• Trans Activists Demand Removal of Oxford Street Christmas Lights

• Greece Has Banned Social Media for Under-15s

• ‘Environmentally Friendly’ Paper Straws Are More Harmful Than Plastic Straws

Trans Activists Demand Removal of Oxford Street Christmas Lights

Harry Potter-themed Christmas decorations have been installed on Oxford Street in London to promote HBO’s new series, which premieres on 25 December. Now, more than 10,000 people have written to Mayor Sadiq Khan, urging him to end what they call “transphobia” and order the decorations’ removal, because, according to trans activists, the displays make the LGBTQ+ community feel unwelcome due to the Harry Potter author’s, J.K. Rowling, being critical of gender ideology, according to the Daily Mail.

A petition from the Good Law Project argues that no links should be made to Rowling’s work, as she is “gender-critical”. It states: “Sadiq Khan says he’s an ally of the trans community, declaring that trans rights are human rights, and that London will remain a safe, welcoming space for trans people. So why is he allowing one of the most famous anti-trans people in the world to take over Oxford Street?” The group adds that Harry Potter lights on one of London’s busiest streets “will not make trans people feel Christmassy, welcome, or safe.” It claims Rowling has pledged to use proceeds from the new series “to fund the anti-trans rights movement” and calls on the mayor to side with the trans community against

However, the mayor’s office says it is not responsible for the Oxford Street lights. Decisions rest with the New West End Company and local businesses. The New West End Company has confirmed its partnership with HBO Max for the lights and the new Harry Potter shop on the street. It aims to offer fans an exciting way to explore the wizarding world ahead of the series premiere. “The partnership celebrates the joy of the festive season and is intended to create an enchanting experience for visitors to Oxford Street and the West End, which continues to be a place where all are welcome,” the company said, adding there are no plans to remove the decorations.

J.K. Rowling is a vocal critic of gender ideology who defends the rights of women and girls, including their single-sex spaces (see also here, here, here, here, here).. In an article published in October, she argued that trans activism threatens women’s rights as well as freedom of speech and belief.

She has denied being transphobic and stated that she respects everyone’s right to live as they wish. Regarding the revenue from the new series, she has said she will use her money to support women’s legal cases defending sex-based rights, not to fund “anti-trans” activities.

Share

Greece Has Banned Social Media for Under-15s

The Greek Parliament has passed a law banning children under 15 from using social media from January 2027. The law does not specify how users’ ages will be verified, set new fines or penalties, or provide exemptions for existing accounts, reports Agentnews.

In May 2026, the Greek government sought Brussels’ approval for a draft bill on the social media ban. The Commission noted that the obligation on platforms to verify and assess users’ ages is comprehensively regulated under the DSA, and that using DSA enforcement measures in national rules “would be contrary to their purpose”. As the Commission threatened infringement proceedings if the draft ignored its objections, Greece amended the original text and removed the obligation on platforms to verify age, along with the enforcement rules.

Consequently, the law does not specify how or when age verification should be carried out. It also does not specify which method platforms must use, although the Gov.gr Wallet or Kids Wallet are cited as examples. According to the explanatory memorandum, service providers may use any age verification system that complies with the EU Digital Services Act.

The law also does not provide specific exceptions, such as parental consent. It contains no provisions regarding existing accounts held by under-15s, or what platforms should do with them. The law has introduced no new fines, yet the General Accounting Office expects an increase in state revenue. It is believed that Greece may apply the penalties set out in the DSA, which can reach up to 6 per cent of a company’s global turnover.

The law will be enforced by the Hellenic Broadcasting Authority (ΕΣΡ) and the Hellenic Data Protection Authority (ΑΠΔΠΧ). A platform established in Greece is accountable to these authorities. For a platform established elsewhere in the EU, a complaint may be lodged in Greece, but the Greek authorities will forward it to the relevant national regulatory authority. The law also specifies that it remains valid until the EU adopts a relevant regulation (the EU Kids Act).

According to the government, the law aims to support parents by limiting the endless scrolling that deprives children of sleep, concentration and time with friends. Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis explained that social media platforms now have about 2.5 months to develop methods for verifying users’ ages while protecting their privacy. He added that the ban applies to social media, but not to mobile phone use in general or to other apps.

Subscribe now

‘Environmentally Friendly’ Paper Straws Are More Harmful Than Plastic Straws

A study commissioned by South Korea’s Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment assessed the environmental impacts of four types of drinking straws: conventional plastic, paper, biodegradable plastic and bio-based polyethylene (bio-PE). The assessment included potential carcinogenic impacts associated with their production and disposal. It found that the modelled human carcinogenic impact of paper drinking straws was 6.33 times that of conventional plastic straws, while bio-PE straws performed even worse, reports The Korea Herald.

The researchers assessed the impacts of the four types of straws across 16 categories, covering their life cycles from raw material production to disposal. The human carcinogenic impact indicator is based on life-cycle modelling; it does not measure the direct cancer risk to people using the straws.

Paper drinking straws have been widely promoted worldwide as environmentally friendly alternatives to conventional plastic straws and are often marketed as recyclable. However, the South Korean study found that paper straws had 6.33 times the human carcinogenic impact and 2.04 times the acidification impact of conventional plastic straws. Bio-PE straws performed even worse, with 16.18 times the human carcinogenic impact and 5.9 times the acidification impact. Biodegradable plastic straws had 3.34 times the human carcinogenic impact and 1.98 times the acidification impact of conventional plastic straws.

Conventional plastic straws had the lowest impact in 10 of the 16 categories, including climate change, acidification, particulate matter and human toxicity. Paper straws had the highest impact in three categories, while biodegradable plastic straws had the highest impact in two. Bio-PE straws had the highest impact in 10 categories, including ozone depletion, acidification and smog. Bio-PE straws are made from renewable plant-based feedstocks, such as sugar cane. Although bio-PE is chemically identical to conventional polyethylene, it is not biodegradable.

The study also found that drinking straws of all materials are difficult to recycle in practice. Their small size makes them difficult to separate from other waste at sorting facilities, while coatings and adhesives can further hinder recycling. The researchers therefore recommended that shops and other establishments stop providing single-use straws by default, regardless of material, and supply them only when customers specifically request them.

South Korea introduced restrictions on plastic straws in cafés and restaurants in November 2022. However, in November 2023, the government indefinitely extended the enforcement grace period amid complaints about the policy and questions about its effectiveness. Responding to the findings, lawmaker Kim Wi-sang said: “The government must acknowledge the failure of its greenwashing policy, which fixated on ineffective substitute materials, and avoid repeating it.” He argued that policy should instead focus on reducing the overall consumption of single-use products.

• Irish Ad Urges Grandparents to Seek Consent for Hugs

• UK Charities Pay White Staff Lower Wages

• The European Parliament Calls for Measures Against Islamist Infiltration

Irish Ad Urges Grandparents to Seek Consent for Hugs

As part of the ‘We-Consent’ campaign by the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre (DRCC), a social media clip was released showing grandparents hugging one grandchild while another looks uncomfortable, and reminding viewers that they should ask for consent first, reports the BBC.

In the clip, grandparents hug one grandchild and reach out to hug another, who looks uncomfortable. A graphic and voice-over then state: “Not everyone wants a hug. Even from the people who love them. Awkward? Maybe. Important? Absolutely.” The tone is light-hearted and aims to stress the importance of consent for children.

The advert has sparked heated debates about changing norms, the role of the family and how best to teach children about consent. Critics argue that the video demeans grandparents and wastes public money. Many see it as thoughtless and, at worst, offensive to the older generation. Some ask whether the next step will be consent forms before visiting family.

Ireland’s Minister for Justice, Jim O’Callaghan, has been one of the main critics, even though his ministry helps fund the wider campaign. According to O’Callaghan, the video does not represent the government’s view. “It was both inappropriate and demeaning to grandparents and has been removed by the DRCC following my officials’ engagement with them. Whilst it is vital to ensure that people understand the concept of consent when it comes to sexual relationships, this video did not advance that aim and in many ways was counterproductive,” he explained. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson added that the clips were produced at minimal cost with volunteers and were not part of a government-funded advertising campaign.

According to Eoin O’Malley, a lecturer at Dublin City University, the clip is another example of excessive state intervention. He said that whilst most people understand the importance of consent, this video was too extreme. “The idea that there needs to be an advert telling grandparents that they shouldn’t hug their grandchildren, that they should seek permission beforehand, seems absurd to most normal people,” O’Malley explained, adding that under the Constitution the family is the primary unit responsible for educating and raising children, yet the video goes far beyond that.

Supporters defend the clip, arguing it shows how children’s views on boundaries differ. They say it is not a campaign against grandparents but emphasises the importance of consent. Others believe the advert does not tell grandparents to stop hugging children, but rather encourages children to speak up if they feel uncomfortable. Supporters consider its message correct and say it was intended in a figurative rather than a literal sense.

According to the DRCC, the campaign was based on the idea that “boundaries should be respected from an early age and that we should respect others’ boundaries too”. It has removed the video from its social media accounts while reviewing whether it is having the desired positive impact.

Share

UK Charities Pay White Staff Lower Wages

The UK’s three largest charities – Oxfam, Cancer Research UK and the British Red Cross – pay white staff, on average, lower wages than their colleagues from ethnic minority backgrounds. At the same time, all three have pledged their commitment to equality and justice, reports The Telegraph.

According to Oxfam’s annual report, the organisation paid white staff 33 per cent less than Black or people of colour (BPOC), even though they accounted for only 10.5 per cent of the workforce. On the other hand, only around 70 per cent of staff consented to their ethnic origin being included in the pay data. The organisation noted that the majority of BPOC staff who disclosed their details held higher-paid positions, which may have skewed the figures. Nevertheless, the average pay for white employees was lower. But still, an Oxfam spokesperson said the organisation is “committed to fair, inclusive recruitment practices that value diversity and ensure everyone has the opportunity to thrive”.

Cancer Research UK paid white staff an average of 7.6 per cent less last year. It explained that the pay gap was largely due to white staff being in lower-paid roles, particularly in street-level charity work, while the majority of staff from ethnic minority backgrounds were in higher-paid roles, such as technology. When retail roles were excluded, white staff earned slightly more on average, the charity said, and had the audacity to say it is “committed to building an inclusive and diverse culture for all our people”. Head of Human Resources Katy Seaman added that the organisation pays equal pay for equal work and that recruitment and promotion are fair and merit-based.

At the British Red Cross, the pay gap stood at 11.4 per cent to the detriment of white staff, while members of ethnic minorities account for 19.6 per cent of the total workforce. A spokesperson added that the Red Cross’s “priority is to ensure people are paid fairly for the work they do and that our workforce reflects the communities we serve”.

Pay gaps are complex and influenced by individuals or groups in higher or lower positions. Nevertheless, the data has prompted criticism of the ‘positive action’ permitted by the Equality Act 2010, which allows the recruitment of representatives from under-represented groups to increase workforce diversity.

According to James Wild, the Shadow Culture Minister, people should be rewarded for their skills and work, regardless of their background or ethnicity. “Fairness means ensuring everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, not preferential treatment or discrimination that puts others at an unfair disadvantage,” he said. Wild is convinced that pay must be based on merit, skills and performance. According to Suella Braverman, Reform UK’s spokesperson on equality, such pay disparities are a consequence of equality legislation. “Rampant positive action schemes are actively discriminating against white, working-class Britons in favour of ethnic minorities, leading to certain groups gaining an upper hand in the job market. This is simply unacceptable. We cannot live in a society that values thoughts and feelings over merit,” she explained.

Toby Young, founder of the Free Speech Union, said: “Oxfam pays white staff 33% less on average than ethnic minority colleagues while Cancer Research UK and the British Red Cross aren’t far behind, despite commitments to equality and fairness.” In his view, ‘positive action’ under the Equality Act has become a “get-out-of-jail-free card for any employer who wants to discriminate against white people”, and he believes that if reporting becomes mandatory, this will become even more apparent. The government is working on an initiative requiring every organisation with more than 250 employees to publish reports on pay gaps based on ethnic origin and disability. At present, organisations publish such data on a voluntary basis.

Subscribe now

The European Parliament Calls for Measures Against Islamist Infiltration

On 8 October, 381 of the 720 Members of the European Parliament voted in favour of a resolution condemning “Islamist infiltration strategies” aimed at promoting Islamist views from the bottom up and undermining the principles of the rule of law, gender equality and fundamental freedoms. The Parliament calls on the European Commission to detect and prevent this, and asks it to assess whether organisations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood should be added to the list of terrorist organisations, according to the European Parliament.

The resolution was led by the European People’s Party (EPP) group and drafted by French MEP Céline Imart. France had already warned last year of infiltration by the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamists, with networks linked to the Brotherhood using entryism tactics to infiltrate schools, associations and local authorities in order to change them from within.

The resolution states that Europe must remain free, open and principled, but must “no longer fund, consult or legitimise networks that use its language, procedures and funding to weaken its values from within”. It calls for a methodology to identify such infiltration, including the blurring of lines between religion and politics, institutional hypocrisy, opaque funding, recurring partnerships, and linked networks re-established under a new guise. Anti-discrimination policies should not be used to shield Islam from criticism or legitimise Islamist networks. MEPs also view face-covering in public spaces as dangerous and support national bans on garments such as the niqab and burqa.

EU agencies must exercise much greater scrutiny over organisations they cooperate with or fund. Greater attention should be paid to infiltration risks, including organisations that have long received European taxpayers’ money, such as the Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organisations (FEMYSO) and structures linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Parliament also calls on the Commission to provide an overview of funding allocated to individuals or entities suspected of links to the Muslim Brotherhood or political Islam. The Council should assess “whether entities or individuals linked to the Muslim Brotherhood should be added to the EU list of terrorist organisations, looking beyond formal structures to associated entities, front organisations, financial relays, youth networks and individuals in leadership or coordination roles”.

The European Network Against Racism (ENAR) described the decision as “a political witch-hunt targeting racialised people – particularly Muslim, migrant and refugee communities”. It called the resolution a stain on the Parliament’s reputation “in the tradition of discredited far-right conspiracy theories”. ENAR itself has recently lost EU structural funding and is one of the organisations named in connection with the resolution’s concerns about Islamist networks.

The Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organisations (FEMYSO), mentioned in the resolution, is an anti-Islamophobia group operating across Europe that now faces the threat of losing EU funding. According to FEMYSO, they have been constantly “targeted and demonised”, and young Muslims are allegedly being forced to choose between their identity and their right to belong. In reality, no one is being forced to make such a choice. Reports by the German criminal police and surveys of young Muslims in France show that younger generations support Islamism – or radical Islam – more strongly than older ones. The data from Germany and France therefore do not support claims of secularisation among young Muslims; rather, they indicate intensifying religious activity, hardening attitudes towards gender equality, and growing support for radical currents within political Islam. This points to the rising influence of organisations such as the Muslim Brotherhood on the younger generation and justifies Parliament’s resolution.

The comparison with the handbag may sound provocative. It is nevertheless a useful way of summarising one of the fundamental misunderstandings surrounding today’s hydrogen policies. Hydrogen is a remarkable molecule. It is indispensable to modern industry and has been used for more than a century in processes essential to our prosperity. Precisely because it is valuable, manufacturing it at considerable energetic and economic cost merely to burn it is difficult to justify.

This distinction between hydrogen as a chemical product and hydrogen as an energy carrier has largely disappeared from the political debate. Hydrogen is increasingly presented as a universal answer to decarbonisation: it should fuel cars, trucks, ships and perhaps aircraft; heat buildings; store intermittent electricity; provide high-temperature industrial heat; manufacture steel; and compensate for fluctuations in wind and solar generation.

The problem is that hydrogen is not a source of energy. It must first be produced. And that elementary fact changes almost everything.

Hydrogen is not an energy source

Coal, oil, natural gas, uranium, flowing water, wind and solar radiation are primary energy resources available in nature. Hydrogen is different. Although hydrogen atoms are extraordinarily abundant, practically no molecular hydrogen is freely available for us to exploit on the scale required by an energy system. Exploration for natural, or ‘white’, hydrogen – at Bourakébougou in Mali or in Lorraine in France, for instance – has recently attracted considerable media attention. Some caution is nevertheless warranted. The geologists who, over more than a century, found the coal, oil and gas deposits on which our prosperity was built never regarded natural hydrogen as a significant energy resource – until it became fashionable. To date, no deposit has been demonstrated on a scale relevant to an energy system.

For industrial energy purposes, hydrogen therefore has to be extracted ultimately from water or hydrocarbons. Many other substances, including complex organic molecules such as glucose or sucrose, contain hydrogen atoms, but they are not realistic primary feedstocks for large-scale hydrogen production. Hydrogen should therefore be compared not with natural gas or petroleum, but with electricity: it is an energy carrier that must first be produced from another source of energy. That may sound like semantics. It is not.

Whenever energy is converted from one form into another, losses occur. Producing electricity, using that electricity to manufacture hydrogen, compressing or liquefying the hydrogen, transporting and storing it, and eventually transforming it back into useful energy creates a succession of conversion losses. There is no political directive, subsidy or industrial strategy capable of repealing thermodynamics. This is why the current hydrogen enthusiasm deserves to be examined first through chemistry and physics, and only afterwards through climate targets, industrial strategies and subsidy programmes.

We have been here before

The idea of a hydrogen economy is far older than the European Green Deal.

As early as 1923, in his Cambridge lecture Daedalus, or Science and the Future, the British scientist J. B. S. Haldane imagined wind-generated electricity producing hydrogen. The concept resurfaced spectacularly during the nuclear enthusiasm of the 1960s and 1970s, and again after the oil shocks of 1973 and 1979.

One of the most interesting figures in that history was Cesare Marchetti, an Italian physicist working at the European Community’s Joint Research Centre at Ispra. It was there, in the 1960s, that he developed his thinking about hydrogen as a means of extending nuclear energy beyond electricity and into the much larger world of fuels and heat. He later moved to the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, IIASA, near Vienna, where he continued his work on energy systems and technological evolution.

In the middle of the 1960s, Marchetti identified what he regarded as a strategic weakness in the emerging nuclear vision. Nuclear energy was overwhelmingly conceived as a means of producing electricity. But electricity represented only part of society’s total energy consumption. Even an enormous expansion of nuclear electricity would therefore leave much of the energy economy untouched.

Marchetti consequently began thinking about how nuclear energy might penetrate the much larger market then dominated by combustible fuels – what I like to describe as the world of electrons versus molecules, or even more simply, electricity versus flames. Hydrogen appeared to provide the bridge.

At Ispra, serious work followed. A 1969 round table examined the direct production of hydrogen using nuclear heat. In 1970 Marchetti and Giuseppe De Beni published Hydrogen, Key to the Energy Market. In 1971 Marchetti went even further with Hydrogen, Master Key to the Energy Market. Research was conducted into thermochemical decomposition of water using high-temperature nuclear heat. When I joined the Directorate General Energy of the European Commission, I naturally collaborated with this hydrogen team.

This historical episode is important because it demolishes the idea that hydrogen is a technological discovery of the twenty-first century. Europe has been studying the hydrogen-energy concept for more than half a century. And the scientists working on it then had one potential advantage that many contemporary hydrogen projects do not have: they expected the availability of abundant, continuous nuclear energy.

Yet the hydrogen economy did not emerge. That should at least invite a question: why? The answer, as the following sections show, lies less in politics than in chemistry, thermodynamics and cost: the expected abundance of cheap nuclear heat never materialised, the oil shocks faded, and producing hydrogen from hydrocarbons remained far cheaper than any alternative.

Share

Industry already knows hydrogen

There is another misconception in the current debate: hydrogen is sometimes presented as though the industry were waiting for governments to invent a new sector. Nothing could be further from reality.

Hydrogen has long been an important industrial chemical. It is indispensable for ammonia production and therefore for nitrogen fertilisers, which in turn play a fundamental role in feeding billions of people. It is used extensively in oil refining, including hydrocracking and hydrotreating, and for removing sulphur from petroleum products. It is also used in methanol production and numerous other chemical processes.

Industry therefore understands hydrogen very well. Engineers know how to produce it. They know how to handle it. They know its physical properties, its advantages and its difficulties. They know that it is the smallest molecule, that leakage is consequently an issue, that its volumetric energy density is low, and that compression or liquefaction requires additional energy and equipment. Most importantly, the chemical industry has spent decades optimising hydrogen production. And what route did industry choose?

It overwhelmingly chose fossil-based production – mainly natural gas and, particularly in China, coal – rather than water electrolysis, while a further share is obtained as a by-product of refinery and chemical processes. The dominant route is steam methane reforming, or SMR – not to be confused with the nuclear term ‘small modular reactor’, which uses the same abbreviation.

That was not because generations of chemical engineers had somehow failed to discover electrolysis. Electrolysis has been known since the nineteenth century and every chemistry student has seen water split into hydrogen and oxygen.

Electrolysis was, in fact, used industrially for decades wherever electricity was exceptionally cheap. Norsk Hydro produced hydrogen for ammonia at Rjukan and Glomfjord using Norwegian hydropower, and similar plants operated at Aswan in Egypt and at Trail in Canada. These installations were eventually closed or converted to natural gas. Even with some of the cheapest electricity in the world, electrolysis could not hold its own against reforming. Industry selected reforming for a much more stubborn reason: chemistry.

Subscribe now

The factor of seven

In 2021, Henri Masson and I published an article in The European Scientist entitled ‘Why is industrial hydrogen produced from natural gas and not by water electrolysis?’. We returned to the basic thermodynamics. To produce one mole of hydrogen by decomposing liquid water, the relevant energy requirement expressed through the enthalpy of the reaction is:

H₂O → H₂ + ½ O₂

corresponding to approximately 285.8 kJ per mole of hydrogen. Of this, at least 237 kJ – the Gibbs free energy of the reaction – must be supplied as electricity; the remainder can in principle be provided as heat.

Now compare this with steam methane reforming.

CH₄ + 2 H₂ O → CO₂ + 4H₂

When steam already available from an industrial complex is used, the corresponding reaction requires approximately 41.2 kJ per mole of hydrogen produced.

The ratio is:

285.8/41.2 = 6.94

In round numbers: seven.

Producing a mole of hydrogen starting from water by electrolysis involves roughly seven times the external energy input, expressed as reaction enthalpy, compared with producing the same mole through steam methane reforming when process steam is available.

One may object that this comparison ignores the methane consumed by reforming. It does not; it simply places it where it belongs. One mole of methane, with a heating value of about 890 kJ, yields four moles of hydrogen. Most of the chemical energy of the methane is therefore not lost but transferred into the hydrogen molecules: reforming rearranges energy that is already present in the feedstock, and needs only about 41 kJ of additional heat per mole of hydrogen to do so.

Water, by contrast, contains no usable chemical energy. Electrolysis must supply the entire 285.8 kJ from outside – and most of it as electricity, the noblest and costliest form of energy, which in thermal power stations itself requires two and a half to three units of primary energy for each unit delivered. That is the real meaning of the factor of seven: it measures not the energy contained in the hydrogen, which is the same whatever the production route, but the external energy that must be supplied to obtain it.

If liquid water rather than available steam is taken as the starting point for the SMR comparison, the ratio is lower but still approximately 4.5. In practice, however, chemical plants usually have steam available from other processes, heat recovery or integrated utilities.

These are not small differences that can simply be eliminated by improving an electrolyser by a few percentage points. They arise from chemistry.

Of course, real industrial systems require a more complete accounting than a comparison of reaction enthalpies alone: electricity generation, electrolyser efficiency, heat integration, feedstock prices, capital costs and operating conditions all matter. But the basic thermodynamic comparison explains something extremely important: why industry developed hydrogen production around hydrocarbons rather than around electricity.

Industrial history is itself an experiment conducted over the decades. If electrolysis had offered an energetically and economically superior way of producing the vast quantities of hydrogen required by refineries and chemical plants, industry would hardly have waited for the European Commission to tell it so.

Electricity is too valuable to waste

The difficulty becomes still clearer when the electricity used for electrolysis is itself considered. Electricity is a particularly valuable form of energy. It can power motors, electronics, lighting, communications, railways, pumps, machine tools, computers and practically every sophisticated device of a modern economy.

Using electricity to split water produces hydrogen, but with conversion losses. If that hydrogen is subsequently compressed, stored and transported, further energy is consumed. If it is finally reconverted into electricity in a fuel cell or turbine, another substantial loss occurs.

There is also a cannibalisation effect that is too often overlooked. Electricity diverted to hydrogen production is electricity that cannot be used directly to feed the electricity network. When electricity is scarce or expensive, electrolysis therefore competes with – and effectively cannibalises – the direct electrification of uses for which electricity is already the most efficient energy carrier. Producing hydrogen does not create additional energy; it diverts valuable electricity into a conversion chain in which a significant part of that energy is inevitably lost.

We therefore start with electricity, transform it into another energy carrier at a loss, handle and store that carrier at additional cost, and sometimes transform it back into electricity with another loss.

This is not an energy source. It is an energy conversion chain – and one that can cannibalise the direct, more efficient use of the electricity from which it originates.

Hydrogen cannot make intermittency disappear

Hydrogen is often presented as the solution to the intermittency of wind and solar power. The reasoning appears attractive: when there is excess electricity, use it to produce hydrogen; store the hydrogen; and when electricity is needed again, feed it into a fuel cell. Technically, this works. Energetically, however, the result is sobering.

Using Eurostat data, I calculated an average wind load factor of approximately 23% across the EU Member States, onshore and offshore wind combined. This figure hardly changes from one period to another, because it depends not on turbine technology but on average meteorological conditions across the EU.

Take a 6 MW wind turbine. If it operated continuously at its nominal capacity throughout the year, it would generate 52,560 MWh. With a 23% load factor, its annual output is only about 12,000 MWh – the equivalent of roughly 2,000 full-load hours.

If the objective is to provide the equivalent of a continuous 6 MW supply, the remaining 77% must be supplied when the wind generation is insufficient. Suppose that this electricity is stored through hydrogen. Electricity is first converted into hydrogen by electrolysis, the hydrogen must then be compressed, transported and stored, and finally converted back into electricity in a fuel cell.

Using representative efficiency of 66% for electrolysis – the value achieved in practice, well below the theoretical figure often quoted – about 75% for compression, transport and storage, and 50% for the reconversion in a fuel cell, the overall electricity-to-hydrogen-to-electricity efficiency is only about 25%. In other words, roughly three quarters of the electricity entering the hydrogen storage chain is lost before electricity is delivered again.

To recover the approximately 40,500 MWh missing during the year therefore requires about 163,500 MWh of additional wind electricity before the hydrogen-storage chain. At the same 23% load factor, producing that electricity requires thirteen and a half additional 6 MW wind turbines – in practice, fourteen.

The arithmetic is striking: one wind turbine supplies electricity directly when wind is available, while another fourteen are needed to generate the electricity required to pass through the hydrogen storage cycle. In this simplified energy-balance example, providing the equivalent of a continuous 6 MW output therefore requires about fifteen 6 MW wind turbines, together with electrolysers, compression, hydrogen storage and fuel cells.

The conclusion is not sensitive to the precise assumptions. Even with a more optimistic 85–90% for compression, transport and storage, the round-trip efficiency rises only to about 28–30%, and some eleven to twelve additional turbines would still be required.

Hydrogen does not abolish intermittency. It compensates for it at the price of massive overcapacity and very large conversion losses.

Hydrogen advocates often reply that electrolysers can use ‘surplus’ renewable electricity that would otherwise be curtailed. In specific circumstances this can indeed make sense. But an industrial hydrogen economy cannot be built on electricity that is simultaneously abundant enough to be surplus, cheap enough to make hydrogen competitive, and available for enough hours each year to amortise expensive electrolysers.

An electrolyser is an industrial installation. Its economy depends directly on its hours of operation. A machine operating only during occasional periods of surplus wind or solar production may consume cheap electricity during those hours, but its capital cost must then be recovered over a small quantity of hydrogen.

Conversely, increasing its operating hours requires electricity during many more periods – including hours when electricity is no longer surplus or cheap.

This contradiction is too often hidden behind the attractive expression ‘green hydrogen’.

Colours do not change molecules

Hydrogen has acquired an extraordinary rainbow. There is grey hydrogen, blue hydrogen, green hydrogen, pink hydrogen, turquoise hydrogen, white hydrogen and several other colours depending on the production route or origin. The molecule, of course, has no colour. H₂ remains H₂.

The terminology is political and economic rather than chemical. It describes how the hydrogen was manufactured and, increasingly, which regulatory category determines whether it qualifies for subsidies or particular climate-policy objectives.

This colour code has no place in science. No chemistry textbook, no nomenclature and no thermodynamic table distinguishes hydrogen by colour. A chemist or a physicist characterises a substance by its composition, purity, pressure and temperature, not by the virtue attributed to the way it was produced. The colours belong to the vocabulary of marketing and regulation: they are designed to make a product attractive to the public and to sort projects into categories eligible, or not, for public support. By attaching a reassuring label to an identical molecule, they shift attention away from the questions that really matter – how much energy is consumed, at what cost, and for what useful service – towards a question of image. This multiplication of colours can obscure the fundamental question. Before asking what colour hydrogen should be, we should ask: Do we need hydrogen for this application at all?

Where hydrogen is required as a chemical feedstock, the answer is obviously yes. We then need to determine the most efficient, affordable and environmentally appropriate production method.

Steel is an instructive borderline case. In the direct reduction of iron ore, hydrogen is used not as a fuel but as a reducing agent – a genuinely chemical role. Yet iron ore does not need hydrogen specifically; it needs a reducing agent, and carbon, in the form of coke in the blast furnace or natural gas in direct-reduction plants, has performed that function efficiently and cheaply for generations. Hydrogen replaces carbon here not because the chemistry requires it, but because policy wishes to avoid CO₂ emissions. That is a political choice, and its cost should be stated openly rather than presented as a technical necessity.

But where hydrogen is proposed merely as an intermediary between a primary energy resource and the final consumption of energy, the burden of proof should be reversed.

Why manufacture an expensive molecule if the original energy can be used more directly?

The fundamental confusion between electrons and molecules

One reason for the political attraction of hydrogen is that modern energy policy has become overwhelmingly focused on electricity. Yet electricity represents only part of the energy system. Modern civilisation needs both electrons and molecules.

We need electricity, but we also need enormous quantities of heat and chemical feedstocks. We need high-temperature industrial processes. We need fuels with high energy density. We need molecules for petrochemicals, fertilisers, plastics, pharmaceuticals, aviation and maritime transport.

This is precisely what Marchetti had understood in the 1960s. His reasoning was intellectually coherent: if nuclear energy were going to become extremely abundant, how could nuclear energy move beyond electricity into the enormous market served by fuels? Hydrogen appeared as a possible means of converting nuclear heat into a transportable and storable molecule. The irony is striking.

More than fifty years later, European policy has rediscovered hydrogen, but in a very different energy system. Instead of starting from the prospect of abundant continuous nuclear energy, much of the new hydrogen strategy is based on variable wind and solar electricity. The 2000 European Commission has revived an old idea while weakening one of the assumptions that once made the idea attractive, abundant nuclear electricity.

What about hydrogen for heating?

This brings us to perhaps the clearest example of the problem: producing hydrogen in order to burn it for heat – whether to warm buildings or to supply the flames of industrial processes.

Heat is thermodynamically one of the least sophisticated forms of energy. Hydrogen, by contrast, is an industrial molecule that must be manufactured, purified, transported and stored.

If electricity is available and the objective is simply to generate low-temperature heat, converting electricity into hydrogen before burning the hydrogen introduces an unnecessary intermediate step with unavoidable losses.

If natural gas is available, converting methane into hydrogen and subsequently burning the hydrogen is similarly difficult to justify purely on energetic grounds. We take a naturally available combustible molecule, process it in an industrial installation into another combustible molecule, incur conversion losses and costs, and then burn the resulting product.

The same reasoning applies to high-temperature industrial heat. Furnaces and kilns that require flames are already served directly and efficiently by natural gas, coal or oil. Replacing these fuels with hydrogen adds a costly conversion step without providing any capability the original fuel lacked – and, when the hydrogen is made from natural gas, it merely passes on the methane’s own energy, minus the losses.

This is where the image of the Louis Vuitton handbag becomes apt. The handbag will certainly burn. It will certainly produce heat. The question is not whether it works. The question is why anyone would first manufacture an expensive, sophisticated product only to destroy its value for the most elementary possible purpose.

Policy cannot abolish thermodynamics

In June 2020 Germany launched a major national hydrogen strategy. A few weeks later, the European Commission presented its own hydrogen strategy, making renewable hydrogen an important component of the EU’s decarbonisation plans. In 2022, the REPowerEU plan went further still, targeting 10 million tonnes of domestic renewable hydrogen production and 10 million tonnes of imports by 2030. That political enthusiasm prompted me to write The Hydrogen Illusion.

My argument was never that hydrogen technologies cannot work or that research should stop. The argument is that hydrogen should not be confused with primary energy, and that public policy cannot transform an inefficient energy-conversion chain into an efficient one simply by subsidising it.

Subsidies can change prices paid by individual economic actors. They cannot change the quantity of energy required by a chemical reaction. Regulations can create a market. They cannot change thermodynamics. Mandates can force industries to purchase a particular product. They cannot make the underlying conversion losses disappear. And reality is now beginning to test the ambitions announced at the beginning of the decade.

Across Europe and elsewhere, numerous hydrogen projects have been postponed, reduced or abandoned. This is no longer a collection of isolated corporate decisions. In its Global Hydrogen Review 2026, the International Energy Agency reports that the pipeline of announced low-emissions hydrogen projects for 2030 has shrunk by 10 million tonnes in a single year, to about 27 million tonnes, while the volume of projects that are committed or have strong potential to be operating by 2030 has fallen from 10 million to just over 6 million tonnes. In 2025, low-emissions hydrogen amounted to barely 1 million tonnes – around 1% of a global hydrogen production exceeding 100 million tonnes. As early as 2024, the European Court of Auditors had concluded that the EU’s 2030 targets were unrealistic and called for a ‘reality check’. Costs remain high, demand is uncertain, infrastructure is lacking and many potential customers are unwilling to sign long-term contracts at the prices required to make projects viable.

This is particularly revealing because many of these projects were conceived in an extraordinarily favourable political environment, with subsidies, targets, mandates and public financing available to support them. Yet economy continues to intrude.

The hydrogen industry is not disappearing, nor should it. But the retreat from some of the most ambitious projects suggests that the distinction between technically feasible and economically sustainable is finally reasserting itself.

This matters particularly for Europe. European industries already face high energy costs compared with several major international competitors. Adding expensive mandatory energy transformations to industrial processes risks aggravating that disadvantage.

The relevant question is therefore not how many gigawatts of electrolyser capacity Europe can announce. The relevant question is what useful service society obtains from each unit of primary energy consumed – and at what total system cost.

Hydrogen has a future – where hydrogen is needed

None of this means that hydrogen has no future. Quite the contrary. Hydrogen already has a substantial present. Its most important future applications are likely to remain those in which we actually need the hydrogen molecule itself, rather than merely its energy content.

Ammonia production is an obvious example. Refining and petrochemicals are others. Methanol and various chemical processes require hydrogen. New industrial applications may develop, and technological research should, of course, continue.

There may also be specialised energy applications in which hydrogen or hydrogen-derived fuels provide characteristics valuable enough to compensate for their energetic disadvantages. Each case should be assessed on its own technical and economic merits.

What should be rejected is the idea that hydrogen must become a universal energy vector merely because public policy has decided that direct use of hydrocarbons should disappear.

The distinction is essential: Hydrogen as a chemical feedstock is indispensable. Hydrogen as a universal fuel is another matter entirely.

More than half a century after Marchetti’s work at Ispra, the essential lesson is remarkably simple. Hydrogen is neither a new energy source nor a miracle solution. It is a valuable industrial molecule and, in some circumstances, a useful energy carrier. It should be used where its particular properties justify the energy and cost required to produce it.

Europe needs research and innovation, but above all it needs abundant, reliable and affordable energy if it wants to preserve its industry and prosperity.

Produce hydrogen when we need hydrogen. Use electricity when we need electricity. Use fuels when we need fuels. And never confuse an energy carrier with an energy source. Hydrogen is a wonderful molecule. That is precisely why we should not waste it. And burning it merely to produce heat really would be like burning a Louis Vuitton handbag to keep warm.

For readers wishing to explore the subject further, I have developed these arguments in my book The Hydrogen Illusion, drawing on my work on hydrogen since my PhD research and throughout my career at the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Energy.

• Germany Approved the EU Digital Identity Wallet

• Magyar Linked the Unrest in France to Immigration; Macron to the Far Left

• Denmark’s CO₂ Targets: Care Homes Restrict Meat for the Elderly

Germany Approved the EU Digital Identity Wallet

On 15 October, the German Bundestag passed the Digital Identity Act, which provides the legal basis for the EU Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet. Germany’s scheme will launch on 2 January 2027 under the name d-you. The Act eases the exchange of biometric data between authorities that issue passports and ID cards. It also lowers the age for using the digi-ID from 16 to 13 and lets citizens opt out of providing a biometric photograph, according to Reclaim the Net.

The Act was passed with the votes of the CDU/CSU and the SPD; the AfD, the Greens and the Left voted against it. The government stressed that the digital ID remains voluntary and will not replace existing methods of identity verification. It regards the wallet as the first reliable and secure electronic ID for mobile devices. The government also argues that automatic transfer of biometric photographs will save time and simplify identity checks, since such data exchange between passport and ID-card authorities was previously prohibited. The bill still requires approval from the Bundesrat (the Council of the Federal States), followed by the Chancellor, the relevant minister and the President.

The German Bundestag has approved the Digital Identity Act, which lays the groundwork for the introduction of the EU digital ID and digital wallet. Photo: European Commission/Wikimedia Commons.

Under EU rules, very large online platforms must accept the digital wallet, but Germany requires more platforms to accept it. The EU has repeatedly confirmed that the wallet is voluntary and that pseudonymous use should be possible. In Germany, however, the pseudonym function will not be ready when the wallet is rolled out.

According to the Left party, which opposed the bill, a pseudonym function must be available from the first day of operation. The coalition has instead decided that the function will be introduced “at the earliest opportunity” after launch. The Left also criticised the lowering of the age limit to 13 and described the law as a possible prelude to a social-media ban on young people, which the party rejects. It further insisted that companies must receive from the digital register only the data they are legally entitled to request, and that this check must not fall on individual users. The Greens viewed the automatic data exchange as problematic, arguing that the law lacks adequate safeguards against misuse and fails to guarantee genuine security or voluntariness. The AfD warned that the digital wallet is likely to be used far beyond administrative services, but it must not become compulsory.

Critics contend that Germany’s digital-ID framework is largely inadequate and lacks sufficient safeguards. As a result, the system could either fail or primarily benefit large technology companies. They also note that the parts designed to expand the use of the digital ID are already operational, while privacy protections are only promised for some unspecified time in the future.

Share

Magyar Linked the Unrest in France to Immigration; Macron to the Far Left

According to Hungarian Prime Minister Péter Magyar, the recent protests in France, which turned violent, are linked to immigration, and stricter immigration measures are therefore justified. His critics believes the Prime Minister is merely seeking to exploit the unrest, as the majority of demonstrators were French citizens, reports Euronews.

The protests in France have been going on for several weeks, starting when students demonstrated against the education system, including dilapidated school buildings and a shortage of teachers. At the weekend they were joined by protesters against the high cost of living, but in several French cities the protests turned violent. Rioters broke into shops, stole goods, set fire to cars and buildings – including the historic town hall in Limoges – and vandalised property.

Hungarian Prime Minister Péter Magyar linked these violent riots to mass immigration, drawing a distinction between peaceful protest and vandalism. He argued that the violence justified the government’s tougher immigration policy. “Seeing this senseless destruction and unjustified violence, perhaps it is now clear to everyone why Hungary takes the toughest possible stance on migration,” wrote Magyar, adding a video showing buildings on fire. He stated that Hungary has no intention of easing its efforts to protect its borders or changing its immigration policy. He noted that the majority of European countries have finally woken up and want a stricter approach to immigration, referring to the recent summit of European leaders. “The Europe we all love is in serious trouble today. We also have a responsibility to help preserve our continent as the most wonderful place for our grandchildren,” Magyar concluded.

Hungary’s left-wing figures have sharply criticised Magyar’s remarks. Left-wing activist and Budapest City Councillor András Jámbor accused the Prime Minister of trying to exploit the unrest in France for political gain. He was outraged that the Prime Minister had failed to address the people’s legitimate demands and the unjustified violence, but instead referred to the events in terms of immigration. Jámbor explained that whilst some protesters might have an immigrant background, the protests in France were about much more than that.

US President Donald Trump blamed immigration even more directly, writing on social media: “France is burning! The immigration of people from an entirely different world, people with hatred in their hearts, has shattered that once great country.” He has been joined by US Vice-President JD Vance, who also blamed immigration for the violence and wrote: “Western liberals imported the Third World into France and other countries in the name of diversity and compassion. They ignored fundamental questions of assimilation and compatibility. They were told it would lead to this and they didn’t listen.” Vance hopes that France will put a stop to this madness before even more is set alight.

French President Emmanuel Macron, on the other hand, focused on the far left rather than immigration. In a speech delivered on Sunday, Macron explained that the violence and vandalism were instigated by far-left agitators, whom many of the perpetrators had joined. According to the President, nothing justifies violence, and he asked: “How can French people do this to France?” He emphasised the need to distinguish between peaceful protesters with legitimate demands and those who destroyed, smashed and looted, and promised uncompromising action against the latter.

From Monday into Tuesday, France imposed curfews in several major cities, which will be extended if necessary or supplemented by additional curfews. Authorities have pledged to deploy the military on the streets for the coming weekend.

Subscribe now

Denmark’s CO₂ Targets: Care Homes Restrict Meat for the Elderly

Care homes in Copenhagen serve beef to the elderly much less frequently – at most once or twice a month – because higher meat consumption conflicts with climate targets and risks exceeding CO₂ limits. More fruit and vegetables are offered instead as part of a climate-conscious diet, but many elderly residents reject them, according to B.T.

Copenhagen’s food and meal strategy aims to cut CO₂ emissions from public meals, including in care homes. An analysis of the city’s strategy shows that the proportion of meat has fallen. Beef is sometimes refused even when requested for a birthday meal. On average, beef is served only twice in four weeks, and in some homes just once. Staff are reportedly reluctant to serve it any less frequently than this at present, as this could already have a negative impact on residents’ satisfaction and nutrition.

However, residents do not wish to take part in this climate-shift and still prefer meat on their plates. Staff are trying to address this concern by avoiding terms such as ‘vegetarian’, ‘beans’ and the like. Instead they offer dishes described as “green cutlet,” hoping the wording will make the food more acceptable.

Jens-Kristian Lütken, the city’s health and care mayor, said: “It is truly a heart-rending situation they are being put in because of a stubborn political goal to reduce CO₂ emissions at any cost. It is madness.” He wants care homes exempted from the climate requirements, but there is currently no majority for this on the city council. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has also spoken out, calling it a lack of respect for the elderly’s right to decide for themselves. “This shows a lack of empathy and an inability to understand lived experience. And it is completely disproportionate. People living in care homes, who have worked hard for our country, must of course be allowed to eat meat,” she said. In her view, the fight against climate change must not come at the expense of older people’s right to self-determination; solutions should be found elsewhere.

In the roughly 42 care homes run by Copenhagen that prepare their own meals or receive them, meat accounted for 13.6 per cent of food purchases in 2025, down from 16 per cent in 2021.

• Most UK Jobs Go to Non-Brits

• France and Germany Support Relaxed EU Car Emissions Rules

• AI Identifies an Exact Location Based on a Single Photo, Including Hotels and Airbnbs

Most New UK Jobs Went to Non-Brits

The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) study State of Dependency examined the growth in social expenditure and found that the number of jobs registered in the payroll system increased by approximately 3.7 million between 2014 and 2025. Of these, only 734,000 went to British citizens and 408,000 to EU citizens, while around 2.5 million went to non-EU citizens. The highest number of jobs has gone to non-EU citizens since 2020, when the so-called ‘Boriswave’began. During this period approximately four million immigrants were granted visas to work or study in the UK, and the number of non-EU workers increased by 2.1 million, according to The Telegraph.

At the same time, the Britons out-of-work benefit caseload rose by around 2.3 million, and spending on benefits for people of working age rose by £50 billion between 2019 and 2019/20. In England, Wales and Scotland, around 6.7 million people - roughly one in six working-age adults - are currently receiving at least one form of out-of-work benefit. Since 2019, the number of working-age benefit recipients who are not required to look for work has risen by nearly 1.7 million.

Almost twenty years before this study, Iain Duncan Smith’s series Breakdown Britain was published, laying the foundations for Universal Credit, which was intended to act as a bridge from benefits to the labour market. Now the CSJ states in its new report that governments since then have relied on low-skilled immigrants to fill jobs. At the same time, the social security system has ‘written off’ millions of Britons. The report states that the state has taken in a huge number of foreign workers, while domestic taxpayers have had to bear the ever-increasing costs of domestic worklessness.

Since the COVID pandemic, this trend has accelerated further, and the number of British citizens in paid employment has fallen in nine of the UK’s 12 regions between January 2020 and December 2025. Employment among non-EU workers, however, has increased across the board. For example, the largest fall in employment among British citizens was recorded in Scotland: a decrease of 53,000. In the West Midlands it fell by 32,000; in the South-East by 31,700; in the East by 29,400; and in London by 26,500. By contrast, employment among non-EU citizens increased by 465,200 jobs in London, by 284,500 in the South-East of England, by 223,900 in the North-West of England and by 220,300 in the West Midlands.

Since 2020, the largest numbers of non-EU nationals have been employed in social care, the accommodation and food services sector, and retail. These are sectors that have traditionally provided opportunities for people who are just starting out or who have been out of the labour market for some time. Employment of non-EU citizens rose by 29 per cent in health and social care, 16 per cent in administrative and support services, 12 per cent in accommodation and food services, and 10 per cent in wholesale and retail trade.

According to the report, the authorities have for years taken into account the immediate growth in the number of workers and tax revenue resulting from higher immigration, but have overlooked the long-term costs that arise when immigrants become entitled to social benefits and as they age. Consequently, greater budgetary leeway has been prioritised through so-called ‘human quantitative easing’ (or population relief). This is the case even when, in reality, there is no improvement in GDP per capita; on the contrary, it often increases costs after the period covered by the forecast.

Share

France and Germany Support Relaxed EU Car Emissions Rules

Paris and Berlin have long disagreed over how to revive Europe’s struggling car industry. They have now reached a provisional agreement to support more lenient EU emissions rules and to include the UK in the ‘Made in Europe’ scheme, reports France24.

Germany wanted less stringent CO₂ requirements for manufacturers and the broadest possible definition of ‘made in Europe’ to include key non-EU partners. France insisted on maintaining climate targets and limiting the label to EU Member States. Under the draft deal, Berlin secured more lenient emissions targets while Paris won a narrower definition of the label. France has given its approval, but Germany has yet to do so.

The European Commission had previously proposed softening the 2035 ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles, requiring manufacturers to cut emissions from new cars by 90 per cent instead of 100 per cent. The remaining 10 per cent would have had to be offset with emissions credits, for example by using low-carbon steel.

The Franco-German agreement removes this offset obligation. Cars running on renewable fuels would count as zero-emission vehicles. The Commission’s proposed ‘super-credits’ for small, affordable electric cars would also apply to all vehicles, regardless of size.

The ‘Made in Europe’ label would mainly cover the 27 EU Member States, though the UK and Norway could join under certain conditions. This is narrower than the Commission’s March proposal.

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s office has welcomed the plan, saying it would be good news for the British car industry, its jobs and investment.

Subscribe now

AI Identifies an Exact Location Based on a Single Photo, Including Hotels and Airbnbs

Graylark’s AI research platform can reportedly identify a person’s exact location from a single photo, even one taken in a hotel room or rented flat. Graylark sells its AI-powered investigative platform mainly to law enforcement, businesses and governments, according to Reclaim The Net.

CEO Daniel Heinen announced this on X: “AI can now find where a criminal is staying from a single photo taken inside an Airbnb. No GPS. No address. Just the room.” With Raven it has launched Short-Term Rental ID and HotelID. To identify a location from an indoor photo, Raven scans millions of short-term rental and hotel listings worldwide that show interiors or video clips. It matches visual details against listings and location data, without needing GPS. The company says room layout, fixtures and interior elements link different views of the same space and produce leads. These still need verification before any action is taken.

A demo on the company’s website shows the tool identifying locations from photos of a car on the street, a coffee cup on a balcony or a shower-room wall. It can also check whether a photo is AI-generated or identify a car’s make in an aerial shot. Graylark claims it can identify a location within seconds from one image; one demo states that eight minutes after a photo is uploaded, police can arrive and make an arrest. Under the privacy policy, images for quick searches are retained for 7 days then deleted; photos tied to an investigation are kept until the case is closed, plus a further 30 days.

Heinen says the tool is meant to help locate victims and investigate serious crimes, but he does not disclose Raven’s architecture, datasets, sources or partners. In August this year Graylark announced it had raised $10.7 million, led by General Catalyst, with investors including Alexandr Wang and Recorded Future.

Raven’s roots lie in the earlier geolocation tool GeoSpy, which the company says reached one million cumulative users in its first three months. In January last year reports emerged that members of the public were using GeoSpy to track specific individuals, particularly women. Heinen rejected those requests, but closed GeoSpy to public access.

Until now, a hotel room or flat was one of the last places where a photo alone could not reveal the exact location. With Raven that is no longer true. Photos posted online can become sources for pinpointing a precise place, even when no location data was attached.

Critics note that the tool can help police catch criminals when used properly. What makes it concerning is that it relies on undisclosed data and algorithms, and that access is not limited solely to law enforcement.

• Signal Vows to Exit Countries Undermining Privacy

• Irish MEP: Adults Need Protection From Social Media Too

• Saudi Arabia Sentences Sri Lankan to Death Over Facebook Comment

Signal Vows to Exit Countries Undermining Privacy

Meredith Whittaker, president of Signal – a messaging app that protects user privacy – said in a recent interview that an increasing number of governments are seeking access to encrypted messages. The pretext is often the need to protect children and women, but according to Whittaker, strong encryption protects everyone, reports the BBC.

Whittaker has previously stated that if any country demanded a backdoor or otherwise infringed on users’ privacy – including by weakening encryption – she would withdraw the app from that country. She has now reaffirmed this stance: “Yes! My God, I have a backbone. It doesn’t change based on my mood. It doesn’t change based on consultants.” Her words are backed by actions – Signal is fully or partially blocked in Russia, China and Iran.

Encrypted messaging apps have been criticised by cyber-security organisations because they can be used to direct children towards platforms where they are coerced into creating sexual material. Signal’s president explained: “Tech companies are responsible for the design choices they make, and they cannot ignore the risks those choices can create for children.” However, any restrictions or bans imposed under the pretext of protecting children or women could easily be circumvented, especially by children themselves. Therefore, a ban on social media and message monitoring should rather be described as an “unprecedented regime of communication and information control.”

On the other hand, there are also many supporters of encrypted messaging apps. For example, Chayn, a charity tackling gender-based violence, with roots in South Asia and a global focus, states that during periods of state surveillance and cyber-attacks, Signal is a means of survival. “With any platform, it can be used by bad actors too, and we have to acknowledge that truth as well,” said Chayn’s founder.

That said, much depends on the users themselves. In Canada, for instance, police officers shared racist and misogynistic messages in a Signal group, which were then made public when one group member forwarded them to the media. A lawyer representing one of the participants explained that the men considered Signal to be as private and secure as their own homes. Whittaker draws a parallel with a kitchen at home: if they’d been having a conversation in the kitchen and one of the participants had betrayed the others, would people then be asking what to do about the kitchen? Whittaker is convinced that encryption must work for everyone, or it won’t work for anyone. “This is the principle of fundamental rights. They apply even to arseholes,” she added.

Whittaker also highlighted a case from the US where a woman was arrested after Meta handed over her private messages, which showed that she had helped her daughter gain access to an abortion in a state where it was a criminal offence. Whittaker used this to emphasise that protected private communication safeguards people from a wide range of harms, including “an abusive spouse, a misogynist law enforcement officer with access to a database, or an authoritarian government that doesn’t think women should be educated”.

Share

Irish MEP: Adults Need Protection From Social Media Too

Lynn Boylan, who represents Ireland in the European Parliament, believes adults also need protection from social media and that Europe must respond to online threats with more than age restrictions. The politician also argues that technology companies should face higher accountability, writes EU Perspectives.

According to MEP Lynn Boylan (The Left), the EU’s KIDS Act is welcome in every respect, but it does not address the broader impact of large technology companies on society. Commenting on problems caused by social media, she said: “I think during COVID we’ve seen how social media companies were beginning to polarise society and generate anger and a lot of hatred. In Ireland, we experience a lot of far-right rhetoric, and I think other European countries have seen similar trends, first against lockdowns and vaccinations but then moving on to anti-migration and racist rhetoric.” She is also concerned about the damage social media companies cause to social cohesion and communities, “because there is an anti-NGO and also anti-politician narrative on these social media platforms.”

In Boylan’s view, social media recommendation systems, digital literacy and artificial intelligence should therefore all be approached regardless of age. She has also realised that the Australian age restriction, which served as a model for social media age limits, has not been effective. “Children and young people are very, very resourceful when it comes to finding ways to get round the system,” she noted, adding that this is precisely what technology companies want – to shift responsibility back onto users and parents. However, a parent’s social status plays a role: educated middle-class parents are far more aware, as “information is more accessible to them than to a single parent who is struggling to do everything.”

Boylan went on to explain that she is concerned about the privacy of the entire population when platforms must be provided with information to verify that a user is of legal age. Moreover, everyone is susceptible to disinformation, false information, scams and now content generated by artificial intelligence. Therefore, while it is right to protect young people, we must not forget adults either. “We all have friends and relatives who’ve been radicalised through social media, and they’re not okay – and they’re older than 16,” she explained, noting that the targeting methods used for young men differ significantly from those used for young women. In her view, the recommendation system should be switched off for everyone, so that each person can find and decide for themselves what they are looking for and what they see.

Boylan also criticised the Irish government’s technology policy, as the tax scheme there attracted technology companies to set up shop in the country. However, the data centre policy – originally intended only for cloud services – had already encouraged them to stay. According to Boylan, Ireland now has more data centres per capita than anywhere else in the world, and these account for 23 per cent of the country’s total electricity demand. The government meets with lobby groups without the meetings being minuted or recorded, and has no intention of abandoning its technology-friendly policies. For this reason, Boylan believes the Irish government should not participate in discussions on technology issues during its presidency.

On artificial intelligence, Boylan referred to a recent report by the NGO Spun Out, according to which young people seek advice from chatbots, and these conversations can very quickly lead to thoughts of suicide. Moreover, the AI even offers advice on how to kill oneself. Equally significant are instances where people ask AI for advice on matters such as health. According to Boylan, for every fourth enquiry about abortion, the AI directed the enquirer towards anti-abortion information and dubious counselling services. Therefore, she believes that we must not allow the field of AI to get out of hand in the same way that social media has.

Ireland holds the Presidency of the Council of the European Union from 1 July to 31 December this year. During this period, the country will lead the Council, which negotiates and adopts legislation together with the European Parliament, coordinates Member States’ policies, develops the EU’s foreign and security policy, adopts the EU budget together with the European Parliament, and concludes agreements between the EU and its international partners.

Subscribe now

Saudi Arabia Sentences Sri Lankan to Death Over Facebook Comment

Saudi Arabia sentenced Anojan Sivarasa (24), a migrant worker from Sri Lanka, to death for a Facebook comment that he wrote, deleted and later apologised for, according to Reclaim The Net.

He was arrested on 1 July and, by 27 July, received the maximum five-year term under the Anti-Cybercrime Law plus a fine of 3 million Saudi riyals (about 714 000 euros). Prosecutors appealed and demanded the case be handled under Sharia law rather than the Cybercrime Act. On 17 September the Court of Appeal found him guilty of “blasphemy” and imposed the death penalty as a hadd punishment - a fixed, mandatory sentence under Sharia.

The case began in late June when a video circulated showing a young Muslim man kicking a dog that had followed Hindu pilgrims in Sri Lanka. The footage sparked heated debate and allegations that someone had insulted a Hindu deity. Anojan then posted a comment judged offensive to the Prophet Muhammad. He deleted it and issued a video apology, but a screenshot had already been sent to his employer and the Saudi authorities. His brother, Hamsidan Sivarasa, said the person who reported him lived in Sri Lanka; the Saudis knew nothing of the wider context.

The family appealed for clemency and repatriation. Sri Lankan President Anura Kumara Dissanayake pledged help and sent a team of lawyers. Buddhist and Hindu religious leaders in Sri Lanka also called for assistance. According to news outlets, diplomatic efforts have been successful and on 13 October 2026, the Saudi Supreme Court set aside the deathsentence. It remains unclear whether the original five-year prison term still applies.

Nevertheless, Amnesty International noted that Anojan was denied a lawyer from his arrest until the first court ruling and had no contact with his family since 28 September. The organisation stressed that no one should be imprisoned, let alone executed, merely for expressing an opinion - even an offensive one. Amnesty called the decision a terrifying example of Saudi Arabia’s readiness to impose the most brutal and irreversible punishment for acts that should not be crimes. It also shows the harsh treatment of those convicted of blasphemy, with no regard for a person’s foreign origin or attempts to make amends.

According to Amnesty, Saudi Arabia is among the world’s leading executioners. As of 5 October, more than 170 people had been executed, including at least 94 foreign nationals from more than 20 countries. In recent years lengthy prison terms have been imposed for social-media posts, though appeal outcomes have varied. Saudi Arabia lacks a written criminal code for many offences, giving judges wide discretion under their interpretation of Sharia. Even where statutes exist, authorities often rely on vague provisions in anti-terrorism and cybercrime laws concerning public order, religious values and morality.

• The EEAS Withdrew its Support for the Disinformation Conference

• Russia to Spend Billions Blocking the Internet

• Afghan Women Arrested Over Dress Code and Solo Travel

The EEAS Withdrew its Support for the Disinformation Conference

The European External Action Service (EEAS) withdrew its support for the disinformation conference organised by EU DisinfoLab. According to the Service, this was because the conference programme was not in line with EU positions. However, according to media reports, the move followed pressure from the US, as the conference portrayed the US as a FIMI actor, writes Euronews.

The disinformation conference #Disinfo2026 was held in Vilnius, Lithuania, on 7–8 October. It is organised by the EU DisinfoLab, and its aim is to combat disinformation.

A few days before the conference began, the EEAS announced that it would not support the event and asked for its logo to be removed from the materials. Canada and Lithuania did the same. Christian Wigand, a spokesperson for the EU’s foreign affairs, explained: “We have decided to have the EEAS logo removed from the material associated with the conference in view of the content of the programme. The organisers chose to frame some of the discussions in a way which does not align with the positions held by the EU.” The EEAS declined to specify exactly how the conference was not in line with EU positions.

Media reports, however, link the decision to pressure from Washington, as the conference framed the US as a foreign information manipulator (FIMI). Specifically, the programme included a panel entitled “USA as a FIMI threat: acknowledge, adapt, push back”, featuring two researchers and former CIA officer Alex Finley. The discussion was described as addressing “one of the most uncomfortable questions in the counter-disinformation field today: how did the United States become a FIMI threat for Europe?” Speakers explored how to build resilience without Washington and what solidarity looks like in a fractured transatlantic environment.

Many Members of the European Parliament and non-profit organisations are now outraged and believe the decision undermines the EU’s protection of civil society. They argue that it runs counter to the Union’s efforts to shield civil society from disinformation and to the European Democracy Shield, which aims to protect citizens and journalists from government pressure and foreign interference.

Civil society organisations see the decision as evidence that the EEAS is not genuinely committed to fighting disinformation and that the EU treats the issue as a commodity. MEP Alexandra Geese (Germany/Greens/EFA) said: “Pressuring European governments to pull out of the disinformation conference in order to conceal its role in spreading disinformation is not diplomacy. It is foreign interference, and Europe should call it that.” MEP Nathalie Loiseau (France/Renew) stressed that there is no such thing as “good” or “bad” interference, and that the EEAS should combat FIMI regardless of the country involved. Kim van Sparrentak (Netherlands/Greens/EFA) emphasised: “The Trump administration publicly states that it wants to help the far right rise to power in Europe. If the Commission does not even dare to acknowledge US interference, because it fears Trump, we are lost.”

Those who support the EEAS decision, however, believe that Brussels should not pick a fight with Washington, especially not over a conference organised by non-governmental organisations. What is needed far more is transatlantic unity to confront the West’s true enemies. MEP Tomas Tobé (Sweden/EPP) finds it regrettable that the US should feel the EU regards it as a source of FIMI. “When it comes to FIMI, the EU should remain firmly focused on the threat posed by Russia and other hostile actors. Full stop.”

Share

Russia to Spend Billions Blocking the Internet

Russia is preparing new restrictions to end the use of tools that circumvent internet blocks. Plans include surcharges for international traffic to which any VPN connection is subject. The plan also involves placing corporate internal networks under the supervision of the Federal Security Service (FSB). Nearly 60 billion roubles (approximately 630 million euros) have been allocated in the budget for the next three years, reports Meduza.

In recent years, the Kremlin has imposed a series of internet restrictions designed to limit what people can see or cut off access to the free internet. The first was November 2017 provision added to the Law on Information, Information Technology and Information Protection. It prohibited VPN services from circumventing Russian blocks. The provision did not explicitly ban VPNs, but providers must filter traffic from Russian users and block access to banned sites. If a service provider failed to comply with the provision, Roskomnadzor would order the blocking of its VPN service. However, exemptions applied to the authorities and certain companies that required unrestricted access to ‘support their operations for technical purposes’.

A further restriction came in 2018, when web service providers were banned from explaining how to circumvent blocks. This followed a 2016 proposal by the Copyright Protection Association for administrative fines for promoting VPNs. Roskomnadzor supported the idea with its proposal to fine only internet service providers, as inspections had revealed instances where telecommunications operators had provided instructions on their websites on how to bypass blocks. In the end, however, no such fine was imposed, but from November 2017, operators were required to comply with the rules governing the publication of information on access restrictions.

In 2019, after a failed attempt to block Telegram, the Kremlin created the Centre for Supervision and Administration of Public Communications Networks. It reports to Roskomnadzor and uses equipment to filter traffic and block access. This formed part of the “Sovereign Internet Act”, which took effect in November 2019 and enabled centralised control of the Russian internet. Telecommunications operators had to install technical security measures (TSPU systems). These allowed Roskomnadzor to filter traffic and block websites it deemed inappropriate. The systems were later used against VPNs. In 2023, Roskomnadzor’s head, Andrei Lipov confirmed that all Russian communications nodes were fully covered.

In 2021, widespread blocking of VPN services began. Lipov threatened to block all VPNs that flouted Russian law. By the end of the year the agency had announced restrictions services including VyprVPN, Opera VPN, Hola! VPN, ExpressVPN, KeepSolid VPN Unlimited, NordVPN, Speedify VPN, IPVanish VPN, Betternet, Lantern, X-VPN, Cloudflare WARP, Tachyon VPN and PrivateTunnel. A July 2023 provision allowed authorities to add sites sharing information on accessing banned sites to the register of banned websites. In September 2024, a provision was added to the Code of Administrative Offences allowing fines for refusing to cooperate with Roskomnadzor or failing to block banned sites: 80,000 roubles (approximately 840 euros) for individuals and 500,000 roubles (approximately 5,250 euros) for legal entities (rising to 200,000 roubles (approximately 2,100 euros) and 1 million roubles (approximately 10,500 euros) for repeats).

In September 2025, VPN use was added to the list of aggravating circumstances in the Criminal Code. Courts can impose harsher punishment and deny mitigating circumstances if an offender used a VPN while committing a crime. In September 2025, a provision was also added to the Advertising Act banning advertisements for systems that enable access to banned websites, with matching fines in the Code of Administrative Offences.

Russia’s crackdown on VPNs has continued. In spring 2026, the Ministry of Digital Development compelled large Russian companies operating numerous websites and services to detect VPNs on users’ devices. These companies must block such users and share data on VPN connections with Roskomnadzor. In summer 2026 the authorities sought to disrupt VPN services offered by Russian web hosting providers by amending the Law on Information, Information Technology and Information Protection.

At the same time, the 2017 exemption remains in force, allowing companies to use VPNs “for technical purposes necessary to support their operations”. Companies must of course specify which employees will use a VPN, but a new draft bill requires companies to notify Roskomnadzor of VPN use. The government and FSB would approve the rules governing such services, including employee access. The same bill creates a new Roskomnadzor register of individuals and companies offering VPN services via Russian servers. If circumvention is detected, they would be barred from contracts with any Russian service provider for a year. Roskomnadzor and hosting providers would exchange this information.

Citizens are likely to be most affected by the Ministry of Digital Development’s plan to introduce surcharges for international internet traffic. Initially the plan targeted users exceeding 15 gigabytes of international data, which would hit VPN users connecting to foreign servers. As of early October 2026 the government is discussing a 50-gigabyte monthly quota for international traffic, with the surcharge applying initially only to 5G networks.

To fund this, the draft budget allocates the Radio Frequency Centre 19,870,441,200 roubles (approximately 208.6 million euros) for 2027; 19,844,821,700 roubles (approximately 208.4 million euros) for 2028; and 19,870,474,200 roubles (approximately 208.6 million euros) for 2029 — a total of nearly 60 billion roubles (approximately 630 million euros) over three years.

Subscribe now

Afghan Women Arrested Over Dress Code and Solo Travel

The Taliban authorities in Afghanistan have arrested or detained dozens of women in recent months, accusing them of violating dress codes or travelling in public unaccompanied by a man, according to the UN.

Between July and September this year, the Taliban detained at least 52 women and one girl in Herat and Kabul, while others have been threatened with arrest. The main reasons were that the women were not wearing a chador (a cloak-like garment covering the entire body), their hair was visible, they wore a coloured scarf or make-up, or they were in a public place without a mahram (male escort).

According to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), the women were mostly released after several hours in custody. In any case, UNAMA is concerned about the arrest, detention and threats of arrest of women. These actions violate women’s and girls’ rights to freedom of movement, freedom of expression and autonomy, and the mere act of arrest exposes women to the risk of severe social stigmatisation later on.

Since seizing power in 2021, the Afghan authorities have systematically rolled back women’s rights. Girls are banned from education beyond primary school, and women are barred from most work and public life. The extremely strict dress code, which requires women to be covered from head to toe – including the face – is enforced by the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.

• British Officials Maintain a List of “Suspicious” Posts

• Macron Calls for Strict Online Censorship

• UK Arrests Teens and Pensioners for Speech

British Officials Maintain a List of “Suspicious” Posts

The UK authorities monitor and investigate social media posts, adding to a database posts and comments that criticise government policy. For example, several Britons who posted on X and Reddit criticising the state’s counter-terrorism programme, Prevent – overseen by the Standards and Compliance Unit (StaCU) – have been added to the list of “suspicious” posts. Between March 2024 and February 2025, there were 77 posts in the StaCU database, the majority of which criticised the Prevent training programme’s excessive focus on the far right, whilst completely overlooking Islamic extremism, reports Metro.

StaCU is regarded as a relatively obscure organisation. It was established in February 2024 and its remit includes the Prevent programme, which aims to stop people from becoming terrorists. Public can submit complaints about the programme, but it has now emerged that officials from the unit appear to be actively searching the internet for posts critical of Prevent.

Many of the authors of the posts flagged are ordinary Britons who would never suspect that officials are monitoring their social media accounts. Most of the ‘suspicious’ posts consist of claims that Prevent is biased in the way it trains public sector staff to spot early signs of radicalisation. For example, one post has reportedly made it onto the list: “Anyone who’s done the Prevent training knows it only talks about the far right. Islamic extremism isn’t even mentioned. Complete bullshit.” Another post on the list complained that “I sat through Prevent training at work a few weeks ago and the narrative was very much that the far right is the biggest threat. I kid you not!”. Consequently, the majority of posts on the list criticised Prevent for focusing excessively on the far right. However, there were also some that were critical of the government in other ways. For example, one claimed that Prevent “closes down conversations in the classroom” because “Muslim children are seen as a ‘threat’”.

There is at least one post on the list from the Open Rights Group, an organisation campaigning for digital rights. In it, the group criticised the programme for its lack of transparency regarding data management and storage. The Open Rights Group has also argued that Prevent has expanded far beyond its original aim of identifying people who might become radicalised and has increasingly been used to justify widespread surveillance. According to the organisation, it is worrying to see that people are being monitored under Prevent simply because they criticise the programme. “That raises serious questions about freedom of expression and the right to dissent and protest,” stated the Open Rights Group.

The Open Rights Group also noted that there is extremely little information about what happens to the data scraped from social media, how long it is retained, with whom it is shared, and what the authorities ultimately use it for.

According to Rights & Security International, the organisation that campaigned for the list to be made public, people should be able to express their opinions, including criticism, without it being recorded in a government database. The organisation believes that people do not post on social media while thinking that the government might be monitoring and collecting what they publish. Furthermore, the authors of posts included in the list are not informed that their posts have been included, nor is it known what happens to the posts or their authors after the list is finalised. All in all, Rights & Security International finds this highly concerning.

The Free Speech Union also criticised the post register, adding that in just five years, more than 62,000 people have been arrested for what they have said. “Every day, Britain feels more like George Orwell’s 1984,” wrote the Free Speech Union. However, this appears to be only the beginning, as Prime Minister Andy Burnham recently announced the establishment of a National Centre for Information Defence, aimed at combating false information and disinformation originating from abroad – such as from Russia – as well as ‘misleading’ claims concerning the UK. In any case, the recent revelation that some body is keeping a list of “suspicious” posts raises even more questions about freedom of speech, the right to protest and the right to criticise the government. “This is deeply chilling,” stated the Free Speech Union.

However, according to a Home Office spokesperson, people who have criticised the Prevent programme are not being monitored, nor have any actions been directed against any specific community. “Keeping the public safe is our number one priority and we are committed to ensuring that everyone is protected from radicalisation,” the Home Office explained. The spokesperson added that Prevent plays a crucial role in this, having steered nearly 6,000 people away from violent ideologies since 2015.

Share

Macron Calls for Strict Online Censorship

French President Emmanuel Macron continues to push the European Union to rigorously enforce the Digital Services Act – often labelled a ‘censorship law’ – aimed at curbing information deemed inappropriate. He also advocates ending online anonymity. Macron has called for all of this before, but during his state visit to Spain in September, his desire for censorship became apparent once again. At an event at the Complutense University of Madrid, he sharply criticised the American concept of freedom of speech, calling it the antithesis of true free speech. In his words, “there is no freedom if there is no limit on my freedom, which begins with the freedom of others and respect for a common framework.” In short, Macron’s view of freedom is confined to limits set by the state and whatever it currently defines as public order, according to Reclaim The Net.

Macron illustrated his point: “I know this when I walk down the street: my freedom cannot be to hit you, to insult you or to wreck the space we all share. That is the idea some people have of free speech.” Critics argue the comparison is flawed because it equates words with actions.

He further insisted there should be no social media accounts not tied to a real person. Macron believes people must be held accountable for the “rubbish” they post, yet he has never clearly stated who decides what counts as rubbish. He stressed that the EU’s Digital Services Act is not being applied fast enough and confirmed he has pressed European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for stronger action. “We will keep up the pressure. In fact, the pressure means pushing the Commission to act, and/or, in parallel, taking national initiatives to shake things up,” he said. Until those who post content are held to account, it will not be possible to regulate that content. Macron compared social-media users to journalists, noting that a journalist spreading “nonsense” can face legal consequences while online posters often do not. He cited YouTube and similar platforms promoting climate-sceptic videos because they drive engagement and advertising revenue. This, he argued, must end through “trusted third parties and fact-checking structures that make it possible to restore the truth,” with the Digital Services Act enforced far more widely, quickly and forcefully.

Macron also strongly supports age verification and addressed banning children and young people from social media. As you may recall, France’s Constitutional Council ruled that a proposed social-media ban was unconstitutional because it disproportionately restricted freedom of expression and failed to protect privacy. Rather than drop the plan, the President confirmed work on amendments continues. He described regulating social media as a “European-level battle” fought alongside Spain and others. “And now we have won – we have reached a European-level agreement that children under the age of 15 must be protected from social media,” Macron said, praising the European Commission’s recent EU Children’s Act, which include bans for under-13s and staged access thereafter. In his view, such rules amount to a “re-humanisation” of social media, reclaiming control to restore democracy.

On age verification via artificial intelligence, Macron promised – apparently responding to the Constitutional Council’s privacy concerns – that personal data would be better protected than in most everyday platform activities.

Subscribe now

UK Arrests Teens and Pensioners for Speech

Over the past five years, the UK has arrested more than 62,000 people for online posts; of these, 18,520 were charged and 12,292 were convicted. Although the government has promised to stop prosecuting such posts, the trend shows no sign of abating. On the contrary, a joke about a politician’s clothes or a meme about immigrants is enough for the police to turn up and arrest a teenager or a pensioner, writes Reclaim The Net.

This is exactly what happened to a 15-year-old boy, who was arrested by four police officers. The boy had posted jokes or criticism on Facebook about the behaviour and dress sense of Simon Bennett, a Conservative councillor. In one post, he compared Bennett’s appearance to that of a “rent boy”. In another, he asked: “Why do some councillors turn up at a scrutiny committee in shorts and a T-shirt, wearing trainers? So unprofessional.” In a third post, the boy had used photo-editing software to add rabbit ears to Bennett’s head, commenting: “Nibble… nibble… crunch… crunch. Can you hear it? That’s the sound of a rabbit devouring the last remaining shreds of the Wolverhampton Conservatives’ credibility.”

Feeling offended, Mr Bennett had reported the teenager to the police, stating that the boy’s posts were quite personal. Mr Bennett therefore believes the arrest was justified: “There were a number of posts that targeted me… It was unpleasant and I was targeted by a child I had no way of dealing with.” According to Bennett, he had also sought advice from the council, whose members likewise considered it best to report the incident to the police, and the police deemed it necessary to arrest the teenager.

As a result, the police arrived at the teenager’s home in the morning, confiscated his mobile phone and laptop, and took him in for questioning. The police reportedly told the boy that he was under arrest for harassment, malicious communication or a hate crime – or a combination of these – and that it was linked to social media. The teenager was later released on bail and banned from attending Wolverhampton City Council meetings.

The Free Speech Union intends to take the police to court for unlawful arrest and unlawful detention. The group has also written to the police, stating that no crime had been committed and that the arrest and investigation constitute a gross violation of the boy’s rights.

Another example of the consequences of posts is former police officer Stephen Gray (65) from County Durham. He was arrested following a tip-off allegedly made by his neighbour, with whom he had been arguing over drainage pipes, and subsequently fined around 1,000 pounds for a satirical post which the judge deemed offensive.

He was charged over two posts. In the first, he had linked the phrase “time for mass deportation” to an allegedly 12-year-old migrant who had asked donors to have him moved from a three-star hotel to one with “a better halal menu, free Wi-Fi and Sky” near a girls’ school. The judge described this post as a political issue that had been debated in Parliament and found in Gray’s favour. In another post, he wrote: “Fun facts about bacon! People who eat bacon have a lower chance of marrying a 9-year-old!” According to Gray, his second post was pure satire and was intended to spark a debate about Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha and child marriages in Muslim countries. The magistrate, however, considered this post to be offensive and therefore fined Gray around 1,000 pounds.

According to Gray, the guilty verdict broadly means that the so-called blasphemy laws are being brought back by another route. He has appealed against the decision, and the appeal hearing is scheduled for November.

• UK to Ban Social Media for Children in March

• Morocco’s Spyware State Silences Activists

• Former Leader of Terrorist Organisation Seeks Asylum in Belgium

UK to Ban Social Media for Children in March

Lisa Nandy, the UK’s Culture Secretary, confirmed that social media will be banned for under-16s from March next year. The minister warned that the fight for online safety is not yet over. Measures are also planned to protect 16- and 17-year-olds, including restrictions on certain websites, AI-related features, and stronger media literacy education in schools, reports The Guardian.

A ban is planned for ‘high-risk’ social media platforms and will come into force in March 2027. Further measures will then follow for 16- and 17-year-olds. These include restrictions on ‘safer’ websites that allow endless scrolling and algorithms promoting harmful content, plus night-time usage limits and the automatic deactivation of addictive features. The aim is to protect the next generation so that when a child turns 16, they are not suddenly exposed to the most addictive features.

In addition, the government is advancing measures to protect children from artificial intelligence. These include mandatory breaks for those under 18 using chatbots and further action on AI systems that offer mental health advice. A plan to ban ‘chatbots that pose a serious risk to children’ is also under consideration. For now, parents, children and carers are advised to follow the guidance drawn up by the government on how to use artificial intelligence safely.

The government has also announced plans to strengthen media literacy teaching in schools, to be integrated across subjects from 2028. There are plans for updated RSHE lessons and a revised national curriculum requiring children to learn how to cope with new technologies, including artificial intelligence and chatbots, and how to identify false information, disinformation, violent and misogynistic content.

Stricter age verification measures are planned, though details have not yet been finalised. Age-based restrictions are expected to rely on existing systems already rigorously enforced by Ofcom. Methods include facial age estimation, bank details, email and digital ID. Ofcom is expected to produce a rapid review by the end of October on how age verification under the new rules should operate. The government wants it to be extremely difficult to circumvent the restrictions. Australia – the first country to introduce a similar ban – has shown that many under-16s remain on social media because the rules are relatively easy to bypass. The UK is keen to avoid similar problems.

Culture Secretary Nandy stresses that the government must go further and not treat the social media ban as the end of the matter. “This is a staging post towards what must be a very active interventionist state, policing and regulating the online space so that people are safe,” she said. New technology has always transformed society, but the internet remains the only sphere where power has been almost entirely left to the private sector. In Nandy’s view this is no longer acceptable. The United Kingdom aims to become a pioneer of technology as a force for good, promoting a web that is truly safe, inclusive and empowering. A new chapter is beginning in which Britain will be “an active and empowering state that shapes those civic spaces so that they work for us”.

According to the Free Speech Union, the state is already “highly intrusive, controlling and regulating the online space”, and has singled out people who criticise the government and its policies online. The organisation noted that over the past five years more than 60,000 people have been arrested for what they have said, both online and offline. “Let’s be honest: this is no longer solely about protecting children online. It is about the state gaining greater control over what people say online,” the group wrote, arguing that Nandy’s comments show Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s government is taking online censorship even further.

Share

Morocco’s Spyware State Silences Activists

The Moroccan authorities use an extensive surveillance apparatus to monitor and ultimately silence journalists, activists, human rights defenders and others critical of the regime. This illegal surveillance was confirmed by a former security agent from Morocco’s Direction Générale de la Surveillance du Territoire, using the pseudonym Safir. He described how targets are secretly recorded everywhere and how the intelligence services collaborate with mobile phone retailers to ensure that phones are pre-loaded with spyware, although there is a whole range of measures for infecting targets’ devices. All of this is done to subject individuals deemed undesirable by the authorities to criminal prosecution, writes writes Amnesty International.

According to Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International, Morocco has fully embraced techno-authoritarian practices. The state has acquired a wide range of surveillance technologies, such as high-tech spyware, audio recording systems and other surveillance devices. It purchases these systems from companies based in Israel, the European Union and the US, such as the Israeli NSO Group (Pegasus), the Italian Hacking Team (now known as Memento Labs), and the British-German firms Gamma Group and FinFisher. The authorities are actively using these tools to create a repressive system that instils fear amongst human rights activists and journalists, in order to silence them and hinder their work both in Morocco and abroad.

According to Amnesty International, human rights defenders have been targeted by various methods of infection: their devices have been physically compromised, they have been attacked via ‘one-click’ attacks, where the victim clicks on a malicious link, or ‘zero-click’ attacks, where the target’s device is infected without the victim having to click on any link at all. There have also been cyber-attacks facilitated by the state-owned Maroc Telecom.

This information has now been confirmed by a former employee of Morocco’s Direction Générale de la Surveillance du Territoire (DGST), using the pseudonym Safir. This unit carries out surveillance operations and is responsible for the deployment of the Pegasus spyware in Morocco. Safir described how personal devices are infected, and how the individuals under surveillance are secretly filmed and recorded. This applies both to those who have been arrested and prior to arrest – for example, at a person’s home, workplace, in their car, in cafés and even in their bedroom, where microphones and other recording devices have been installed.

Phone calls are routinely tapped, and location data is tracked to monitor the daily movements of activists and others. According to Safir, DGST agents recruited staff at mobile phone shops to sell mobile phones infected with spyware, which appear to be new and unused but, once activated, give the authorities full access to all communications. Neighbours of those under surveillance, meanwhile, are recruited as informants. The authorities also employed such tactics in relation to individuals in transit via Moroccan airports, as well as the families, friends and professional contacts of selected targets. Safir described: “We infected so many internet cafés with Remote Controlled Spyware (RCS). The field agents tell us which internet café the target is visiting, and we were able to monitor what they were doing because we had previously infected all the computers there.” DGST agents operate without a court order, selecting targets in secret and with impunity.

According to Rebecca White, a researcher at Amnesty International’s Security Lab, the Moroccan authorities thus have a wide range of tools at their disposal aimed at “blackmailing, discrediting, shaming and, if necessary, unjustly imprisoning those who speak out in defence of human rights in Morocco”. Ultimately, Moroccan human rights defenders and others have nowhere to hide or flee to, as the Moroccan authorities’ surveillance networks extend far beyond the country’s borders.

Agnès Callamard added that this is yet another example of the global economy of technological repression, facilitated by both companies and states. “This repressive ecosystem makes it difficult, and dangerous, for people in Morocco to exercise their rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly. Even after they have been released from prison, they continue to live under the shadow of surveillance and are subject to smear campaigns using private details that can only be obtained through surveillance,” said Callamard.

Morocco has repeatedly denied using spyware to monitor its citizens.

Subscribe now

Former Leader of Terrorist Organisation Seeks Asylum in Belgium

Fouad Belkacem, the leader of Sharia4Belgium, who is currently serving a prison sentence in Belgium, now seeks asylum to avoid extradition to Morocco. Belkacem promoted Sharia law in Belgium, called on Muslim women to cover themselves completely, compared gay men to paedophiles, and incited Muslims to turn against non-Muslims. He was convicted of brainwashing several young Belgians and sending them to fight - and in some cases die - in Syria, writes The Brussels Times.

Fouad Belkacem (44), also known as Abu Imran, was born in Rumst, near Antwerp, and led the terrorist organisation Sharia4Belgium. Sharia4Belgium was inspired by Al-Qaeda’s ideology but was not part of that group. The organisation planned attacks in Europe and Belgium, and Belkacem himself urged violence against the Molenbeek police station. The rise of Islamic State (ISIS) opened new recruitment channels, which Sharia4Belgium used to send people to Syria. In 2015, Belkacem was convicted of recruiting and brainwashing young Belgians for armed combat in Syria and received a 12-year sentence. The European Court of Human Rights later noted his calls to fight non-Muslims in order to subdue them. In 2018, he lost his Belgian citizenship, leaving him with only Moroccan nationality. His sentence is due to end in 2027.

According to Anneleen Van Bossuyt, Belgium’s Minister for Asylum and Migration, Belkacem has submitted an asylum application. The ministry says the main reason is his fear of being returned to Morocco. The minister confirmed she wants to use every available means to remove him from Belgium, but the application must still be examined by the Directorate-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS).

Right-wing MP Francesca Van Belleghem claims Morocco does not want him back. Lawyer Sylvie Sarolea points out, however, that Morocco is obliged to accept its own citizen. Morocco cannot simply refuse, so the asylum claim could prove decisive.

Sarolea stressed that anyone on Belgian territory may apply for asylum, but this does not guarantee refugee status. In Belkacem’s case she believes a serious risk may exist that would bar refugee recognition. Even so, Belgium may be unable to deport him if he shows a real risk of torture or inhuman treatment in Morocco. He could then receive protection against removal until another solution is found. The fact that he has four children in Belgium and was born there will be weighed by the courts against any continuing security risk. If the risk is judged greater, family ties will not prevent deportation.

Claude Moniquet, director of the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Centre (ESISC) and a former French intelligence officer, calls the asylum application utterly implausible. He notes that such individuals must still be allowed to defend themselves, yet releasing Belkacem is not without risk. His connections and influence once stretched far, though after a long prison term it is unclear whether that influence remains; Sharia4Belgium has largely disappeared, and many of those active at the height of the Syrian conflict are dead, imprisoned or have vanished. Moniquet nevertheless insists that Islamist terrorism “never really dies”.

Reportedly, the General Commission for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRA) has rejected Fouad Belkacem’s asylum application and decided not to grant him international protection. The agency sees no obstacle to his removal to Morocco. He still has the right to appeal to the Council for Alien Law Litigation (CCE).

• Fauci’s NIAID Funded Dangerous Ebola Studies

• Australia to Deploy AI to Shape Public Opinion

• UK Cuts Empty-Home Takeover Time to Six Months

Fauci’s NIAID Funded Dangerous Ebola Studies

Senator Rand Paul has released further documents from Anthony Fauci’s diary and emails. In these, Fauci describes dangerous studies funded by NIAID, including a 2015 experiment in which vaccinated monkeys were exposed to aerosolised Ebola, according to Senator Rand Paul.

The study was organised by the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) under a NIAID task order. It compared the efficacy of four Ebola vaccines in four groups of monkeys that were exposed to the Ebola virus via an aerosol. The method drove the virus deep into the lungs in a way that would not occur in natural infection. According to Fauci’s notes, the vaccinated monkeys developed pulmonary necrosis, inflammation and fibrin, conditions not seen in the unvaccinated controls. Almost all the monkeys died, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, though the vaccinated animals showed more severe lung pathology.

In a diary entry dated 7 March 2016, Fauci wrote: “What idiots those guys at USAMRIID are. The work should have been a classified experiment that never should have been done in the first place.” Two days later, however, he noted that the trials were “important for bio-defence”.

But Fauci was furious when the failed vaccine trial data was shared with US embassy officials in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. In his view the trial should have been classified. He wrote that “the foolish DOD people sent the data to the FDA and then circulated it as FYI to various embassies, including those in West Africa, where we are about to embark on a much larger DSD vaccine trial for Ebola.” Embassy officials “went bonkers since it looks like we’re going to vaccinated people with the dangers vaccine”.

Whilst Fauci’s documents repeatedly claim the study should have been classified, the NIAID report states that no such authorisation had been sought and that classification was not mentioned. Moreover, the data had already been passed to vaccine manufacturers, some of whom had published the information. Fauci, however, expressed alarm when the Department of Defense clarified that the study had been funded by NIAID. He raised the same concern with other NIAID staff and discussed ways to “limit” the damage. For Fauci the problem was not the experiments themselves, but the risk that the public might learn of them. He therefore sought to classify the study urgently, even though the Department of Defense wished to publish it. “I said that I thought it should be classified, and the NSC people blew them out of the water and said they agreed with me,” Fauci wrote.

Subsequently, NIAID Deputy Director H. Clifford Lane forbade researchers from continuing the Ebola experiments until the situation had calmed. He warned that “one might consider this dual-use research” and ordered colleagues to keep quiet. NIAID researcher Peter Jahrling replied that if aerosol challenge studies were treated as dual-use research of concern, “the entire MCM [Medical Countermeasures] development paradigm is gutted.” He added that, while Ebola vaccine research had been suspended, plans to begin coronavirus-related research were still proceeding as soon as possible.

Share

Australia to Deploy AI to Shape Public Opinion

The Australian government is proposing extensive new powers for eSafety, the online safety regulator, through the draft Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026. These new provisions would allow the eSafety Commissioner to create ‘sock-puppet’ identities - that is, fake or fictitious identities - to be used anonymously under the pretext of online safety. The eSafety Commissioner would also be granted the right to manage these fake accounts and generate content using artificial intelligence. According to the government, the broader Digital Duty of Care framework is intended to establish safety requirements for digital platforms and give Australians greater control over certain algorithmic features, including news feeds. Critics, however, argue that the new provisions will allow the authorities to monitor citizens via fake accounts and, in principle, to create content that could be used to influence public opinion, reports News24.

The e-Safety Commissioner may create and use such fake accounts on online services. These accounts may be used to upload and download material, interact with platforms and test their functions. In certain circumstances, they may also be used to interact with other users, although, according to the draft bill, this is permitted only where necessary to prevent the account from being suspended. According to a spokesperson for the Department of Communications, this is an opportunity to test the systems that platforms have in place: “Sock puppet accounts will allow the eSafety Commissioner and accredited academics to test the systems platforms have in place to protect Australians from harms such as child sexual abuse, extreme violence and terrorism.” The Department states that such accounts will not be used to target individual accounts. Online safety researchers may also adopt sock-puppet identities themselves, but while the eSafety Commissioner may create content using online services, including through artificial intelligence, researchers do not have such authorisation.

A heated political debate has now flared up in Australia over whether such internet laws might ultimately be extended to cover false information, disinformation and political speech. In his remarks in New York at the UN General Assembly, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese initially connected the Digital Duty of Care discussion with misinformation, disinformation and political polarisation. Following his speech he explicitly denied that he was linking those issues to the legislation and said the proposal was about giving users control over algorithms. He explained: “This isn’t about government control at all. It’s not about misinformation or disinformation. What this is about is giving people control – giving you, when you’ve got that device in your hand, control over which algorithms you want to receive.” He said that social media’s role in increasing polarisation was a different issue from government taking action to control what people receive online.

Margaret Chambers, a researcher at the free-market think tank Institute of Public Affairs, expressed concern about the information warfare that the ‘sock puppet’ provisions could provoke. “The sock puppet identity provision, particularly the unlimited authorisation for the Commissioner to generate material using AI, should be understood as an effort by the government and the eSafety Commissioner to engage in information warfare,” said Chambers. She argues that the Commissioner’s approach to online safety is ideological and extends to the censorship of political debate, and that the agency is seeking to use artificial intelligence to promote what she describes as an ideologically sanitised view of the internet.

According to other critics, the aim of the draft Digital Duty of Care Bill is ostensibly noble – to protect children from harmful content and give adults greater control over their news feeds. At the same time, however, they argue that hidden within the maze of provisions is a significant expansion of regulatory power, with the eSafety Commissioner’s powers continuing to grow. Critics describe these measures as a case in which protection could become a pretext for surveillance and control. With regard to sock-puppet accounts, critics point out that such accounts allow online activity to be monitored and material to be stored, while the authorities may also create material for these accounts, including through artificial intelligence. They therefore argue that the provision goes beyond passive monitoring and could extend to active influence. At the same time, critics argue that the authorities have not sufficiently specified how these new powers will be used or set clear limits on their exercise.

Furthermore, the draft bill broadens the regulations on lawful speech by classifying lawful content – albeit often unpleasant – as ‘harmful’. Platforms are, however, required to take preventative measures to create a safe online environment in relation to these ‘harmful’ categories. Critics argue that the result is a new set of restrictions on freedom of expression, in which content may remain lawful while nevertheless being subject to regulatory pressure on platforms. For example, one category deemed harmful to children covers material or behaviour that “incites or promotes hostile attitudes towards women or gender equality”. At the same time, critics question how clearly the draft defines when a particular attitude might be considered hostile or contrary to gender equality. For example, might a statement criticising gender ideology, a feminist discussion of pornography, a religious sermon, a discussion by men’s rights advocates on family law, a historical perspective on gender roles, or even a comedian’s performance be considered ‘harmful’ in the future? These are hypothetical examples rather than categories specifically identified by the draft. In any case, critics argue that it is legitimate to ask who decides where dissent ends and harm begins.

Subscribe now

UK Cuts Empty-Home Takeover Time to Six Months

The UK government has announced amendments to the Empty Dwelling Management Order (EDMO). The changes expand the circumstances under which local authorities can take over the management of vacant dwellings and return them to use for up to seven years. Ownership will remain with the original owner, reports The Telegraph.

The EDMO regime has existed for around 20 years but has rarely been used because the rules were seen as too restrictive. A property currently has to have stood vacant for two years without a valid reason and caused a negative impact on the neighbourhood - for example if it has been taken over by criminals or anti-social behaviour. Well-maintained properties that are simply empty have generally fallen outside the rules. The government now plans to simplify these requirements.

Under the new plan the vacancy period will be cut from two years to six months. Officials say this will let councils act more quickly and prevent serious deterioration. Ministers also intend to speed up the process by which councils apply through the Residential Property Tribunal. Certain proof requirements - such as evidence of anti-social behaviour or community support - will be removed. Local authorities will in future be able to apply for residential property for their own use through an arbitration tribunal.

Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook said the aim is to strengthen councils’ powers so they can take control of long-term empty homes and make them available to families in need. He wrote: “It’s not a silver bullet but bringing more empty homes back into use can help solve the housing crisis.”

The government is also looking at further ways to improve the system and support local authorities. Every long-term vacant property is presented as a missed opportunity to provide permanent housing, revitalise communities and make better use of existing stock. Official figures showed 303,185 homes in England had been empty for long time and their number is expected to continue to rise.

Critics argue that recent changes under the Renters’ Rights Act have made it harder to evict problematic tenants while raising costs for landlords. They say the government has made private letting more difficult, which can leave properties empty for longer while owners search for reliable tenants. Now, however, the government is adding fuel to the fire and dealing property owners yet another blow by allowing local authorities, in principle, to confiscate private property if it has stood empty for just six months. The local authority may then let out this property as it sees fit, including as social housing at a reduced rent. In any case, should such a decision be taken, management of the property would be taken out of the owner’s control, whilst all the property owner’s obligations would still remain with them.

Critics also warn that the shorter threshold could catch properties that are empty for legitimate reasons - slow sales, inheritance and probate delays, legal disputes, or major renovation work - all of which routinely take longer than six months.

• The UK is Setting Up a “Ministry of Truth”

• Few Countries Back US Free Speech Push at UN

• Italy Outlawes Burqas in Classrooms and Restricts Foreign Pupils

The UK is Setting Up a “Ministry of Truth”

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham has announced plans to establish a National Centre for Information Defence to combat “disinformation”. Critics argue, however, that it has not been clarified who will decide what constitutes “false” information, nor have measures been put in place to ensure the centre does not become a tool for persecuting dissidents.

The Prime Minister outlined the plan in a speech at the UN General Assembly on 22 September. He said the centre’s remit includes improving social cohesion and preventing distorted and false narratives about the UK. According to him, he has instructed security chiefs to begin work on establishing a semi-governmental body that will detect, attribute and disrupt false’ sources, hostile information attacks and deepfakes, as these harm Britain’s interests, reports GB News.

Notably, the “semi-governmental” centre will initially be overseen by the Prime Minister’s Office and the Cabinet Office. It must cooperate with intelligence agencies, government bodies, the police and social media platforms.

Burnham elaborated on the need for the centre, explaining that there can be no national security without a strong and cohesive society. “That’s the starting point for everything we hold dear and everything we want to achieve,” he stated, adding that this has come under attack. He accused Russia of an industrial-scale assault by hostile actors. In his view, the Russian authorities have used “every means at their disposal to spread lies and disinformation and prey on people’s fears”, including bots and fake websites. They have falsified newspaper articles and forged the branding of 28 British organisations. “They’ve amplified far-right narratives. And we have evidence that they tried to interfere with the 2019 General Election,” Burnham noted.

Burnham also said that, over the last decade, too much has been permitted for those who wish to spread negative, destructive information about life in Britain that bears no resemblance to reality. This will no longer be tolerated. In the coming decade the plan is to take a different approach, standing up more firmly for our values and the rule of law. There are also plans to help people strengthen their resilience, because in the information war, security begins in every home.

The Free Speech Union (FSU) wrote that the centre’s plan could be “the most censorious thing a modern British government has done”. The FSU pointed out that there are already dozens of bodies and agencies that regulate the online environment and censor content. “Is that not enough? How do we know this new body won’t be weaponised to silence dissent and chill free speech?” asked the FSU, adding that the government itself has been keen to spread falsehoods and disinformation, exaggerating the threats they pose.

The FSU explained that it is important to protect democracy from hostile parties such as Russia. “But safeguards are essential to prevent bodies established for that purpose from expanding their remit to domestic dissent and policing the social media posts of British citizens who criticise government policy,” the organisation stated. It pointed out that, over the last five years, more than 60,000 people have been arrested in the UK for having ‘stepped out of line’ with their words, including in social media posts (see also here, here, here, here). At the same time, the government also wants to select media outlets so that their ‘reliable’ news is highlighted, whilst more critical news portals are sidelined. Instead, the government should clarify the new centre’s precise remit, who decides what information is ‘false’, and what measures will prevent it from becoming a tool for controlling legitimate dissent.

“2026 Britain is turning more into 1984 by the day. We literally now have a Ministry of Truth,” the FSU concluded, with a reference to George Orwell’s legendary work.

Share

Few Countries Back US Free Speech Push at UN

The US circulated a draft declaration intended for support at the UN General Assembly, aimed at promoting the protection of freedom of expression worldwide. The document would have obliged governments “to avoid imposing obligations on service providers that result in the excessive removal of protected speech through legal or regulatory pressure”. Governments would also have agreed not to require online platforms to moderate content falling within certain categories of freedom of expression. The document also condemned new laws and regulations that threaten freedom of expression, reports The Times.

A signing event was reportedly planned on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, but it was cancelled just a few days before it was due to take place, as it became clear that the US was relatively isolated in its defence of freedom of expression. “A few Eastern European countries signed up, and that was about it,” said one US official, whilst another added that the initiative had been doomed to failure from the outset.

According to Sarah Rogers, the US Under-Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, the declaration was drafted to improve transparency and build consensus. “The statement is intended as an expression of comity and common values, and also as a source of interpretive guidance for American speech companies complying with overseas laws,” said Rogers. She added that the declaration does not seek to override EU rules, but rather to provide an overview of countries’ values and concerns. However, according to a US State Department spokesperson, there were never any plans to have the document signed at the UN General Assembly, as it is still undergoing diplomatic procedures. The same spokesperson confirmed that the aim is to provide clarity and express shared values, but not to overturn existing regulations or rules.

Allegedly, the US had not wished to amend the original document, nor had it previously submitted it for review through diplomatic channels. For example, according to the UK government, diplomats had seen a draft of the declaration, but the US had never sent them the final version. Consequently, the UK refused to sign the document. EU diplomats also expressed concern that the original wording was at odds with the principles of the EU’s Digital Services Act, which regulates ‘harmful’ online content.

The Free Speech Union (FSU) explained in a post published on X that it is no surprise that the UK and the EU oppose the document, as it conflicts with both their heavily regulated online regimes, including the UK’s Online Safety Act and the EU’s Digital Services Act. The document would have obliged governments to stop moderating certain content and to refrain from introducing new rules that threaten free speech. Clearly, this is not in line with the countries’ actual objectives. “It is deeply disappointing that countries around the world cannot commit to defending one of our most basic rights. The world is in the grip of a free speech crisis,” concluded the FSU.

Subscribe now

Italy Outlawes Burqas in Classrooms and Restricts Foreign Pupils

The government of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has decided to limit the number of pupils in schools who do not speak Italian fluently. It has also banned face-covering garments, including the burqa and the niqab, reports the BBC.

In the first year of primary, lower secondary and upper secondary school, a 30 per cent cap will apply to children without Italian citizenship whose command of Italian is limited. In primary school this covers foreign nationals not born in Italy or who have not attended Italian nursery school for at least two years. In lower and upper secondary schools it applies to pupils without Italian citizenship who have not successfully completed at least three years in the Italian system. Local education authorities must distribute such pupils more evenly among schools; where this is impossible, an exemption may be granted with extra Italian lessons.

The ban on face coverings applies to items that fully obscure the face. This includes the burqa (eyes hidden behind mesh) and the niqab (eyes visible), while hijabs remain permitted.

Schools must also report to social services cases in which a language barrier on the part of those responsible for a child hinders integration. Free Italian language courses are to be offered to the parents.

According to Meloni, the ban on face coverings is a matter of security. She described the measures as “common-sense tools that do not divide but really help to integrate” and said they will help prevent so-called “ghetto classes”. “You must go to school with your face uncovered,” she added, insisting that no one has the right to demand that girls cover themselves in the name of tradition. Meloni maintains that the rules guarantee equal opportunities for all pupils.

Education Minister Giuseppe Valditara has stressed that the 30 per cent cap is based on limited Italian proficiency among non-citizens. Non-Italian citizens currently account for 11.6 per cent of pupils, according to the research institute Fondazione ISMU. He has also presented the ban on the niqab and burqa as a matter of gender equality.

Opposition parties are now accusing the government of politicising immigration ahead of next year’s general election. They claim the government is following the far-right party National Future and that the plan is pure propaganda that cannot be implemented.

The decree-law takes effect immediately but must be converted into ordinary law by parliament within 60 days.

• Renowned US Doctors Are Calling for a Ban on mRNA Vaccines

• Finnish Research: Psychiatric Needs Increase Following Gender Reassignment

• EU Countries Push to Streamline European Legislation

Renowned US Doctors Are Calling for a Ban on mRNA Vaccines

Hundreds of doctors, scientists and activists in the United States are calling on President Donald Trump and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to ban mRNA vaccines. Those who signed the open letter explained that voters from the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) and health freedom movements helped bring the current administration to power, and that banning mRNA vaccines has been their central objective. They criticised the President and the Secretary for failing to take decisive action, despite ample credible evidence that mRNA products are harmful. They warn that continued inaction will erode support and carry a high political cost.

The signatories therefore demand that politicians ban mRNA and gene-therapy-derived technologies in all vaccines and terminate the PREP Act declaration covering COVID-19 injections, as no emergency exists. They further call for Congress to repeal the PREP Act entirely, citing constitutional conflicts, and for a ban on pharmaceutical direct-to-consumer advertising. At the same time, they urge a review of healthcare policies that create incentives for medical coercion.

Among the signatories is, for example, the cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, who believes COVID-19 vaccines have caused catastrophic harm and that their use should be discontinued. Dr Malhotra initially supported the government’s vaccination programme and publicly promoted the vaccines. As evidence mounted, he changed his mind and joined the critics, becoming convinced that mRNA vaccines have done more harm than good. The letter has also been signed by Robert W. Malone, who was involved in the early development of mRNA technology and who got vaccinated himself at the start of the pandemic, but soon changed his mind and began publicly criticising the rapid roll-out, questioning claims about efficacy and safety. Cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough has also signed. In an interview with the Freedom Research, he described how a research paper on COVID-19 vaccine safety - in which he was involved and which identified serious side effects - was censored. He has stated that those who have already had the disease are already immune and do not need the vaccine - a claim that was denied and labelled false at the time. He also explained as early as spring 2021 that he does not recommend vaccination for pregnant women, as there was no information on safety and efficacy, nor for those under 30, for whom the disease poses little risk.

In the letter, the signatories highlighted that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine has been administered to more than 50 million Americans this year, including 7 million children. They state that there are still no studies proving that the vaccines prevent hospitalisation or death. Conversely, they point to a wealth of data indicating adverse health effects (see also here, here, here, here, here, here), including child deaths, of which the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has so far acknowledged at least ten.

Furthermore, the signatories object to the appointment of Erica Schwartz to lead the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), because she affirmed the safety and efficacy of mRNA technology during a Senate hearing. In the signatories’ view, it is not possible to conclude that measures implemented under an Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) or ongoing PREP Act declaration are safe and effective (see also here). “No technology can be presumptively deemed safe or effective for medical applications for all people or all ages and health statuses,” the letter states.

The letter criticises the fact that people who have suffered health damage from mRNA vaccines have not received effective assistance, and that no up-to-date statistics on cancer prevalence have been compiled, despite rising concerns of cancer cases linked to mRNA vaccines. Instead, the Department of Health has signed contracts worth $1.24 billion with Pfizer for future mRNA vaccines, including paediatric vaccines, and has approved a new mRNA flu vaccine.

According to the signatories, the executive order signed by President Donald Trump in August this year is inadequate. Whilst it reduced the recommended childhood vaccination schedule from 17 to 11, the pneumococcal and HPV vaccines were at the same time moved into the universal core recommendation. The signatories find the inclusion of the HPV vaccine particularly surprising, as Merck recently reached a $50 million settlement with 200 claimants who alleged that the Gardasil HPV vaccine caused autoimmune disorders.

The signatories are convinced that mRNA products must be removed from the market. In their view, this is substantiated by numerous sources, including more than 4,550 peer-reviewed publications, Pfizer documents disclosed in legal proceedings led by lawyer Aaron Siri, the VAERS and V-safe databases, and data from other countries (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here). These sources, they claim, document numerous deaths and serious complications, including an approximate 400 per cent increase in the miscarriage rate (see also here). The signatories draw attention to the fact that, according to the CDC, vaccination against the COVID-19 is no longer recommended for healthy pregnant women. At the same time, pregnancy remains among the FDA’s high-risk health categories for which vaccination is recommended. Moreover, even the new versions of mRNA vaccines are recommended for pregnant women, although, in the signatories’ view, their safety has never been properly studied or proven. Nor has the CDC’s recommendation to vaccinate children, with the exception of those labelled ‘healthy’, gone away; even a minor health issue can exclude the ‘healthy’ classification.

Share

Finnish Research: Psychiatric Needs Increase Following Gender Reassignment

A peer-reviewed study led by Professor Riittakerttu Kaltiala of Tampere University Hospital in Finland and published in Acta Paediatrica found that psychiatric morbidity rose sharply after medical gender reassignment - more than sixfold among those undergoing feminising treatment and more than twofold among those undergoing masculinising treatment. The authors concluded: “Severe psychiatric morbidity is common among gender-referred adolescents and appears to be more prevalent in those referred after the recent surge in referrals. Psychiatric needs do not subside after medical gender reassignment.”

The study examined the prevalence of severe psychiatric morbidity among adolescents with gender-related concerns, including outcomes after medical treatment. Researchers followed 2,083 young people under 23 who contacted national gender identity services between 1996 and 2019, for an average of six years (maximum 25). Of these, 481 sought transition to female and 1,602 to male; 796 (38.2%) underwent medical gender reassignment. Results were compared with 16,643 matched controls. Gender-referred youth already showed a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders (45.7% vs 15%) before treatment, and the gap remained two or more years later (61.7% vs 14.6%).

Psychiatric needs did not decrease after medical treatment. On the contrary, morbidity increased markedly in the treated group: among men who had undergone transition to female, it rose from 9.8% to 60.7%, and among women who had undergone transition to male, from 21.6% to 54.5%. The researchers therefore concluded that for some individuals “the medical procedure appears to be associated with a deterioration in mental health.”

The researchers accounted for previous psychiatric history and concluded that every gender-referred young person, regardless of medical procedures, carried higher ongoing psychiatric risk. This finding does not support claims that earlier transition produces greater mental-health improvement or that transition is beneficial or vitally necessary (Coleman et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023; Jelinek, 2025). Instead, the authors noted that gender dysphoria does not appear to be the primary cause of the psychiatric disorders observed, but rather a consequence.

A clear difference emerged between earlier and later referrals. Those referred after 2010 -when Finnish referrals rose tenfold - arrived with greater pre-existing needs: 47.9% had already required specialist psychiatric care before their first clinic visit. Their needs remained high two years later (61.3%), while the control figures were 15.3% before and 14.2% after. The researchers interpret this as evidence that, for some adolescents, mental-health problems may manifest as gender-identity concerns.

Overall, the long-term register data show that adolescents referred for gender-related issues had substantially more psychiatric disorders than controls, irrespective of sex. Those referred after 2010 were more severely affected than earlier cohorts. Among those who underwent medical gender reassignment, psychiatric treatment needs increased after the intervention. Consequently, a growing number of adolescents referred for gender-affirming care already present with severe psychiatric morbidity. The researchers judge that this rise cannot be explained by improved diagnosis alone, as no comparable increase occurred in the control group.

Subscribe now

EU Countries Push to Streamline European Legislation

Thirteen EU Member States have signed an Austrian-led initiative calling on the EU to cut unnecessary administrative burdens and simplify regulations. Existing rules should be systematically reviewed and thoroughly streamlined. New ones should be introduced only if absolutely necessary and after their impact on business has been assessed in advance, writes Euronews.

The non-paper has been signed by Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Greece, Finland and Slovakia. The countries urge Brussels to draft new EU legislation that is simple, workable, proportionate, evidence-based and supportive of innovation and investment confidence. Sector by sector, it should be checked whether existing rules are still needed, require updating, or merely create burdens without real value. “EU legislation cannot be an end in itself. Therefore, regulatory restraint to avoid over-regulation and the introduction of new administrative burdens is a condition for sound EU law-making,” the document states.

The 15 signatories also want new EU laws systematically assessed for their effect on economic competitiveness. New rules should be adopted at EU level only when objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved nationally. Legislation should create added value, respect Union competences, and be proportionate, coherent, legally predictable and favourable to a business environment where European companies can invest, innovate and grow. Proportionality is described as a principle whereby the financial and administrative burden must not exceed what is necessary, and the least burdensome effective option should be preferred.

The countries call for a European Year of Implementation and Consolidation focused on applying and simplifying existing legislation, evaluating cumulative burdens, harmonising enforcement, cutting duplicative reporting, and making only indispensable amendments. They want the EU to prioritise high-quality, enforceable and predictable rules over regulatory density. New regulations should include a mandatory review clause, for example at least every five years, to check whether objectives have been met. “It is of the utmost importance to avoid cumulative complexity that risks weakening the effectiveness and, as a result, the legitimacy of EU action, whilst also reducing the attractiveness of the EU Single Market as a place to do business and invest,” the document states.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has stressed the need for simplification in her second term. The Commission has accordingly presented several “omnibus” packages covering areas from AI rules to climate obligations. However, each Commission initiative seems to have added to the number of proposed rules and regulations.

• The European Parliament supports a fact-checkers’ network

• Merz Supports the Abolition of Internet Anonymity

• UK Primary School Makes 7-Year-Olds Wear the Hijab

The European Parliament supports a fact-checkers’ network

The European Parliament’s plenary session on Tuesday approved the European Democracy Shield report. This own-initiative report recommends a clear legal basis, mandate and dedicated funding for the European Centre for Democratic Resilience, which began operating earlier this year. According to Parliament, the report offers tools to combat Kremlin propaganda and foreign interference, writes EU Perspectives.

The report, drafted by MEP Tomas Tobé (EPP/SWE) and now approved by Parliament, also recommends tougher penalties for platforms and greater oversight of social media. Parliament calls for the Centre for Democratic Resilience to detect foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) and disinformation campaigns, analyse them and help counter such threats. Among other tasks, the centre should produce concrete threat assessments and early warnings, and coordinate technical support during active manipulation campaigns, especially elections. It is also tasked with integrating the early warning system, the FIMI intelligence database and the disinformation task force.

Parliament also urges the European Commission to enforce existing rules much more strictly, including the Digital Services Act (DSA), the Digital Markets Act (DMA), rules on political advertising, the Artificial Intelligence Act and the European Media Freedom Act. The Commission should investigate major online platforms and search engines without delay and impose strict measures in cases of repeated infringements. Parliament further highlights social media recommendation systems and concerns that these may amplify polarising content. It recommends that the Commission introduce measures, even temporary ones, to limit such engagement algorithms. Large online platforms (VLOPs) should mitigate risks by distinguishing between synthetic and authentic content and giving greater weight to verified sources.

Parliament also wants platforms’ advertising and other revenues to be more transparent, with fees made public. The messaging app Telegram is addressed separately. Parliament calls on the Commission to complete its assessment and investigate the app’s role in election interference, disinformation and criminal activity, as well as any possible links to Russian intelligence. For X, Meta and TikTok, Parliament wants the Commission to investigate bot and fake accounts more swiftly, as well as X’s recommendation systems and Meta’s misleading adverts.

Parliament has not overlooked accusations of censorship raised under the guise of a “democracy shield”. It demands that “The Commission should actively counter false narratives alleging that EU digital laws undermine free speech. Such claims divert attention from genuine free speech violations in countries such as Russia, China and Iran. Freedom of expression protects humans, not machines, algorithms, bots or AI,” state the Parliament’s key recommendations. The Parliament emphasises that a free, trustworthy and independent media is a central pillar of European democracy and that there is an urgent need to combat falsehoods and disinformation. It therefore supports the creation of a European network of fact-checkers.

The report was first approved by the European Parliament’s Special Committee on the Protection of European Democracy (EUDS) on 23 June.

Subscribe now

Merz Supports the Abolition of Internet Anonymity

German Chancellor and CDU leader Friedrich Merz again backed ending online anonymity in a recent speech. For him, freedom of speech is not a value, and the names of all posters should be known, reports Reclaim The Net.

He hosted the winners of the “Jugend forscht” youth science competition and took their questions. One participant asked how a real-name requirement would affect whistleblowers, investigative journalists and the occasional need for anonymity. Merz did not answer directly. Instead he spoke of the difficulty in identifying who stands behind an online message and who should be held responsible for an “inappropriate” post. He also mentioned bot-generated messages.

“Please, don’t come to me with freedom of speech. This no longer has anything to do with freedom of speech,” Merz said. He added, that “at best”, freedom of speech is a libertarian understanding of politics originating from certain regions of the US – one he does not share. A liberal society, he argued, must protect its citizens “from disinformation, denigration and discrimination.” He has often wondered whether digital rules should differ from those of the analogue world, because, for example, in the “old world,” a newspaper that published incorrect information could be held to account. This ensured a certain degree of hygien. Now, however, people can use pseudonyms, abbreviations or made-up names, making it extremely hard to identify them and hold them responsible.

He believes personal rights and democracy need protection and acknowledged that there are sometimes valid reasons for anonymous expression, but did not elaborate. Although he announced no new policy measures, this is not the first time he has supported ending anonymity. In February he said: “I want to see real names on the internet. I want to know who is speaking.” At the time, the Chancellor explained that, since politicians use their real names in online discussions, everyone else should do the same.

Critics note that the German Criminal Code already allows punishment for insults, malicious rumour and defamation. However, the Chancellor has not said who decides what counts as an insult, a rumour or false information. In any case, Merz himself has been a keen complainer about posts, and his party refers thousands of social-media posts to prosecutors. Police have carried out raids over insults and alleged hate speech, including at children’s homes. It now appears that the aim is to ensure that the authors of these ‘horrific’ posts are identified immediately.

Share

UK Primary School Makes 7-Year-Olds Wear the Hijab

The Barnet Hill Academy for children aged 3–11 in North London requires girls from Year 3 (age 7) onwards to wear a white hijab as part of school uniform. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is investigating the state-funded school over claims it breaches equality law, discriminates on religion and gender, and violates human rights, reports GB News.

The dispute began after the school became state-funded in September and amended its uniform policy to state the hijab is not compulsory for non-Muslim pupils. However, in a complaint to the Commission, MPs argued that this ‘school uniform’ requirement could depend on how the school classifies a child’s faith, and that no equivalent uniform requirement has been imposed on boys. They also raised concerns for Muslim girls who may not wish to wear a headscarf and for non-religious parents.

The EHRC now tasked with investigating whether the policy breaches equality and human-rights obligations, and in what circumstances the school requires Muslim pupils to wear the hijab.

Laura Trott, Shadow Secretary of State for Education, said both the school and Barnet Borough Council (which approved its funding) should be investigated. “It is outrageous that a state-funded school is forcing girls, some as young as seven, to wear hijabs,” she said, questioning whether families had a real choice. The National Secular Society argues religious clothing should not be imposed on children and that the rule could infringe freedom of religion and belief.

The school and Barnet Council maintain the policy complies with the school’s religious status and legal duties. A council spokesperson stressed that non-Muslim pupils are not required to wear a headscarf, as the policy now states. The school has previously said its Islamic dress code supports its aim of guiding children towards Islamic values and norms.

These quotes highlight:
- the value of various individual freedoms, including freedom of speech and thought, academic freedom, freedom over one’s personal way of life, etc.
- the importance of value-based governance, and the dangers and harm of corrupt practices.

1. John Adams, 2nd President of the United States (1735-1826)

   

2. Marcus Aurelius, Roman emperor and philosopher (121-180)

   

3. Adam Smith, philosopher, and political economist (1723-1790)

China is building solar farms at a faster rate than any other country, in its quest to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060. According to the authors of the study, in 2024 there were an estimated 4,520 km² of solar farms in China – an area equivalent to that of the US state of Rhode Island. Consequently, there the negative impacts of such parks become apparent quicker and more severely than elsewhere. The authors note that the stricter the solar energy policy, the more severe the impact on birds – in other words, “clean energy leaves a huge ecological footprint on nature.” Bird diversity has declined in the vicinity of large solar parks primarily due to “changes in land use”, by which the researchers refer to the vast fields of solar panels covering enormous areas previously employed for agriculture or at times even established as nature reserves.

The authors describe this as “inferior greening” (see also Voigt et al. 2019; Tinsley et al. 2024; Pörtner et al. 2023), in which solar panels reduce the diversity of surrounding vegetation and create dense but ecologically homogeneous cover. These effects are particularly severe in areas that are naturally rich in biodiversity. In areas that are relatively “poorer” in biodiversity, e.g. naturally arid landscapes, the impact of solar parks is less noticeable, for there the birdlife may have already adapted to open environments and is therefore less sensitive to the habitat changes caused by solar parks.

The overall estimation is nonetheless that landscapes altered by solar panels have catastrophic consequences for birds, insects and other animals that are unable to make good use of the new, homogeneous vegetation. Solar panels fragment landscapes (see also Capellán-Pérez et al. 2017; Hernandez et al. 2014; Pimm et al. 2014), cause visual and thermal disturbances (see also Fleming 2025; Khan et al. 2024) and destroy bird habitats (see also Rehbein et al. 2020). Significant declines in abundance were thus recorded for both migratory and resident birds.

Resident birds were most affected by the transformation of their habitats, while migratory birds were most affected by changes to key stopover sites. The bird species that suffered most were those that nest in vegetation and require a complex vegetation structure for cover, as well as carnivorous or omnivorous birds that depend on invertebrate prey supported by old-growth vegetation. Herbivorous birds, by contrast, can even adapt to dense ground cover, which is why the abundance of these species did not decline significantly. For flocking birds, however, the panels caused the so-called “lake effect,” whereby the birds became disoriented by light reflected from the solar panels, mistaking it for sunlight reflecting off water. This led to fatal collisions, with birds searching in vain for lakes and ponds that did not exist.

Read more

• US Scraps Climate-Transition Power Plant Limits

• Digital Rouble Moves from Pilot to Compulsory Use in Russia

• Essex Council Hires Private Security to Patrol Town Centres Over Fears of Male Asylum Seekers

US Scraps Climate-Transition Power Plant Limits

The US Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it is repealing the carbon dioxide emission limits for coal- and gas-fired power stations under which they were required to reduce emissions by up to 90 per cent or cease operations by 2039. This is yet another decision to scrap regulations introduced in the name of the climate transition, which President Donald Trump believes are hindering economic development, reports Deutsche Welle.

According to the agency, climate change does not provide sufficient grounds for regulating companies so strictly, and the provisions were set in such a way that power stations would be unable to comply with them. It also stated that, according to climate models, power station emissions do not significantly affect the climate. “In fact, if all carbon dioxide emissions were eliminated tomorrow, there would be no meaningful climate impact,” the agency’s statement reads. Furthermore, the agency considers that, as emissions are global in nature, while potential public health harms are too uncertain, speculative, improbable and complex, it is not possible to attribute any specific impacts to the US energy sector. Conversely, allowing coal- and gas-fired power stations to continue operating would restore reliable energy production and reduce the price of electricity.

Lee Zeldin, head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said at a press conference following the G20 energy ministers’ meeting: “Today, we are cutting the red tape to deliver the largest power sector deregulatory action ever. We are not going to bend the law to climate alarmism and climate radicalism at all at the Trump EPA.” Zeldin added that the rules introduced under former President Joe Biden were unrealistic and promised that Americans would see a fall in electricity prices, although this is only the beginning. “For over 15 years, the Obama and Biden administrations waged a war on coal to destroy reliable and affordable energy. The Trump Administration has stepped in to protect American energy and to ensure you can afford to keep the lights on,” said Zeldin. He also confirmed that the aim is to unlock the full potential of the American energy sector, bringing more jobs, lower prices and a more prosperous America.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright noted that, during periods of peak demand, coal and natural gas still play a crucial role in security of supply. According to Wright, repealing climate-change-driven decisions will help ensure that energy production is reliable and does not depend on whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. Coal- and gas-fired power stations, he said, can generate electricity precisely when Americans need it most. “Unlike past administrations that prioritised the interests of climate alarmists, President Trump promised to put the American people first and he is delivering,” the Energy Secretary affirmed.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the decision will result in savings of more than $310 billion. The agency also proposed repealing all other greenhouse gas regulations affecting the energy sector that are unnecessary, place a burden on the sector and offer little benefit. If these proposals are approved, a further $370 billion would be saved on compliance costs. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that, following the repeal of the restrictions, coal production for use in the energy sector is set to increase more than tenfold. This will be followed by a public consultation and a period for the public to submit comments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposals.

Share

Digital Rouble Moves from Pilot to Compulsory Use in Russia

Several new monetary policy measures came into force in Russia on 1 September. Firstly, the central bank’s digital currency (CBDC) reached the stage of widespread use; secondly, a law maintained the ban on using cryptocurrencies for domestic payments; and thirdly, restrictions on withdrawing foreign currency as cash were extended, writes Reclaim The Net.

The digital rouble pilot project began in August 2023 and is now mandatory for the 12 largest banks and for retailers with an annual turnover exceeding 120 million roubles (approximately 1.24 million euros) to process the digital rouble. The next deadline is 1 September 2027, when all banks holding a general licence and retailers with an annual turnover of more than 30 million roubles (approximately 310,000 euros) must participate. From 1 September 2028 the requirement extends to all remaining banks and retailers with an annual turnover of more than 5 million roubles (approximately 51,500 euros). All digital rouble transactions take place on the Bank of Russia’s platform, where users hold digital wallets.

Cash can still be handled without the central bank’s involvement, but with the digital rouble every transaction occurs on the central bank’s platform under close official supervision. The central bank has not announced plans for programmable restrictions and presents the digital rouble as an alternative form of currency, yet it may restrict transactions linked to digital rouble accounts on the basis of enforcement proceedings, taxation, bankruptcy, or anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorist financing rules. Moreover, its use is becoming mandatory for a growing number of banks and retailers, so critics argue it is no longer an ‘alternative option’ or a matter of choice.

The state is also maintaining the ban that came into force in 2021 prohibiting the use of cryptocurrencies for domestic payments. Individuals may own and trade cryptocurrency, but transactions must take place through authorised institutions. Cryptocurrencies may be used in certain foreign-trade settlements, with exceptions also applying to cryptocurrencies obtained through mining. Furthermore, the Bank of Russia has extended the restriction on withdrawing foreign currency cash by six months, until 9 March 2027. If a person opened a foreign-currency account before 9 March 2022 and has not yet withdrawn any foreign-currency cash, they may do so up to a limit of 10,000 dollars (approximately 8,670 euros). Any remaining foreign currency must be withdrawn in roubles at the exchange rate set by the Bank of Russia. The Bank of Russia justifies the foreign-currency restrictions by citing sanctions that prevent Russian financial institutions from obtaining cash from Western countries.

Subscribe now

Essex Council Hires Private Security to Patrol Town Centres Over Fears of Male Asylum Seekers

Essex County Council has hired a private security firm to patrol the town centres of Braintree, Colchester and Chelmsford. The aim is to deter gatherings of male immigrants and help women feel safer moving about again. This is initially a three-month pilot scheme. It was launched after complaints that residents felt frightened and that schoolgirls were being catcalled, reports the Daily Mail.

The decision followed a government plan to raise the number of asylum seekers at nearby RAF Wethersfield from 800 to 1,245 and keep the centre open beyond 2027. Male migrants from the site are regularly taken by bus into local towns for shopping and other services. Reports say they have started gathering and loitering in the centres. As a result, many women now stay away on the days the buses run.

According to the Reform Party, which leads Essex County Council, the project called ‘Operation Vanguard’ is a direct response to residents’ concerns, especially those of women and girls. So, in September, six security guards began daily patrols in the three town centres. The project costs £118,000 plus VAT. The guards provide a visible presence that reassures people, particularly women and children. Their role is to deter anti-social behaviour and gather evidence on whether more support is needed. “Our message is simple: the safety of Essex’s residents comes first,” said Peter Harris, Leader of Essex County Council and a Reform Party member.

However, Essex’s new Chief Constable, Rachel Nolan, has confirmed that crime linked to the county’s asylum centre is very low and that no one has reason to worry about crime from there. Conversely, the British press has reported incidents at Wethersfield. For example, a 25-year-old migrant named Adnani Mohammed attacked staff and was sentenced to 150 hours of community service. Local residents also describe groups of young men from the centre gathering in town centres and intimidating mainly women and children. The council concluded that even isolated reports are enough to show the migrants’ presence creates fear and a perception of crime risk.

Opponents of the scheme have strongly criticised it. They have called the project prejudicial and argued that fear should not be stoked nor stereotypes about asylum seekers reinforced.

• Macron Wants an EU-Wide Ban on Social Media

• Iran War Puts Climate Crisis on Hold and Drives Global Coal Demand to Record High

• Antarctic Ice Sheet Has Been Gaining Ice Since 2020

Macron Wants an EU-Wide Ban on Social Media

France’s failed attempt to ban social media for under-15s has not deterred President Emmanuel Macron. He now wants to take the fight to Brussels and push for an EU-wide ban. “I believe it has now become essential to go further and, through a new European legislative text, harmonise a ban on access to social media platforms for children under the age of 15,” Macron wrote. According to him, the measure is needed to protect all children in the Union, writes EU Perspectives.

France had advanced a bill that would have stopped under-15s from opening social media accounts and required platforms to close existing ones. In August, however, the French Constitutional Council ruled that the ban restricts “freedom of expression and communication in a manner that is neither necessary nor proportionate to the objective pursued.” Because the law would force everyone, including adults, to prove their age, it also infringes on the right to privacy. Macron had already vowed that the ruling would not stop him from banning social media for young people before next year’s elections. He is now seeking not only a national fix but a unified European approach.

Meanwhile, the European Commission is working on a social media plan that would apply across Member States and a special European commission has recommended a phased, age-based approach. Von der Leyen has promised to present related plans in her State of the Union address next week.

But there is still no consensus among governments; the main disagreement is the upper age limit. For example, Greece plans a restriction for under-15s, while Denmark is considering a higher threshold with possible parental exceptions. Similar measures are under discussion in Germany, Austria, Poland, Spain, Norway, Portugal, Cyprus, Italy, Sweden and elsewhere. The European Parliament backs a ban under 16, with the option for 13–15-year-olds to use social media with explicit parental consent. As of this spring, only Estonia and Belgium oppose an EU-wide ban. The Czech Republic and Hungary also show little movement on national plans.

Critics of age verification warn that requiring every European to upload a passport, ID or facial scan to private companies would create serious privacy and security risks and erode online anonymity (see here, here, here, here, here). Moreover, a social media ban would probably not solve the very problems it is intended to address. On the contrary, according to children’s rights organisations, it is quite likely that such a restriction could drive children and young people into the darker and far more dangerous corners of the internet.

A European citizens’ initiative, “Stop Killing The Internet: No Digital ID & No Age Verification,” has now been launched to collect signatures against mandatory identity and age checks online. Organisers argue that protecting children must not mean identifying every internet user. The petition has one year to gather at least one million signatures across the EU so it can be submitted to the European Parliament and the Commission.

Share

Iran War Puts Climate Crisis on Hold and Drives Global Coal Demand to Record High

The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts that global coal consumption will rise by 1.2 per cent this year, reaching a new record of 8.94 billion tonnes, even though the agency had previously predicted that demand for fossil fuels would fall. The agency cites the war in the Middle East, which has caused gas prices to rise, as the main reason for the growth in coal demand. A strong El Niño is also having an impact, as the weather has been warmer than usual and the resulting heavy use of air conditioning has increased coal consumption, reports The Telegraph.

“Although virtually no coal shipments pass through the Strait of Hormuz, the disruption has nonetheless affected coal markets by pushing up natural gas prices due to the plunge in liquefied natural gas shipments through the Strait,” the agency explained, adding that this has encouraged the use of coal-fired power stations in countries with a large number of gas-fired power stations and spare coal-generating capacity. Asian countries and many developing nations are contributing particularly significantly to coal demand, while the US has also sought to increase coal production in recent years.

“Although virtually no coal shipments pass through the Strait of Hormuz, the disruption has nonetheless affected coal markets by pushing up natural gas prices due to the plunge in liquefied natural gas shipments through the Strait,” the agency explained, adding that this has encouraged the use of coal-fired power stations in countries with a large number of gas-fired power stations and spare coal-generating capacity. Asian countries and many developing nations are contributing particularly significantly to coal demand, whilst the US has also sought to increase coal production in recent years.

But the IEA’s forecasts for coal demand go even further: the agency also predicts even greater demand next year if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed.

It is worth noting that producing one kilowatt-hour of energy from coal releases roughly one kilogram of CO₂, which is about twice as much as with gas. In other words, the war in the Middle East is putting the climate crisis on hold, even though there is a serious panic over reports that August was the hottest month in recorded history and that temperatures were 1.65 °C higher than in the pre-industrial era.

Subscribe now

Antarctic Ice Sheet Has Been Gaining Ice Since 2020

According to a new study published in the journal Nature, satellite data show that the net loss of Antarctic ice slowed since 2016 and turned into a net gain since 2020. It is worth noting that since around the year 2000, it has been reported that the total mass of the Antarctic ice sheet has been decreasing, which has raised global sea levels.

Researchers used climate data and models to show why the Antarctic ice-mass trend recently reversed. The main reason is higher precipitation, which causes more snow and ice to accumulate on the surface. This increased precipitation is driven by stronger atmospheric rivers (ARs) and westerly winds, as well as reduced sea ice. Since 2020, these atmospheric rivers have become more frequent and intense, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and in Queen Maud Land and Wilkes Land, leading to a strong regional increase in ice mass. Surface mass balance (SMB) and atmospheric rivers (ARs) are greater in summer, especially on the Antarctic Peninsula and in the western Weddell Sea. In winter, SMB is higher along most of the Antarctic coastline, except West Antarctica.

Consequently, sea ice loss accounted for about 11 per cent of the recent winter increase in surface mass balance (about 3 per cent in summer). Overall, the rise in surface mass balance has been large enough to offset ongoing ice loss from discharge. According to the authors, this is not a short-term anomaly but the start of a significant mass-gain trend.

These quotes highlight:
- the value of various individual freedoms, including freedom of speech and thought, academic freedom, freedom over one’s personal way of life, etc.
- the importance of value-based governance, and the dangers and harm of corrupt practices.

1. Samuel Adams, statesman (1722-1803)

2. Lord Acton, historian, and politician (1834-1902)

   

3. James Madison, 4th President of the United States (1751-1836)

• Tens of Thousands of Britons are Being Arrested for Online Posts

• British Banks Have Closed the Accounts of a Far-Left News Site

• Full Circle: Car Manufacturers Address EV Concerns With Petrol Engines

Tens of Thousands of Britons are Being Arrested for Online Posts

The UK campaign group Big Brother Watch has published a report has published a report on the state of freedom of expression in the country. It highlights that the authorities have arrested at least 62,199 people over the past five years for ‘offensive’ online communication. Of these, 18,520 were charged and 12,292 were convicted, often simply for viewing a post.

The online regulations carrying the threat of criminal penalties are enforced quite differently from region to region. Some police forces have exercised this power more vigorously than others. For example, Cumbria Police arrested 25.7 people per 10,000 residents over a five-year period – approximately 2.5 times the national average. Neighbouring Northumbria arrested just 1.9 people per 10,000 residents. Sussex Police made 10.7 arrests per charge, while Staffordshire made just 0.2.

Some have been arrested simply for allegedly watching a derogatory video on TikTok, while others for making a speech at a protest. Activists argue that some of the arrests are justified, such as the need to stop threatening messages from partners in cases of domestic violence. On the other hand, the broad scope and vagueness of the law have been accompanied by excessive zeal on the part of the police to apply the rules in everyday interactions. As an example, the report highlights a case where West Midlands Police visited a teenage girl, accusing her of posting a picture of a teacher on TikTok accompanied by negative comments. The girl was required to hand over all her devices to the police and to attend an interview voluntarily. She was threatened with arrest if she refused. What is curious, however, is that the girl had neither created, shared nor even commented on the video. The investigation was later closed without any action being taken, and the police explained that they were ‘investigating alleged malicious communications offences’.

Another absurd case concerns private messages. Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine were arrested for complaining in a WhatsApp group chat about their daughter’s primary school. The couple were detained for around 11 hours on suspicion of harassment and malicious communication. In the end, they were ordered to pay 20,000 pounds in damages. The third, and perhaps best-known, case involves Lucy Connolly, who was sentenced to a full 31 months in prison for her messages. In July 2024, she had posted a message following the Southport murders – in which a man of Rwandan parentage cold-bloodedly killed three young girls – calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire.

Big Brother Watch emphasises that all these cases involve both the political left and the right, although each side believes that it is their freedom of speech that is under the greatest threat. In reality, however, it is everyone’s freedom of expression that is at risk, regardless of their political views. “This slide into illiberalism is not the result of a crackdown by a newly installed dictator. Rather, Britain is sleepwalking into authoritarianism, inch by inch,” the report states. Every government has introduced new restrictions on online speech, which consistently undermine both privacy and anonymity on the internet. Each government has presented this as a solution to the problems arising from the internet and social media. “Quick fixes have been sought in response to real tragedies, instead of addressing their underlying causes. In the long term, this approach will diminish everyone’s freedom,” stated Big Brother Watch.

Toby Young, head of the Free Speech Union, has often helped defend those facing legal proceedings for their words. Young wondered: “Why are the authorities spending so much time policing our tweets when they could be policing our streets? Shoplifting, mobile phone theft and sexual offences are all on the rise, yet the police seem increasingly obsessed with catching thought criminals.” According to Toby Young, arrests for online offences alone have a deeply restrictive effect, despite the fact that only one in five people arrested on these grounds are convicted. “People up and down the country dare not say what they think about a whole range of issues for fear that a couple of plainclothes officers wearing rainbow lanyards will knock on their door at four in the morning.”

Furthermore, developments in the UK suggest that even stricter restrictions are on the cards. The government has announced plans for a social-media ban for under-16s, whilst there are plans to grant them the right to vote and allow them to join the armed forces. The only way the authorities can block children from accessing large parts of the internet is by requiring all around 68 million British users to provide proof of identity. There are also calls to subject virtual private networks to age verification, but these are vital tools for dissidents, whistleblowers and journalists around the world. In any case, such measures are increasingly reminiscent of China’s Great Firewall, rather than Western democracy.

The report also highlights that due to age verification requirements, even works by famous artists, stories about British history, videos from mainstream political parties and much more have been blocked. Many small forums and websites have been forced to close down due to the requirements of the Online Safety Act. Age restrictions are being systematically applied to a much wider range of topics than the law actually requires, and ‘disinformation’ and ‘child protection’ are being used to justify ever-tighter control over online communication. For example, in Reddit communities, discussions about horror films or clips from certain films have been placed behind age restrictions; as have advice on how to support a chemotherapy patient, an alcoholic or a victim of domestic violence; and even specific pieces of music, such as the Moody Blues’ 1986 track ‘Your Wildest Dreams’.

According to Big Brother Watch, freedom of speech in the UK is in desperate need of protection. The laws affecting it should be assessed and reviewed in their entirety, and measures implemented instead that would restore the laws and culture of free speech. Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch, concluded: “Thousands of people are being arrested for controversial speech, online jokes and non-violent protest. People have even been arrested for holding blank pieces of paper, and urged by the police to take ‘online thinking skills’ courses. Enough is enough.”

Share

British Banks Have Closed the Accounts of a Far-Left News Site

The Canary, a far-left British news website, has been left without its bank accounts. It first claimed in June that Lloyds had stopped providing it with banking services, and now claims it has also lost its Metro Bank account. The Canary has suggested that it fell victim to political forces and noted how major banks were restricting the transactions of organisations and individuals supporting Palestine, reports The Telegraph.

The Canary claims that Lloyds gave no prior warning, no explanation and no opportunity to challenge the decision. Last week, it announced that it had lost access to a second bank account – this time frozen by Metro Bank. Following the freezing of its second bank account, The Canary has stated that it has no choice but to suspend operations, although thewebsite remains operational.

The news site has operated since 2015, actively supporting far-left politics. Co-founder Kerry-Anne Mendoza explained at the time that they sought to fill the gap left by the absence of ‘left-wing mass media’. It has remained true to its activist roots, mobilising readers against selected ‘enemies’. In recent years it has heavily criticised, for example, current Prime Minister Andy Burnham – portrayed as the ‘acceptable face’ of the ruling elite – as well as Israel, described in a recent article as a ‘genocidal land-grabbing project’.

According to Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch, such account closures in the UK are neither the first of their kind nor isolated. In 2020, for example, Barclays closed two accounts held by the Christian charity Core Issues Trust after the LGBT community targeted it over its views on conversion therapy. But the best-known case dates from 2023, when Coutts ceased providing services to politician Nigel Farage. An investigation into that case revealed that, although the account was not closed directly because of his political views, documents showed the bank had complaints about his ‘xenophobic, chauvinistic and racist views’ and considered them ‘at odds with our stance’.

Of course banks insist account closures are never politically motivated. Yet people and organisations whose views are strikingly similar have repeatedly been left without bank accounts. “Censorship by debanking has not just a financial cost, nor just a democratic cost, but a significant human cost too. That’s why it’s so powerful. Few people are so determined to express their most unpopular opinions that they will risk their livelihoods to do so,” writes Carlo.

Subscribe now

Full Circle: Car Manufacturers Address EV Concerns With Petrol Engines

Car makers plan to launch a new type of extended-range electric vehicle on the US market, trying to solve Americans’ worries that EV batteries might run out of power. The approach is straightforward: an electric car gets a petrol engine that charges the battery when needed, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Hyundai, Ford and Jeep (via Stellantis) intend to introduce these plug-in extended-range electric vehicles (EREVs). They are fully electric cars fitted with a petrol-powered generator that recharges the battery as required. Drivers therefore avoid being stranded with a flat battery if there’s only a petrol station nearby. Hyundai has announced that its next-generation Santa Fe SUV will offer an EREV version in 2027 with around 600 miles of range. Ford has said it will revive the F-150 Lightning as an EREV after ending production of the pure-electric version last December because it was unprofitable.

Micky Bly, Stellantis’s head of powertrains, sees this as a workable solution and aims to bring the Jeep Grand Wagoneer EREV to the US market by the end of this year or early next year. The Ram 1500 REV will follow, pairing a large battery with a V6 petrol engine for up to 690 miles of range - more than twice that of a typical US electric car. Bly notes that the industry had rushed toward fully electric vehicles to meet regulations, but EREVs could provide a compromise that works for both regulators and customers.

EREVs differ from existing plug-in hybrids, which use a battery mainly for short electric range. An EREV is primarily an electric car; the petrol engine acts solely as a generator. Driving feel remains similar to a pure EV, including strong acceleration, even while the generator charges the battery. However, motoring experts believe it is likely that an EREV will cost more than an equivalent petrol-powered vehicle, and perhaps even more than a fully electric vehicle. The technology also adds complexity and will require fresh customer education, so it remains an open question whether customers will embrace this new and complex, albeit intriguing, technology.

The industry has already scaled back ambitions for a predominantly electric market by the 2030s. Higher prices and range anxiety - largely tied to charging infrastructure - deter many buyers. In theory, EREVs should ease range and charging concerns, especially for larger vehicles that need big batteries and long charge times. In any case, car manufacturers are hopeful that customers will not reject electric vehicles with extended range, although they have expressed uncertainty as to whether consumers are willing to pay more for them.

• The European Union Wants to Burden Europeans With New Taxes

• Volkswagen to Cut 100,000 Jobs by the End of the Decade

• COVID: Pfizer and the CIA Already Referred to Herd Immunity as Early as 2020

The European Union Wants to Burden Europeans With New Taxes

On Wednesday, European Council President António Costa warned governments that the situation would worsen if Member States failed to agree on new EU-wide taxes to fund the Union’s next seven-year budget. The European Commission has previously proposed taxes on carbon imports, emissions, uncollected electronic waste, corporate profits and tobacco products, reports Politico.

Costa urged Member States to soften their positions ahead of the 15 October summit, where he intends to narrow down potential taxes. “Our priority is to try to finalise the basket of new own resources as early as October,” he said, so that it becomes clear how much needs to be collected from each Member State. But the issue of EU-wide taxes remains one of the most complex, as countries are reluctant to grant the Commission greater taxing powers or to accept new levies that would hit some states harder than others. An agreement on these “own resources” is still needed now to make an overall budget deal easier in December, before the 2027 elections in France, Spain and Italy risk complicating negotiations.

According to the Commission’s proposal last year, five new taxes were envisaged, totalling €66 billion per year. These covered carbon imports, emissions, uncollected electronic waste, corporate profits and tobacco products. Most have met resistance from governments, and any new tax requires unanimous approval. On Wednesday, for example, Luxembourg’s Prime Minister Luc Frieden rejected a potential EU tobacco tax, saying it would disproportionately affect Luxembourg.

Costa warned that failure to agree on new taxes would lead to either budget cuts or higher national contributions. “We have only two ways: reduce our ambitions on security, defence, competitiveness, cohesion and agriculture … or increase national contributions, which is also a problem for all Member States,” he explained.

Neither option would please the camps. Northern countries, led by Germany, already complain that their contributions are too high. Southern and eastern countries, by contrast, demand more EU funds for agriculture and regional development.

European ministers will discuss the new taxes on 22 September in Brussels.

Share

Volkswagen to Cut 100,000 Jobs by the End of the Decade

German carmaker Volkswagen announced on Thursday that it will cut a total of 100,000 jobs by the end of the decade – an additional 50,000 on top of the 50,000 previously announced. Management and the trade unions have already agreed on the plan. The company says it urgently needs to “systematically align workforce levels with economic realities”, reports Deutsche Welle.

The Volkswagen Group (which includes Audi and Porsche) says the 100,000 redundancies account for roughly 15 per cent of its total worldwide workforce. In addition, Volkswagen stated it cannot guarantee the long-term future of four major plants in Germany: Hanover, Emden, Zwickau and Neckarsulm.

VW CEO Oliver Blume said the decision sends “a strong signal for the future of the Volkswagen Group”. The plan also includes a restructuring programme aimed at faster decision-making and cutting the number of subsidiaries and shareholdings by about one-third. Multi-billion-euro investments in research and development are planned to boost competitiveness.

VW has not yet published details of the redundancy timetable or the regional breakdown. But the company has said it will focus more on North America and aims to expand exports to the Global South.

VW has struggled for some time. The the climate transition to switch to electric cars has been costly and EV sales remain sluggish and demand is growing slowly. Although this commitment has been somewhat relaxed, VW’s overall sales remain weak. Added pressure comes from US tariffs and fierce competition from China.

Subscribe now

COVID: Pfizer and the CIA Already Referred to Herd Immunity as Early as 2020

Senator Rand Paul has published new documents concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. These include the minutes of a CIA meeting on 7 May 2020. At that meeting, CIA Chief Operating Officer Andy Makridis and Dr Scott Gottlieb – former FDA Chair and then a Pfizer board member – discussed herd immunity to the coronavirus, writes the Brownstone Institute.

The report states: “On ‘herd immunity’, Dr Gottlieb dismisses the two major studies from Los Angeles and Santa Clara counties showing high seroprevalence. He believes that nationally, seroprevalence is around 20–25 per cent, which is insufficient for herd immunity at an R₀ (BRR) value of 3.”

It is worth noting that as early as April 2020, Dr Jay Bhattacharya had published a study identifying a seroprevalence rate of 2.8 per cent. This was much higher than estimates given at the time. Bhattacharya was later condemned, hounded and discredited for speaking out about a ‘forbidden’ truth. He explained that the coronavirus mortality rate was very low and its prevalence very high, concluding that the pandemic could be overcome without major disruption.

A document has now come to light in which Gottlieb, then a Pfizer board member, told the CIA that the virus was spreading much faster than expected and that every infected person infects three more. This would essentially have meant 67 per cent herd immunity. Given such rapid spread and the resulting immunity, the pandemic would have become endemic within a few weeks if everything else had remained the same.

Publicly, however, Gottlieb said the opposite. On 17 April 2020, he wrote on Twitter that the national infection rate was 5 per cent. A few months later, he reported that national seroprevalence was only 8 per cent – meaning that by April 2020 only a few people had been exposed, with isolated exceptions such as Arizona, where Gottlieb estimated the figure may have been closer to 15-25 per cent.

In any case, the CIA document shows that Gottlieb and the CIA privately believed as early as May 2020 that the virus was spreading rapidly and extensively, that the mortality rate was fairly low, and that herd immunity would be achieved quickly. This information was kept secret for six years until Senator Rand Paul disclosed it in August 2026.