Featured

Has the British Establishment gone completely soft on China?

admin
October 16, 2025
0Points
0
0
Has the British Establishment gone completely soft on China?

You’re discussing it over dinner and probably give up after ten minutes. But in essence, what is it all about?

It’s about Christopher Berry and academic Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher. They were charged under the Official Secrets Act 1911 with acting and providing information prejudicial to the safety and interests of the state.

Yet in September, the Director of Public Prosecutions decided to drop the case and not proceed.

We’re told this was because the Deputy National Security Adviser, Matt Collins, a civil servant, wrote a statement suggesting their behaviour did not meet the threshold for prosecution.

Nigel Farage

Nigel Farage shared his views on the China spy scandal

|

GB NEWS

That issue was at the heart of Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday. It was also the focus of the last question posed by Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition, and it may shape the debate over the next week.

On Monday, the Security Minister repeatedly told the House that ministers did not take the decision, and that the Deputy National Security Adviser had full authority.

So what exactly was the statement given by this civil servant?

Collins said: “It is important for me to emphasise that the UK Government is committed to pursuing a positive relationship with China.

“The Government’s position is that we will cooperate where we can, compete where we need to, and challenge where we must.”

Keir Starmer

Sir Keir Starmer has come under fire for the scandal

| X / KEIR STARMER

Remarkably, this mirrors almost exactly the Labour manifesto of 2024, which stated: “We will cooperate where we can, compete where we need to, and challenge where we must.”

So what is going on here? Many argue that this Government, and indeed the British establishment more broadly, has gone soft on China.

But the core question remains: Did the Prime Minister mislead the House?

Source link

admin

Related Posts

Featured
9

On April 12, 2021, a Knoxville police officer shot and killed an African American male student in a bathroom at Austin-East High School. The incident caused social unrest, and community members began demanding transparency about the shooting, including the release of the officer’s body camera video. On the evening of April 19, 2021, the Defendant and a group of protestors entered the Knoxville City-County Building during a Knox County Commission meeting. The Defendant activated the siren on a bullhorn and spoke through the bullhorn to demand release of the video. Uniformed police officers quickly escorted her and six other individuals out of the building and arrested them for disrupting the meeting. The court upheld defendants’ conviction for “disrupting a lawful meeting,” defined as “with the intent to prevent [a] gathering, … substantially obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing] with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.” Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the Defendant posted on Facebook the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting that the protestors were going to “shut down” the meeting. During the meeting, the Defendant used a bullhorn to activate a siren for approximately twenty seconds. Witnesses at trial described the siren as “loud,” “high-pitched,” and “alarming.” Commissioner Jay called for “Officers,” and the Defendant stated through the bullhorn, “Knox County Commission, your meeting is over.” Commissioner Jay tried to bring the meeting back into order by banging his gavel, but the Defendant continued speaking through the bullhorn. Even when officers grabbed her and began escorting her out of the Large Assembly Room, she continued to disrupt the meeting by yelling for the officers to take their hands off her and by repeatedly calling them “murderers.” Commissioner Jay called a ten-minute recess during the incident, telling the jury that it was “virtually impossible” to continue the meeting during the Defendant’s disruption. The Defendant herself testified that the purpose of attending the meeting was to disrupt the Commission’s agenda and to force the Commission to prioritize its discussion on the school shooting. Although the duration of the disruption was about ninety seconds, the jury was able to view multiple videos of the incident and concluded that the Defendant substantially obstructed or interfered with the meeting. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Defendant also claimed the statute was “unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute does not state that it includes government meetings,” but the appellate court concluded that she had waived the argument by not raising it adequately below. Sean F. McDermott, Molly T. Martin, and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, represent the state.

by admin
October 8, 2025

From State v. Every, decided by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals…

1 of 82
Copyright © 2025 conservdailyusa - .
Copyright © 2025 conservdailyusa - .