American eyebrows were raised when news broke that the mother of Maine Democrat candidate for U.S. Senate <a href="https://abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/democratic-maine-senate-candidate-fathered-2-sons-with-his-second-cousin-reports-democrats-republicans-general-election-vote-voting-lana-pelletier-gramham-platner-senator-susan-collins-politics">Troy Jackson</a>’s children was his second cousin. The couple shares only 3% of their DNA, but first cousins share over 12% of DNA, and their children are twice as much at risk of genetic defects as children of unrelated couples.
In America, marrying a first cousin is still legal in 16 states and Washington, D.C. But Jerry Lee Lewis notwithstanding, it’s rare: only around <a href="https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/inbreeding-by-country">0.1%</a> of marriages.
In the United Kingdom, there is no ban on marrying your first cousin, and it was fairly common until the late 19th century. Readers of Jane Austen remember Fanny Price marrying her cousin Edmund in “Mansfield Park,” or Henrietta Musgrove marrying her cousin Charles in “Persuasion.” It wasn’t just in fiction; Queen Victoria married her cousin, Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ULPwkpCy_-8?si=rTqn1KhZVc4TKvVN" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
One reason was that most people lived their entire lives within a small radius of their birthplace, so they didn’t have a wide selection of partners. The circle was even smaller for the nobility. Many of Europe’s royals married relatives, which sometimes led to genetic defects and unfortunate traits.
Cousin-marriage rates dropped when genetics research demonstrated the risks of inbreeding. Charles Darwin (who married a cousin) saw defects in inbred plants, but in 1902 Archibald Garrod <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(01)41972-6/fulltext">publicized</a> the link between inbreeding and defects tied to recessive genes.
“By the 20th Century the proportion of marriages between cousins had declined to about 1%” in Britain, the BBC <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c241pn09qqjo">reported</a> last year. The low national percentage has apparently risen since mass immigration began from countries where cousin marriage is common. In 2025, over half — 55% — of Pakistanis in Britain were reportedly married to first cousins — a higher rate than in Pakistan itself.
Today, the risks are irrefutable. Children born to parents who are cousins have more than <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/world/risk-of-birth-defect-doubles-for-cousin-couples-study-idUSDEE9620IP/">twice</a> the risk of a congenital abnormality. In a study of the English city of Bradford, more than 30% of birth defects in babies of Pakistani origin were born to parents who were cousins. Also in Bradford, “more babies are <a href="https://firstthings.com/what-britains-cousin-marriage-controversy-tells-us/">born</a> with genetic conditions than elsewhere in the country.”
Married cousins subject their prospective children to more than double the risk of crippling genetic illnesses. That’s an avoidable human cost. The family partly bears the financial cost through lost earnings or support services.
But in Britain, the state-run National Health Service and various welfare programs pick up most of the tab. Over 70% of ethnic Pakistani households in Britain were in the <a href="https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/pay-and-income/income-distribution/latest/">bottom</a> 40% of income distribution, according to government data. To be blunt, that means that a sub-population dependent on public assistance is passing the financial risks of inbreeding to the general population.
In January, a member of Parliament proposed a bill to ban first cousin marriage, but then-Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer didn’t allow it up for a vote. Meanwhile, the government published controversial <a href="https://www.medicalbrief.co.za/nhs-under-fire-for-guidance-over-benefits-of-marrying-first-cousins/">guidance</a> defending cousin marriage. An article by the National Health Service <a href="https://www.medicalbrief.co.za/nhs-under-fire-for-guidance-over-benefits-of-marrying-first-cousins/">said</a> that first-cousin marriage could provide “stronger extended family support systems and economic advantages.”
A guide for midwives <a href="https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/nhs-guidance-cousin-marriages-ht6txv2zv">said</a> that worries about inbreeding were “exaggerated” because “85 to 90 per cent of cousin couples ‘do not have affected children.’” The guidance suggested that the risks of marrying a cousin be “balanced against the potential … economic benefits” and “emotional and social connections.”
But any benefits of cousin marriage belong exclusively to the families concerned, while the costs are socialized to all taxpayers. So why would anyone defend dangerous inbreeding?
Britain’s Labour Party is in a quandary. They know the greater risks and thus costs of children born to cousin marriages. At the same time, they are increasingly dependent on low-income immigrant populations for votes, as the traditional indigenous working class abandons them for the Conservatives or the new, migration-skeptic Reform and Restore parties.
According to a recent <a href="https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-myth-and-reality-of-ethnic-minority-support-for-labour/">survey</a>, “[a]mong voters of Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Caribbean, and African descent who earn less than £25,000 ($34,000) there is a 93% likelihood that they will support Labour.” Labour has so far chosen to back its ethnic vote-bank at the expense of children.
In June, “shadow” health secretary (opposition Conservative Member of Parliament) Dr. Luke Evans <a href="https://www.gbnews.com/politics/cousin-marriage-labour-bill-ban-andy-burnham?utm_content=Labour+finally+considers+backing+Bill+to+ban+cousin+marriage&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=Newsletter">submitted</a> a First Cousins (Prohibited Relationships) Bill to Parliament. Current Prime Minister Andy Burnham now faces one of his first tests: does he back the science and save thousands of children a preventable future of crippling disease? Or does he hold his nose and support obscurantist ethnic votes — or prevent them from going even further Left to “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/07/who-are-the-pro-gaza-independents-who-unseated-labour-mps">Gaza independent</a>”?
Cousin marriage, like child marriage, “honor” killing of relatives, and wife beating, is a cultural practice the West long abandoned, for good reason. Immigrants moving to developed countries need to leave such practices behind them, if they are to assimilate and partake of the prosperity and freedom they ostensibly seek.
***
Simon Hankinson is a senior research fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center and author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Ten-Woke-Commandments-Must-Obey/dp/1680533614">&#8220;The Ten Woke Commandments (You Must Not Obey)&#8221; </a>from Academica Books.

View of guests making wishes to newlyweds

Cousin Marriage: The Strange Politics Of Inward-Branching Family Trees

cousin marriage

immigration

labour party

opinion

troy jackson

united kingdom

<div>
Self-proclaimed &#8220;alpha male&#8221; influencer Andrew Tate and his sidekick brother Tristan aren&#8217;t trading their Miami federal jail cells for luxury penthouses anytime soon.
</div>
<div>
In a <a href="https://abcnews.com/US/tate-brothers-denied-release-amid-uk-extradition-proceedings/story?id=136000487">major legal blow</a> delivered Wednesday, a Miami federal judge slammed the door on the disgraced siblings&#8217; bid for freedom while they fight extradition to the United Kingdom over a series of sex crime charges.
</div>
<div>
U.S. Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis flatly rejected the brothers&#8217; plea for release on bond, ruling that they completely failed to prove they aren&#8217;t flight risks or a danger to the public. U.S. federal prosecutors successfully argued that the brothers’ massive global wealth and international connections make them prime candidates to flee.
</div>
<div>
Despite defense lawyers insisting the brothers exaggerated their fortunes online to build their public personas, Louis noted that regardless of their actual bank balances, the Tates possess an &#8220;exceptional capacity to flee,&#8221; pointing to their constant international jet-setting and deep foreign ties.
</div>
<div>
The Tates have been sitting behind bars at the Federal Detention Center in Miami since mid-July, when federal marshals arrested them at a downtown boxing event on a sealed British warrant. U.K. authorities have hit the pair with nearly 60 combined <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/read-the-graphic-allegations-unsealed-against-the-tate-brothers">criminal counts</a>, charging them with rape, human trafficking, physical assault, and making child pornography.
</div>
<div>
Unsealed court documents have painted a horrifying picture, accusing the brothers of repeatedly choking women unconscious before raping them. Andrew Tate alone faces seven counts of rape and 19 charges linked to child exploitation material, while Tristan faces multiple counts of rape and sex trafficking.
</div>
<div>
As if their British nightmare weren&#8217;t enough, Romanian prosecutors dropped a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/andrew-tate-hit-with-fresh-indictment-over-sex-acts-with-15-year-old-girl-human-trafficking">fresh legal bomb</a> last week, handing down a new indictment accusing Andrew, 39, of human trafficking, money laundering, and sexually exploiting a 15-year-old girl. Prosecutors say the brothers forced the teenager into webcam work between 2012 and 2021, raking in over $1.25 million. They allegedly used that money to buy four luxury rides that authorities are now trying to impound.
</div>
<div>
Federal prosecutors also revealed the brothers have been secretly hoarding fake passports, including a phony Mexican document held by 38-year-old Tristan under the Bond-villain-style alias &#8220;Vladimir Scorpius.&#8221;
</div>
<div>
Attorneys for the brothers slammed the Miami judge&#8217;s decision to keep them locked up. Attorney Joseph McBride insisted on X that the pair &#8220;profoundly disagree&#8221; with the ruling, claiming releasing them would simply allow them to prepare their defense against what they call politically motivated claims.
</div>
<div>
But for now, the internet-famous brothers will remain in a prison cell.
</div>

Tate Brothers Return To Romania After US Visit

Judge Slams Door On Tate Brothers’ Bail Bid

andrew tate

extradition

sex crime

tristan tate

In the year 2000, a Chinese businesswoman arrived in the United Kingdom. She was six months pregnant. Given that China at the time enacted its brutal one-child policy, and she already had one child, she knew she had to leave China. Canny woman that she clearly was, Mrs. Man Lavette Chen made sure she was in Belfast, in the province of Northern Ireland. On September 16, she gave birth to a daughter, Catherine.
Chen had not chosen the Northern Irish capital for its weather. And it might seem that Britain was an odd place to go to give birth, because Belfast is British, and Britain had scrapped birthright citizenship in 1983.
But under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement peace deal to end the Troubles, anyone born anywhere on the island of Ireland was Irish. And Irish meant European. And a European baby, Chen’s lawyers argued, needed her mother beside her, so the family could settle in Cardiff, the capital of Wales (in Britain and, at the time, also in the European Union, and under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice). Nobody has ever gone to such lengths to live in Wales since maybe Edward I, in the 1280s.
The European Court of Justice agreed with Chen, but four months earlier the Irish had voted, 79% to 21, to take birthright citizenship out of their constitution. After complaints from the Dublin maternity hospitals about foreign women flying in to give birth, a national referendum voted overwhelmingly to end the right. That is how the last birthright in the European Union died: one anchor baby, one flight to Belfast, one referendum, done.
Britain has already devalued citizenship by reducing it to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-britain-turned-citizenship-into-identity-by-paperwork">paperwork</a>. But those Europeans who ever had birthright citizenship, including Britain, who manage to get almost everything about immigration policy wrong, have all scrapped the concept. Most never allowed it in the first place. The United States has long been a major outlier in this respect, now even more so with the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Barbara.
In fact, only about 30 countries worldwide now grant citizenship to anyone born on their soil, almost all of them in the Americas. This perhaps hints at the historic reasons behind such a constitutional divergence; the New World was filled by immigration, whereas the Old World might have an older constitutional sense of citizenship as tied to blood.
Britain settled this nearly 50 years ago. In the British Nationality Act of 1981, Margaret Thatcher legislated that a baby is British only if a parent was British or “settled” in the country. Anyone else’s child has to earn it by living in the United Kingdom for 10 years. This became an acute problem in the decades after World War II, as the collapse of our Empire caused confusion about who still counted as part of what had been a sprawling imperial family. Waves of immigration never seen before caused huge tensions on the British mainland. Even though they have, to pardon the awkward turn of phrase, now been whitewashed from contemporary leftist history, which tells of Britain welcoming sons of the Empire, Left-wing governments of the mid-20th century did what they could to prevent an influx from places like the Caribbean, India, and Pakistan.
What about the continentals? France passed a nationality law back in 1889. A child born in France to foreign parents becomes French at 18, provided he has lived there for five years since age 11. The recent tightening is another vestige of the Age of Empire. Mayotte is a French island off the east coast of Africa (think of it as like Hawaii, rather than Guam). It has the biggest maternity unit in France, but is mostly full of mothers who crossed illegally from neighboring Comoros. France restricted birthright citizenship there in 2018 and tightened it again last year: both parents now need a year’s legal residence. The far Right did none of this.
Germany had no right to citizenship for anyone not born to German parents until 2000, when some allowance was put in place. And in the Scandinavian countries, so often painted by the American Left as examples of socialist paradises, they are actively taking passports from those dual nationals who commit crimes, even if they were born there. This is going through the Swedish Parliament as we speak. The Danes have been doing it for many years already.
And down under, both Australia and New Zealand removed birthright citizenship to prevent the same phenomenon of abuse by overstayers and illegals. And in both cases, Left-wing governments instituted the changes. I don’t even need to tell you that these sorts of debates aren’t even needed in places like Japan or the UAE.
But in America, in 2023, 320,000 babies were born to mothers who were in the country illegally or on temporary visas. That was 9% of all births — adding an equivalent population of Pittsburgh each year.
This has become a full-scale industry. In 2019, federal prosecutors charged 19 people over “maternity hotels” around Los Angeles that sold Chinese clients a delivery for $40,000 to $80,000, on the promise of “the most attractive nationality.” The security threats, given the danger of the Chinese Communist Party to all that the West holds dear, are obvious.
Far be it from a Brit to tell Americans to change their constitution, in this year of all years. But it should help to illustrate what an outlier the U.S. (and Canada, bless ‘em) has become across the developed world. If you do attempt to change the rules around birthright citizenship, do not let any leftist tell you it is an unspeakable, far-Right evil policy. It would only be bringing you into line with all of Europe and most of the developed world.
***
James Price is a former Chief of Staff to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and a senior fellow at the Adam Smith Institute.

Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Policy Gets Supreme Court Hearing

Dismantling The Myth Of The ‘Far-Right’ Immigration Policy

birthright citizenship

european union

immigration policy

trump v barbara

There is a scene in the British animated movie “Chicken Run” where <a href="https://youtu.be/2eU6rN8AeXo?si=5IuXK1mnij4kuXDZ">mass panic</a> overtakes the film’s otherwise plucky protagonists. At precisely 7 p.m. on Friday, August 14, a somewhat similar scene occurred throughout the United Kingdom when a piercing alarm suddenly screeched from every mobile phone in the nation. And the reason — I kid you not — was a government warning about the dangers posed by disposable barbecues after a summer marked by hot weather and little rain. 
My phone, which permanently lives on silent, emitted such a piercing wail that I nearly fell off my chair. Fortunately, I was at home at the time so could settle my frazzled nerves with a restorative cup of tea. Others were not so fortunate. There were numerous accounts of near misses on motorways as drivers swerved or braked at the sudden noise. Restaurants emptied as fleeing diners assumed a major fire had broken out in the kitchen. Concerts were interrupted, and a vicar friend of mine was conducting Mass when his congregation upped and fled, assuming the smoke alarm had been triggered. Even the <a href="https://youtube.com/shorts/lBjD5aPwtLk?si=4w4jt4udz61NFuwZ">BBC</a> was caught unawares. 
After we had gotten over the shock of the alarm, those of us living in England, Scotland, or Northern Ireland (three of the four “nations” that make up the United Kingdom — I know, it confuses us too sometimes) were able to find our phones and read the government message warning, essentially, that fire could be dangerous, especially when the grass and trees were dry. Spare a thought, though, for the poor residents of Wales. In a cringeworthy attempt to pander to the handful of people who speak only Welsh, officials sent out the accompanying text in Welsh alone. For the vast majority there who speak only English, the next few minutes involved some hasty use of Google translate to find out whether Russia had just fired a nuclear missile at us.
As you might imagine, the alert spawned countless hilarious <a href="https://youtube.com/shorts/peLoQE3nyqU?si=snZN_GuooKiyMONH">memes</a>. Yet aside from those who treated the event like the farce it was, there were some who took the message seriously. Fire and police departments across the country were inundated by people ringing in to report their neighbors for having safe and completely innocent backyard barbecues, an act reminiscent of those dark days when COVID-19 <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/04/21/prank-messages-caused-nycs-coronavirus-snitch-number-to-shut-down/">snitch lines</a> encouraged people to report their neighbors for flouting “social distancing” rules during the pandemic. In addition to emergency services being flooded with unnecessary calls about barbecues, domestic abuse charities warned that those vulnerable to domestic violence would have been put in danger if the alert exposed the location of secret and otherwise silent “lifeline” phones. 
Rather than admit to a mistake, as was the case in 2018 after residents of Hawaii received the rather sobering message that North Korea may have fired a ballistic missile at them, or in 2023 when an alert was accidentally triggered in Florida at 4:45 a.m., the U.K. government <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy4zepzp7eo">defended</a> its use of the alert as “entirely appropriate.” Yet one wonders if such a forceful use of this piece of state control was partly employed by our new prime minister, Andy Burnham, mere weeks into his tenure to demonstrate how different he is from his dithering and ineffectual predecessor, Sir Keir Starmer, hounded out of office by his own party. 
Well, whatever the government’s reasoning, such tactics won’t work for me next time. Thanks to a helpful <a href="https://www.gov.uk/alerts/opting-out">page</a> on the government website (how refreshing that my taxes pay both for the triggering of frivolous alerts and for the government to tell me how to deactivate them) I have, along with countless fellow Brits, switched all future alerts off. So, in the event of an actual nuclear strike or the zombie apocalypse, I will be left in peaceful ignorance. 
Yet looking beyond the absurdity of this event, such government-sponsored psychological manipulation seems to echo M. Night Shyamalan’s 2004 film &#8220;The Village,&#8221; where a community’s elders manufacture constant dread about unseen, monstrous threats in the surrounding woods to keep the population compliant and constrained. Under the guise of absolute safety, the leadership fosters an environment of hyper-vigilance so intense that the villagers end up policing one another. 
The government’s impulse to weaponize state alerts for mundane behaviors relies on this sinister trade-off. Frightening a populace into obedience is a tempting shortcut for a government lacking authority and the trust of its people because fear unquestionably works as an immediate lever of control. Yet, this strategy carries catastrophic costs. In the short term, it erodes social trust, turning neighbors into informants and needlessly disrupting public life. In the long term, it instills a permanent baseline of anxiety while eroding the public&#8217;s instinct for self-reliance — leaving citizens both fundamentally controlled and dangerously unprepared when a real crisis finally arrives. It is worth remembering that in the early days of World War II, when it seemed inevitable that Germany would invade and overrun Britain, the official government advice was to “Keep Calm and Carry On,” a sentiment today found only on greetings cards and tea towels.
The modern impulse to treat the citizenry like hyper-vigilant children is part of a broader cultural shift toward what social psychologist Jonathan Haidt terms “safetyism” — the belief that safety is an absolute virtue overriding all other priorities. In his book “The Anxious Generation,” Haidt documents how overprotecting children from managed risk has warped their emotional development. Interestingly, one of the studies Haidt cites lists, among examples of healthy “risky play” children need to experience to develop into functional adults, playing with fire (the others being heights, dangerous tools such as hammers or drills, rough-and-tumble play, doing things at high speed, and disappearing or hiding). Such a finding must surely horrify whichever government official sanctioned that wildfire alert. 
Haidt argues that healthy human brains develop systems that can adapt to two kinds of situations, “discover mode” (or the behavioral activation system) and “defend mode” (the behavioral inhibition system). Essentially, we need balanced brains that know how to switch between the former mode, such as when we might explore new territories and undertake risky challenges, and the latter mode, when we must know how to respond to danger. As he puts it: “If we want to help young people thrive — at home, in school, and in the workplace — shifting them into discover mode may be the most effective change we can make.” It is not hard to suspect that a government whose knee-jerk reaction is to send alert messages about barbecues would prefer “defend mode” to be our default setting, regardless of the cost both to young people’s mental health and to their eventual workplace productivity. 
The state now seems to be exporting this overprotective logic to adult citizenship. By deploying apocalyptic push notifications to warn us about the risks posed by barbecues and fireworks, the government appears to be actively training the public to distrust its own judgment. This in turn fosters an infantilized society where everyday risk assessment must be outsourced to a digital state nanny.
The suspicion that the U.K.’s recent alert was more about the government flexing its high-tech muscles than trying to make its citizens’ lives easier is reinforced by the software itself. The system is sufficiently sophisticated to be used in targeted areas for localized weather threats, yet despite genuinely risky wildfires being confined to only a few parts of the U.K. at the time, the alarm was sent indiscriminately to the whole country.
Area-specific alarms have been used to good effect in the U.K. in the past — such as during the localized flooding in Cumbria in 2024 or Leicestershire in 2025. Similarly, in the U.S., tornado warnings are routinely restricted to the specific areas most at risk. But imagine if the entire American population were alerted every time a weather event occurred in a state hundreds of miles away. Might frequent exposure to distant threats or overuse of the system leave people feeling that normal life is simply too risky, conditioning them to expect disaster at every turn? 
Another danger of this trend is not just that it is annoying, intrusive, and indicative of a government ill-equipped to, well, govern, but that it actively undermines genuine emergency responses, or sometimes leaves people too over-reliant on government alerts to take unilateral action when perhaps they should. Consider the devastating Central Texas floods of July 2025, where official warnings either never arrived, or came too late for many caught in rapidly rising waters, with truly heartbreaking results. When real crises strike, technological warnings are never a guarantee of safety. 
Maybe, back in the U.K., this absurd little episode will remind us of something Britain used to be rather good at: keeping calm, carrying on, and keeping a stiff upper lip. If the government insists on treating us like incompetent children, perhaps the most grown-up thing to do is simply decline to play along. 
***
Bridget Riley studied modern history at Oxford and completed a Ph.D. in medieval history at the University of Reading. She writes on history, culture, and the philosophy of religion.
This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

GettyImages-1252381938

The Government’s New ‘Safety’ Obsession Comes With A Sinister Catch

andy burnham

jonathan haidt

nanny state

safetyism

world

In a brutal betrayal of the Jewish state, European leaders — spearheaded by Great Britain — have issued a monstrous demand targeting Israel’s right to build in Judea and Samaria, the deeply historic heartland where virtually the entire Bible unfolded.
Twelve nations, including the United Kingdom, France, and Canada, released a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-foreign-ministers-statement-on-the-two-state-solution" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-foreign-ministers-statement-on-the-two-state-solution&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1788960933185000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3Dw2ER0KCHnmGtRrzyM4cn">joint declaration</a> on Tuesday absurdly claiming the Jewish state&#8217;s presence undermines a hypothetical &#8220;two-state solution.&#8221; British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband also announced his country&#8217;s planned embargo on West Bank imports, framing the economic hostility as a necessary &#8220;reset.&#8221;
Top U.K. anti-terrorism officials and military experts immediately <a href="https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/ed-miliband-to-set-out-settlement-sanctions-today-in-reset-of-britains-relations-with-israel-qafuvsrs" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/ed-miliband-to-set-out-settlement-sanctions-today-in-reset-of-britains-relations-with-israel-qafuvsrs&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1788960933185000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3k3gDYiVB1yWAH02lleIcI">sounded the alarm</a>, warning that demonizing Israel directly threatens British national security by jeopardizing vital intelligence-sharing and stoking antisemitic violence at home.
Israeli leadership reacted with righteous fury. Foreign minister Gideon Saar warned, “If Britain acts against Israel, Israel will act against Britain.”
Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich <a href="https://x.com/bezalelsm/status/2097058181151125712">wrote</a> on X on Monday, “Expel the British ambassador tonight! We will not be a doormat trampled by an antisemitic government, in a country conquered by radical Islam, trying to save itself from economic and social decline by attacking Jews and the State of Israel. The British Mandate in the Land of Israel is over.”
The cynical push to turn Israel into a global pariah isn’t just facing massive resistance from Jerusalem; it could trigger a multi-billion-dollar legal counter-offensive from the Sunshine State of Florida.
Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) delivered a scathing reality check, pointing directly to Florida Statute §287.135, which aggressively penalizes any entity participating in anti-Israel boycotts. Fine warned that any British business forced to comply with London&#8217;s anti-Israel crusade will be legally banned from doing business with state and local governments in Florida, exposing them to devastating civil fines and multi-million-dollar contract cancelations.
&#8220;Florida is one of Britain’s largest trading partners,&#8221; Fine <a href="https://x.com/RepFine/status/2097074407244255674">noted</a>, adding that the exact same anti-BDS statute previously forced Airbnb into submission. &#8220;They should understand that their vanity project in support of Muslim terror could cost them billions of dollars.&#8221;
London’s anti-Zionist campaign is part of a long, dark pattern. Decades before this latest trade war, the British Empire systematically worked to prevent Jewish statehood and deny refuge to desperate populations.
Declassified British <a href="https://jweekly.com/1999/08/13/documents-u-k-blocked-plan-to-save-jews/">records</a> reveal that in 1944, Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden deliberately torpedoed a secret U.S. rescue mission aimed at saving thousands of concentration camp inmates, fearing the freed survivors would eventually emigrate to what was then called Palestine. (Palestine was the name the Romans gave to Israel after their conquest, in order to insult the Jews further by naming it after their ancient enemies, the Philistines.)
Just prior to World War II, Britain slammed the doors of Palestine shut, capping Jewish entry and prohibiting land sales across 95% of the territory and effectively trapping millions of European Jews in the jaws of the Nazi Holocaust.
During the 1948 War of Independence, British officers actually commanded Transjordan’s Arab Legion against Jewish forces, while the Royal Navy blockaded Holocaust survivors fleeing to their ancestral homeland on ships like the Exodus 1947.
As far back as 1922, the British banned Jews from purchasing land or residing in Transjordan, paving the way for Jordan&#8217;s explicit prohibition against Jewish citizenship.
While European diplomats line up to penalize the world&#8217;s only Jewish state for inhabiting its ancient Biblical heartland, they are discovering that modern Israel does not stand alone. Between stiff legal retaliation from Florida and rising pushback from Washington, Britain’s latest anti-Israel maneuver may end up costing London far more than it ever bargained for.

Pro Palestine Protest, London, UK. May 18  2024

U.K.’s Anti-Israel Boycott Sparks Furious Retaliation

boycott divestment sanctions

ed miliband

israel

randy fine

Andrew Tate’s secretive online program allegedly taught members how to infiltrate the circles of wealthy and powerful people, exploit their vulnerabilities, and use compromising information to blackmail them, according to newly leaked course materials.
The massive data leak, obtained by a security researcher and provided to <a href="https://san.com/cc/manosphere-influencer-andrew-tate-faces-sexual-misconduct-charges-a-data-leak-is-exposing-his-secrets/">Straight Arrow News</a> and leak-archiving organization <a href="https://ddosecrets.org/article/tate-media-library">DDoSecrets</a>, exposes previously little-known courses inside Tate’s “War Room,” a membership program marketed as a network for men seeking wealth, influence and personal development.
One course, titled “Penetrating the Elite,” or “PTE,” instructs members to operate like intelligence agents targeting wealthy individuals. 
“Think of yourself as an intelligence officer,” one course slide says, “but instead of going out and trying to recruit foreign politicians or foreign embassy staff, you’re going out, you’re trying to recruit ultra-high net worth individuals.” 
The objective is put crudely elsewhere in the course: “Penetrate them, get paid.”
The course teaches members to identify vulnerabilities among wealthy targets, including potentially compromising sexual behavior, and exploit those vulnerabilities to gain influence or financial advantages. One slide claims that women are a particularly common weakness among members of the elite and encourages participants to engage in taboo activities with targets to establish trust. 
The material claims the techniques have been successfully used on a major Hollywood director, a famous UFC fighter, an Arab billionaire, and a Fortune 500 CEO.
The revelations come as Tate and his brother, Tristan, are being held at the Federal Detention Center in Miami as they fight extradition to the United Kingdom, where <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/tate-brothers-slapped-with-38-new-charges-in-expanding-sex-trafficking-case?author=Daily+Wire+News&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Tate+Brothers+Slapped+With+38+New+Charges+In+Expanding+Sex+Trafficking+Case">they face a combined 59 criminal charges</a> that include allegations of rape, sexual assault, human trafficking and offenses involving indecent images of children and extreme pornography. Both brothers have denied wrongdoing and accused British authorities of politically motivated persecution.
The leaked data includes more than 12 terabytes of material discovered by a security researcher who asked to remain anonymous. The researcher said the information was not obtained through hacking, but rather by analyzing publicly accessible source code and files that Tate’s online infrastructure had inadvertently exposed.
The researcher found code identifying 235 privileged War Room accounts across seven levels of access, including a small group of administrators and members who had paid for access to hidden courses. 
Another course, called “Operator,” teaches participants techniques such as bribing foreign officials, resisting interrogation, and detecting surveillance.
The leaked material also reportedly contains instructions for controlling women. One section teaches members to establish “complete control” over a woman’s daily routine, clothing, friends, and diet, while describing punishment for violating the rules. Another course, the “Date Magnet System,” teaches members to categorize women into “exploitable types,” manufacture the appearance of an authentic lifestyle, and conduct large-scale outreach to women.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/andrew-tates-own-lawyers-say-his-whole-image-is-a-fraud?author=Drew+Berkemeyer&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Andrew+Tate%E2%80%99s+Own+Lawyers+Say+His+Whole+Image+Is+A+Fraud">Court filings acknowledged</a> that luxury cars and yachts featured in their social media content were rented, borrowed, or used for promotional purposes. The brothers’ attorneys argued that “they are playing a role” and that their exaggerated displays of wealth were part of a business model designed to attract followers who would then purchase courses teaching them how to become wealthy themselves. 
Tate’s War Room currently costs members $2,400 annually, down from a previous price of as much as $8,000. 
The Tate brothers also face separate criminal proceedings in Romania, where they have denied allegations of human trafficking and other crimes.

President Trump Attends UFC Fight At Kaseya Center In Miami

Andrew Tate’s Secret Class To Blackmail Elites Gets Exposed

data leak

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ended a year of argument by confirming that a child born on American soil is an American. The debate about belonging in Anglosphere countries is not new, nor are attempts to have the law decide. It happened in England in 1608, in a case about a Scottish toddler called Robert Calvin and whether he could inherit English land.
Sir Edward Coke, maybe the most brilliant and most bloody-minded lawyer England has ever produced, held that anyone born within the king’s allegiance was the king’s subject. The rule crossed the Atlantic with the common law, and in 1868 you carved it into the Fourteenth Amendment.
England, meanwhile, scrapped it. In 1983, with no constitutional convention and no soul-searching, the British Nationality Act of 1981 quietly ended the automatic citizenship of every child born on British soil. What Coke built and America entrenched, our Parliament undid in an afternoon, because in Britain Parliament can do anything within the bounds of physics. Both the protections in the American Constitution and the flexibility in the British system show the difficulties of using law as a measure of who is “really” American or British, and who might be merely administratively so.
The latest flare-up of this debate in England is housing. This week Reform UK, the insurgent party of Nigel Farage, pledged to put young British workers at the front of the queue for social housing (public housing, roughly), to remove foreign nationals from it, and to limit the welfare non-citizens receive. You might wonder why foreigners are paid welfare and given houses in Britain. Me too. Yet the socialist Labour government called Reform’s plan “unserious and unworkable,” and the very next day proudly unveiled its own master plan: 70,000 affordable homes, spread over 10 years, against a waiting list of 1.3 million households. At that pace, the last family in the queue gets its keys around the year 2212. That’s how incompetent socialists are.
But behind the housing row sits this deeper argument about belonging, and at its center is a system American readers may not know. It has a name only the British civil service could have produced: Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). ILR is our green card. Created in 1971, it gives a migrant on a qualifying visa, after just five years’ residence, the right to stay forever, to claim welfare, and to join that public housing queue. In the last year, Britain granted permanent residence to 525,000 people. That is a foreign population the size of Atlanta, every single year, promised permanence in Britain.
After Brexit, Boris Johnson&#8217;s Conservative government promised control of our borders. Instead, after the lockdowns, Britain ran its own version of the Biden surge: visas issued in the millions, which Britons now call the “Boriswave,” pushing net migration above 900,000 in a single year. About one in five people in Britain was born abroad, an astonishing figure for a country that had net emigration as recently as 1993, and a higher share than America has ever had, Ellis Island included.
The Boriswave cohort is now arriving at its five-year mark, and the queue for permanence is about to become the longest in our history. The government’s answer is “earned settlement”: doubling the qualifying period to 10 years, including for people who arrived under the old rules. Reform would go further and abolish ILR altogether.
That is because, just 12 months after receiving ILR, a migrant can apply for citizenship and a passport. The tests are not demanding. English is required at an “intermediate” level. There is a 45-minute multiple-choice quiz of pub trivia, Life in the U.K. There is no test of contribution, of whether you have worked or claimed, integrated into mainstream society or withdrawn from it. That is how a country manufactures citizens who are British by filing rather than belonging.
Defenders of this arrangement insist that once someone has a passport, they are just as British as everyone else, and nothing can ever be done to remove them. But a passport does not magically and retroactively justify the decision to grant it. Britain has handed out passports like confetti, and pretended that the paperwork is all it takes to become part of the British family.
Some European neighbors have stopped pretending. Since January, Sweden has offered refugees a repatriation grant of 350,000 kronor per adult, about $35,000, to go “home,” for those the migration minister says have “not become sufficiently integrated.” In May, the Swedish parliament took the first of two votes to amend the constitution so that dual nationals who commit crimes that “seriously damage Sweden’s vital interests” can be stripped of citizenship. Denmark has paid repatriation grants for years. So the question Britain must answer is whether membership in a nation is a contract whose terms the nation may revise, or a promise the state can never rewrite, no matter what its citizens think.
Britain has rapidly moved to copy the American idea of being a “creedal” nation, with insistence from the Left that there is no such thing as an “English” or “Scottish” or “Welsh” ethnic people, and that Britishness is merely a series of stereotypes familiar to American audiences. Cups of tea, London buses, a spot of rugby or cricket, and some dry wit. But identity runs much deeper than all of those things.
You see it in deep social mores and customs (that are shared across the Atlantic by our joint provenance), in our sense of fair play, family unit structure, belief in the common law, and so on, that are just different from even other Western European nations. Alan Macfarlane shows this in a work called “The Origins of English Individualism.”
He shows that Englishness, Britishness, or Americanness for that matter, is not merely a matter of what food you eat, or even whether you can speak the language. It’s obviously not just an ethnic distinction either, as many interracial marriages and non-white people integrate marvelously. But if the Left continues to insist that paperwork is all that defines our sense of belonging and citizenship, and ignores the deep, powerful wellsprings of national identity, they may come to regret severing the link between the nation and the state.
***
James Price is a former Chief of Staff to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and a senior fellow at the Adam Smith Institute.

Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference

How Britain Turned Citizenship Into Identity By Paperwork

citizenship

indefinite leave to remain

reform uk

Alarm bells are ringing across the British justice system over fears that white prisoners in the UK are being terrorized into converting to Islam by dominant, violent prison gangs.
Fresh Ministry of Justice figures expose a startling demographic shift behind bars in England and Wales: one out of every five Muslim inmates is white, <a href="https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16078107/Fears-prisoners-forced-convert-Islam-bars-revealed-one-five-Muslim-inmates-white.html?ns_mchannel=rss&amp;ns_campaign=1490&amp;ito=social-twitter_mailonline">compared</a> with 5.8% of Muslims in the general population, according to the Daily Mail. The disparity has triggered urgent calls from political leaders demanding an immediate inquiry into radicalization and coerced conversions reportedly taking place in prisons.
Critics warned that newly arrived inmates face a brutal choice: submit to extremist gangs or suffer violence. While some prisoners adopt the faith as &#8220;convenience Muslims&#8221; to secure extra cell time or better halal meals, legal experts and veteran prison inspectors say that sheer survival is driving them. Inmates are forced to fall in line within hours of entering a wing to buy protection from dominant radical factions.
The crisis is backed by hard evidence in the government’s <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6267f9648fa8f523bb2e51bf/terrorism-in-prisons-review-response.pdf">landmark 2022 independent review</a> on terrorism in prisons by Jonathan Hall KC.
The bombshell report revealed how extremist &#8220;emirs&#8221; run power structures inside high-security facilities, taking advantage of isolated and vulnerable prisoners. Hall reported that radical leaders enforce control through psychological manipulation, food sharing, and recruitment backed by &#8220;implicit or actual violence.&#8221;
&#8220;Even when spread out among other prisoners, there are a small number of individuals whose radicalising influence means they can draw others into their world view,&#8221; the report stated. &#8220;They can have a serious impact on the lives of those they groom, the prison wing and ultimately on the public who face an increased risk of terrorism.&#8221;
In one chilling example, London Bridge attacker Usman Khan actively pressured fellow inmates to adopt traditional Muslim names and clothes while aggressively expanding his radical group. Hall&#8217;s findings warned that without strong government intervention, these radical networks will continue to subvert prison discipline and create dangerous recruitment pipelines.
In the United States, American prisons are grappling with a massive phenomenon. Islam has long been recognized as the fastest-growing faith behind bars, as CBS News <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/islam-conversion-prison-state-of-spirituality/">noted</a>, accounting for <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-03-27/how-to-produce-fewer-terrorists-in-prison">up to 80%</a> of all religious conversions in the prison system. Tens of thousands of American inmates adopt the faith each year.

Court Grants Wikileaks Founder Right To Appeal Against Extradition To The U.S.

Fears Grow That Muslim Prison Gangs Are Coercing Inmates to Convert To Islam

forced conversion

islam

ministry of justice

prison radicalization

Imagine inviting someone to a dinner party at your home who doesn&#8217;t know how to eat with cutlery, clean up after themselves, speak English, properly respect the hosts, or refrain from attacking your children, wife, or dog.
That would be stupid.
But ironically, that is exactly what the United Kingdom did, just on a much grander and more significant scale.
After allowing hundreds of thousands of migrants to flood their borders and nest within the walls of the U.K., fundamentally changing the fabric of their nation, sending sexual assault numbers skyrocketing, and leaving housing, policing, and legal systems groaning under the weight of it, the government&#8217;s fix is not tighter borders, stricter asylum vetting, or, say, enforcing the laws already on the books. That would make too much sense. Instead, they&#8217;re resorting to &#8220;How to Act in Britain&#8221; <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/understanding-behaviours-and-expectations-in-the-uk-a-guide-for-asylum-seekers/understanding-behaviours-and-expectations-in-the-uk-a-guide-for-asylum-seekers-accessible">pamphlets</a> for their former third-world arrivals.
It&#8217;s embarrassing beyond recognition.
The instruction manuals for the new arrivals include basic messaging that most of Western civilization absorbs by kindergarten — but that those arriving from elsewhere have no concept of at all.
Take the &#8220;novel&#8221; concept of gender equality:
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-1162439" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/08/chloe1.jpg" alt="" width="344" height="512" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/08/chloe1.jpg 344w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/08/chloe1-202x300.jpg 202w" sizes=" (max-width: 344px) 100vw, 344px" /></div>
Yeah. Apparently, that&#8217;s something that now needs to be stated and plastered all over British creation, because though it&#8217;s something we take for granted every day, the Left seems to have forgotten that female rights didn&#8217;t magically appear overnight, nor do they exist in many other parts of the world. And importing those parts that largely view women as half-brained? Might not go over well with the ladies of Blighty.
It&#8217;s also funny to see that *snap* just like that, the Left remembered that differences between the two sexes do exist. Someone alert the WNBA.
There&#8217;s a section on domestic abuse, too.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-1162441" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/08/chloe2.jpg" alt="" width="297" height="512" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/08/chloe2.jpg 297w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/08/chloe2-174x300.jpg 174w" sizes=" (max-width: 297px) 100vw, 297px" /></div>
My favorite entry: please don&#8217;t confiscate your wife&#8217;s passport. In America, we&#8217;re still arguing over whether a woman who strangled her three kids to death mid-breakdown counts as a &#8220;victim&#8221;; meanwhile, the U.K. is now having to remind 19% of its population that a passport is a travel document, not a leash.
It&#8217;s giving “Not Without My Daughter,” except this time the sequel is government-issued pamphlets explaining that, no, in the U.K., you cannot confiscate your wife&#8217;s passport whenever you feel like it.
Naturally, there&#8217;s a section on sex and consent. Foreign nationals make up roughly 11% of the English population but account for somewhere between 14% and 22% of sexual-offense convictions, including close to a quarter of convictions for sexual assault on women and over one-fifth of adult rape convictions, per 2024 figures.
Bang-up job there, Europe.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-1162443" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/08/chloe3.jpg" alt="" width="269" height="512" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/08/chloe3.jpg 269w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/08/chloe3-158x300.jpg 158w" sizes=" (max-width: 269px) 100vw, 269px" /></div>
It might have helped to hand out the &#8220;please don&#8217;t sexually assault women&#8221; pamphlet before the Rape Gang Inquiry confirmed what everyone already knew: that as many as a quarter of a million young girls were systematically raped, trafficked, and abused over decades by organized networks of mostly Pakistani men, while police, councils, and social workers looked away, terrified of the word &#8220;racist.&#8221;
The government didn&#8217;t have too much to say about that, but hey: dial 999 if you need anything, ladies!
Finally, a public-decency primer for the newfound pommies:
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-1162447" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/08/chloe4.jpg" alt="" width="414" height="512" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/08/chloe4.jpg 414w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/08/chloe4-243x300.jpg 243w" sizes=" (max-width: 414px) 100vw, 414px" /></div>
No unsolicited photos, no sexual comments, and no groping, please! Please! PLEASE! I&#8217;m honestly surprised there wasn&#8217;t a bonus module on saying &#8220;thank you&#8221; or a footnote clarifying that beheading people is generally frowned upon in polite society.
It&#8217;s easy to mock because it&#8217;s so incredibly insane; the nation that once exported liberty, rule of law, and women&#8217;s rights to half the globe is now reduced to begging its own dinner guests not to assault the hosts. But the insanity of it all is quite sad.
Between 2021 and 2024, as hundreds of thousands crossed the Channel to file asylum claims, sexual-offense convictions among foreign nationals rose 62%. Afghan nationals showed markedly elevated rates. Foreign nationals remain wildly overrepresented in England&#8217;s sex-offender population relative to their share of the general population.
The victims in all of this were largely young English women. You weren&#8217;t allowed to notice, lest you get labeled a bigoted Islamophobe. You also weren&#8217;t allowed to notice that the year Muhammad became the #1 boy name in England and Wales (and stayed there), thousands of those same young, white, British girls were still being treated as fair game by organized grooming networks. Or notice that old cities and towns once full of smiling faces and bright-eyed children were now draped in flags, burqas, and speakers sounding the call to prayer, lest you be called a bigot.
But now that everyone&#8217;s seeing it and can’t unsee it, the government is making a pathetic attempt at damage mitigation with &#8220;How to be an Englishman,&#8221; for dummies who couldn’t care less about how to be an Englishman.
It boils down to this: those illegally entering these established nations do not want to be like the English, or the Americans, or the Western man more broadly. They want to import their own ways, their own hierarchy of the sexes, their own rules about whose word carries force and whose body is available, and their own contempt for the soft, sentimental rules that Judeo-Christian civilization spent centuries building.
The Bible and the moral tradition that grew from it teach that every person, man or woman, bears the image of God, that the strong are commanded to protect the weak, that marriage is a covenant of mutual dignity, and that the stranger is still bound by the same moral law as the host. That is why the West abolished slavery, raised the status of women, and treated rape as a crime against the person rather than a property dispute. Large parts of the Islamic world, shaped by different scriptures and centuries of different practices, never underwent that transformation. In too many of the countries these arrivals come from, a woman&#8217;s testimony is worth half a man&#8217;s, her freedom of movement still depends on a male guardian, and &#8220;honor&#8221; can justify violence that Western courts call murder. The Home Office pamphlet is not inventing a problem; it is admitting, in the blandest bureaucratic prose possible, that the guests arrived with a different operating system.
So the dinner party continues. 
The hosts keep printing etiquette cards while the furniture is rearranged, the silverware disappears, and the children are no longer safe in their own home. A serious country would have locked the door. Instead, it keeps setting extra places and hoping the next pamphlet will finally do the trick.

Demonstrations Held Outside Migrant Accommodations Across The UK

Please Don’t Assault The Hosts: Britain’s Etiquette Guide For Its Uninvited Guests

grooming gang scandal

sexual assault

Last September, a young man named George Abaraonye greeted the assassination of Charlie Kirk with a message to his fellow Oxford students: “Charlie Kirk got shot, let’s f*cking go.” At the time, he was the incoming president of the Oxford Union, the world-famous debating society that trained a sizable chunk of Britain’s prime ministers, and it took a two-thirds vote of its members to remove him.
This week, the same young man published an essay entitled “They’re killing black boys at Oxford and Cambridge,” in which he rails against “mob justice” and warns journalists that they “will not be clean from this sin.” The man who whooped at an actual, literal assassination has appointed himself Britain’s foremost authority on the sanctity of life.
His subject is Jason Arday, the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/con-man-wielding-racial-grift-exposes-prestigious-university-as-a-gutless-pushover?row=0&amp;elementPosition=9&amp;rowType=Web+Search">Cambridge professor</a> whose remarkable résumé (visiting professorships that three universities say never existed, 30 marathons in 35 days, an invented book, cancer that was testicular in the pitch for his memoir, which turned to brain cancer by the time it made it into the book itself) collapsed after three weeks of scrutiny, and who resigned.
On Friday, Arday was found dead at his home in London. He leaves behind two children, and his death is, of course, a tragedy. The grief lasted about five minutes before the political operation began.
On Monday night, a crowd gathered in Trafalgar Square in London for what was billed as a vigil. Placards read “unalived by a witch-hunt.” The Labour Member of Parliament, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, told the crowd that it was the media that killed him. The veteran Labour MP Diane Abbott blamed a “vicious media.” Simon Woolley, the principal of a Cambridge college, called it a “lynching” and a “public assassination.” The veteran activist Patrick Vernon inducted Arday into a martyrs’ pantheon alongside George Floyd. The ambition could not be plainer: Britain is to have its own George Floyd moment, and this time the officer in the dock is the free press.
London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, condemned the press for “pernicious public shaming.” The bestselling author Matt Haig demanded that Prime Minister Andy Burnham end a world in which journalists “face zero consequences” for their reporting. Hacked Off, Britain’s perennial press-regulation lobby led by Hugh Grant (who has never forgiven the press for highlighting his…penchant for ladies of negotiable affection), called for a state framework of “genuine press accountability.”
Campaigners now want a public inquiry into the coverage and a law to “cap news coverage of any individual within a set time frame.” They are already calling it Arday’s Law. Meanwhile, the progressive activist group, the Good Law Project, gathered signatures for a petition insisting the allegations against Arday were “entirely false,” which will come as news to the three universities that denied Arday’s claimed professorships on the record.
Americans might assume that Britain’s Left has always been this squeamish about politicizing a death. Not quite. Five weeks ago, when the veteran conservative politician Ann Widdecombe was brutally murdered in her own home by way of blunt force trauma to the head, we were sternly instructed that drawing political conclusions from a killing was ghoulish, and that decent people wait for the facts. That commandment has now been suspended. Politicizing the murder of a conservative is not allowed, but doing so for the suicide of a progressive icon is now totally fine.
Set aside the hypocrisy and examine the principle actually being demanded: that true, newsworthy stories must not be published in case their subject harms himself.
This rule would hand every fraudster, embezzler, and lying politician a veto over his own exposure, and the more theatrically fragile the wrongdoer, the stronger his protection becomes. Arday himself demonstrated how such a veto works in practice. When a retired professor raised questions about his research, Arday reported him to the police. A journalist who investigated him was likewise reported to Scotland Yard, and his editors heard from Britain’s most feared libel firm. Suppressing scrutiny was the strategy all along. His mourners simply want it placed on a statutory footing.
The pressure is already telling. Aaron Bastani, co-founder of the left-wing outlet Novara Media, bravely and legitimately criticized Arday during the scandal, but has now had to recant on camera: “Professionally I erred, but ethically I really screwed up.” The aforementioned Diane Abbott (who once confidently asserted that Chairman Mao did more good than bad) used the vigil stage to smear the academics who first questioned Arday’s work. Universities are circulating messages offering support to students frightened by the coverage, as though reading a newspaper were a form of trauma. The struggle session is well underway, comrades!
Americans have seen this film before. In 2020, the death of a flawed man was transmuted into a national reckoning: institutions knelt, cities burned, and dissenters learned to whisper.
But if the Left have their way today, even whispering truth will become a literal crime. We must not allow this to happen to a free press.
***
James Price is a former Chief of Staff to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and a senior fellow at the Adam Smith Institute.

Memorial Held For Former Cambridge Professor Jason Arday In Trafalgar Square

The Canonization Of Jason Arday And The Death Of The Free Press

jason arday

oxford union

press freedom

university of cambridge

A politician convicted of hate speech for sharing her Christian views on marriage said she was “blocked” from entering the United Kingdom to advocate for free speech. 
Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen said Tuesday that officials in the U.K. prevented her from traveling into Northern Ireland, where she was slated to speak at a conference on religious liberty. Räsänen said she was initially authorized to enter the country in June, but that approval was yanked in July. 
“It is shocking that the U.K. has blocked me, a democratically elected politician in an allied European state, from entering the country,” Räsänen said. “I was convicted of ‘hate speech’ in Finland for peacefully expressing my Christian views.”
Räsänen called on U.K. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood to reverse course and allow her to enter the country. She currently plans to address the conference remotely on Wednesday and Friday. 
The denial of entry comes just a few months after Finland&#8217;s top court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/a-politician-shared-traditional-christian-values-now-she-stands-convicted-of-hate-speech">found</a> Räsänen guilty of “hate speech” for sharing her Christian views on marriage in a 2004 church pamphlet. The court found her guilty of “making and keeping available to the public a text that insults a group.” The “text” she was charged over was a pamphlet explaining the Bible’s position on marriage and sexual ethics, published by Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola, who was convicted alongside her.
The Trump administration, which slammed Räsänen’s conviction, said the latest development showed the dangers of restricting free speech. 
“Paivi was prosecuted for quoting the Bible. A downstream effect of countries criminalizing speech is that systems designed to flag and filter ‘criminals’ trigger rippling second-order punishments [can] lead to debanking, visa denials, and more,” Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers said Tuesday. 
Throughout her legal battles, Räsänen has been represented by Alliance Defending Freedom International, which called for the U.K. to immediately approve her application. 
“This is not an isolated incident,” said ADF International lawyer Lorcan Price. “The UK has in the last year blocked a number of mainstream conservative individuals, politicians, and now even a member of the Finnish Parliament and a Lutheran bishop, from entering the country. This trend is yet another example of the severe and escalating censorship crisis in Great Britain.”
The U.K. itself has a troubled track record on free speech. In May, a pastor <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pastor-convicted-for-preaching-on-john-316-outside-hospital">was fined</a> for preaching on John 3:16 inside a so-called “Safe Access Zone” outside a Northern Ireland hospital that performs abortions.

MixCollage-19-Aug-2026-11-05-AM-2826

Politician Punished For Christian Beliefs Targeted Again

finland

free speech

hate speech

paivi rasanen

Andrew and Tristan Tate obtained passports under different names as they sought to hide their identities from authorities — with one passport drawing inspiration from a James Bond villain. 
The brothers are set to attend a detention hearing in Miami later this month that will determine whether the brothers stay in prison or will be released while they await their extradition trial. Given the recent revelation that they possess multiple passports under aliases, their lawyer acknowledged that it would be a “tall climb” to persuade the judge to release them.
Tristan, Andrew&#8217;s younger brother, had a Mexican passport with his photo that used the name “Vladimir Scorpius,” the name of the main villain in the James Bond “Scorpius” novel, according to court documents, The New York Post <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/08/12/us-news/andrew-and-tristan-tate-had-cache-of-passports-under-aliases-including-bond-villain/">reported</a>.
The Tate brothers are facing 59 charges in the United Kingdom, including multiple charges of rape, sex trafficking, and offenses related to indecent images of a child and extreme pornography in the United Kingdom. The brothers have bragged about their “seven passports” and “15 driver’s licenses” in social media posts. New filings from the British Embassy in Washington revealed a slew of passports from the United Kingdom, the United States, Estonia, Nigeria, Poland, and Vanuatu — a small Pacific archipelago. 
Andrew said that if he were ever stopped by the police, he would “pull out a license from some random country” in order to keep his identity a secret. He added in multiple posts that he is “above the law.” Prosecutors cited multiple social media posts in which Andrew and Tristan bragged about using multiple aliases to assert that the brothers are flight risks. 
“The court need not look much further than the Tates’ own social media posts to understand the great lengths they have gone to avoid detection by government,” prosecutors <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2026/08/11/tate-brothers-should-stay-jailed-during-extradition-process-prosecutors-argue-citing-social-media-posts/">said</a>.
On Monday, Andrew <a href="https://x.com/Cobratate/status/2086918265658372119">posted</a> on X from prison that he is living the life that &#8220;everyone is waiting to play.”
“Bugattis, money, federal prison, prosecutors after you, street notoriety, professional fights, children with endless women, etc. It’s GTA6. I live what everyone is waiting to play,” he wrote.
The brothers also face charges in Romania that include sex with a minor, trafficking minors, running an organized crime operation, and money laundering. 
Joe McBride, the brothers’ attorney, claims Andrew and Tristan have a “target on their back for them to get stabbed, jumped, murdered.” He added, “Every time somebody walks by their cell they get called a word that starts with a ‘P’ that’s more appropriate to [Jeffrey] Epstein and not appropriate to them.”
The brothers&#8217; detention hearing was initially scheduled for Thursday, August 13, but was postponed by U.S. Magistrate Lauren Louis to give the brothers&#8217; attorneys more time to respond to the prosecution&#8217;s arguments. The detention hearing is now scheduled for August 27.

Untitled design – 2026-07-18T211905.357

Tate Brothers’ Bond Villain Passport Throws Wedge Into Their Push For Release

passport fraud

Menu