Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

🚨Angela Rayner’s office destroyed the evidence used to create Labour’s Islamophobia definition. Every public submission. Deleted. They say data protection. It looks like a cover-up. This is not the first red flag: • Stacked working group - no real dissenting voices • Tightly restricted consultation • Clear conflict of...

GauciReports's profile picture

Gauci Reports

28,328 subscribers

83,938 views • 11 days ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

I kid you not. Angela Rayner DESTROYED Evidence! An FOI request has revealed she deleted evidence that was used to create Labour's new 'Islamophobia' definition. This is a *HUGE* cover-up at the heart of government. She HAS GOT to resign! 📽️Full video in the thread
1:47

I kid you not. Angela Rayner DESTROYED Evidence! An FOI request has revealed she deleted evidence that was used to create Labour's new 'Islamophobia' definition. This is a *HUGE* cover-up at the heart of government. She HAS GOT to resign! 📽️Full video in the thread

Lee Harris

82,484 views • 9 days ago

This is absolutely devasting to watch. The criteria for a public inquiry is very, very simple and clear: • Public Concern – The issue must be of significant public interest. • Serious Failing – It involves major failures in public bodies, governance, or safety. • Accountability – There is a need to establish responsibility and learn lessons. All of the above apply to David Amess’ death by a terrorist who left the Prevent programme early. Sir David Amess’ will never receive justice until the government hold a public inquiry. It’s increasingly clear that this is a thinly guised cover-up.
2:22

This is absolutely devasting to watch. The criteria for a public inquiry is very, very simple and clear: • Public Concern – The issue must be of significant public interest. • Serious Failing – It involves major failures in public bodies, governance, or safety. • Accountability – There is a need to establish responsibility and learn lessons. All of the above apply to David Amess’ death by a terrorist who left the Prevent programme early. Sir David Amess’ will never receive justice until the government hold a public inquiry. It’s increasingly clear that this is a thinly guised cover-up.

Alex Armstrong

50,354 views • 1 year ago

The last time Labour adopted an Islamophobia definition, Labour-led councils didn’t speak up about grooming gangs because of fears of being called racist. Now, they are about to adopt a new definition and impose it on our public bodies without anyone seeing what is in it. No religion or religious group should be above legitimate criticism in a free society. Labour must end this work behind closed doors and publish the draft definition for full public scrutiny.
0:34

The last time Labour adopted an Islamophobia definition, Labour-led councils didn’t speak up about grooming gangs because of fears of being called racist. Now, they are about to adopt a new definition and impose it on our public bodies without anyone seeing what is in it. No religion or religious group should be above legitimate criticism in a free society. Labour must end this work behind closed doors and publish the draft definition for full public scrutiny.

Claire Coutinho

299,351 views • 9 months ago

A year ago Keir Starmer was asked to introduce a blasphemy law. He didn't say no. Today he said he wouldn't introduce a blasphemy law through an Islamophobia definition. But we know his Government has been working on one for MONTHS and they are refusing to let the public see it - despite inviting left-wing activist groups to provide feedback. They must publish the definition BEFORE a decision is made so that we can all scrutinise the definition and the impact it will have on freedom of speech.
0:52

A year ago Keir Starmer was asked to introduce a blasphemy law. He didn't say no. Today he said he wouldn't introduce a blasphemy law through an Islamophobia definition. But we know his Government has been working on one for MONTHS and they are refusing to let the public see it - despite inviting left-wing activist groups to provide feedback. They must publish the definition BEFORE a decision is made so that we can all scrutinise the definition and the impact it will have on freedom of speech.

Claire Coutinho

164,428 views • 9 months ago

Speaker Johnson's 1,547-page spending monstrosity has a little gift to Pelosi's Partisan J6 Committee. Buried way down in section 605 is a passage that would shield House members from independent investigators. "MOTIONS TO QUASH OR MODIFY—Upon a motion made promptly by a House office or provider for a House office, a court of competent jurisdiction shall quash or modify any legal process directed to the provider for a House office if compliance with the legal process would require the disclosure of House data of the House office." What does this mean in plain English? If someone (like a House office or a service provider working for a House office) believes a legal request for information (such as a subpoena) would force them to disclose sensitive House data, they can quickly file a motion with a court to stop or change the request. The court must agree to block or change the request if it would result in the disclosure of the House’s sensitive data. In essence, this ensures House offices' data remains protected, and provides a way to challenge legal requests for that data. This could be used to shield J6 committee members accused of deleting records and may be criminally prosecuted under the Trump administration.
1:04

Speaker Johnson's 1,547-page spending monstrosity has a little gift to Pelosi's Partisan J6 Committee. Buried way down in section 605 is a passage that would shield House members from independent investigators. "MOTIONS TO QUASH OR MODIFY—Upon a motion made promptly by a House office or provider for a House office, a court of competent jurisdiction shall quash or modify any legal process directed to the provider for a House office if compliance with the legal process would require the disclosure of House data of the House office." What does this mean in plain English? If someone (like a House office or a service provider working for a House office) believes a legal request for information (such as a subpoena) would force them to disclose sensitive House data, they can quickly file a motion with a court to stop or change the request. The court must agree to block or change the request if it would result in the disclosure of the House’s sensitive data. In essence, this ensures House offices' data remains protected, and provides a way to challenge legal requests for that data. This could be used to shield J6 committee members accused of deleting records and may be criminally prosecuted under the Trump administration.

Kyle Becker

180,784 views • 1 year ago

We now have a published rate card for bribes in India. Police: ₹1,578 RTO: ₹1,764 GST office: ₹5,083 Municipal Corporation: ₹6,667 3,000 people have already gone to and reported what they paid, to which department, in which city, and whether they settled or refused. This is not some quirky tech experiment. This is the country admitting, in public, how it actually works. In 2018 they amended the Prevention of Corruption Act so that the person who pays the bribe is also a criminal. The last time someone tried this ( in 2010), it died after that change. Now the government can demand the IP addresses of people who report and prosecute them. They didn’t stop the bribes. They just made it illegal to talk about them. And once the “going rate” is public, two things happen: more officers start charging it, and people treat it as an unofficial tax they have to budget for. Even honest departments begin to follow the published price. This is not a solution. It is a confession. The only real fix is the one they will never do: legal immunity for the person who reports, and then action against the specific officer — not the entire department of 50 for the sins of 5. Until then, we have a website that tells you the exact price of your own government’s failure. No Crime, it may soon become legal too. No Worries. Sarthak Ahuja
2:19

We now have a published rate card for bribes in India. Police: ₹1,578 RTO: ₹1,764 GST office: ₹5,083 Municipal Corporation: ₹6,667 3,000 people have already gone to and reported what they paid, to which department, in which city, and whether they settled or refused. This is not some quirky tech experiment. This is the country admitting, in public, how it actually works. In 2018 they amended the Prevention of Corruption Act so that the person who pays the bribe is also a criminal. The last time someone tried this ( in 2010), it died after that change. Now the government can demand the IP addresses of people who report and prosecute them. They didn’t stop the bribes. They just made it illegal to talk about them. And once the “going rate” is public, two things happen: more officers start charging it, and people treat it as an unofficial tax they have to budget for. Even honest departments begin to follow the published price. This is not a solution. It is a confession. The only real fix is the one they will never do: legal immunity for the person who reports, and then action against the specific officer — not the entire department of 50 for the sins of 5. Until then, we have a website that tells you the exact price of your own government’s failure. No Crime, it may soon become legal too. No Worries. Sarthak Ahuja

Pragnya Gupta

14,816 views • 13 days ago

This is mind numbing and very scary when you realize this is a DA office and they are this ignorant on the laws and upholding the rights of the citizens. This is the kind of situation that should keep every citizen up at night. ​We are looking at the District Attorney’s Office in Colusa, California.—the literal epicenter of law enforcement and legal prosecution—and yet, the people working inside seem to have a collective amnesia regarding the U.S. Constitution. ​It is absolutely mind-boggling to watch public servants, including sworn investigators like Ryan Hudson and Chris Liston, stand there and attempt to steamroll a citizen's rights based on "office policy." Let’s be very clear: A policy is not a law. You cannot "policy" away the First Amendment just because a camera makes you feel "uncomfortable" or "negative." ​ It starts with staff members physically trying to block the lens. In a public lobby where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, this isn't just rude—it’s an attempt to suppress a protected activity. ​ They constantly cite "privacy" as a reason to stop the recording. However, when you are a public official conducting public business in a government building, the courts have been extremely clear: the public has a right to document you. ​ Notice the shift in tone when they can’t find a legal reason to stop the film. They pivot to calling the auditor "uncooperative" or "difficult." Since when did exercising a constitutional right become "uncooperative"? ​If the people working for the DA don’t understand the basic legal framework of our country, how can we trust them to prosecute cases fairly? If they are this willing to ignore your rights when a camera is pointed at them, imagine what they’re doing when no one is watching. ​This isn't just about a guy with a camera; it’s about whether our public officials answer to the law or to their own egos.
18:12

This is mind numbing and very scary when you realize this is a DA office and they are this ignorant on the laws and upholding the rights of the citizens. This is the kind of situation that should keep every citizen up at night. ​We are looking at the District Attorney’s Office in Colusa, California.—the literal epicenter of law enforcement and legal prosecution—and yet, the people working inside seem to have a collective amnesia regarding the U.S. Constitution. ​It is absolutely mind-boggling to watch public servants, including sworn investigators like Ryan Hudson and Chris Liston, stand there and attempt to steamroll a citizen's rights based on "office policy." Let’s be very clear: A policy is not a law. You cannot "policy" away the First Amendment just because a camera makes you feel "uncomfortable" or "negative." ​ It starts with staff members physically trying to block the lens. In a public lobby where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, this isn't just rude—it’s an attempt to suppress a protected activity. ​ They constantly cite "privacy" as a reason to stop the recording. However, when you are a public official conducting public business in a government building, the courts have been extremely clear: the public has a right to document you. ​ Notice the shift in tone when they can’t find a legal reason to stop the film. They pivot to calling the auditor "uncooperative" or "difficult." Since when did exercising a constitutional right become "uncooperative"? ​If the people working for the DA don’t understand the basic legal framework of our country, how can we trust them to prosecute cases fairly? If they are this willing to ignore your rights when a camera is pointed at them, imagine what they’re doing when no one is watching. ​This isn't just about a guy with a camera; it’s about whether our public officials answer to the law or to their own egos.

Giggling Ganon

36,085 views • 3 months ago

🚨POLICE ENFORCE SECTION 14 WITHOUT REASONABLE OR PROPORTIONATE GROUNDS - BREACHING SECTION 17🚨 This is the second time in less than one week the Police have done this to me. Metropolitan Police sort your minions out. Anyone (whether a journalist or a member of the public) has the legal right to observe, record and report protests. Press ID is NOT required to exercise this right. 📜 The law is clear: • Public Order Act 1986, Section 14 - Police may impose conditions on a protest only if they reasonably believe there is a risk of: • serious public disorder • serious damage to property • serious disruption to the life of the community • intimidation intended to compel lawful actions. These powers must be applied on reasonable and proportionate grounds - not arbitrarily. •Public Order Act 2023, Section 17 - A constable must not exercise any power for the sole purpose of preventing someone from observing or reporting on a protest, or from monitoring the police themselves. •Met Police guidance confirms: “Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places, and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.” 👉🏼 Using Section 14 to silence coverage or deter citizen journalists, without lawful justification is an abuse of power that undermines both press freedom and democratic accountability. 🛑 Intimidation ≠ Law 📷 Recording a protest is not a crime 📝 Citizen journalism is protected #RightToReport #PressFreedom #Section14 #Section17 #Accountability
2:30

🚨POLICE ENFORCE SECTION 14 WITHOUT REASONABLE OR PROPORTIONATE GROUNDS - BREACHING SECTION 17🚨 This is the second time in less than one week the Police have done this to me. Metropolitan Police sort your minions out. Anyone (whether a journalist or a member of the public) has the legal right to observe, record and report protests. Press ID is NOT required to exercise this right. 📜 The law is clear: • Public Order Act 1986, Section 14 - Police may impose conditions on a protest only if they reasonably believe there is a risk of: • serious public disorder • serious damage to property • serious disruption to the life of the community • intimidation intended to compel lawful actions. These powers must be applied on reasonable and proportionate grounds - not arbitrarily. •Public Order Act 2023, Section 17 - A constable must not exercise any power for the sole purpose of preventing someone from observing or reporting on a protest, or from monitoring the police themselves. •Met Police guidance confirms: “Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places, and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.” 👉🏼 Using Section 14 to silence coverage or deter citizen journalists, without lawful justification is an abuse of power that undermines both press freedom and democratic accountability. 🛑 Intimidation ≠ Law 📷 Recording a protest is not a crime 📝 Citizen journalism is protected #RightToReport #PressFreedom #Section14 #Section17 #Accountability

Martin Gauci

28,412 views • 11 months ago

The Government took $7 MILLION in public funding for a cervical cancer awareness campaign targeting Aboriginal and culturally diverse women and awarded it to the gender ideology lobby group ACON. ACON then gave a “Gold Employer” award to the Health Department. Documents I’ve obtained under FOI show there was no tender process. This is a massive breach of integrity and proper process which damages the delivery of clear and accurate lifesaving information to women.
2:34

The Government took $7 MILLION in public funding for a cervical cancer awareness campaign targeting Aboriginal and culturally diverse women and awarded it to the gender ideology lobby group ACON. ACON then gave a “Gold Employer” award to the Health Department. Documents I’ve obtained under FOI show there was no tender process. This is a massive breach of integrity and proper process which damages the delivery of clear and accurate lifesaving information to women.

Senator Claire Chandler

120,732 views • 1 year ago

Africa’s Public Systems Didn’t Just Decline, They Were Left Behind Across many African countries, we’ve quietly normalized weak public systems. From education to energy and transportation, what used to be strong state institutions have gradually given way to private alternatives that are driven by profit, not public good. There was a time when public schools worked and produced generations of people who could compete anywhere in the world. Today, many families are turning to private options, not because they want to, but because they feel they have no real choice. At the heart of this is a deeper issue of purpose and direction. When institutions are not built around clear national interests, they struggle to function in any meaningful way. The private sector can step in, but it will always prioritize profit over people. And that is where the real tension lies. As The Spearhead’s Mckay Chukwu points out, if African countries are serious about long-term progress, then rebuilding strong public institutions grounded in sovereignty and a clear sense of purpose is not optional, it is necessary.
4:11

Africa’s Public Systems Didn’t Just Decline, They Were Left Behind Across many African countries, we’ve quietly normalized weak public systems. From education to energy and transportation, what used to be strong state institutions have gradually given way to private alternatives that are driven by profit, not public good. There was a time when public schools worked and produced generations of people who could compete anywhere in the world. Today, many families are turning to private options, not because they want to, but because they feel they have no real choice. At the heart of this is a deeper issue of purpose and direction. When institutions are not built around clear national interests, they struggle to function in any meaningful way. The private sector can step in, but it will always prioritize profit over people. And that is where the real tension lies. As The Spearhead’s Mckay Chukwu points out, if African countries are serious about long-term progress, then rebuilding strong public institutions grounded in sovereignty and a clear sense of purpose is not optional, it is necessary.

The Spearhead

23,432 views • 5 months ago

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen: The discussions focused on how to ensure long-term security in Greenland. And here, our perspectives continue to differ, I must say. The President has made his view clear, and we have a different position. It’s not resolved. We didn’t manage it. But, honestly speaking, I didn’t believe that was doable. We didn’t manage to change the American position. It’s clear that the President has this wish of conquering Greenland. We made it very, very clear that this is not in the interest of the Kingdom. For us, ideas that would not respect the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the right of self-determination of the Greenlandic people are, of course, totally unacceptable. Therefore, we still have a fundamental disagreement, but we also agree to disagree. We will, however, continue to talk. We have decided to form a high-level working group to explore whether we can find a common way forward. And we want to work closely with the U.S., but it must, of course, be a respectful kind of cooperation.
1:17

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen: The discussions focused on how to ensure long-term security in Greenland. And here, our perspectives continue to differ, I must say. The President has made his view clear, and we have a different position. It’s not resolved. We didn’t manage it. But, honestly speaking, I didn’t believe that was doable. We didn’t manage to change the American position. It’s clear that the President has this wish of conquering Greenland. We made it very, very clear that this is not in the interest of the Kingdom. For us, ideas that would not respect the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the right of self-determination of the Greenlandic people are, of course, totally unacceptable. Therefore, we still have a fundamental disagreement, but we also agree to disagree. We will, however, continue to talk. We have decided to form a high-level working group to explore whether we can find a common way forward. And we want to work closely with the U.S., but it must, of course, be a respectful kind of cooperation.

Anton Gerashchenko

108,201 views • 7 months ago

Twice in one day, the media pursued a line of questioning that was not based on fact. This BBC interview featured a package in which they said farmers were selling up to make way for solar projects - this is generally not the case. Less than 1% of land in Lincolnshire is being used for solar farms and even in cases in which it is, landowners are leasing their land to make profit for solar farms - which btw is also in the national interest in terms of energy security (and the climate). The media has a lot to answer for when it comes to public trust…
1:05

Twice in one day, the media pursued a line of questioning that was not based on fact. This BBC interview featured a package in which they said farmers were selling up to make way for solar projects - this is generally not the case. Less than 1% of land in Lincolnshire is being used for solar farms and even in cases in which it is, landowners are leasing their land to make profit for solar farms - which btw is also in the national interest in terms of energy security (and the climate). The media has a lot to answer for when it comes to public trust…

Dale Vince

63,925 views • 1 year ago

🚨 EVIDENCE DESTRUCTION CLAIM ROCKS EPSTEIN PROBE Rep. Luna has just dropped a major allegation. “We had someone come forward and say there was destruction of evidence under the former deputy director of the FBI.” If true, that is explosive. Because it raises a far bigger question than Epstein himself: Who protected the network? Tomorrow, investigators are set to interview the Clintons. That alone signals how high this investigation is reaching. For years, the Epstein case has been surrounded by unanswered questions — plea deals that made no sense, intelligence connections, missing records, and a death that many still find difficult to accept. Now the possibility of destroyed evidence enters the picture. That changes everything. If documents were intentionally removed or concealed, the issue is no longer just criminal misconduct. It becomes institutional obstruction. This week could mark a turning point. Because once evidence destruction enters the narrative, the investigation moves from scandal… to potential cover-up. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna Anna Paulina Luna
1:13

🚨 EVIDENCE DESTRUCTION CLAIM ROCKS EPSTEIN PROBE Rep. Luna has just dropped a major allegation. “We had someone come forward and say there was destruction of evidence under the former deputy director of the FBI.” If true, that is explosive. Because it raises a far bigger question than Epstein himself: Who protected the network? Tomorrow, investigators are set to interview the Clintons. That alone signals how high this investigation is reaching. For years, the Epstein case has been surrounded by unanswered questions — plea deals that made no sense, intelligence connections, missing records, and a death that many still find difficult to accept. Now the possibility of destroyed evidence enters the picture. That changes everything. If documents were intentionally removed or concealed, the issue is no longer just criminal misconduct. It becomes institutional obstruction. This week could mark a turning point. Because once evidence destruction enters the narrative, the investigation moves from scandal… to potential cover-up. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna Anna Paulina Luna

Jim Ferguson

117,949 views • 6 months ago

How Health New Zealand (Te Whatu Ora) Buried Whistleblower Barry Young's Protected Disclosure. Barry Young details how he made a protected disclosure to Health New Zealand’s executive leadership team with statistical evidence suggesting serious vaccine safety issues. After extensive review with epidemiologists, doctors, and statisticians, he calculated odds of 100 billion to one against the vaccine not causing the observed signals. The handling of his Protected Disclosure reveals suppression of evidence, which would be potentially serious illegality, at the highest levels of the Ministry of Health. Barry had to raise several OIA (Official Information Act) requests to obtain the evidence that Health New Zealand had indeed received his original Protected Disclosure email, despite the evidence being "buried away in an Accenture Report, which was a Forensics Report." This is essential viewing for anyone who has concerns about government transparency, public health accountability, and Whistleblower Protections in New Zealand and beyond. Transcript: "I gave it to Health New Zealand, that was my protected disclosure... And only after doing a lot of due diligence with a lot of experts and statisticians and doctors who looked at it and I found out in hindsight I'm perfectly allowed to do that under the act to see how and whether that's important, whether to make a protected disclosure. It was all... red flag, red flag, red flag. So yes, I did put all that together, I did some crude analysis back then, getting a lot better at it now. And I just came up with some numbers that was 100 billion to one against the vaccine not causing this. I can't say for sure, I can never say that. And I sent that in an email to the executive leadership team at Health New Zealand. So of course, yeah, yeah, to make them aware of what I was saying and that formed the protected disclosure which was the whole purpose of the act, which is why we're here. Of course, they just ignored that and retaliated. In the police disclosures, I didn't even see a sign of that original email that I sent, they tried to bury it, they tried to withhold it from evidence because it was a protected disclosure. The original ELT email, the only one they did provide as evidence was the email I sent to the MPs, not knowing that that wasn't a protected disclosure. I didn't know the act at the time, but they withheld the one I sent to the executive leadership team. And the only reason that I can think of they did that was to try and avoid saying that it was a protected disclosure. They tried to bury it. I... emailed them, the Crown, the police, where's the email that I sent to the executive team? Oh no, we've sent you everything that we have. So I thought, that's a bit strange. I did send an email. ... I had to resort to writing OIA's to Health New Zealand, which they denied. They said, oh no, we didn't, there's no email sent from you at that time to these people. Your request is denied because it doesn't exist. And I wrote back to them. I said, check again, please. These are the times. These are the dates. And they said, we've gone back and we've done a thorough check and we stand by original decision. The email doesn't exist. So Health New Zealand said twice that email doesn't exist. I found it. The evidence buried away in an Accenture report, which was a forensics report. I said, hang on a minute. There's the email there in that report. Only after that did the police and the Crown reply to me. And lo and behold, there it was. The protected disclosure email... produced nearly a year after I was charged. It should have been the very first thing that they sent and [that] they dealt with. ...Looking at a protected disclosure, the way it's meant to be, they're meant to receive it and acknowledge it and reply to it. They tried to bury it."
4:07

How Health New Zealand (Te Whatu Ora) Buried Whistleblower Barry Young's Protected Disclosure. Barry Young details how he made a protected disclosure to Health New Zealand’s executive leadership team with statistical evidence suggesting serious vaccine safety issues. After extensive review with epidemiologists, doctors, and statisticians, he calculated odds of 100 billion to one against the vaccine not causing the observed signals. The handling of his Protected Disclosure reveals suppression of evidence, which would be potentially serious illegality, at the highest levels of the Ministry of Health. Barry had to raise several OIA (Official Information Act) requests to obtain the evidence that Health New Zealand had indeed received his original Protected Disclosure email, despite the evidence being "buried away in an Accenture Report, which was a Forensics Report." This is essential viewing for anyone who has concerns about government transparency, public health accountability, and Whistleblower Protections in New Zealand and beyond. Transcript: "I gave it to Health New Zealand, that was my protected disclosure... And only after doing a lot of due diligence with a lot of experts and statisticians and doctors who looked at it and I found out in hindsight I'm perfectly allowed to do that under the act to see how and whether that's important, whether to make a protected disclosure. It was all... red flag, red flag, red flag. So yes, I did put all that together, I did some crude analysis back then, getting a lot better at it now. And I just came up with some numbers that was 100 billion to one against the vaccine not causing this. I can't say for sure, I can never say that. And I sent that in an email to the executive leadership team at Health New Zealand. So of course, yeah, yeah, to make them aware of what I was saying and that formed the protected disclosure which was the whole purpose of the act, which is why we're here. Of course, they just ignored that and retaliated. In the police disclosures, I didn't even see a sign of that original email that I sent, they tried to bury it, they tried to withhold it from evidence because it was a protected disclosure. The original ELT email, the only one they did provide as evidence was the email I sent to the MPs, not knowing that that wasn't a protected disclosure. I didn't know the act at the time, but they withheld the one I sent to the executive leadership team. And the only reason that I can think of they did that was to try and avoid saying that it was a protected disclosure. They tried to bury it. I... emailed them, the Crown, the police, where's the email that I sent to the executive team? Oh no, we've sent you everything that we have. So I thought, that's a bit strange. I did send an email. ... I had to resort to writing OIA's to Health New Zealand, which they denied. They said, oh no, we didn't, there's no email sent from you at that time to these people. Your request is denied because it doesn't exist. And I wrote back to them. I said, check again, please. These are the times. These are the dates. And they said, we've gone back and we've done a thorough check and we stand by original decision. The email doesn't exist. So Health New Zealand said twice that email doesn't exist. I found it. The evidence buried away in an Accenture report, which was a forensics report. I said, hang on a minute. There's the email there in that report. Only after that did the police and the Crown reply to me. And lo and behold, there it was. The protected disclosure email... produced nearly a year after I was charged. It should have been the very first thing that they sent and [that] they dealt with. ...Looking at a protected disclosure, the way it's meant to be, they're meant to receive it and acknowledge it and reply to it. They tried to bury it."

Liz Gunn

12,711 views • 1 month ago

No one witnessed Tyler Robinson. No video or any witness testimony of him, a gun, or any forensic evidence at all. Except dna on a rifle he owned that wasn’t tested for residue and did not alert any of the dogs. The footage never shows a gun or a clear shot of his face. It appears to be multiple people or he changes outfits. There is no evidence matching any bullet to the gun they claim was used. The only “evidence” they have are text messages that don’t sound real that have not been made available to the defense to analyze. Text messages can be sent by anyone. That isn’t evidence. And a confession that doesn’t exist and a claim his mother recognized him from the footage that we now can all see. That statement has not been made available and probably doesn’t exist, and it doesn’t matter. The video doesn’t show any crime and it’s not clear enough for any positive ID. There are mountains of circumstantial evidence that turning point USA conspired to either kill Charlie Kirk or cover up his murder. There is an end times cult that is convinced that in order to bring back Jesus they need the US to lose to Iran and the world to turn on Israel and burn. That’s a fact btw. That’s what Ben Shapiro and Trump and kushner and the “pastors” surrounding Charlie believe. They are claiming anyone that is NOT in their world destroying death cult is in fact in Candace Owens cult. People who don’t think Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk and Erika is a crazy bitch. Everything I just said is obviously accurate. It never ends well for death cults. This is not the first and it’s not the last. I recommend staying far far away as they destroy themselves
1:26

No one witnessed Tyler Robinson. No video or any witness testimony of him, a gun, or any forensic evidence at all. Except dna on a rifle he owned that wasn’t tested for residue and did not alert any of the dogs. The footage never shows a gun or a clear shot of his face. It appears to be multiple people or he changes outfits. There is no evidence matching any bullet to the gun they claim was used. The only “evidence” they have are text messages that don’t sound real that have not been made available to the defense to analyze. Text messages can be sent by anyone. That isn’t evidence. And a confession that doesn’t exist and a claim his mother recognized him from the footage that we now can all see. That statement has not been made available and probably doesn’t exist, and it doesn’t matter. The video doesn’t show any crime and it’s not clear enough for any positive ID. There are mountains of circumstantial evidence that turning point USA conspired to either kill Charlie Kirk or cover up his murder. There is an end times cult that is convinced that in order to bring back Jesus they need the US to lose to Iran and the world to turn on Israel and burn. That’s a fact btw. That’s what Ben Shapiro and Trump and kushner and the “pastors” surrounding Charlie believe. They are claiming anyone that is NOT in their world destroying death cult is in fact in Candace Owens cult. People who don’t think Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk and Erika is a crazy bitch. Everything I just said is obviously accurate. It never ends well for death cults. This is not the first and it’s not the last. I recommend staying far far away as they destroy themselves

Owen Benjamin 🐻

72,329 views • 1 month ago

🚨 FREE SPEECH UNION CHALLENGES GOVERNMENT “ISLAMOPHOBIA” DEFINITION A major legal battle over free speech is now unfolding in Britain. The Free Speech Union has announced it is launching a judicial review against the government’s adoption of a new official definition of “Islamophobia” (described by ministers as anti-Muslim hostility). Critics argue the policy risks creating a blasphemy law through the back door, something Parliament abolished in England and Wales nearly two decades ago. According to the Free Speech Union, the government’s plan to adopt the definition — and appoint an official “czar” to enforce it — could seriously restrict lawful debate, criticism, and public discussion. They say legal advice suggests the move may be unlawful, and have formally placed the government on notice that they intend to challenge the decision in court. The organisation is now asking supporters to help fund the case, warning that judicial reviews against government policy are extremely expensive but crucial for protecting civil liberties. The core question now being raised is simple: Has the government created a new form of blasphemy protection for one religion, or is this a necessary step to combat discrimination? The courts may soon decide. The Free Speech Union
1:15

🚨 FREE SPEECH UNION CHALLENGES GOVERNMENT “ISLAMOPHOBIA” DEFINITION A major legal battle over free speech is now unfolding in Britain. The Free Speech Union has announced it is launching a judicial review against the government’s adoption of a new official definition of “Islamophobia” (described by ministers as anti-Muslim hostility). Critics argue the policy risks creating a blasphemy law through the back door, something Parliament abolished in England and Wales nearly two decades ago. According to the Free Speech Union, the government’s plan to adopt the definition — and appoint an official “czar” to enforce it — could seriously restrict lawful debate, criticism, and public discussion. They say legal advice suggests the move may be unlawful, and have formally placed the government on notice that they intend to challenge the decision in court. The organisation is now asking supporters to help fund the case, warning that judicial reviews against government policy are extremely expensive but crucial for protecting civil liberties. The core question now being raised is simple: Has the government created a new form of blasphemy protection for one religion, or is this a necessary step to combat discrimination? The courts may soon decide. The Free Speech Union

Jim Ferguson

13,650 views • 5 months ago

Over the past 9 months, I have been investigating how the Home Office has been preparing for the national grooming gangs inquiry - and crucially, whether vital evidence has been properly protected. What I’ve found is extremely concerning... In June last year, Baroness Louise Casey recommended a full national inquiry. Her Audit was clear that in the meantime, police forces, councils and authorities across the country should be required not to destroy any records that could be used as evidence. But we now know that didn’t happen. Freedom of Information requests now appear to show the Home Office waited a staggering 212 days - nearly seven months - before formally contacting police forces and other key agencies. Today, the Home Affairs select Committee has written directly to the Home Secretary warning that this 212 failure means that some records critical to the inquiry “might have been destroyed”. That is a staggering failure at the heart of government. I first raised the alarm on this in December, after uncovering that authorities in Bradford had not received any instruction at all from government. Just two days later, newly appointed Chair of the National Inquiry, Baroness Anne Longfield, wrote to the Government reinforcing exactly the same point. Yet even after that warning, it still took another 36 days for the Home Office to act and pass the Chair's message on to authorities. Freedom of information requests show that then-Permanent Secretary Antonio Romeo finally wrote to Home Office-funded Arm’s Length Bodies and Chief Constables across the country on 14 January 2026 - 7 months after the Casey Audit. The government now has serious and unavoidable questions it must answer. - Why was there such a delay? - What kind of records may have been lost? - What are the legal consequences if records have been lost, but the Home Office failed to act? Even now, it remains unclear whether local councils across the country were ever formally contacted at all about the protection of records. Unless the government can provide clear answers to these questions, they risk not only undermining confidence in this process, but failing victims who have already been let down for far too long. Read the Home Affairs Select Committee letter here:
1:49

Over the past 9 months, I have been investigating how the Home Office has been preparing for the national grooming gangs inquiry - and crucially, whether vital evidence has been properly protected. What I’ve found is extremely concerning... In June last year, Baroness Louise Casey recommended a full national inquiry. Her Audit was clear that in the meantime, police forces, councils and authorities across the country should be required not to destroy any records that could be used as evidence. But we now know that didn’t happen. Freedom of Information requests now appear to show the Home Office waited a staggering 212 days - nearly seven months - before formally contacting police forces and other key agencies. Today, the Home Affairs select Committee has written directly to the Home Secretary warning that this 212 failure means that some records critical to the inquiry “might have been destroyed”. That is a staggering failure at the heart of government. I first raised the alarm on this in December, after uncovering that authorities in Bradford had not received any instruction at all from government. Just two days later, newly appointed Chair of the National Inquiry, Baroness Anne Longfield, wrote to the Government reinforcing exactly the same point. Yet even after that warning, it still took another 36 days for the Home Office to act and pass the Chair's message on to authorities. Freedom of information requests show that then-Permanent Secretary Antonio Romeo finally wrote to Home Office-funded Arm’s Length Bodies and Chief Constables across the country on 14 January 2026 - 7 months after the Casey Audit. The government now has serious and unavoidable questions it must answer. - Why was there such a delay? - What kind of records may have been lost? - What are the legal consequences if records have been lost, but the Home Office failed to act? Even now, it remains unclear whether local councils across the country were ever formally contacted at all about the protection of records. Unless the government can provide clear answers to these questions, they risk not only undermining confidence in this process, but failing victims who have already been let down for far too long. Read the Home Affairs Select Committee letter here:

Robbie Moore MP

194,582 views • 5 months ago

Israeli intelligence group “Project 545” is now digitally stalking and harassing prominent anti-war voices in the United States and they’re working under the direction of Trump‘s new anti-terrorism czar. This is the definition of foreign interference in the sovereignty of the United States. If Trump was not aware of this he needs to fire the people who kept him in the dark and kill the program. If Trump does nothing to stop it we know he is complicit and should be removed from office for turning control of US intelligence agencies over to a foreign government..
13:47

Israeli intelligence group “Project 545” is now digitally stalking and harassing prominent anti-war voices in the United States and they’re working under the direction of Trump‘s new anti-terrorism czar. This is the definition of foreign interference in the sovereignty of the United States. If Trump was not aware of this he needs to fire the people who kept him in the dark and kill the program. If Trump does nothing to stop it we know he is complicit and should be removed from office for turning control of US intelligence agencies over to a foreign government..

Alex Jones

3,647,133 views • 3 months ago