Civil Liberties & Governance

Repeal the Online Safety Act

Legislate a clear, unambiguous right to free speech in British law — guaranteeing that lawful expression cannot be criminalised or censored by the state or private platforms.
Platforms hosting lawful content must be shielded from government pressure to censor. Require transparency in content moderation and prohibit state-directed takedowns of legal speech.
This law risks investigative journalism, whistleblowing and political debate being wiped out online. Britain must enshrine free expression, not regulate it away.
Fear of liability may lead to over-moderation, driving smaller players out of the market and empowering Big Tech.
Resist censorship. Repeal the Online Safety Act.

Review and quash all convictions for non-violent breaches of lockdown rules (e.g. leaving home, attending protests, running a business). Ensure no one has a criminal record for breaking laws that should never have existed.
A formal statement and apology from Parliament recognising the damage lockdowns caused to businesses, families, and freedoms. Implement a new legal framework making it illegal to suspend basic freedoms without a parliamentary supermajority and strict time limits.
Targeted tax breaks for businesses disproportionately harmed by forced closures to help rebuild sectors like hospitality and retail.
Independent review of SAGE predictions and data used to justify lockdowns. Public release of all modelling and all communications, unredacted. Prosecution of anyone who deliberately distorted the statistics to push a damaging pro-lockdown agenda.

Establish a truly independent inquiry into the safety, rollout, and long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccines — especially on young people and those coerced into taking them.
Thousands of people have suffered serious side effects — some permanently. Overhaul the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, increase payouts, and speed up claims.
Vaccine passports must be outlawed, and the state must issue an official apology for their introduction.
Demand full transparency from the MHRA, the NHS, and Big Pharma.

Law-abiding citizens must have the full legal right to use reasonable force — including lethal force if necessary — to protect their home, family, and property from illegal intruders without fear of prosecution.
Self-defence protections must apply wherever you are fairly protecting yourself, your family or your property.
Remove legal grey areas. The law must explicitly support decisive action in moments of fear, not judge split-second reactions with hindsight.
We must legally affirm the castle doctrine: your home is your sanctuary — you have the right to defend it.

Digital ID is the policy of a low-trust, fragmented society. It is not in the interest of ordinary people or in keeping with long-standing British political traditions for central government to have such an excessive level of involvement in the day-to-day business of citizens.
Digital ID opens the door to other anti-freedom policies such as Chinese-style surveillance, social credit, and central bank digital currency.
Digital ID is presented as a solution to issues like illegal immigration — but if the problem were tackled at source rather than treating the symptoms, such an ID would be unnecessary.
Laws must be passed to prevent the introduction of digital ID. Once it is imposed, there is no going back.

Free speech does not exist in Britain. It has been systematically undermined by successive governments, usually in the name of "safety".
The Online Safety Act, for example, was passed under the auspices of protecting children from harmful online content, but has been deployed to censor discussion of illegal migration and footage of asylum hotel protests. It is the latest in a long line of anti-free speech legislation — a problem that goes as far back as at least the 1960s with the birth of "hate speech" and "incitement to hatred" laws.
These concepts have no precedent in Britain. Our common law traditions around speech have always erred on the side of freedom.
Boundaries are essential — without them, civilisations collapse. However, the boundaries on speech in Britain in 2025 are excessive, ideologically motivated, unfairly applied, and do not protect the interests of ordinary people. The laws infringing on free speech must be repealed, and new ones passed that unequivocally enshrine the right to free speech.