Video Summary

The video discusses significant issues surrounding police access to passports in the UK, raising concerns about privacy and civil rights. Critics argue this could transform the UK into a surveillance state, particularly since many criminals often disguise themselves, making the facial recognition techniques ineffective.

In addition, Labour is accused of cancelling mayoral elections and denying citizens their democratic right to vote, with claims that they are doing so to avoid losses in certain areas. This has sparked considerable criticism, with allegations of undermining democracy.

There's also a focus on Rachel Reeves and the economic turmoil linked to ongoing leaks leading up to the recent budget, resulting in a historic £10 billion withdrawal from the stock market by UK investors. Experts attribute this chaos to political uncertainty exacerbated by the government’s repeated about-turns.

The video critiques Labour's policies on special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), exposing contradictions in their claims of support amid legal findings that assessment fees adversely affect SEND children. Overall, the content aims to prompt viewers to question the implications of these policies and remain aware of the government's consistent failings.

Transcript

How do you feel about police across the UK having access to your passport so they can compare your image and likeness with those captured on CCTV, doorbells, dash cams, and similar devices across the country to see whether you fit the bill for one of their crimes, turning the UK essentially into a police state? Also in this video, Labour stands accused of denying millions of people their democratic right to vote by cancelling elections yet again. Rachel Reeves now faces accusations of causing the longest and most severe period of UK investors pulling out more than £10 billion from global stock markets over the last six months, along with a discussion on Labour’s hypocrisy. More later in the video, but first of all, if you like this sort of brutally honest analysis, and the Christmas sweater to cheer things up a little bit, please do subscribe to the channel. We are nearing 900,000 subscribers. I will keep pushing and helping you understand the law.

So let's take a look at these topics in turn, shall we? Many people are criticising this because they believe the police should not have blanket access to the passport database across the country, even if they are doing so to catch criminals. Critics warn it might be misused, abused, leaked, or hacked. Let's be honest, mistakes will inevitably happen, and many innocent individuals could be misidentified and dragged through the process, facing punishment for crimes they had nothing to do with. Moreover, most criminals often cover their faces, meaning they likely won't be caught by facial recognition. This is a concerning trend since facial recognition is being planned for every town centre across the UK, and giving police access to the passport database essentially turns it into a police state. This is Labour's latest proposal, as so many people now have dash cams, doorbells, and CCTV, and they believe this will help catch criminals. They plan to combine all this data with passport and immigration records to facilitate the arrest of offenders.

Anything aimed at catching criminals sounds good until it isn’t. Civil rights groups have opposed the plans, labelling them a historic breach of Britain's privacy. Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch, stated that this expansion would transform the UK into an open prison, with passports becoming mugshots for a gigantic surveillance database, putting the British public at risk of misidentification and injustice. Every search through this collection of personal photos places millions of innocent citizens in a police line-up without their knowledge or consent. Sakia Star's government is committing a historic breach of Britain's privacy that one might expect to see in China, but not in a democracy. There is a valid concern here because the data protection act is quite strict regarding what data is collected and processed. It needs a legitimate basis and should generally be used for its original purpose. Passports were not collected to act as mugshots in criminal line-ups. So, this poses the argument of overreach by the police and the Home Office with the use of passports. However, if this goes to court, the court will probably rule that it's government policy and they can do it anyway.

Now, if the court were to find it in conflict with the data protection act, as was seen with the VAT on school fees, it might declare it incompatible with the act but still uphold government policy. This certainly steers us towards becoming a police state with surveillance cameras everywhere, facial recognition technology linked with your passport, akin to being treated as a mugshot. That is an uncomfortable position to be in, knowing that when you step out onto the streets, you are on camera, captured and perhaps tracked and monitored without your knowledge or consent. This raises genuine concerns.

Unfortunately, that's not the only troubling issue. Labour is also accused of cancelling these mayoral elections, originally set for May. Many have been pushed back to 2028, which many are concluding is a cancellation of their democratic right to vote for local mayors. Initially, under Angela Rayner, the excuse was that they needed more time to organise larger unitary authorities by combining different local authorities. However, it is difficult to see what they need to do that cannot be completed in six months unless it is true that they anticipate losing in those areas and are subsequently cancelling elections. This has drawn significant criticism, with accusations that this is a blatant attempt to prevent major reform victories in May. It is viewed as an act of a desperate government clinging onto power by any means necessary. Labour has, time and again, proven they are not above denying democracy to millions to maintain their comfortable status quo. Even if I did not agree with the first cancellation of elections in May, I would now agree that they should have sufficient time to do what needs doing by then without needing to delay further. It seems clear they are denying the democratic right to vote, knowing they might lose.

As I mentioned earlier, things are not looking great for Rachel Reeves either. More about that in a moment. But, while discussing data protection and personal data, it ties in well with the issue of digital ID. I repeatedly cover stories on digital ID, such as recent leaks from local authorities like Kensington and Chelsea, who confirmed that historical data had been copied from their servers and could potentially be floating around on the internet. They claimed the data was historical and stopped access as soon as it was discovered, yet this keeps happening. It is crucial to prevent identity theft by taking steps to erase your data from the internet. Remember, people cannot harm you if they cannot find you. A service named Incogn, which partners with my channel, can help. If you instruct Incogn, they will contact hundreds of companies and demand they remove your data from their servers: your name, date of birth, address, telephone numbers, email addresses, household members, and even details about where you shop and what you buy. All this information can be tracked and sold, leading to potential identity theft, but Incogn will assist you in removing and erasing your online presence. It’s critical to prevent identity theft and impersonation. As partners with my channel, you can receive a great discount of 60% off the annual plan by using my code BLACKBELT, linked in the description below. You'll gain access to a dashboard to monitor how many companies are removing your data from the internet, which will help safeguard against identity theft you wouldn't dare to imagine.

Returning to Rachel Reeves and the budget, this month’s budget preview includes significant £26 billion tax increases, which you might have noticed if you've been following my videos. Experts now argue that the repeated leaks and information drips, including the OBR leak of the document an hour early, have prompted a record withdrawal of £10 billion from the stock market by UK investors. This exit is noted as the longest and most severe period of selling on record. While Rachel Reeves constantly blames Liz Truss for crashing the economy, which is not entirely accurate, as even the Bank of England indicates her contribution was only half of what really destabilised the market at that time, it is overshadowed by the events that have unfolded since. Experts are now attributing this mass exit from stocks to the leaks and U-turns leading up to the budget. October alone saw a record £3.6 billion outflow from stocks, with November marking the second worst month on record with withdrawals of £3 billion from equity funds. Edward Glenn, head of global markets at Callisstone, noted that the unusually long buildup to November's budget, compounded by ongoing leaks, has significantly affected UK savers. We have not witnessed such sustained selling before. The recent period of policy uncertainty has evidently unsettled investors, prompting reactive decisions many may later regret, including pensions withdrawals that cannot be reversed.

Lastly, let’s discuss the staggering hypocrisy and gaslighting from the Labour Party. I don't want it to seem like I’m attacking all the time, but it's hard to overlook. Reading from their announcement, Labour claims they are providing early support for families with their best start family hubs, putting children with special educational needs and disabilities at the core of their goal to enhance opportunities for every child. Remember the VAT on private school fees? This policy disproportionately affected a large number of SEND children, leading thousands to be unable to afford their fees and forcing them to switch. This case was even challenged at the Supreme Court, which stated that the VAT policy interfered with access to education.

Despite Labour's claims of supporting SEND children, the Supreme Court ruled that their VAT policy is not aligned with this goal. In the Supreme Court judgment, it was made evident that children with special educational needs without education and health care plans face significantly different circumstances compared to their peers in private schools. The VAT, thus, has a prejudicial effect on these children. Paragraph 198 summarised that the policy negatively affects access to education for SEND children and essentially works against their intent to enhance opportunities. Even though Labour asserts its commitment to SEND children, the reality differs starkly from their claim. It’s crucial for me to keep discussing these topics because they seem to wish for us to forget and accept misleading claims. I will not forget, and I will ensure that we challenge these misleading narratives. Let me know your thoughts in the comments below, and as always, thank you for watching.