Yesterday, the Government effectively reintroduced Britain’s blasphemy laws, 18 years after Parliament abolished them. Today, they push ahead with the biggest assault on English liberty by restricting our right to jury trials. The scary thing is: it’s only Tuesday.

⛽️ Petition to Scrap @UKLabour’s 5p/litre New Year fuel duty tax rise ⛽️ 🚙 Higher costs to get to work 🚛 Higher costs for hauliers 🛒 Higher prices in our supermarkets 💷 Families picking up @andyburnham’s New Year tax bill Sign the petition > what-labour-said.webflow.io/…

The Government are taking us for mugs. They have weaponised the term “misinformation” to create a state tool for censorship. 1984 meets 2025 👇

🚨 THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING US FOR MUGS ONCE AGAIN. Britain is rapidly becoming the North Korea of the North Sea — and once again, the Government is taking us for mugs. This Government’s weird obsession with “misinformation” — which it is shamelessly weaponising — knows no bounds. Under its new media green paper, the Government plans to place social media platforms under a legal obligation to promote state-approved “trustworthy” news sources, such as the BBC, while demoting more critical outlets like GB News and independent journalists. The US is rightly fed up with the Government’s abject disregard for free speech — both online and offline. Last week, UK officials were hauled into the US Embassy in London and reprimanded over Labour’s pursuit of even greater online censorship. US officials warned that Washington would view this as a form of censorship, and that it could provide a blueprint for future authoritarian governments seeking to clamp down on free speech and freedom of the press. This obsession with so-called “misinformation” is based on sand. The Government claims that social media platforms promote misinformation for profit, basing this assertion on a single academic paper from a low-ranking university in Indonesia, while conveniently ignoring research showing that misinformation is not the massive threat it claims. The Government had a predetermined view of what it wanted the research to show, so it ignored world-leading academics. If Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, is so concerned about the threat of misinformation, why did she flounce off X in a huff rather than stay and challenge it through more debate? Watch FSU Campaigns Officer @MaxHThompson and read @DavidRoseUK’s briefing below 👇

If you can work, you should work. And work should always pay @Conservatives welfare reform proposals, led by @Helen_Whately, are about getting people who can work back into jobs and backing a system that means you get more out if you’ve paid in - the contributory principle behind the original welfare state as Beveridge envisaged in the 1940s These proposals don’t affect people in work or disabled support, benefits for children or housing As I told #PoliticsLive, we need to get Britain working again after Labour tax hikes that are costing jobs up and down the country 🇬🇧💼

Welfare should be a safety net for those in genuine need. It is not meant to be a comfortable option for people who can work. Read more in my piece in the @DailyMail👇

We must end the something for nothing culture. Hard-working taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for those who do not wish to work to enjoy non-essential pursuits. It’s not cruel — it is fair.

Tories will block long-term unemployed spending their benefits on alcohol, cigarettes and gambling. A vote winner which will be cheered by the silent majority who pay their taxes

Like his SpAds would just walk away … … how much did the Foreign Office pay for this?

David Lammy’s jury trial reforms are alive and kicking. If the reforms go through, more people will be banged up for exercising their right to free speech. Don’t let ‘our Andy’ fool you.

🍦🚨 “It beggars belief that dodgy ice cream vans, conmen and unregulated pedicabs are simply being allowed to illegally park and set up on Westminster Bridge, right next to Parliament and inside the Government’s own secure zone.” 😴 Labour Ministers and the Mayor are asleep at the wheel. It’s been years of theft, rip-offs and rule-breaking 🛑 Stop passing the buck 🚔 Recognise the obvious security risk and damage to the reputation of our capital 🚫 Get these vehicles off Westminster Bridge for good Via @nicholascecil in @theLDNstandard —> standard.co.uk/news/london/s…

🚨 LAMMY’S JURY TRIAL REFORMS ARE STILL ALIVE AND KICKING. Over the weekend, it was reported that Andy Burnham is set to axe David Lammy’s plans for judge-only trials for defendants facing a maximum prison sentence of less than three years. This is, of course, welcome news. But it is a shameless and performative move designed to quell a Labour backbench rebellion. Ministers still plan to press ahead with David Lammy’s proposal to curb our ancient right to a trial by jury, claiming it is the most effective way to clear the Crown Court backlog. They have doubled down on this misguided claim made by the Starmer Government, despite there being no credible evidence to support it. In fact, both the Chair of the Criminal Bar Association and the Institute for Government have said that these reforms would save only 2 per cent of Crown Court time — not the 20 per cent promised by ministers. So much for @andyburnham calling jury trials the “lynchpin of a fair society” during the Makerfield by-election. Does the Prime Minister simply say whatever pleases the audience he is addressing? The new Justice Secretary has repeatedly refused to take the opportunity to announce that he is ditching Lammy’s authoritarian plan. While Lammy may be gone, his plans are still here. FSU research has shown that people charged with speech-related offences are almost twice as likely to be found not guilty in a Crown Court trial with a jury than in a magistrates’ court without one. This means that more people could be imprisoned simply for exercising their right to free speech. The battle is not yet won. Please sign the FSU petition below, calling on Andy Burnham to guarantee our right to a jury trial. Watch FSU Campaigns Officer @MaxHThompson below 👇

Andy Burnham is set to scrap David Lammy’s plan for judge-only trials in a bid to stave off a backbench rebellion when the Courts and Tribunals Bill returns to the House of Commons on 13th October. But this is not a victory. Ministers still plan to press ahead with the authoritarian proposal to remove defendants’ ancient right to elect a jury trial in the Crown Court. Ministers claim that stripping defendants of this choice is the most effective way to reduce the record backlog of more than 80,000 cases, which is forcing some victims to wait up to five years for justice. But this is simply not true. There is no credible evidence to support it. The Institute for Government’s own analysis has shown that the plans would save only 2% of Crown Court time — not the 20% Lammy promised. The Telegraph has reported that officials say no final decisions have yet been taken. But a Government source said: “The right to elect for trial in the Crown Court is the key to reducing the backlog which is holding up the entire criminal justice system.” This is a performative move designed to placate Labour backbench MPs. Jury trials are not the cause of the Crown Court backlog. The real problem is that courtrooms sit empty on working days. The right to a jury trial is ancient and precious. It is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system and a bulwark against a repressive state and the increasingly militant cancel-culture mob. The Free Speech Union’s research has shown that those charged with speech-related offences are almost twice as likely to be acquitted in a Crown Court with a jury as in a magistrates’ court without one. Put simply, if Lammy’s sinister plans make it onto the statute book, more people will be banged up simply for exercising their right to free speech. This battle is not over. We will continue campaigning for the Government to axe these plans in full and guarantee our right to a jury trial.

The FSU team are at the Freshers Festival in London today, speaking to students who have just started university about freedom of speech. The team are also promoting the lan Mactaggart Programme, an FSU-administered grant programme that supports students in promoting free speech and open debate on campus. We are also advertising our limited-time offer, which allows students to purchase a year-long FSU membership for just £14.99. If you are a student in London, come and say hello at our stall!

Some of you may remember a video that emerged last year showing West Midlands Police arriving at the home of a teenage girl after she was accused of a malicious communications offence for watching a TikTok video featuring a photograph of a teacher alongside negative comments. It inevitably went viral and is a clear sign of how far free speech has fallen in the UK. The girl was forced to hand over her devices or face arrest. Her mother agreed to a voluntary interview at the police station. After a lengthy investigation by West Midlands Police, the case was dropped. As Big Brother Watch’s Jake Hurfurt reveals in this week’s FSU Podcast with David Rose, the force did not even check the IP address from which the video was uploaded — which would have shown that another child had created it. In the end, both children faced no further action. In response to the disturbing video the mother took of officers entering their home, the police issued an extraordinary statement saying they were investigating an allegation of malicious communications and describing the case as “incredibly serious”. Surely the police should be focusing on real crimes on our streets, not a TikTok video? The force later removed the statement from its website, but never corrected the false allegation or admitted it was wrong. This is what we are up against in the fight for free speech in the UK. Watch the latest episode of the FSU Podcast below 👇

Thank the Lord!

Forget the First Secretary of State preferring supercars over buses, she also prefers an I Phone over a BlackBerry…

Why did the Communities Department delete every submission to the Islamophobia Working Group if it had nothing to hide? Did extremists influence the policy? The public deserves the truth about how we now have a de facto Islamic blasphemy law. My Qs for @AngelaRayner 👇

Angela Rayner has serious questions to answer. It is now almost certain that extremists had the opportunity to influence the drafting of the definition of anti-Muslim hostility. At the start of the year, the FSU exposed troubling links between all five members of the Working Group tasked with drafting the Islamophobia definition and Islamist extremists. This included links to the Muslim Council of Britain and MEND — organisations with which successive governments have had a policy of non-engagement since 2009, due to their extreme views. A Freedom of Information request by Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy has now revealed that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government deleted all responses to the Working Group’s consultation. Why would the Government do that unless it had something to hide? Did Ministers instruct officials to delete the submissions? Did extremists have the opportunity to influence a policy decision that would revive Britain’s blasphemy laws for Islam alone? Why would the department delete— in an apparent breach of the Government’s own data policy —information that is a matter of historical importance? The public deserves the truth. Watch FSU Campaigns Officer @MaxHThompson below 👇

🚨 LABOUR’S GREAT SEAT SWITCHEROO 🚨 Unbelievably, @Heidi_Labour is boasting that Thameslink seats will be “upgraded” She’s having a laugh. Anyone can see the infamous ironing boards will barely change. A bit like @UKLabour swapping @Keir_Starmer for @andyburnham A vague tweak but no real difference 🪑🚆!

Westminster mandarins stripping people of their honours for social media comments. An honour, from a knighthood to an MBE, is often the pinnacle of the recipient's life — an award in recognition of years of service to a sector or community. The Free Speech Union exposed the true nature of a shadowy cabal operating at the heart of Whitehall — the Forfeiture Committee — thanks to a Freedom of Information request sent by member Nick Buckley MBE. Secret guidance obtained through the FOI request revealed that the Forfeiture Committee, based in the bowels of the Cabinet Office and chaired by Dame Sarah Healey DCB CVO, can remove people's honours for their perfectly lawful comments posted on social media. The committee itself says the quiet part out loud. The guidance states that so-called "hate incidents" — lawful comments that "cannot be prosecuted" — could very well result in someone having their honour removed. This revelation comes as Big Brother Watch's new report exposes that 62,199 people have been arrested over the course of the last five years for "speech offences", including viewing TikToks. These incidents include cases where "the victim or anyone else thinks [the incident] was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on one of five prescribed characteristics — disability, race, religion, transgender identity or sexual orientation." In short, you could have your honour taken away because a group of unelected officials do not like your lawful expressions of your worldview. Lord Young has warned that these sinister, censorious criteria would make people "think twice" before they accept an honour, because it could impede their ability to speak and think freely. An honour should not be used as a stick to beat people into subscribing to prevailing progressive orthodoxies, or indeed as a muzzle. It should not be weaponised — as it invariably is — to punish those on the political right who wish to speak out on mainstream hot-button topics. Read more from FSU Campaigns Officer @MaxHThompson writing for @GBNEWS 👇