 Good evening everyone and welcome to our, the first of our new streamlined shorter live streams. Now to explain how the changes that we're going to make, a couple more changes to make, cameras going to change, lighting, et cetera, still going to change. What we are going to do tonight, we're here for a shorter stream tonight, we'll be here until eight o'clock. Three out of four Mondays per month, we will be doing a shorter stream. And a few reasons for that. One is that unfortunately people are more likely, the longer a video is, the less likely people are to watch it. So we do have to make things shorter and a little bit more compact. One Monday a month, we will revert back to our long live stream where I will take questions on just about anything within reason from members. But this evening I want to show you first of all a video and while you're watching this, any comments, any questions, put them in the comments section there at the side and I will get to them after the video. First things first, here comes the first of our video. Now today as you know is freedom day. I was watching the stream, the press conference with Boris Johnson this evening and we are being as you know, threatened with vaccination, compulsive vaccination and who won't be able to go here there pretty much anywhere. So it's a strange idea of freedom however, that is our focus for this evening, freedom. What is it? Do we have it? And if we don't, how come? How have we lost our freedom in the UK? Let's start with our video and we'll take some questions and comments afterwards. What is freedom? What do we mean by it? And more importantly, do we have it? The concept of freedom can be a difficult one. For me it means the liberty to live one's life in the way that suits them best, limited only by other people's ability to do the same. In order to live freely in this way, people must make sure that politicians cannot impose laws or restrictions that remove their freedoms. Now this is where the notion of civil liberties come to the fore. To prevent politicians limiting our freedoms, we must have the ability to hold politicians to account. Our right to protest, for example, is therefore absolutely crucial. Our right to free speech is absolutely crucial. Free, open, democratic debate is an indisputable necessity if our ability to hold politicians to account is to be maintained. In other words, if we don't hold power over politicians, they will take our power away. Now in 2021, do we have those freedoms in the UK? Do we have the right to speak freely? Do we have the right to protest and hold the government to account? I'm sorry to say, no, we don't. The evidence for this is all around us, but before I explain what this evidence is, let me remind you of our past. Our freedoms, our civil liberties are largely spoken of in terms of the Magna Carta. This document, devised in the year 1215, is largely believed to have introduced concepts like swift access to justice, the right to not be arbitrarily imprisoned or imprisoned on the whim of the powerful. Later came the Bill of Rights. This bill outlined specific constitutional and civil rights and ultimately gave Parliament power over the monarchy. Parliament having power over the monarchy was key because Parliament was seen as representative of the people. In other words, it gave the people power over the powerful. The Bill of Rights laid out some key concepts of freedom, the freedom to elect members of Parliament without the monarch's interference, freedom of speech in Parliament, freedom from royal interference with the law, freedom to petition the king, freedom to bear arms for self-defense, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment and excessive bail, freedom from taxation by royal prerogative without the agreement of Parliament. The Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights both inspired the US Constitution and expanded notions and concepts of freedom throughout the English-speaking world and beyond. These documents carry little legal weight in the UK today. Most have been replaced by modern legislation. One such piece of legislation apparently designed to protect our rights is the Human Rights Act of 1998. This act brought the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. The legislation was supposed to protect various rights, but in practice, it has done nothing of the kind. It was supposed to protect our freedom of speech, but the truth is, in the UK, we have no freedom of speech. The concept of so-called hate speech is reality in British law. This allows the government and the courts to limit our speech in accordance with a vague concept of hate. The Public Order Act, for example, prohibits expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's color, race, nationality, or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says, a person who uses threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behavior, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred or having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby. Now, what does this mean exactly? Well, we're not sure, because the word hatred is never defined. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. It states, a person is guilty of an offence if with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm, or distress, he uses threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behavior, or disorderly behavior, or displays any writing, sign, or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm, or distress. Again, what does this mean? Again, we're not sure, because alarm or distress is not defined. The Racial and Religious Hatred Act extended protections to religion. It states that a person who uses threatening words or behavior, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred. Once again, hatred is not defined. The problem with this lack of clear definition is that words like hate, distress, or alarm are left to the interpretation of the courts and the police who can interpret them to mean anything that political correctness requires. These laws are vague enough to mean that any speech critical of mass immigration, or of Islam, or of self-identification, transgenderism can be deemed to be hate, or to cause alarm or distress. Now, make no mistake, hate speech laws are intended to limit our freedom of speech and force us to accept policy that we would otherwise not accept. We have, therefore, lost our fundamental right to free speech. People have been arrested, jailed, demonized, destroyed merely for speaking. Free speech is over in Britain, but we can't get it back. For Britain will repeal all hate speech laws. For Britain would create a constitution that guarantees our freedom of speech. As it stands, only parliament can protect our rights. So what happens when we are required to protect our rights from parliament? We need a constitution. We need a constitution that limits the powers of parliament to remove our right to speak. That is what For Britain is offering. In late 2019, the world changed. A virus was spreading all over the world. Now, that virus would alter everything. Originating in China, COVID-19 was like wildfire. The virus threatened the lives of the elderly or those already suffering from chronic conditions. And in early 2020, the unbelievable happened. Governments throughout the world, including in the UK, locked the population inside our homes and closed down all businesses. Our loss of freedom was absolute. We were prisoners at our government's behest. So severe was this, that police ordered people inside their houses even from their own gardens. Police threatened to search our shopping trolleys to make sure we were buying only permitted items. The Coronavirus Act gave the government unimaginable power over us. It gave the government the power to quarantine us, to jail us, to keep us away from our families, to determine where we may gather and in what numbers. It was a stark lesson. If the government deems it appropriate, it can imprison us. It's a lesson we are not likely to forget anytime soon. Needless to say, the Coronavirus Act prevented us from protesting against the Coronavirus Act. The Police Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill of 2021 severely restricts our right to protest, not just during Coronavirus lockdown, but permanently. This bill provides for the following. It will widen the range of conditions that the police can impose on assemblies to match existing police powers to impose conditions on processions. It will lower the fault element for offenses related to the breaching of conditions placed on a protest. It will widen the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests. It will replace the existing common law offence of public nuisance with a new statutory offence as recommended by law commission in 2015. It will create new stop, search and seizure powers to prevent serious disruption by protests. In other words, this legislation creates a formal police state. The police will decide who can protest and how they can protest. That's no longer our decision to make. Those in authority will determine what protests we may have against those in authority. Britain is not a free country. It was, it is no longer. Powers and freedoms, once they are seized, are not returned voluntarily. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to demand the restoration of our rights. We must do so. And we must do so with urgency. For Britain will restore our freedoms. All we need is your support. Visit forbritain.uk and join us. Because if we do not fight back and demand our power is restored, it will disappear forever. Thank you for watching. If you agree with what you hear on forbritain videos, remember to like them, share them and subscribe to our channel. And why not follow us on social media as well? The relevant links are below. Thank you. Okay, thanks for watching that everyone. That will be going up on our YouTube channel independently as will all of our videos in our new style Monday night stream. Please, please do share them. This is really important. Next week, I'm going to be talking about bring back better or build back better. We need to look at that in detail. What are they talking about when they say build back better? We'll be looking at that in some detail next week. Questions have come up and thank you very much for them. Let me address a couple of these. So from Tony, isn't the prospect of compulsory vaccines that are still trialed on emergency legislation a violation of the Nuremberg Code? If so, what can we do about it? The Nuremberg Code, let's have a talk about that. The Nuremberg Code is essentially formulated in 1947 and what it does is prevent or aim to seek to prevent experimentation on human beings. In front of me, I have a document. I have the Nuremberg Code in front of me. I'll read you just a short, a short part of it. The great weight of evidence is what it says, permissible medical experiments. The great weight of evidence for us is to affect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. And basically what it is saying is that you, it provides a set of rules. It becomes perhaps a little bit clearer as I go down. So the number one point of the Nuremberg Code is, and I quote, the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. That's pretty clear. So according to this code, we must volunteer. However, I think that any government that was trying to force us into accepting a medical treatment in this case of vaccine without our consent, first of all, one thing they're going to do is make it so that you, they're not actually imposing it on you. There's plenty of ways of manipulating and deceiving this. And we can see what that is. There's nothing, it's not, it's quite obvious actually. There's nothing, they haven't hidden it very well. So what they're doing is giving us a choice. So you can avoid the vaccine if you want to. You just won't be able to go to a restaurant or a cafe or a pub or a cinema or perhaps even eventually a supermarket. They can still manipulate language enough that they can say that this is still a consensual arrangement. You are still not forcing you to do it, but if you want to go out anywhere and have any kind of a life, then you have to do it. And this is, when I was watching it this evening, it's devastating. It is genuinely devastating. And there was a lot of emphasis this evening on nightclubs. And as I wrote in my Sunday column yesterday, nightclubs are one of the few that are saying, we're not going to do this. We're not going to ask people for COVID passports. So you could see the emphasis on nightclubs in the press conference today. So the one sort of area of entertainment that has rebelled against this was the focus of the Prime Minister's livestream today. And they're telling them, you could be using language, we don't want to make this compulsory, but we reserve the right to do so. So that's the first excuse you're going to get to say this isn't actually, we are not forcing you to take this. The second point on the Nuremberg Code is this, the experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study and not random and unnecessary in nature. So what you're going to get is the government saying, well, A, they're not going to admit that it's in any way, an experiment, B, they're going to say that its purpose is, as in accordance with the Nuremberg Code, to yield fruitful results for the good of society. That is what they will argue it is doing. They will also argue that this results that they're looking for is unprocurable by other methods or means of study. So they've hit with point two. Going on, I won't go through it in full detail, but what I will do is link to it below the YouTube video of this stream. And I can see, just glancing down through it, I can see, I can see how they're going to answer it. But your question, Tony, what do we do about it? We've got to vote them, we've got to stop. I know you've everything I say this to everything because it's true. We cannot continue to allow this kind of seizure of our rights and freedoms by these two big political parties. And the only way out of this, because we know there's no opposition from Labour, the only way out of this is for us to change the makeup of the House of Commons. Now, I want the protests I've been seeing on around social media, massive protests taking place in various European countries. This must continue. We must have big protests. And we are in a wait and see stage at the moment. I think it's becoming clear that another lockdown is looming. The government is threatening us with lockdowns. I read one article that said that the next lockdown will be even longer than the last one. This we cannot, we cannot accept this. We cannot accept it. Now, there was, you know, a lot of people were patient, a lot of people believed that we'll get through this and a lot of people believed that we were going back to normal today. If there is another lockdown, we can't accept it nor can we accept Labour and the Tories threatening us for the rest of our lives with, well, if you don't do, as you told, we'll lock you in your house. We can't, can't, can't accept that. So our protests are vital and our political change is absolutely vital. We have a good next comment. We have a constitution, the English Constitution and Bill of Rights in its perpetuity, the British establishment right, rough shot over it. This is true. You know, I hear this a lot and it's not untrue. Technically speaking, the Bill of Rights would provide what could be called a constitution but what we don't have is a codified, legally supreme constitution. Our constitution is what's known as a non-written constitution, uncoded constitution. It's in various documents, the Bill of Rights being one of them that have been, right, rough shot over, as you say, by legislation that came afterwards. And one of our principles is that legislation overrides previous legislation. So the provisions of the Bill of Rights have been altered, changed, eroded, maids, moot maids, un-ineffective by legislation that has come afterwards, such as hate speech laws that I refer to in the video. What we must have, in my mind, and it's crucial because we cannot trust Parliament to protect our freedoms. The whole concept of it was based upon the notion that we were a democracy. Parliament was representative of the people. And so if Parliament took action that took away our rights, then we could take them out of office, take them out of Parliament. That's the theory. In practice, however, we have a system, a press, which is absolutely crucial in the functioning of democracy. The press informs the people of who the politicians, who the political candidates are. And when they are corrupt to this level, to the point that they are today, the entire system breaks down. People need to know that they don't have to vote for the big two parties. And the press, it's the press's job to inform them of it. So in other words, at the moment, we don't have a democracy that functions in the way democracy is in its prime, supposed to function, which is an informed population making its decision, casting its vote on the basis of the truth. The role of the press in all of that is to provide that truth. I think we know that there's a chink in the armour there. So what we need to protect us from that is a codified constitution. It's not an easy thing to achieve. There are parliamentary principles which could impede such a thing. For example, the concept that the no parliament can bind its successors. It would be a difficult thing to achieve legally. It would need monarchy involved. It's not going to be easy. But we cannot, cannot allow parliament to take away age-old freedoms. That trust, that willingness, that idea that we can sit back and trust parliament without freedoms must now be crushed. So we need legislation much like the US Constitution which does not allow parliament to make certain laws. If Congress in the US or if any state legislature in the US makes a law that infringes upon freedom of speech, it can be struck down by the US Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Politicians cannot make laws in the US that ride roughshod over people's rights. That is what we need, a British style of that. James, consent is not enough. It has to be informed consent. People are being jabbed without being told anything about what is being put into them. Completely agree. There are people being harmed by this. And look, I know there's a debate and there's disagreement within the party on these issues. And that's fine. That's healthy. But it's still true to say that people are being, by the government's own figures, both in this country and in other countries, by the government's own figures, people are being harmed by that. And you might say, well, that's statistically insignificant. But not if it's you or it's someone in your family or one of your loved ones. That's not significant, insignificant. So there needs to be a greater discussion of the science in that, which was full of fear. Fear mongering is putting it mildly. People who were dreading freedom day. And there's going to be, I mean, life as we know it, is going to implode in nurses and bar workers and all sorts of people saying how afraid they were about freedom day coming. I went to the shop this morning and early this morning. And I had my little neck thing, which is this little thing around where I'm walking to the shop I'm pulling. I had this on because I've forgotten that today was freedom day. When I arrived at the shop, I remembered. And so I walked in without this thing on my face. One thing I did notice was that there had been signs up near the cash register saying no face covering, no entry. Today that was gone and it was replaced with please respect people's personal choices. And I think what the message behind that is, is don't start scrapping with each other in the aisles over who's wearing a mask and who isn't. Okay, and very final one, good short video that should give any human being enough to oppose mandatory or quest, vaccine of healthy young people. Thank you. There's been quite a few compliments of the video. So thank you very much for that. Okay, it's a couple of things for this weekend. If you are in West Sussex or Essex, please do join us this weekend. We're going to be getting together. Branch meetings are back up and running, which is fantastic. It's really important that we get together and discuss where we are and more importantly, where we're going and to raise spirits. I think it's good for us to get together. So West Sussex or Essex, get in touch with Sharon at inquiresatforbritain.uk. And please do come along and bring a friend, bring a trusted friend, either who you think might be interested in what we have to say or who perhaps thinks that we are far right and needs to learn that we are nothing of the kind. Saturday the 24th in Baselton, we'll be helping Chris campaign. If you can make it along to help him, please, please do, he's standing in a local election there. That's it for me for this evening. My Wednesday morning live stream will continue. The good news is we will have more output but shorter. So Wednesday evening and Friday evening will be videos similar to the one that you've just seen on different topics. And this will remain into the future. So Monday at half seven, join me here. Wednesday at half seven will be a video similar to the one we've just shown and Friday at half seven. Every week at that time, we'll be putting out these short messages. Do share them. We need to get our message out wider and wider and wider. Thanks very much, everyone. I shall see you back here next Monday. We'll be talking about build back better. Let's see whether it will be better or not. And let's see what they mean by it. Take care of yourselves until then. And thank you very much for joining me. Good night.