How We Can Resist The UK Dictatorship - Part 1

Recently, the deputy PM and justice secretary, David Lammy, announced that the UK government is planning to scrap jury trials for all but suspected murder, manslaughter and rape cases. The push-back has been considerable, but we are supposed to believe that the only place where resistance has any meaningful chance of success is in parliament.

This is not true, and over this and the next article we’ll consider why it isn’t. In doing so, we will hopefully develop a collective understanding of what the UK dictatorship is and how we can work together to resist it using the Rule of Law.

Seeing as "democracy" means governance exercised through the Rule of Law administered by the people through jury-led trials, the UK government’s attempt to scrap jury trials is wholly anti-democratic. That said, the so-called "representative democracy" we currently endure is not democracy, so it is naive to expect it to be democratic. Anti-democratic policies are entirely in keeping with "representative democracy."

Democracy has nothing to do with electing anyone to any kind of political office or any other position of claimed authority. In a democracy, authority is wielded equally by each and every sovereign individual—every single one of us—through jury-led trials with the power to annul legislation. There is no higher earthly authority in a democracy than a sovereign individual restoring justice through a jury-led trial.

Representative democracy (RD) is not the best sociopolitical system in an imperfect world, as we are constantly educated to believe. Democracy, for example, could be much better.

RD is, however, supposedly founded upon a set of democratic rights. These include freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of movement, and the right of petition—the right to hold government to account. These are commonly viewed as "legal" or "human" rights and, therefore, are not real rights at all.

Such legislative faux-rights are behavioural permits granted, or rescinded, by the RD governments which claim mythical authority. Lammy’s recent assertion that he has the divine power to limit jury trials is just the latest travesty in a very long history of governments completely ignoring purported "democratic rights." It is unrealistic to expect anything else while we allow the RD legal system to persist.

Elections create the alleged basis for political authority to be exerted by the winning gang in an RD system. But this is just an Establishment pretense to supposedly legitimise RD. For example, approximately 82% of the British electorate did not elect the current Labour government but it claims the power to rule us regardless.

Despite the fact that far fewer than 1 in 5 of us wanted Keir Starmer’s Labour government to nominally govern, it won 64% of parliamentary seats and has a commanding majority. According to the propagandists, Labour’s pathetic lack of public support constituted a "landslide victory" and we are expected to recognise the current government’s "clear mandate to rule."

An RD electoral mandate is defined as "a strong and clear message from the citizenry endorsing the winner’s programme and giving the in-party the policy-making resources to enact it." Given that approximately 17.5% of voters "elected" Starmer’s Labour government, its claim to have a "clear mandate" is patently absurd. This is not to suggest that had 70% of the population elected Labour their claimed authority would be any more plausible—we’ll discuss why not in Part 2. It is only to observe that, according to supposed RD principles, the current government has no credible mandate.

In truth, in an RD system, this absence of the public’s consent to be governed makes no difference whatsoever. The so-called "social contract" is meaningless.

In any event, what we call "representative" government is not what most of us think it is. From the viewpoint of political science, nearly every professed democratic government is actually a functional oligarchy. Our government is not in charge.

Here in the UK we live in the UK branch—a kind of franchise—of the global public-private partnership (G3P), an international network controlled and engineered by oligarchs. The "UK state" is one among many G3P regional bureaucracies that we call nations. The Kakistocrats—the government—get their marching order from the G3P they serve.

Empowering Kakistocrats to promote the interests of global corporations is what "representative" democratic government is all about. Endemic corruption and injustice is allowed to flourish and a venal dictatorship is the inevitable outcome. This is not hyperbole.

The relentless construction of a UK "public-private" state, ostensibly in the hands of what Lord Hailsham called an "elective dictatorship," is enshrined in the British legal system. This averred reality is contrary to the Rule of Law.

There is a difference between the Rule of Law and the legal system. We’ll explore this distinction in Part 2. For now, we’ll just bear in mind that legal does not necessarily equate to lawful.

We can use the British Rule of Law, underpinned by the British constitution, to hold the government to account. But we have a major problem and we need to be realistic about it. Again, we’ll explore that specific problem, and discuss possible solutions, in Part 2.

Before we do, let’s just consider the UK government’s inexorable march towards dictatorship, just to take a few examples in the 21st century. You will note this is not a party political agenda. Labour, Tory and Coalition governments have consistently represented the G3P—rather than us—and have all contributed to establishing a legislative framework for dictatorship in the UK, on behalf of the G3P. You can vote for whichever political party you like, but you can never change the government in an RD system.

In 2003, the Stevens inquiry report revealed the UK state’s involvement in what can only be described as false flag terrorism in Northern Ireland. Killing its own citizens—subjects—is standard fare for "representative" governments.

In response, the UK government hastily forced through the 2005 Inquiries Act to end any possibility of a real independent inquiry—such as Stevens’—ever happening again. Since then, with total government control of misnamed independent inquiries, they have either been nothing but extremely expensive PR stunts for the official G3P-state narrative, or damage limitation cover ups.

As a result of the Inquiries Act 2005, there is no alternative "legal" route to independent public scrutiny of the British government. We could lawfully convene Grand Juries to hold the UK G3P-state to account but, as usual, the government pretends such lawful remedies don’t exist. This denial of our real rights—which we’ll define in Part 2—is contrary to the Rule of Law.

Less than a week after Public Health England—now the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA)—downgraded Covid-19 from a High-Consequence Impact Disease—due to its "low overall mortality"—the UK Government verbally asserted that the country was in a crisis. The government sidestepped the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (CCA), intended for just such an alleged emergency. By not invoking the CCA, a purported global pandemic was never officially declared a "state of emergency." Legally speaking, there was no pandemic in the UK.

Instead, MPs passed the alternative Coronavirus Act 2020 without a vote. It was fast-tracked through parliament in just four sitting days. At more than 340 pages, it had obviously been prepared at least months, if not years prior to its supposed "emergency" enactment. There was no opportunity for MPs or peers to scrutinise it in any depth, if at all. Not that it matters, because our representatives didn’t vote on it anyway.

Our so-called politicians did nothing to serve their constituents and allowed the executive branch of the UK Government to snatch extraordinary power. The Coronavirus Act allowed the Government to detain people without trial and to section people in mental health institutions with extrajudicial ease; it extended mass surveillance powers and the retention of biometric data and it created the crime of being ill—"spreading infectious diseases." The Government seized the power to halt legal gatherings, including protests, whenever it chose and it removed all the safeguards surrounding NHS care assessments and death registration. This was contrary to the Rule of Law.

The Coronavirus Act 2020 was a pre-written Enabling Act and the UK government— under the Tories at the time—exploited an alleged crisis to seize dictatorial powers. Such State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs) are also standard practice for RD governments. While most of The Coronavirus Act provisions have now been rolled-back, as we shall see, the construction of a UK dictatorship has continued unabated. The next time a so-called crisis is declared, additional tyrannies will automatically be imposed using the same strategy.

As reasonably suspected by the former succession lawyer and researchers, Substack blogger and activist Clare Wills Harrison:

They’s probably got stacks of these kind of things [pre-prepared Enabling Acts] and they just put the name on when they need it.

During the pseudopandemic, members of the public provided detailed evidence suggesting serious crimes relating to vaccine harms, malfeasance in office, institutional corruption, and other potential criminal offences. The evidence clearly suggests that, at the highest level, UK police forces were instructed not to investigate these crimes or even, in some instances, record the reported criminality. There was apparent systematic oppression, two-tier policing, and the widespread dereliction of duty by the police. Obviously, if true, this was wholly contrary to the Rule of Law.

In 2021 the UK government enacted the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act (CHIS Act). This allows "agents" of the state to commit crime with virtual impunity if they claim they are trying to prevent a "worse crime." Agents working for the police, the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office, any intelligence agency, HMRC, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Competition and Markets Authority, the Environment Agency, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Food Standards Agency, and the Gambling Commission have effectively been given carte blanche to commit any crime in the UK against British citizens. This is contrary to the Rule of Law.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (PCSC Act) stymied our lawful right to protest against the government by re-framing "annoyance and inconvenience" as "serious harm." This misuse of language and vague, often inexplicable and illogical, misinterpretations of words is a typical legalese tactic deployed by dictatorships. It effectively enables the UK G3P-state’s enforcement officers—the police—to deny a protesters’ rights based upon subjective interpretations of causing a "nuisance" or "disruption." Thus the G3P-state insists it has to the authority to render lawful protests invisible, unheard and ultimately pointless. This is contrary to the Rule of Law.

Nowhere is this mealy-mouthed legal technique used to more dictatorial effect than in the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA). The OSA established Ofcom as the UK’s independent regulator to oversee our use of the internet and social media. Ofcom is not remotely independent, either from the UK government or the mainstream (legacy) media (MSM).

Ofcom is "directly accountable" to UK Parliament. It is funded by many of the multinational media corporations it currently regulates, and it is "sponsored" by the UK Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), among other government agencies and departments. It is a bound representative of the UK G3P-state. Claiming it is "independent" of that state is preposterous.

The passing of the OSA gives us a clear example of how a G3P-states, like the UK, operate.

During the pseudopandemic the World Health Organisation (WHO)—a specialised agency of the United Nations (UN)—identified what it called the parallel "infodemic." This alleged problem amounted to people, the world over, questioning the official pandemic narrative. The WHO proclaimed that any such public scrutiny of its pronouncements constituted "fake news" and that this "threat" was on a par with a reportedly lethal global pandemic:

[W]e’re not just fighting an epidemic; we’re fighting an infodemic. Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus, and is just as dangerous.

Since 1998, the UN has openly conceded that it is a global public-private partnership (G3P). Indeed, as it is primarily a project of the Rockefellers and other private sector oligarchs, it always has been.

The reason for the UN’s panic became apparent when it published its 2022 report describing what it called "information pollution":

Access to quality information plays a critical role in public trust, democracy, peace and social cohesion. [. . .] As information becomes more accessible, it also becomes more open to influences from non-traditional actors in the infosphere — in most contexts anyone can create and disseminate information. As a consequence, the traditional actors and gatekeepers of information and news — established media and government institutions — are struggling to compete with this new reality.

The role of the MSM and government is to act as "gatekeepers of information and news" for the G3P. We are the "non-traditional actors" who have been using the internet to "create and disseminate information" undermining the interests of the G3P. As we increasingly question the gatekeepers, the UN—and governments around the world—are terrified that we won’t "trust" their authoritarian orders and, consequently, won’t obey their diktats: non-compliance.

As a result, legislation almost identical to the OSA, is simultaneously being enforced globally. The objective is to censor the "non-traditional actors"—especially the genuine independent media—and protect the MSM who are the G3P’s propagandist "gatekeepers."

Unsurprisingly therefore, MSM news outlets and other official gatekeepers are exempt from the strictures of the OSA. The UK G3P-state coddles its gatekeeping MSM because it has total control of it. Censorship of us, and protection of the MSM, which the OSA farcically refers to as the "independent media," is precisely what the OSA is designed to achieve.

The OSA is the legal enforcement of a G3P policy initiative. The UK government is simply following instructions.

As required by the OSA, Ofcom has produced its definition of alleged "illegal content" that the Big Tech firms are required—under the OSA via Ofcom—to censor. This brings us to another common legal deception used by the G3P-state.

We can call this deceit domestic lawfare:

[U]sing legal measures or their potential utilisation as strategic tools in political or ideological disputes within a nation. [. . .] Such measures may include lawsuits, investigations, and other legal mechanisms aimed at eradicating, intimidating, penalising, or undermining rivals to achieve specific political or policy objectives. This practice can be identified as domestic lawfare by prioritising legal technicalities over substantive matters. Its impact is of particular concern, as it is employed to suppress dissenting voices and curtail essential liberties, such as freedom of speech.

Domestic lawfare commonly succeeds in the UK through misdirection. For example, few of us would argue with most of Ofcom’s "Codes of practice." Of course, children should not have access to pornography. What responsible parent, or caregiver, would allow a child under their protection to watch porn? Most of us would also probably agree that terrorists should be deterred from using the internet to radicalise impressionable people, though there is no evidence that any such online radicalisation actually occurs.

Ofcom is keen to stress that paedophiles should not be able to use social media to groom children with impunity. Yet child grooming is already illegal under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

There would be no impunity if paedophile networks were actually investigated and the existing law was properly enforced. In terms of child protection, the OSA adds absolutely nothing to legislation that is already on the statute books. But then, reportedly safeguarding children is just the gatekeeper’s propaganda narrative to convince us to accept the end of online free speech and freedom of expression in the UK. We are being attacked through the G3P-state’s use of domestic lawfare.

Lurking within Ofcom’s seemingly reasonable regulations is a draconian online dictatorship. For a start, the current encroachment of the OSA is liable to expand through secondary legislation—alleged "law" that is not made by parliament and cannot be amended by MPs.

Under the OSA, Ofcom—the independent regulator—draws up the "regulations" that social media corporations and search engines are compelled to obey—not that they are opposed to the idea. The executive’s Secretary of State makes this determination via secondary legislation. None of our supposed "representative" MPs can do anything other than eventually agree to adopt whatever the executive demands. That is assuming they even read the secondary legislation, which is unlikely.

The House of Lords has at least recognised the threat posed by the increasing use of secondary legislation to centralise executive power within the Cabinet Office. So far, this has made no difference at all to any UK government: the G3P-state rolls on. This is contrary to the Rule of Law.

Ofcom stipulates what constitutes "illegal content" for the purposes of the OSA. This includes any online communication we make supposedly "with the intention of having an interference effect." Where an "interference effect" is defined as any communication:

affecting the exercise by any person of their public functions; [. . .] interfering with whether, or how, any person makes use of services provided in the exercise of public functions; interfering with whether, or how, any person (other than in the exercise of a public function) participates in relevant political processes or makes political decisions; interfering with whether, or how, any person (other than in the exercise of a public function) participates in legal processes under the law of the United Kingdom; or prejudicing the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.

And where "public function" means:

[Any act] exercisable in the United Kingdom, or; exercisable in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom by a person acting for or on behalf of, or holding office under, the Crown.

So forget about questioning any officer or official of the G3P-state or the political establishment online in the UK. If they are hopelessly corrupt and you point to the evidence exposing the fact, under the OSA, the government will work with its private sector partners to censor and potentially prosecute you for daring to question its claimed "authority." This tyrannical edict is not even the product of secondary legislation. It is "tertiary" or "quasi" legislation which means "rules or regulations that are created by entities other than the primary or secondary legislative bodies," i.e., not parliament but Ofcom, at the behest of the Secretary of State. This is contrary to the Rule of Law.

Clearly, we are not permitted to question anything that "prejudices"—meaning expresses perceived bias against or causes harm or loss to—the "safety or interests of the United Kingdom." But what are these interests and safety concerns?

"National security" is certainly very important for judging OSA tertiary offences. Commensurate with s.14(5) of the National Security Act 2023, we are liable to censorship—and possible prosecution don’t forget—if we stray into causing the heinous "interference effect" by criticising the "public function" of any officer "under the Crown," such as MPs. Especially if we have the gall to question:

[. . .] an election or referendum in the United Kingdom, the proceedings of a local authority, the proceedings of a UK registered political party, or the activities of an informal group consisting of or including members of one or both of Houses of Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, or Senedd Cymru.

In short, as stated by Ofcom’s inappropriately named "code of conduct," any interference effect we recklessly heap on the RD system or the people who say they have the right to rule us, which essentially has the effect of questioning "political decision," is well-and-truly liable for censorship under the OSA. Do you really think this legislation is intended to protect children?

To date, the effect of the OSA has not been to improve child safeguarding. This is unsurprising because the UN, the G3P’s favoured global governance authority driving the global censorship agenda, presents a clear threat to children across the world. Instead, the OSA has been used to censor people showing lawful protest footage, censor those questioning illegal immigration, and, completely contrary to the gatekeepers claims, censor MPs actually trying to expose paedophile gangs.

Rather than invest resources in beefing up investigations into online offences against children, thanks to the new offence of "sending false communication"—Section 179 of the OSA—specialist police units have been established to monitor our speech online. This isn’t new but rather the legal expansion of the online surveillance of our speech conducted by the British military on behalf of the G3P during the alleged pandemic.

What we have explored here is just the tip of a very dictatorial iceberg empowered and emboldened by the OSA. Needless to say, the OSA is evidently contrary to the Rule of Law.

Though there are an estimated 12,000 arrests every year in the UK for saying the wrong thing, successful prosecutions have actually declined. The highly publicised arrests are designed to serve more as a warning. Don’t say or post the wrong thing or you can expect the jackboots at your door. Most of these arrests have been under existing legislation, but with the addition of the OSA, the UK is rapidly becoming a highly censored G3P-state dictatorship.

The Data Use and Access Act 2025, combined with the Digital Identity Attributes Trust Framework (DIATF), again exploits the secondary legislation trick. The Act provides statutory authority to the DIATF creating G3P-state authorised credentials for the introduction of digital identity in the UK. Via secondary legislation, the UK G3P-state has written itself a blank cheque to expand its digital identity powers and bring in more private sector partners.

The deception is so pervasive that when the government introduced the digital ID debate to the British public it appeared to deliberately mislead the people about the nature of digital identity, deceptively claiming the so-called BritCard was digital ID. As usual, its gatekeeper propagandists have been dispatched to deny the truth and trick us into accepting the technocratic dark state the G3P so desperately wants to install.

Despite the fact that the Kakistocrats misrepresented the digital ID concept to the British people, our anger and rejection of it was overwhelming. Politicians formed cross-party opposition groups to stand against BritCard, as if defeating BritCard alone—through the political process—will make any difference to the G3P-state’s seizure and doubtless oppressive use of our private personal data.

Under the proposed Crime and Policing Bill, the biometric data of approximately fifty-five million British driving license holders will almost certainly be used to create our digital identities, whether we agree to them or not. The UK G3P-state serves the interests of multinational corporations—its private sector "partners"—like Palantir and Oracle, not the British people.

Now, useful idiot Kakistocrats, serving their G3P masters, are boldly announcing that we, the British people, have no right to a trial by jury. As we’ll see in Part 2, this is yet another example of pernicious domestic lawfare.

We need to be very clear about what is happening in the UK. The British G3P-state has already established the framework for a UK dictatorship. It wants us to agree that it has the authority to deny our rights, to commit crimes against us, to ignore our constitution, to end our privacy and surveil us at all times, to incarcerate us—absent any lawful due process—as and when it pleases, and to control our lives by strangling our individual sovereignty in its despotic technological grip.

It does not have the authority to inflict this dictatorship on us, and it never did.

Regrettably, the broader population is so mired in propaganda and lies, so accustomed to tyrannical diktat, so cudgelled into passive acceptance, and so conditioned to expect convenience in return, that the majority will, in all likelihood, meekly submit to subjugation. The inconvenience and hardship necessary for real non-compliance is just too arduous for most to even contemplate.

For those of us who recognise the UK G3P-state dictatorship that is fast approaching, non-compliance is our only realistic short-term option. The alternative is to voluntarily embrace our own and our children’s slavery, not under whips wielded by Kakistocrats like Lammy, but under the harsh programmable code of the G3P’s techno-fascist AI algorithms.

But while non-compliance is our immediate, essential defence, the G3P-state is weak and holed below the waterline. It is reliant upon propaganda, coercion and the use of force because it is frail. We do have a constitutional Rule of Law and the UK G3P-state’s only strategy is to ignore it because it knows we are sovereign. Its claimed authority is an illusion based on nothing but lies.

If we are going to continue to suffer RD Kakistocracy, we can, and we must, lawfully force the Kakistocrats to honour our Rule of Law and our lawful, codified constitution. This won’t be easy because the British Establishment’s Kakistocracy is embedded, brutal and utterly duplicitous. We have to overcome endemic institutionalised corruption and fundamental sociopolitical problems first.

That said, if we collectively act lawfully and conduct ourselves with "an open hand" we can exercise our authority—defined in our constitution—to finally end the UK G3P-state’s baseless "legal" pretensions and, thereafter, live in justice and peace.

We will discuss how we can hopefully achieve this in Part 2.

*******************************************

I need your support to continue producing this work. Please consider becoming a paid Substack subscriber or click the button below for other options.