The United Kingdom has gotten this bad. Truly sickening.

[RedFox]

If you want an overview of just how reaching the UK digital ID will be - it will cover (but not be limited too) the following (in the very near future - perhaps accelerated by a new COVID or 'national emergency'):
It will likely expand from being needed for a job, to include renting, online access, doctor/NHS access, shop access, banking and benefits (to start with).
It will be connected to facial ID systems, the 'online safety bill', and online AI surveillance. As it's on your phone, it will also be linked to geo-location/geo-fencing.

Tie that together, and add a 'COVID' and you'll be physically locked at home (unless you can get out without taking your phone - and not arrested for not having your phone/ID, actually find a shop you can get into/pay at without your ID). And it becomes a vaccine passport too.
Have a digital currency/get rid of cash - and that's it. Everything you can do or say, everywhere you can go, everything you can buy or sell is monitored and controlled. Fines/taxes etc will be taken automatically. Bank account access will be denied automatically (see the Canadian Trucker protests). Services will be denied automatically. Travel will be denied automatically.

A virtual prison/prison guard that you will (have to) carry in your pocket.

Here's the head of Big Brother Watch describing it's implications:

Or if you'd prefer to read:

The National – Digital ID system is a serious threat to civil liberties — Big Brother Watch

Defending Civil Liberties, Protecting Privacy

bigbrotherwatch.org.uk

The National – Digital ID system is a serious threat to civil liberties​

Big Brother Watch Team / September 28, 2025

On September 26, Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that it will be mandatory to use digital ID to prove your “right to work” in the UK. But if it indeed comes to fruition, Starmer’s “Brit Card” will be far more than an app on your phone – it will usher in a new era of mass surveillance and do irreparable damage to our civil liberties.

Positioning this requirement as a tool to combat illegal migration is a red herring. We already have to prove our right to work when we get a job – British citizens tend to use physical documents like passports or National Insurance numbers and legal migrants use their eVisa. Proponents of digital ID argue that a mandatory digital ID would make it more difficult to live and work in the UK, by exposing employers who have not complied with the checks and targeting immigration enforcement resources towards them. But it is ludicrous to suggest that employers who do not currently comply with “right-to-work checks” and operate “off-the-books” will suddenly change their mind because the rest of the country is mandated to use state-issued ID. In practice, it will drive unauthorised migrants further into the shadows, into more precarious work and unsafe housing.

While this is currently being proposed as a “right-to-work” check, mandatory ID schemes are highly susceptible to expansion beyond their original purpose. Indeed, the Government is already salivating at the idea that a digital ID could be used for online shopping, voting and detecting welfare fraud. Historically, ID schemes have repeatedly been proposed to solve the moral panic of the day – be it bigamy, football hooliganism or terrorism. In reality, there is very little evidence that they will achieve these aims, while the hugely disproportionate threats to civil liberties makes them difficult to justify.

Digital ID systems can be uniquely harmful to privacy, equality and civil liberties. They would allow the state to amass vast amounts of personal information about the public in centralised government databases. By linking government records through a unique single identifier, digital ID systems would make it very easy to build up a comprehensive picture of an individual’s life. Currently, cross-departmental data sharing is slowed down through data silos, but what is lost in efficiency is preserved by safeguarding against excessive data-sharing. For example, what I share with my GP may be different to what I might want to share with the police when reporting a crime, and HMRC doesn’t need to know my GCSE results in order for me to pay my taxes. It is perfectly reasonable that we should want to limit who can know what about us. Just because the state administers public services, it doesn’t mean it should have a full view of our lives available at all times

We have been sold the line that we are all more willing to carry digital ID today than we were 20 years ago, as we are now accustomed to handing over our personal data to big tech companies. However, the relationship between the citizen and the state is far different from our relationship to private companies, whose services we can choose to use or reject. To resign ourselves to the idea that just because big tech “knows more about us than we know about ourselves”, we should permit the state to infringe on our private lives with similar zeal, would be defeatist. There is no reason to accept a digital ID system which would accumulate power in the hands of the state with very few benefits for citizens.

While some members of the public may feel comfortable with this Government introducing a mandatory digital ID, they should be alert to the reality that, once built, these types of systems are difficult to dismantle. That means that future governments – which may have less interest in preserving rights or the rule of law – will also have access to vast amounts of our personal data which can be stored, amalgamated and searched.

Digital ID systems also lend themselves to exclusion. While all of us are likely to be asked to identify ourselves more often as we go about our daily lives, in practice, it is likely to be minoritised groups who are asked to prove they have the right to be here more often than others.

Making basic services accessible only through a single online point of failure will also lead to people being shut out from essential services when these systems fail or are inaccessible. The eVisa system that is compulsory for more than four million migrants has produced a raft of errors, leaving people stranded at the border, unable to start new jobs and wrongfully receiving medical bills.

With little to gain and so much to lose, the opposition to ID cards is not surprising. More than a million people have already signed the parliamentary petition opposing the policy. Politicians from the left, right and centre have been quick to condemn Starmer’s announcement, and public opinion polling is rapidly tilting against digital ID. The Government should take heed of the public’s opposition and quit while they’re ahead – before spending more time and money going down this route that leads to nowhere.

– Jasleen Chaggar, Legal and Policy Officer

BBC – Council facial recognition plans mark “unprecedented level of mass surveillance” — Big Brother Watch

Defending Civil Liberties, Protecting Privacy

bigbrotherwatch.org.uk

BBC – Council facial recognition plans mark “unprecedented level of mass surveillance”​

Big Brother Watch Team / September 18, 2025


Hammersmith and Fulham council has approved plans to introduce facial recognition and AI-assisted cameras into its local network, which consists of over 2,000 cameras. The West London borough already has more cameras per person that anywhere else in the UK.

Jasleen Chaggar, Legal and Policy Officer at Big Brother Watch, said: “The council are really throwing the kitchen sink at their residents with these plans, with very little regard to their fundamental rights or freedoms. Not only do they want to subject their residents to 24-hour real-time identity checks through live facial recognition, they also want to capture that footage of them going about their everyday lives in order to review their movements and behaviours after the fact.”

“There is no framework that’s been promised, there’s no legislation, and there’s an ongoing legal challenge. Will the council use this to monitor fly tippers or enforce parking fines? There are no rules in place… and the council are using this without safeguards.”

Banking on Betrayal: UK Government’s New Plan for Mass Bank Spying | SGT Report

www.sgtreport.com

Banking on Betrayal: UK Government’s New Plan for Mass Bank Spying​

October 8, 2024

Civil rights advocates may be saying, “stop bank spying” – but authoritarian-presenting governments are sure to be thinking, “who better to spy on you with?”

Banks not only have fine-grained information about their clients’ financial situation, but also their behavior and habits – and as recent incidents, for example in Canada, but also the UK in different circumstances show, they are not above using their power to debank and therefore censor people. On behalf of governments.

This time in the UK, the Labor cabinet looks set to bring back a legislative plan that would give financial institutions new mass surveillance powers. Now as before, the premise, activists say, is combating welfare fraud.

But the result would be mass bank spying – and “a severe intrusion into the nation’s privacy,” as Big Brother Watch put it.

In a letter to Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liz Kendall, the privacy group and a number of like-minded allies informed the official that they oppose the Fraud, Error and Debt Bill, and refer to it as work to usher in mass financial surveillance powers in the UK.

This time via banks, with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) as the government actor.

“These Orwellian new powers will force banks to flag people who meet secret criteria to the government,” Big Brother Watch says in its call to action to citizens to protect their financial privacy and freedom.

The group also pointed out that when it comes to fraud involving taxpayer money, the authorities already have sufficiently strong powers to go after suspects and access their bank statements.

The controversy is in many ways similar to how governments push for the erosion of online encryption, which gives them massive surveillance powers, but portrays it as a necessity for law enforcement to do its work.

Yet, law enforcement is empowered enough as it is.

Here, one also can’t help but feel that this is a bit of a case of, “Perfidious Albion’s subjects find out about Perfidious Albion.”

“A very worrying, duplicitous habit of DWP is to publish straw man rebuttal statements,” Big Brother Watch reacted to the ministry’s response, saying the government wouldn’t access bank accounts “or use AI.”

 

[Il Matto]

A virtual prison/prison guard that you will (have to) carry in your pocket.

Just today I read this part of McGilchrist's 'The Master and His Emissary':

"The powerful, all-surveying, all-capturing eye achieved its apotheosis in Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon. This was, tellingly, a prison design which enabled prisoners to be under total surveillance while being themselves unaware of when they were being watched, a project about which Bentham was so enthusiastic that he spent much of his time and personal fortune on it. It has ..... obvious correlates in the present world of technological surveillance, and in this way one could say that Bentham's dream, or nightmare, was prescient." (pg. 339)

Says it all really. Britain's Panopticon will be limitless. Only folks with similar right-hemisphere deficiencies could fail to see the horror of this.

 

[Ben]

We live in dark times, and the fact that barristers in the UK feel the need to make videos like this is a sign of that.

It's a short summary of the best course of action should the police show up at your door, to question or caution you over social media use (but without a warrant for your arrest). It's probably unlikely that careful members of this forum will end up in this position, but it seems the general trend in the country is not positive. A lot of it is common sense and sensible advice for everyday life - remain calm and respectful, take some time to gather yourself rather than reacting. Don't over share or feel obligated to let the police into your house. Ask about the purpose of the visit, if you are not going to be arrested then you don't have to cooperate very much.

Hopefully this sort of thing will be enough for most situations, but we've already seen plenty of videos where the decision to arrest had been made and that's a very different situation. Along with the warning from the latest C's session, I think the signs suggest the best course of action is prevention. Think carefully before you post (which is exactly the messaging coming from the authorities , and it does make me sad that it's come to this.)

Again, hopefully this will be enough and only the overtly racist or inflammatory stuff will attract attention, but I'm currently reading Defying Hitler. Normalcy bias and apathy are not to be taken lightly. What starts as ridiculous and a subject for humour can turn into a real problem if enough people comply with it.

 

[SOTTREADER]

A question that comes to mind is an operational one. How many people make "offensive" online posts versus how many people get a visit from the police for said posts?

If the direction of travel is that they'll police speech, well, I think you'll run into a manpower problem unless you get citizens to self censor because of fear.

 

[Ellipse]

We live in dark times, and the fact that barristers in the UK feel the need to make videos like this is a sign of that.

Thanks for this interesting video. For the record, here is the transcription:

Hello, I am the barrister Stephen Barrett. You may see me in other forms of media. I try to make law accessible to everybody because it is your legal system and it is important that you understand it. And I wanted to make this short video to address an issue that I think many of us are now afraid of, which is the knock on the door from police officers.

I think far too often we have seen police officers knocking on the doors of innocent people over social media posts or things they may have written on Facebook or Twitter or videos they may have made. And really it's about the idea that you have offended someone and that you have committed a crime for offending someone, which is something I think we as a nation will have to address eventually. And I look forward to when we do. But in the meantime, while we live in these times, it struck me as useful to give a guide, a legal guide.

I can't give you independent legal advice. I'm not giving anybody who watches this video legal advice, but I am reminding everybody of the laws of England and Wales. The laws our constitution fought a thousand years to grant us the rights and protections of. And I want you to all know how to be safe. So imagine the scenario: You've offended somebody. The person you have offended is a person who has committed a crime and has reported you to the police. And the police have lost their way. Let's be polite to them. In the modern sense, the officers have got very confused and they've decided to come knocking on your door. We've seen the videos now. This is too common. It happens far too often.

The first words are words all British people should cling to always: Stay calm. Don't panic. You will. That's natural. If you're a decent law-abiding person, you're not used to the police knocking on your door. Okay. And I think most of us just should take a step back and think about that and reflect on how we'd feel.

I worked terribly hard to get where I am in life—first in my family to get A-levels, first to go to university. I went to the University of Oxford. I became a barrister. I consider myself respectable. But let's be absolutely honest: tomorrow a police officer may very well end up on my front door. I don't know how I'd react, but I would like to listen to my own advice—stay calm, don't panic. A knock at the door does not mean anything automatically, and a lot of the time these officers are quite quick to point out that they're not arresting you. Good. Listen to them—they’re not arresting you. You don’t have to let them in. Okay. So don’t let them in.

I’m actually at that stage I would be polite to the officers personally, but I would not let them in my house. I think years ago when we were in a different place as a country, I would have invited them in, given them tea, given them biscuits, given them cake, had a lovely chat with the officers. No. If they’re not there to arrest you, *don’t let them in*. Stay calm and be polite.

I think record everything—so record it on your phone or if you're lucky enough to have a doorbell camera that will do it for you. The police can ask to come into your house but you don't have to let them—it's your house, that’s the whole point. It's your safe space. They can only come in if they have a warrant or if they want to arrest you for an indictable offense (and we'll get on to that a bit later).

If they say they have a warrant, ask to see it and get that soft tone. Then if they don't. "Thank you very much for coming, officer.
This is terribly kind. I'm going to get back to my evening's activities or day's activities." You can close the door on them. You can use reasonable force if they’re wrong in offices and they're trying to force their way into your property—you can use reasonable force to stop them that's perfectly lawful. I personally would only do it if it was on camera and I had the confidence that it was all on camera because bad officers can lie and bad officers can be believed, and I'm afraid we live in a time of bad officers.

Never overshare. Don’t tell the police officers anything. Ask the police officer for their badge number and their identification. Ask the police officer to explain why they are there in detail. And if they will not tell you, say: “Well, officer—I I'll just pause because I can talk quickly sometimes—officer, I cannot respond to something if you will not explain then stay silent.” Silence is quite an important powerful control mechanism you have at your disposal. Don’t over-share. Use silence. The officer must explain why they are there.

If it is relating to a potential offense, simply say: “Officer, I need time to take legal advice. I need time to take independent legal advice which you—you know—I’m entitled to, officer.” If the officer tries some of these bully-boy tactics and says, “Well if you don’t talk to me I'm going to arrest you,” then I want you to say: “Officer, that is a deeply inappropriate thing for you to have said. I am very sorry for you that you have said it. I will be reporting you for those comments—they are on video.” Because police officers do not get to bully citizens of this United Kingdom in order to say things under threat of potential arrest.

A police officer must arrest if they think or if they think a crime is being committed—that’s their job. If they don’t think a crime is being committed, then they should not be bullying and threatening you with the threat of it. If they say, “If you do not talk to me now you will have to come in for an interview,” you’ll have to say: “Officer, I only have to—you should say—officer, I only have to come in if you are going to arrest me. Are you going to arrest me?” And I’m afraid this is the line we’re going to have to take. These are bully, weak, weak human beings and cowards—I expect many of them would back down at this point—and I seriously suggest you simply close the door.

If you want to be very cautious, give the officer a means of contacting you but you can also simply say: “Officer, you may write to me at this address—this is my residence; this is where I live. Officer, you have no reasonable grounds to believe that I won’t continue to live here so there’s an issue. Write to me. Thank you officer for your time. I will not be cooperating with you any further.”

Now I did say that the officer has a right—one right under an act called the Police and Criminal Evidence Act—to force their way into your home. Now, the law—I’m sorry if you’ve seen me on other things—you’ll know that I think our entire legal system is in a flabby fat and bad way—but it’s not so bad that the officer just has a right to break into your home—which is what they’d be doing.

An officer may enter somebody's home, enter your house if they think an indictable offense is being committed now—indictable just means very serious, okay? So that’s rape, murder—the big stuff. If the officer has come over social media—it’s nowhere near the big stuff. When I said that our laws have got flabby because they have there is a possibility under section 17 of PACE to enter under the Public Order Act but the officer can only enter if he believes that there is a danger of immediate unlawful violence will be used against a person and you simply say to the officer: “Officer, there is no danger of immediate unlawful violence. If somebody is upset by my tweet—somebody is upset by my Facebook post—that’s very much on them, officer. My intention is to let's just take me spend the evening on the sofa with a cup of tea and maybe more biscuits than I ought to and watch television. So officer, there is no threat of immediate unlawful violence by me having a cup of tea and some biscuits and watching television.”

I hope this video will help you. It is no substitute for independent legal advice. Please join the Free Speech Union. Please like and subscribe to my channel if you found this helpful. I'm going to be doing more of these simple explanations of law. I’m not giving legal advice—I’m explaining law in exactly the same way my law tutors explained it to me 26 years ago.

I think it’s time we all need to understand our laws and if we’re going to get out of this mess, I think that’s the best way we can go forward. So I hope this is useful to you. I hope it's helpful to you. If you need further clarity please put it in the comments—I will read them and I will look forward to doing an update video.

I’ve got a—I’m not a criminal barrister but I've got a criminal barrister friend who I'm looking to do more of these with whenever they touch on crime. But this, these are relatively simple rules: An Englishman’s home is his castle—you are safe in your home. I want to keep you safe in your home. Thank you.

Would be interesting if there's some differences for France.

 

[axj]

If the direction of travel is that they'll police speech, well, I think you'll run into a manpower problem unless you get citizens to self censor because of fear.

Yes, I think the relatively few arrests are mostly to intimidate the public, as there is both a manpower and prison capacity problem if they tried to arrest many more people.

Their solution is of course the creation of a "free range prison" with the Digital ID, which can be easily used to sanction 'offenders' in various ways. Though this digital gulag system may be too much too soon, since even Palantir refused to help the UK with it.