Skip to content

Richard (NOT Murphy)

No to Digital ID.

Thank You for an Incredible 2025 – Let’s Junk This Dystopian Nightmare in 2026!

As we close out 2025, the No to Digital ID campaign wants to extend our deepest thanks to every single one of you.

Launched right here on this blog just months ago, your contributions, retweets, shares, and invaluable insights have powered everything we’ve achieved this year. Without your unwavering support, we wouldn’t be where we are today – stronger, louder, and closer than ever to victory.

Our Key Achievements This Year

Thanks to you and thousands like you, we’ve hit remarkable milestones in our fight against Digital ID:

  • 40,000 followers on X (@NoToDigitalID)
  • 100,000 leaflets delivered across the country
  • Endorsements from leaders of UK parties (except Labour!) and several US Senators

We’ve interviewed Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Robert Jenrick. Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott have publicly backed us. Even US Senators are now quoting our campaign in Congress.

We’ve put up billboards across London and Edinburgh and reached towns the Westminster bubble forgot.

We are the only truly non-partisan campaign in Britain right now — and with your help, we are winning.

The government may try one final push, but together we have the momentum to stop Digital ID once and for all in 2026.

Let’s Finish the Job in the New Year

We now have a genuine chance to kill this dystopian nightmare for good — your continued support makes all the difference.

We know it’s the holiday season and times are tough, but even a small contribution will help us hit the ground running in January.

100% of your donation goes to ads, billboards and leaflets.
No staff, no salaries — we’re all volunteers.

No to Digital ID

The No to Digital ID campaign previously launched on this blog has gone from strength to strength. Having now 22,000 followers – many of whom here have followed and contributed.

We have launched a digital campaign with advertisements going live in Worcester, Cardiff, Great Yarmouth, Shrewsbury and others. We can do this instantly (within 24 hours).

We’re now looking to expand and looking for donors, or give the twitter account a share that would be great! If you’d can spare a few pounds for a very good cause check out our campaign here:

Check this link for a full list of how the money will be spent: LINK


 

 

 

More changes…

We’ve depreciated the blogroll. Many of the sites are dead and / or not updated.

We are looking to revive this, so please comment away with the blogs, twitter accounts or sites you feel would fit well and we’ll add them to the new ‘To be seen” column (aka blogroll)

Tim & Rich

Changes to comments

We’ve made a few small tweaks to the comments section!

  • You’ll now see a badge next to real users (we had to tackle some code injection issues).

  • We’ve added nested comments, so you can reply directly to someone’s comment.

  • You can now upvote or downvote comments — it’s just for fun and works like a ‘like’ feature, but it won’t change the order of the comments.

Enjoy the new features and keep the conversation going!

Any changes or suggestions, please drop them here.

Expect a few bugs… you can email worstall@echion dot co dot uk

T +R

======

FIXED:

If you’d like to upload an image, click the picture button but you have to also enter a comment.

Usernames can now be 2 characters.

Font size is not tiny.

The Brownshirts are Coming.

So, this morning I read that Graham Linehan – yeah, the Father Ted guy – got arrested at Heathrow. For tweets. Three tweets, apparently “inciting violence.” He’s Irish, not even British, and yet five armed cops pulled him off a flight like he was some sort of gangster.

Honestly, it freaks me out. If the UK is starting to drag people in over what they say online… where does that stop? I get it, words can hurt, but since when do we arrest people for being offesive? Feels like a line’s been crossed here – free speech isn’t suposed to be tidy or polite.

And here’s the thing – Americans should be watching too. Loads of big political figures, even Trump-linked folks, travel here. Imagine one of them posts somthing blunt back home, lands at Heathrow, and suddenly it’s cuffs and bail conditions banning Twitter? Could get ugly real fast.

This isn’t just about Linehan or even the UK. It’s about how fragile liberty gets when governments start picking and chooseing what we’re allowed to say. And yeah… that should scare everyone.

St George Cross

The ten things we should paint a St George’s Cross on to save Broken Britain

1. Potholes

The original hack. Nothing says “fix me now” like a Union of tarmac and patriotism.

2. Crumbling School Walls

If the ceiling looks ready to collapse, a splash of red and white might turn “RAAC concrete risk” into “national treasure, must preserve.”

3. Boarded-Up High Street Shops

From Poundland to Poundless, slap a flag on the plywood and maybe regeneration funds appear overnight.

4. Burst Water Mains

If St George can slay dragons, surely he can slay Thames Water leaks.

5. Train Carriages with Broken Heating

When it’s minus two and the windows don’t shut, a patriotic paint job might finally make “leaves on the line” less of a national emergency.

6. NHS Waiting Room Chairs

A cracked vinyl seat with yellow foam spilling out? Paint the Cross of St George on it and suddenly it’s “symbolic seating of national importance.”

7. Public Toilets That Closed in 2018 “For Refurbishment”

Paint the door, unlock the cubicle, declare it reopened with a ribbon-cutting ceremony.

8. Street Lamps That Don’t Work

Half the country’s already in the dark, but with a St George’s glowstick makeover, the council will rush to relight them.

9. Uneven Pavements

Trip hazard? Disability hazard? Council shrugs. Trip hazard with a St George’s Cross? Fixed by Tuesday.

10. Wi-Fi Dead Zones & Snail-Speed Broadband Boxes

Paint the flag on the green roadside cabinet, and suddenly fibre arrives faster than you can say “buffering.”

Conclusion: If we can’t fix “Broken Britain” with competence, maybe we can at least fix it with red and white paint.

James Whale (1951–2025): Libertarian Radio Host and Legendary Broadcaster Dies Aged 74

James Whale, the veteran broadcaster known for his combative on-air style and pioneering work in late-night radio and TV, has died aged 74 following a long battle with kidney cancer.

Whale, whose broadcasting career spanned five decades, was one of British radio’s most controversial and enduring voices. His death was confirmed on August 4, 2025, by TalkTV, where he hosted The James Whale Show until shortly before his passing. He had publicly shared his terminal diagnosis in 2020 and continued to broadcast while receiving treatment, describing radio as “his life’s medicine.”

Born Michael James Whale in Surrey in 1951, he first rose to prominence in the 1980s with The James Whale Radio Show on Metro Radio in Newcastle before achieving national fame with his late-night ITV television show of the same name. Known for his brusque style, anti-PC rants, and no-nonsense interviews, Whale helped pioneer the “shock jock” format in the UK—years before it became widespread.

His voice became a familiar fixture on TalkSport and later TalkRADIO (now TalkTV), where he built a loyal audience who tuned in for his candid takes on politics, social change, and current affairs. Whale was an avowed libertarian and a vocal critic of what he saw as “woke culture,” though he also displayed moments of surprising vulnerability—particularly when discussing his health and personal losses.

Reacting to his death, Nigel Farage, who interviewed Whale in one of his final public appearances, called him a “legendary broadcaster,” saying:

“James was fearless, funny, and fiercely independent. He was one of the true originals of British broadcasting—never afraid to speak his mind. We have lost a giant.”

Whale was diagnosed with kidney cancer in 2000, which led to the removal of one kidney. In 2020, he announced that the cancer had returned and spread to his brain, spine, and lungs. Despite this, he remained active on air and online, determined to work until the very end.

He is survived by his second wife, Nadine, and two sons. His first wife, Melinda, died in 2018.

Whale once said:

“I don’t care if people agree with me—I care that they think. That’s what broadcasting is about.”

James Whale may have divided opinion, but he never went unheard. In an age of increasingly curated voices, his raw candour and irreverence ensured that he remained unforgettable.

The Anti-Semitic Elephant

I wrote this several years ago for the CT. More relavent now than ever.

Several explanations have been offered to account for the anti-Semitism that plagues sections of the Labour Party.  More than one of them might be valid.  For example, there is within the Labour Party an element characterized by a visceral rejection of all things Western and capitalist.  Since Israel is both of these to some extent, they reject what it stands for, and equate pro-Jewish as pro-Israel.

Similarly, support for the aims of the Palestinian peoples is seen as supporting the underdog against the might of an oppressive capitalist predator bent on conquest and oppression.  Both elements explain some, but not all, of anti-Semitism within Labour’s ranks.  But there is a much larger element, one people find it difficult to discuss.  It is the elephant in the room that people pretend is not there, and the name of that elephant is Islam. 

In a significant number of parliamentary seats in the UK, a Labour majority depends on a Moslem vote that breaks heavily in its favour.  Labour candidates can bid for that vote by expressing anti-Israeli and, by association, anti-Jewish sentiments and prejudices.  Jeremy Corbyn and his allies know that a future Labour government can only be achieved with Muslim support, and from this derives their reluctance to condemn the virulent anti-Semitic groups and their spokespersons. 

Of course, educated and cultured Muslims are no more prone to bigoted prejudice than their educated and cultured Christian counterparts, but in neither groups do these constitute a majority.  Fanaticism is there to be bid for, and so long as Labour bids for it, it will be plagued by anti-Semitism.  The elephant is still there, even if everyone agrees not to look at it or to name it.

The ‘Progress (Pride) flag is a money-making venture

The ‘Progress’ Pride Flag, was designed by Daniel Quasar in 2018. It is not free and in the public domain, but is copyrighted, and its designer makes money from its use.

Daniel Quasar registered the copyright to the design, which modifies the traditional rainbow Pride flag by adding a chevron with colors representing marginalized communities (transgender people and coloured people) as well as those living with or lost to HIV/AIDS.

Quasar licenses the design for commercial uses, so that businesses and organizations that want to reproduce or sell items featuring the Progress flag must typically pay licensing fees.

Quasar has used platforms like Patreon and crowdfunding to support the flag’s dissemination and maintain some control over how it is used. He also earns income through direct sales of official merchandise and licensing arrangements.

Individuals or organizations using the flag non-commercially, such as flying it at events, displaying it on parades or protest marches, are not usually required to pay, although in theory they might.

Critics of the flag say that it should be free to use. They point out that there already is a ‘T’ at the end of LGBT, so trans people are already included in the (uncopyrighted) rainbow flag. They also point out that the flag’s complexity makes it ugly. The rainbow flag has simple clean lines for the bright colours that embrace everything, whereas the ‘Progress’ flag is a mish-mash.

The rainbow flag was widely accepted as a positive symbol of inclusion, but the
‘Progress’ flag has been introduced as a money-making competitor.

Rainbow Capitalism.

Judges Overrule Parliament (Again)

Well, well, well. The judiciary has stepped in yet again to tell Parliament what the law “really” means—this time on single-sex spaces and trans inclusion. But unlike the Brexit years, when every judicial decision was painted as an affront to democracy, there’s no outrage from the usual suspects. Why? Because this time, the ruling goes the “right” way.

In a move that’s sent ripples through Westminster and rage through certain corners of Twitter, the High Court has ruled that it’s lawful to exclude trans women from women-only spaces if it’s proportionate and justified. That’s right—under the Equality Act, “sex” means biological sex. Not vibes. Not pronouns. Not how someone feels. Biology.

Women’s refuges, rape crisis centres, changing rooms—they now have the legal backing to say no. And while gender ideologues are fuming, campaigners who’ve been dismissed as “TERFs” are quietly cracking open the prosecco.

Of course, this is a direct result of Parliament’s spinelessness. MPs have been terrified to touch the issue, petrified of a Twitter pile-on, happy to leave policy in the hands of Stonewall and HR departments. The result? A legal grey zone, now cleared up by the courts. Again.

Funny how the rules change depending on who’s getting bruised. When judges blocked Boris from proroguing Parliament, we were told it was an unprecedented assault on democracy. But now? Not a peep. The Guardian isn’t weeping about judicial overreach. The Lib Dems aren’t lighting candles for parliamentary sovereignty. Turns out judicial activism is fine—if it suits your politics.

Let’s be clear: the ruling has big implications. Trans people—especially trans women—now face more legal obstacles in spaces they previously accessed. But that’s not because of judicial cruelty. It’s because Parliament wrote a vague law and then ran away from the fallout.

So here we are. The judges have stepped in. Parliament’s been shown up—again. And the same crowd who screamed about “unelected judges” are now defending them as heroes. Hypocrisy, anyone?

You don’t get to have it both ways. Either you trust the courts to hold the line when politicians bottle it—or you don’t. But spare us the selective outrage.

This time, at least, the judges got it right.

What is a Woman (ANSWERED)

In a significant legal development, the UK has ruled that, within the scope of the Equality Act 2010, the term “woman” refers to biological sex. For many trans people, this has profound implications—not just for their access to certain rights and protections, but for how those rights are now framed in retrospect. What was once considered inclusion is now, legally speaking, revealed to have never truly existed.

To understand the full weight of this moment, consider the concept of an annulment in marriage law. An annulment is not a divorce. It doesn’t dissolve a union that once existed—it states that the union was never valid to begin with. It redefines the past. It asserts that what seemed to be real was, in the eyes of the law, a fiction.

This is what has happened with the redefinition of “woman” under the Equality Act. Rights that many trans people believed they had—such as protections under the category of “sex” or access to single-sex spaces—are now legally framed as having never applied to them in the first place. Not removed. Not repealed. But retroactively deemed never to have existed. It is not a divorce from those rights. It is an annulment.

This kind of legal reconfiguration carries a unique sting. Divorce acknowledges a relationship’s legitimacy, even if it ultimately ends. Annulment does not. In the same way, legal clarity on “sex” may give certain institutions certainty going forward, but it sends a powerful and painful message to trans people: the recognition they believed they had was an illusion.

The practical consequences are immediate—changes in policy around healthcare, prisons, sports, and single-sex services. But the philosophical implications are just as serious. What does it mean for a state to retroactively declare that certain citizens never had the protections they believed they did? What does it mean to be told your inclusion in civil rights law was a misunderstanding, not a mistake corrected, but a misconception exposed?

This is not just a policy clarification; it is a rewriting of the social contract. It invites a broader reckoning with how the law interacts with identity—how it confers recognition, and just as easily, withdraws it. And it leaves many asking: If legal recognition can be annulled, was it ever truly recognition at all?

A New Twist To Murphy’s Law

Murphy’s Law (sometimes called Sod’s Law) tells us that anything that can go wrong will go wrong. If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong.

It can be summarized as “The universe opposes what you try to do.” Toast will always land buttered side down, and so on.

There is a corollary with the big potato, one that says that the universe opposes what you suggest, and even what you think. Whatever you propose will always be opposed by the real world.

It would be a great idea to popularize the word twatterati for the blob and the woke brigade. We managed to have chatterati, meaning the chattering classes, put into the OED. Surely twatterati can’t be far behind?

The Perception of Value: Diamonds, Avocados, and Business Class Flights

Value ain’t something things have on their own—it’s about how we see it. It comes from the meaning we give stuff, not just the thing itself.

Think about business class flights. The plane’s going to the same place whether you’re in the fancy seats or squeezed in the back. Both get there at the same time, but one ticket costs way more just because it feels exclusive. Sure, you get a bit more space and better food, but what you’re really buying is that feeling—like you’re important, special, maybe even a bit fancy. Business class sells a story of privilege, and people are happy to pay for it.

Diamonds are just rocks made of carbon, but thanks to clever ads (DeBeers im looking at you…), they now stand for love and forever. No marketing, no sparkle, right?

Same with avocados. They used to be just a weird fruit. Then came some rebranding and now they’re trendy, showing up on every brunch table. Before that? Not so popular.

Here’s the thing: value is all in what we believe. Economy or business class, tap water or bottled, plain carbon or diamonds—it’s the story we buy into. And in business, that story is everything.

If you’re still having issues with the site: some steps.

Flushing DNS Cache on Common Operating Systems

Windows

  1. Open Command Prompt:
    • Press Win + R, type cmd, and hit Enter.
    • Or search for “Command Prompt” in the Start menu, then right-click and choose “Run as Administrator.”
  2. Run the DNS Flush Command:
    • Type: ipconfig /flushdns and press Enter.
    • You should see a confirmation message: Successfully flushed the DNS Resolver Cache.
  3. Optional: Clear ARP Cache:
    • Type: arp -d * and press Enter.

macOS

  1. Open Terminal:
    • Press Command + Space, type Terminal, and press Enter.
  2. Run the Flush DNS Command:
    • For macOS Monterey and later:
      bash
      sudo dscacheutil -flushcache; sudo killall -HUP mDNSResponder
    • For macOS Catalina, Mojave, and earlier versions:
      bash
      sudo killall -HUP mDNSResponder
    • Enter your admin password if prompted (it won’t be displayed).

 

You can also try using ‘incognito’ or private browsing mode on most browsers, this should fix the problem. Also a hard restart of your PC / Mac and a reset  of your modem / router at the point it comes into your house would work too. If you want to reach out to me direct you can get me at richard [at] continentaltelegraph.com

Assisted Dying – Thoughts

The UK’s decision to legalize the righto die has reignited debate over autonomy, ethics, and the state’s role in life-and-death decisions. For libertarians, this policy is both a victory for personal liberty and a cautionary tale about the risks of state overreach. The issue highlights core principles of individual freedom and raises important questions about safeguarding vulnerable populations.

Libertarians often champion the right to die as an extension of personal autonomy. Decisions about life and death, particularly for those suffering from terminal illnesses or unrelievable pain, are deeply personal and should not be dictated by the state. For advocates, this legislation affirms human dignity, allowing individuals to reclaim control over their lives when suffering undermines their quality of life.

The policy also challenges state authority. Libertarians argue that governments should not impose moral or religious values on private decisions. If individuals are free to refuse medical treatment or make other life-altering choices, they should similarly have the right to choose the timing and manner of their death. From this perspective, the UK’s legislation is a significant rollback of state control, signaling respect for individual sovereignty.

However, the policy raises concerns about implementation and unintended consequences. Libertarians are wary of how the state regulates access to assisted dying. While safeguards like independent medical reviews and eligibility criteria aim to prevent coercion, they also grant the government power to determine who qualifies. Critics fear this could lead to bureaucratic overreach, where the right to die expands beyond its original intent or becomes normalized as an expectation rather than a choice.

Another concern is the potential for societal pressure. Vulnerable individuals, such as the elderly or disabled, might feel coerced into choosing assisted dying due to systemic issues like healthcare costs or insufficient palliative care. Some libertarians worry this policy could create a “slippery slope” where economic incentives, rather than true autonomy, drive decisions. Additionally, there’s a risk that normalizing assisted dying could devalue life itself. Opponents argue that legalizing this practice might reduce societal investment in improving the quality of life for those in distress. Margaret Thatcher once stated, “Watch your thoughts, for they will become actions. Watch your actions, for they will… shape your character. And your character will determine your destiny.” While not directly addressing the issue of assisted dying, her focus on individual responsibility and moral reflection offers a framework for considering the broader societal implications of such policies.

Libertarians who support this policy stress the need for safeguards to ensure that offering the right to die does not erode efforts to support and care for vulnerable populations. The UK’s decision represents a significant cultural shift, emphasizing individual choice in one of life’s most intimate decisions.

For libertarians, it is both a triumph and a challenge—proof that personal liberty can triumph over state control, but also a reminder of the vigilance required to prevent misuse. As this policy unfolds, its success will depend on balancing autonomy with protections for the vulnerable, ensuring that the right to die remains a deeply personal choice rooted in dignity and freedom.

[poll id=”5″]

Why GDP is Not a Good Metric

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has long been used as the primary indicator of a nation’s economic health, but it falls short in capturing the nuances of societal well-being and true prosperity. While it measures the value of transactions in an economy, GDP is ultimately an approximation, not a reflection of quality of life or happiness.

GDP grows when transactions increase, but not all transactions represent genuine progress. For instance, if a man divorces his wife and then pays her to cook and clean, GDP records this as an economic gain. Yet, the activities themselves—cooking and cleaning—haven’t changed, only their categorization as paid labor. This illustrates how GDP can misrepresent societal changes as economic improvements.

Furthermore, GDP fails to account for utility—what actually makes people happy or fulfilled. Imagine someone choosing to work half-time to spend their afternoons fishing, prioritizing leisure over income. While this decision might lower GDP, it could significantly increase their personal satisfaction and well-being. Such scenarios highlight the disconnection between economic output and individual happiness.

By focusing solely on financial transactions, GDP neglects other vital aspects of life, such as environmental health, social cohesion, and personal fulfillment. Such a wide measurement of individual desires is, of course, difficult. Difficult to the point that instead of having targets for what should happen, rather better is to wait, watch, and see what does happen. This spontaneity acknowledges the diversity of human preferences and the unpredictable ways people find fulfillment.

For a more holistic view of progress, we need metrics that emphasize well-being, sustainability, and equitable distribution of resources, rather than merely tracking the flow of money.

National Popular Vote

Thank you to everyone who came to our live blog for the US election. We had record traffic.

We also forgot this blogs birthday in October – 17 years!

Anyhow here is a small take… thoughts?

=======
The Electoral College, the system for electing U.S. presidents, has sparked considerable controversy in recent years due to the possibility that a candidate can be elected president while receiving fewer votes than their opponent. This has happened twice in my lifetime: first in 2000 with George W. Bush and again in 2016 with Donald J. Trump.

Many Americans see this as undemocratic, which led to the launch of the National Popular Vote (NPV) campaign in 2006. The NPV advocate for electors to cast their votes for the candidate who received the most votes nationally, rather than the winner of their individual state.

Seventeen states, along with the District of Columbia, have enacted this approach into law. This group includes states like California, Massachusetts, and Hawaii, collectively representing 209 Electoral College votes. The full list of states is available on the NPV campaign’s website.

Many observers will note that among the states participating in the NPV, only two have voted Republican in the last 20 years, while the others have not done so since the 1980s.

Those of us who supported Donald Trump in this election expected he might lose the popular vote and narrowly win via the Electoral College. To our surprise and delight, he won both decisively—the first time a Republican has done so since before the NPV campaign began.

The Electoral College will vote on December 17th to officially ratify the election results. Will California, a solidly blue state, cast its 54 electoral votes for Donald J. Trump, or will it reconsider the merits of the NPV approach?