radicalisation. Rather, it is designed to enable the Government, and its G3P Big Tech partners, to censor information they don’t like and disable the sharing of it on the big social media platforms. The UK dictatorship will also hide unwanted information from the search results.
Just as it did with the Coronavirus Act, the UK Government will rely upon statutory instruments to give the proposed Online Safety Act real teeth. Many of the new legal concepts it introduces, such as “content that is harmful to adults”, are not defined in the Bill itself, save in the broadest and ultimately meaningless terms.
Instead the Government will use secondary legislation, which cannot be amended by MPs, to establish the regulations that will determine what content it considers to be “harmful to adults”. All the OSB does clarify is that it will be Ofcom, the regulator, that draws up these “regulations” under the direct control of the relevant Secretary of State.
The House of Lords appears to recognise the threat, its competent committee having issued a report specifically addressing the burgeoning use of the secondary legislation ruse by the executive branch of government. In another recent report, a separate Lords committee stresses that representative democracy is dying, as the the Cabinet Office clique (not their Lordships' words) increases the pace of centralising all dictatorial power. The peers recognise that this is the continuation of a process that has been ongoing for some time:
A critical moment has now been reached when that balance must be re-set: not restored to how things were immediately before these exceptional recent events but re-set afresh.
Unfortunately, the Lords are reaching out to a House of Commons which appears to be largely populated by MPs who have little care for or understanding of the British constitution. Parliamentarians have always sought to centralise authority in Parliament, despite that not being the constitutional seat of power but rather of the limitation of power. Executive power rests in the people's contract with the Crown, not Parliament. Parliament serves us. That is our constitution.
MPs are currently either sleepwalking towards, or approve outright of, proposed legislation that has no legal limit. Once it is enacted, and unless we inform and lobby MPs, it will be the Government that will stipulate whose content it intends to “take down”—effectively removing it from the major social media and search engine websites.
The true purpose of the OSB is hidden in one very short, easily missed section. There appears to have been a deliberate attempt to hide the OSB’s intent even from the inspection of MPs. Section 98 mentions “disinformation and misinformation” but, as usual, does not explain what these terms mean.
In Section 98, Ofcom is empowered to specify how a social media platform or search engine should “deal with disinformation and misinformation”. By virtue of 98 (4) (b), Ofcom has a power “under section 49 to require information of a kind mentioned in subsection (4) of that section, so far as relating to disinformation and misinformation”.
As far as this key concept of "disinformation and misinformation" goes in the OSB, that is the full extent of what we know! When we look at Section 49 (4), it appears merely to require online services to prepare an annual transparency report.
However, the OSB is a highly deceptive piece of legislation. Section 49 (4) (e) also stipulates that social media and search services must provide:
Information about systems and processes which a provider uses to deal with illegal content, content that is harmful to children and content that is harmful to adults, including systems and processes for identifying such content, and — (i) in the case of a user-to-user service, taking down such content.
We can see from Section 98 that “disinformation and misinformation” is “of a kind” mentioned in Section 49. The OSB calls disinformation and misinformation “content that is harmful to adults”. This content is treated in the rest of the OSB as indistinguishable from “illegal content”.
Most people, including MPs, will support the removal of child pornography, paedophile predators, terrorists and terrorist propagandists from the major Internet platforms. Yet, possibly unknowingly, if they pass the OSB into law, the UK Government will also gain the centralised authority to “take down” anything that it (not a court) considers to be “disinformation or misinformation”, by labelling it as “content that is harmful to adults”.
This approach does require the complicity of the Big Tech giants, but that is assured. They too are stakeholder partners, alongside governments, in the Global Public-Private Partnership. It is to their advantage to go along with the future policing of the Internet.
The independent legal journalist, CyberLeagle, points out:
The Impact Assessment accompanying the draft Bill states:
‘…it is expected that undertaking additional content moderation (through hiring additional content moderators or using automated moderation) will represent the largest compliance cost faced by in-scope businesses.’ (Impact Assessment [166])
That compliance cost is estimated at £1.7 billion over 10 years. That does not suggest a regime that is not focused on content.”
A compliance cost of billions means only those platforms with the deepest pockets will be left standing. This is why G3P partners like Google, Facebook and Twitter are on board. They stand to gain an even greater market share, and narrative control, as smaller “free speech” platforms struggle to cope with the onerous obligations imposed upon them.
You might think that journalists would be up in arms about this proposed legislation. Those who are employed by the mainstream media have little to fear, as long as they stick to approved government propaganda. As they already do adhere to it, this shouldn’t mean too much of a change for the mainstream media.
Section 13 of the OSB speaks of a duty to protect “content of democratic importance”. However, Section 13 (2) refers to “taking down” democratic content and and sanctioning individual users who share what is presumably the wrong kind of democratically important content. Quite obviously, the UK Government considers some democratic content to be more important than other democratic content.
Section 13 (6) defines “content of democratic importance” as any which is posted by a “news publisher” or “regulated content”, for which the Secretary of State, via the regulator Ofcom, decrees that the content is “specifically intended to contribute to democratic political debate in the United Kingdom”.
This, then, is to be a decision for the Government, not our parliament or our courts, to make. The executive will decide what we are allowed or not allowed to debate on the big social media platforms, which will be the only platforms left on the new, shrunken Internet.
When the Government says “news publisher”, it has its own definition. It means a “recognised news publisher”, which it itself defines in Section 40 as: the public-service broadcasters BBC and Sianel Pedwar Cymru (Channel 4 Wales); any licensed broadcaster; or any other media outlet which “meets all of the conditions in subsection (2)”.
Subsection 40 (2) rules out independent blogs as having a hope of being “recognised”, because the content must be “created by different persons” for it to be eligible for that distinction. The days of independent journalists reaching a wider audience through their own blogs are ended by the OSB.
To be recognised as an independent news provider, certain criteria must be fulfilled. A news organisation like UK Column, which principally publishes “news-related material” created by “different persons”, and which has a registered business address and exercises editorial control, would appear to be eligible to qualify as a “recognised news publisher”. Time will tell.
We need to be clear, and to keep in mind, what the intention is here. It is to centralise government control over cyberspace and the information we collectively share.
The Government intends to use secondary legislation (known in other countries as executive orders or extra-parliamentary decrees) to finalise concepts like “news-related material”. It will order what “content of democratic importance” will be “taken down”.
This will be the content which the UK Government chooses to censor, only the most naive could imagine otherwise. They will label it as “disinformation” which will then fall into the category of “content that is harmful to adults” to be removed from the social media platforms and the search results. It doesn’t matter if it is produced by a “recognised news publisher” or not.
Representatives of the National Union of Journalists and the current press regulator, Impress, have expressed concern about the power wielded by the Secretary of State and the social media platforms to determine what does or does not constitute “journalism”. Yet not a single mainstream media journalist or representative body has even vaguely questioned the principle. They accept en masse, apparently without question, that the Government has the right to censor journalism and even free speech.
They do so under the apprehension that they will be protected from the discrimination of the UK dictatorship. They are seemingly satisfied that only the so-called alternative media, such as the UK Column, will be silenced. That assumption is misplaced.
The new UK dictatorship is an absolute tyranny. It will not permit dissent from any quarter. It also proposes Legislation To Counter State Threats. This, by dressing up officials' disclosures of abuses as Russo-Chinese interference, will end whistleblowing—and consequently investigative journalism as we understand it.
The UK dictatorship intends to amend existing Official Secrets, counter-espionage and counter-terrorism legislation, although it saw us through two world wars and a Cold War. They will remove the defence of “acting in the public interest” for the disclosure or reporting of any information they deem to be contrary to the national interest, as they—not our parliament or our courts—define it.
Journalists like Julian Assange and Craig Murray have been imprisoned in the UK for daring to cross the authorities. A government minister called Assange a "miserable little worm" and "tried to keep the smirk off his face" after having watched his arrest from an operations room; a judge told Murray he could not expect to be afforded the protections at law enjoyed by a regulated journalist. Unless we act and demand that our MPs stop the march towards a full-blown UK dictatorship, the days of questioning power are over in our former Mother of Representative Democracies.
Bringing this whole raft of legislation together, we can now see how the UK dictatorship will function.
The UK Dictatorship Model
The Global Public-Private Partnership will set the policy agenda as it exercises global governance. The UK Government, like others around the world, is the G3P's implementation and enforcement partner. It is the Government's role to convert the G3P policy agendas into hard policy and legislation at both the national and local level.
Under the proposed Police, Crimes, Sentencing and Courts Act, you will not be able to protest against the manifestation of the G3P's will ("government policy"). The only protests that will be permitted will be those orchestrated by organisations which broadly support the G3P objectives, such as Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain.
Under the Online Safety Act, you won’t be able to challenge the dictatorship online either. Those who are willing to question power, primarily the alternative media and their audience, will not be permitted to post their material on the big social media platforms and their content will be cut out of the search results—as will the content of any journalist, be they mainstream media-affiliated or not, if they fall foul of the intended legislation to counter state threats. Imprisonment for questioning the G3P is a distinct possibility.
The operatives of the state dictatorship are free to commit any crime the dictatorship authorises, under the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act. Dissenters who slip through the surveillance grid can be “fitted up” or otherwise done away with.
Currently, the Government enjoys supreme executive power, thanks to the Coronavirus Act and to its ploy of using secondary legislation to manipulate the laws previously rubber-stamped by their parliamentary colleagues. There is little to no parliamentary political opposition in the UK, and it has become effectively a one-party state.
Voting Red or Blue, Green or Yellow will change nothing. MPs are either ignorant, willing, or uninterested puppets and are content for the legislative basis of the UK dictatorship to evolve. As a group, they are almost entirely complicit and have offered virtually no resistance to the removal of representative democracy.
At this stage, all we can do is demand that our MPs stop the slide towards what is obviously a UK dictatorship. We should all write to our local MP and politely but firmly insist that they do not vote to allow the formation of a dictatorship to proceed.
Beyond that, our only lawful recourse is that we fiercely defend our individual sovereignty, refusing to comply with the diktats of the tyranny. We must use any and every peaceable means to reject the authority that the UK dictatorship has arrogated to itself.
