Geoengineering and/or face masks.

🇬🇧 British king … sitting in a golden throne, in a crown with huge jewels … talks about “cost of living challenges.

Heh

🔗

Join us | @MyLordBebo

Lawmakers in the United Kingdom are proposing amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that would require nearly all smartphones and tablets to include built-in, unremovable surveillance software.

Other parts of the same bill introduce additional “age assurance” obligations. On pages 19 and 20, the section titled “Action to prohibit the provision of VPN services to children in the United Kingdom” would compel VPN providers to apply “age assurance, which is highly effective at correctly determining whether or not that person is a child.”

Together, these amendments would, in effect, turn personal smartphones and tablets into permanent monitoring systems and reduce the privacy of digital life to a conditional privilege.

The proposal represents one of the most widespread assaults on digital privacy ever introduced in a democratic country.

A commenter on Mike Yeadon's substack wrote that "The "amendments" will force manufactures of phones and tablets for use in the UK to install "tamper-proof" software that prevents the "recording, viewing or transmission" of [child sexual abuse material] . This goes way beyond Chat Control, it is basically a rootkit on every mobile device. It will be incompatible with users having root privileges on devices they own, wiping out Linux and Android Open Source devices overnight. The "amendment" also gives the Secretary of State the power to extend the statute to cover PCs and laptops without oversight, simply by fiat. This means it will only be possible to have Windows or MacOS PCs with no admin privileges. Linux is simply incompatible with such a system."

https://reclaimthenet.org/uk-lawmakers-propose-mandatory-on-device-surveillance-and-vpn-age-verification

But an amendment introduced in 2019 to Section 12 of the Act has been largely overlooked, even though it is even more repressive. It makes it a terrorism offence for a person to express “an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation” and in doing so be “reckless” about whether anyone else might be “encouraged to support” the organisation.

The law effectively required journalists and others to adopt a blanket condemnatory approach to proscribed militant groups. That had its own drawbacks. It made it difficult, and possibly a terrorist offence, to discuss or analyse these organisations and their goals in relation to international law, which, for example, allows armed resistance – violence – against an occupying army.

The truth is that the law’s greyness is its very point. It maximises the chilling effect on those who are supposed to serve as the public’s watchdogs on power: journalists, human rights groups, lawyers. They now face up to 14 years in jail for contravening this provision.

https://jonathancook.substack.com/p/how-reporting-facts-can-now-land