The only thing anyone should ever ask about things such as the above 👆is "how could this somehow be turned against me in the future"?

Many of us, myself and UK Column included, have repeatedly tried to inform people how the law is used as a weapon. It really hurts that some people still don't seem to understand this

The above is a naked attempt to nudge everyone into thinking the state has a right to force medical interventions

Imagine if the state had had this sort of power during 2020

It starts with "offenders" and it moves onto applying to the masses. It's how these things always go

In these years I increasingly withdraw long-assumed opinions and characterisations of people, including influential people such as Henry VIII, Pasteur and Margaret Thatcher. Whether or not deeply the embedded characterisations and narratives are ‘true’, they are never the full story. It becomes ever more apparent that every mere mortal in time and space juggles a tangled inner mass of motivations, hopes and fears - whether they are illusory or real.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDHue05MNTc&t=181

G. Galloway parses the threads relating to the events surrounding Starmer and the 3 You ka rain ian suspects.

Tonight on UK Column, Jerm's conversation with America's most censored comedian, Owen Benjamin.

It's an incredibly funny and un-PC chat, so be sure you're not easily offended.

ukcolumn.org | 7pm UK

Rong rivet. Kim rivid.

cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-ship-launch-accident-kim-jong-un-angry-carelessness

'They've found out about your rent boys PM'

The UK’s Digital ID Era Starts This Summer
https://ift.tt/J0tfFwr - FOLLOW: @reclaimthenet

Party like it’s 1599.

youtube.com/watch?v=w-4uuUpwNSc&t=110s

Important news - Court Injunction stops Starmer giving away the Chagos Islands to Mauritius ( and giving them £9bn of your money on top) this court decision potentially has far wider implications :-
Re the Limitations of the Crown
being limits to our constitutional Governance.
The wording of the injunction can leave no doubt it is about the limitations of the Crown.
In my view the following are likely breached:-
Coronation Oath. Accession Declaration Oath, Privy Council Oath, Coronation Oath Act 1688
Accession Declaration Oath act 1910, Bill of Rights 1688 and Act of Settlement 1700.
To undermine the constitution is Treasonous. Mal and or Mis feasance in public office may also be considered!
This reaches wider if it is upheld on the grounds that I mention here. Potentially House of Lords reform ,Farmers ,WHO pandemic treaty ,EU and Defence and security union
Walker V Baird used in the Gina Miller case confirms the treaty making power may not extend to depriving the Subject of the Crown from the protections of our law.
That in my layman's take is a whole lot of points can be raised. This could turn out to be our Marburg v Maddison the US case that underpins their constitution since 1803. It might even have potential to cause an election!

https://t.me/ABridgen

Eddie Hobbs at the Natural Women's Council event.

YouTube