Nigel Farage vows Reform UK will scrap 'dystopian' online safety laws that puts a blocker on free speech
Nigel Farage 's intervention comes after it emerged that X blocked a powerful speech on grooming gangs by Tory minister Katie Lam in Parliament this year.
Meanwhile, footage of arrests during asylum seeker hotel protests was also blocked 'due to local laws', according to the social media platform.
Last week, the law changed to require websites to check users are over 18 before allowing them to access 'harmful' material such as pornography or suicide material.
Failing to comply with the new rules could incur fines of up to £18million or 10 per cent of a firm's global turnover.
Sir Keir Starmer today denied the legislation was censoring online content and said it was there to protect children.
But at a Reform press conference today, Zia Yusuf, head of government efficiency for the party, said he would repeal the act, which he argued did nothing to protect children.
He said the new powers were 'the sort of thing that I think [Chinese president] Xi Jinping himself would blush at the concept of', adding: 'So much of the act is massive overreach and plunges this country into a borderline dystopian state.'
Arguing that the laws suppress freedom of speech, he said: 'We will repeal this Act as one of the first things a Reform government does.'
Asked how he would protect children such as Molly Russell who took her own life after viewing footage promoting suicide, Mr Farage acknowledged he did not have the 'perfect answer'.
He said his party had 'more access to some of the best tech brains, not just in the country but in the world' and would 'make a much better job of it'.
Andy Burrows, chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation, set up in Molly's memory, said scrapping the Act 'would not only put children at greater risk but is out of step with the mood of the public'.
After a demonstration outside the Britannia Hotel in Leeds at the weekend, X users said the site blocked arrest footage.
They were shown the message: 'Due to local laws, we are temporarily restricting access to this content until X estimates your age.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
26 minutes ago
- BBC News
Police seize £3.6m worth of drugs from house in Glasgow
Police have seized drugs worth over £3m from a property in found the drugs at a house in Milnpark Gardens in the city's Kinning Park on Friday.A large amount of cocaine, worth an estimated street value of £3.68m was are ongoing to identify and trace those involved. Det Ch Insp David Bell called the recovery a "substantial seizure".He said: "This very significant recovery highlights our commitment to tackling dangerous and illegal drugs in our communities."We are determined to protect the public from this harmful criminality by disrupting the drugs trade and preventing them being circulated on the streets of added that anyone with information should contact Police Scotland.
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Terror arrest over Palestine Action RAF attack
Counter-terrorism police have made a further arrest over an attack on two aircraft at an RAF base claimed by Palestine Action. A 22-year-old man, of no fixed abode, was arrested on Friday in Bedford on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, contrary to Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The arrested man is currently in police custody, Counter Terrorism Policing South added Two Voyager planes were damaged at RAF Brize Norton, Oxfordshire, on June 20. The action, which was claimed by the group Palestine Action, caused £7m worth of damage to the aircraft. Four people were charged last month in connection with the incident. The Government subsequently moved to proscribe the group under anti-terror laws after the group claimed responsibility for the action. The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, saying that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful'. However, Palestine Action's co-founder has since won a bid to bring a High Court challenge over the group's ban as a terror organisation. Lawyers for Huda Ammori asked a judge to allow her to bring the High Court challenge over the ban, describing it as an 'unlawful interference' with freedom of expression. In a decision on Wednesday, judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said two parts of the arguments on Ms Ammori's behalf were 'reasonably arguable' and would be heard at a three-day hearing in November. However, he later refused a bid to temporarily pause the ban on the direct action group until the outcome of the challenge. In his first ruling, he said it was arguable that the proscription 'amounts to a disproportionate interference' of Ms Ammori's rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. He said: 'That being so, the point will have to be determined at a substantive hearing and it would not be appropriate for me to say more now.' The judge continued that a second argument, that Ms Cooper failed to consult Palestine Action 'in breach of natural justice', could also go to a full hearing. Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'As a matter of principle, I consider that it is reasonably arguable that a duty to consult arose.' He continued: 'Having considered the evidence, I also consider it reasonably arguable that there was no compelling reason why consultation could not have been undertaken here.' The judge refused to allow Ms Ammori to challenge the Government's decision on several other grounds, including a claim that the Home Secretary failed to gather sufficient information on Palestine Action's activities or the impact of the proscription on people associated with it. He also refused the request for a temporary block, finding there was a 'powerful public interest' in the ban continuing and there was not a 'material change of circumstance' since a previous hearing. Following the first ruling, Ms Ammori said: 'This landmark decision to grant a judicial review which could see the Home Secretary's unlawful decision to ban Palestine Action quashed, demonstrates the significance of this case for freedoms of speech, expression and assembly and rights to natural justice in our country and the rule of law itself.' She continued: 'We will not stop defending fundamental rights to free speech and expression in our country and supporting Palestinian people against a genocide being livestreamed before our eyes.' Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, previously told the court at the hearing on July 21 that the ban had made the UK 'an international outlier' and was 'repugnant'. Mr Husain added: 'The decision to proscribe Palestine Action had the hallmarks of an authoritarian and blatant abuse of power.' The Home Office is defending the legal action. Sir James Eadie KC, for the department, said in written submissions that by causing serious damage to property, Palestine Action was 'squarely' within part of the terrorism laws used in proscription. Previously, Ben Watson KC, also for the Home Office, said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Sir James said that an 'exceptional case' would be needed for it to go to the High Court, rather than the POAC. Mr Justice Chamberlain said on Wednesday that a High Court challenge could take place in the autumn of this year, whereas an appeal to the specialist tribunal would take much longer. He said in a summary of his ruling: 'If it were necessary to appeal for deproscription, it is very unlikely that an application before POAC would be listed before the middle of 2026.' In his 18-page written judgment, Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'If the legality of the proscription order can properly be raised by way of defence to criminal proceedings, that would open up the spectre of different and possibly conflicting decisions on that issue in magistrates' courts across England and Wales or before different judges or juries in the Crown Court. 'That would be a recipe for chaos. 'To avoid it, there is a strong public interest in allowing the legality of the order to be determined authoritatively as soon as possible. The obvious way to do that is in judicial review proceedings.' The judge also said that people protesting in support of Palestine and Gaza, but not expressing support for Palestine Action, had 'attracted various kinds of police attention, from questioning to arrest'. He continued that it was 'important not to draw too much from the fact that police and others appear to have misunderstood the law on some occasions'. But he added: 'Nonetheless, reports of the kind of police conduct referred to… are liable to have a chilling effect on those wishing to express legitimate political views. 'This effect can properly be regarded as an indirect consequence of the proscription order.' Mr Justice Chamberlain later dismissed a bid by the Home Office to bring an appeal over his decision about the POAC. Sir Mark Rowley, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said on Wednesday that he understood Ms Cooper's decision, adding: 'As long as that's the law, we'll enforce the law rigorously, because supporting a terrorist organisation is a serious offence.'
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
UK dog daycare chain battling ‘smear campaign'
Britain's largest chain of dog daycare centres is battling an alleged smear campaign that has forced it to repeatedly call police and left employees afraid they are being followed home. Council documents reveal a battle between the UK's largest chain, Bruce's Doggy Day Care, and what a council officer believes is a 'rival' that has involved police, lawyers, and private security. Staff have been 'called names' and pursued in their cars in a feud that has sprung up amid competition between dog kennels as the industry becomes increasingly popular. The row began when photos claiming to show poor conditions at Bruce's Doggy Day Care, which operates almost a dozen sites across England, started to appear on a social media 'whistleblower' page. The account has accrued more than 2,000 followers and now has more than 100 posts claiming to show dogs kept in waterlogged fields, cramped cages, and muddy indoor facilities at different Bruce's sites. It also has alleged testimonies from former staff members who claim that several dogs burned themselves on indoor heaters and workers were severely outnumbered by pets. Rival business But a council animal inspector who visited one of the sites instead concluded that many of the alleged pictures of poor conditions were 'fake in my professional opinion' and that Bruce's was the victim of 'a campaign... started by a rival'. Bruce's cares for more than 1,000 dogs across 11 sites, mostly in London and the Home Counties, where pets are dropped off in the morning and kept in large grass fields, containing cabins and play areas. The company posted a £10 million turnover last year and is due to open two more sites in September. Bruce Casalis, a South African-born former dance music promoter who founded the business in 2008, has previously described it as 'a Disneyland for dogs'. Following the social media account's allegations, the company wrote a letter to customers which dismissed the content as 'factually incorrect or presented out of context' and said it was taking legal advice. Lewes District Council launched an investigation into one of Bruce's sites, in Ditchling, East Sussex, after 22 complaints were received by the authority's licencing team between June 23 and July 2. Councils are responsible for the licencing and inspection of dog daycare sites. Trevor Moule, an animal licencing inspector at Lewes, carried out an unannounced inspection on July 2 but found no evidence of the allegations made. He instead described 'an expertly managed site' staffed by workers with 'a deep and genuine love for dogs' in his inspection report, which has been obtained by The Telegraph following a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. He claimed that all of the complaints received by the council had referred to the social media page and none he believed were from genuine customers. Mr Moule said Bruce's staff had 'reported experiences of being tailgated or followed home or to petrol stations, being called names and feeling anxious and sometimes vulnerable'. He added that eight calls had been made to police in a two-week period and Bruce's had instructed a private security firm to 'conduct patrols at multiple sites'. 'Many of the complainants are known to the company and legal advice is being taken,' he said. Sussex Police confirmed it had received two reports of malicious communications relating to the site on June 27. 'These incidents are being reviewed and officers are liaising with the victim,' said a force spokesman. The Telegraph has spoken to the owner of the social media page. They run a small dog walking business but insisted they were not a rival as they do not provide a daycare service and operate in an area without a nearby Bruce's site. Employees stand by allegations Four former Bruce's employees, who have contributed photographs and testimonies to the account, denied any connection to a rival company and insisted their allegations were genuine. One former employee of the Ditchling branch provided a photograph of a mud-caked dog in a small cage and a video which appeared to show a rain-soaked dog with matted fur whining inside an indoor cabin. She claimed the footage was taken during her time working at Bruce's. A former employee of a site in Woodcote Green in south London, who asked to remain anonymous, provided a video showing a dog barking frantically in a cage that appears too small. She also provided copies of a daily staff rota that showed staff to dog ratios – which council licencing rules dictate must be one staff member to every 10 dogs or less – were sometimes not observed at the Woodcote Green site. The rota, which showed the planned number of staff members and dogs in a field each day, revealed that staff were sometimes given up to 14 dogs to look after by themselves. Messages on the branch WhatsApp group, which includes staff members and managers, also showed staff flagging that they had been left with 'nearly 20 (dogs) each' in a field. Dog daycare centres can have their animal activity licence revoked by the local authority if they are found not to uphold the ratio. It can also be disclosed that a Bruce's site in Hemel Hempstead was issued a formal warning over its poor conditions by Dacorum Borough Council in August 2024 – although the issues had been fixed by December. A spokesman for Bruce's said: 'We are a dog care provider, celebrated and championed by customers, regulators and councils. Our priority is, and has always been, the welfare and wellbeing of the dogs in our care. We are licensed, regulated and routinely inspected, proudly holding the highest available ratings across all of our centres. Our entire ecosystem is set up to nurture and look after the dogs entrusted to us. 'The allegations and images we have been made aware of are either wholly unrelated to Bruce's, factually incorrect or presented out of context in a way that misrepresents our business and the care we provide. 'We take any concern or complaint extremely seriously and fully investigate any matter raised. We will not engage in online exchanges that amplify harmful misinformation and hatred, and have informed the relevant authorities, including the police, of these allegations. 'While we wish all former staff well, those who contributed to this social media account represent a tiny minority, regrettably have their own agendas against Bruce's and do not reflect the track record we've built up over the years. 'Our centres are open for visiting by our customers and licensing inspectors at any time.' Dog daycare centres first emerged in the United States in the 1990s but have taken off in the UK since the pandemic – when more than three million households acquired dogs. With their new found popularity has come increased competition between rival companies. The chief executive of a different dog daycare company, who asked to remain anonymous, said: 'There are lots of these companies springing up and I would imagine it's very competitive between the major businesses. 'It's a necessity for some dog owners at the end of the day and there are lots of competitive businesses so they have a lot of choice.' Winkie Spiers, a dog behaviourist, added: 'It's a big booming industry. Everyone is opening dog daycares. It's this season's must have. 'Everyone who gets a dog these days is keen to not look after them. 'There are some very good ones and some not good ones.'
