## Video Summary As the new year unfolds, political discussions in the UK are heating up, with Labour MPs proposing controversial changes that have sparked debate. David Lammy's recent comments advocating for the abolition of jury trials have raised eyebrows, as he cites his Christian faith as a justification. He argues that lengthy waits for trials can be detrimental to victims, but critics point out that his claims do not align with the actual timelines of cases involving knife crime. The right to a jury trial is a cornerstone of justice, and many believe that Lammy's reasoning undermines this fundamental principle. In addition to the jury trial debate, concerns are mounting over Labour's apparent plans to reverse Brexit. Keir Starmer and his colleagues are reportedly preparing to introduce legislation that would allow the EU to influence UK laws once again, particularly in areas such as food standards and environmental regulations. This move has been met with criticism, as it seems to contradict the public's decision to leave the EU. Many argue that this could lead to further erosion of British sovereignty and complicate the already challenging post-Brexit landscape. The Labour Party's declining popularity is evident, with recent polls showing them trailing behind the Conservatives for the first time since the last election. This shift in voter sentiment reflects growing discontent with Labour's direction and the perception that they are not effectively addressing key issues. As the party grapples with internal divisions and external pressures, it faces an uphill battle to regain public trust. Lastly, the introduction of a digital ID system linked to NHS services has raised alarms among privacy advocates. While the idea of an online hospital may offer convenience, it also poses significant risks to personal data security. Critics argue that individuals should have the option to access healthcare without being forced into a digital framework, highlighting the need for a balance between technological advancement and privacy rights. As these discussions unfold, the public is left to ponder the implications of these changes on their rights and freedoms. ## Full Transcript ## Introduction Well, we are just a few days into the new year. Happy New Year once again! However, the ridiculous stories are already starting to flow in. We have David Lammy providing an utterly absurd reason for wanting to abandon jury trials. Labour MPs are apparently drawing up plans that would effectively allow the EU to dictate some of our laws. Most alarmingly, Wes Streeting is looking at new plans to introduce digital ID through the provision of medical services. In my opinion, this is concerning. I'll come back to that later in this video. ## Humour and Slogans First, let’s add a bit of tongue-in-cheek humour to make this entertaining. K Star recently said, "Cheap slogans won't fix Britain," but that hasn't stopped his party from putting out cheap slogans. The Labour Party has released a slogan: "2026, we're ready for you." I find it ironic that Kia said cheap slogans won't fix Britain. They also sent out another slogan: "This year is the year Britain turns the corner." Again, that sounds like a cheap slogan to me. Has Kia changed his mind, or do they simply not listen to each other? ## David Lammy and Jury Trials Now, let’s take a look at what David Lammy says justifies his conviction to take away your right to trial by jury. Spoiler alert: I believe nothing should take away your right to trial by jury. If we are going to punish someone, we absolutely should have that right. This is one of the reasons we abolished the death penalty. Having a single judge or even a panel of judges is not the same as having a jury decide your fate. Some Labour MPs want to get rid of jury trials, but I think we should keep them. You won't believe his latest justification for wanting to do away with the right to trial by jury: his Christian faith. He claims, "What does my faith in part call me to centre? It calls me to centre the victims of crime. It calls me to centre the mother in my constituency who has just lost her son to knife crime." He argues that waiting three or four years for a trial causes victims to fall away. However, a criminal silk points out why this reasoning is entirely wrong. David Lammy talked about how his Christian faith has persuaded him to curb the availability of trial by jury. He cites the case of a mother waiting for a trial, but the facts do not support his claims. In a thread, he mentions several cases where young men lost their lives to knife crime, providing timelines that do not reflect a wait of three or four years. In fact, only one case took more than seven months to come to court, and that was due to the time taken to identify the offenders. Cases involving young men who lose their lives to knife crime are not waiting for backlogs in the Crown Court; they are tried expeditiously. For the Lord Chancellor to assert this as a reason to bring in the measures he proposes is simply breathtaking. Either David Lammy does not know what he is talking about, or he is prepared to mislead the public to gain support for his agenda. ## Brexit and Labour's Plans Moving on, Keir Starmer and his fellow MPs are ostensibly trying to wind back and undo Brexit. Full disclosure: I voted Remain because I believed it was better to leave things as they were. I thought it would be a shambles and not improve anything. However, once the vote was cast, I thought we should get behind it and make it work. Now, I believe trying to reverse Brexit is not only going against the public vote but will also complicate matters further. If we were to deal with Brexit, we should have done it properly—a clean break without interference from any other court in the UK's affairs. As summarised by The Times, Keir Starmer is effectively asking MPs to authorise the transfer of sovereign British legal powers to Europe for the first time since Brexit. In other words, he wants to let the EU control and dictate some of our laws. They are preparing a bill expected to be presented to Parliament next month, which would allow the EU to dictate British laws in areas such as food standards, animal welfare, and pesticide use. This seems to be a way to save big supermarkets some money and relieve MPs of the responsibility of working on rules and regulations. However, if MPs are not up to the job, they should step down rather than delegate control to the EU. I believe this is only the beginning; it will lead to further encroachments on our sovereignty. Apparently, this bill will also legally align the UK's electricity and carbon markets with the rest of the EU. How long will it be before they dictate our energy prices? I think this is a bad move. While I voted Remain, which could have allowed for some alignment with the EU, this is the worst of both worlds. We will be penalised for voting Brexit while handing over control to the EU. ## The Labour Party's Decline All of this has culminated in the Labour Party sinking below the Tories in voting intentions for the first time since the election, with Reform now leading. I think people can no longer deny that. ## Digital ID and the NHS Finally, and somewhat alarmingly, Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting are trying to sell the idea of an online hospital, which may turn out to be a Trojan horse. Starmer claims that a new world is coming in relation to the NHS online. He stated last year that a new online hospital would be rolled out next year, initially providing support for nine common conditions, including prostate problems, menopause, and eyesight issues. Streeting said NHS online will make accessing healthcare as simple as ordering a cab or a takeaway, fundamentally changing how people interact with the NHS for generations to come. While it would be great to book appointments through an app, the caveat is that it will all have to be digital. This means two things: firstly, you will likely need a digital ID linked to your NHS data, and secondly, your data will be vulnerable to attacks, leaks, and breaches. No one can assure me that this will never happen. I can say with some certainty that it will happen to some people, at some point. I believe people should have a choice. If they do not want to go through this digital route and have a digital ID, provisions should still be made for traditional methods. Some people prefer to remain private and do not want their data linked through technology. Let me know in the comments which side you fall on. Do you value convenience over privacy, or would you rather keep your data secure? Thank you for watching!