The UK’s Slide into Tyranny: The Retreat from Liberty Under the Online Safety Act, By Richard Miller (Londonistan)
The United Kingdom, once a bastion of free speech and individual liberty, is sliding into a troubling era of state overreach and censorship, driven by the National Security and Online Information Team (NSOIT) and the controversial Online Safety Act. Reports from The Telegraph and other sources reveal a secretive government unit, originally tasked with monitoring COVID lockdown dissenters, now repurposed to spy on critics of mass migration and asylum policies. This shift, coupled with an elite police squad scouring social media for "anti-migrant sentiment," signals a dangerous retreat from democratic principles. Under the guise of public safety, the UK government is stifling dissent, eroding free speech, and inching toward tyranny.
The NSOIT, housed within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, began as the Counter Disinformation Unit during the COVID-19 pandemic, targeting lockdown sceptics and vaccine passport critics. Emails uncovered by a U.S. congressional committee show that in August 2024, during riots sparked by the Southport murders, NSOIT officials pressured TikTok to address "concerning narratives" about asylum hotels and "two-tier policing." One email flagged a post referring to asylum seekers as "undocumented fighting-age males," citing its potential to "exacerbate tensions." Another highlighted a video of Pakistani men celebrating in Manchester, captioned "Looks like Islamabad but it's Manchester," claiming it was shared to "incite fear of the Muslim community." A third pointed to a rejected Freedom of Information request about asylum hotel locations, urging TikTok's Trust and Safety team to act with "a definite sense of urgency."
These actions reveal a pattern: the NSOIT, armed with tools originally developed to hunt terrorists, is now monitoring lawful speech critical of government policies. The use of counter-terrorism technology to track domestic dissent, such as posts questioning immigration or policing disparities, raises alarms about mission creep. Big Brother Watch, a civil liberties group, has called for an immediate investigation, warning that this "unaccountable and secretive" unit is "spying on speech that is critical of the police and Government policies." The lack of oversight and vague criteria for "concerning" content suggest a chilling effect on free expression.
The Online Safety Act, touted as a means to protect public safety, has become a blunt instrument for censorship. Reports indicate that within hours of its implementation, X users in the UK faced blocks on footage of anti-migration protests, which erupted after a migrant's alleged assault on a teenage girl in Epping. British users shared screenshots of messages indicating restricted access, suggesting the Act is already being used to suppress controversial but legal content.
The Act's broad regulatory reach, criticised by Elon Musk's X as a threat to free speech, empowers the government to pressure tech companies to police "harmful" content, a term so vague it can encompass anything from incitement to mere criticism of immigration policy. Science Secretary Peter Kyle's threat to shut down platforms like X if they fail to comply, underscores the Act's authoritarian bent. Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, called it "the beginning of the state controlling free speech," a sentiment echoed by Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick, who accused the government of suppressing debate about "two-tier" policing.
The Act's defenders, including government spokespeople, claim it targets only content violating platform rules or inciting violence, not lawful speech. Yet the NSOIT's emails, which don't explicitly demand content removal but urge platforms to "explain measures taken," create a coercive atmosphere. The government's "trusted flagger" status gives it privileged access to social media moderators, amplifying its influence over what stays online. This dynamic, as Big Brother Watch notes, risks turning legitimate concerns about racism or violence into a "blank cheque for the monitoring and censorship of controversial speech."
Compounding these concerns is the Home Office's creation of the National Internet Intelligence Investigations team, an "elite" police unit tasked with monitoring social media for "anti-migrant sentiment" to prevent potential unrest. Operating from the National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC), this unit aims to "maximise social media intelligence" following criticism of police responses to the 2024 Southport riots. The riots, sparked by false claims that a Muslim asylum seeker killed three children, highlighted the volatility of immigration debates, but the solution, surveilling online speech, raises serious questions.
Critics like Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp argue this focus on "policing what you post, what you share, what you think" diverts resources from addressing actual crime. Nigel Farage called it "sinister" and "dangerous," warning of a surveillance state. The unit's mandate, backed by recommendations from the Commons Home Affairs Committee and HMICFRS, prioritises pre-emptive monitoring over reactive policing, yet its vague criteria for "potential unrest" risk criminalising dissent. The jailing of Lucy Connolly for 31 months over an inflammatory post about asylum hotels exemplifies this heavy-handed approach, further eroding public trust.
The NSOIT's focus on migration critics comes amid growing public discontent. Approximately 32,000 asylum seekers are housed in UK hotels, costing taxpayers £4 million daily, producing tensions in communities like Epping, where protests erupted after an alleged assault. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has pledged to end hotel use by 2029, but Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner's admission that the government must address "real concerns" about immigration suggests an awareness of public frustration. Yet, instead of tackling root causes, like strained public services or housing shortages, the government is doubling down on surveillance and censorship.
The "two-tier policing" narrative, popularised by Farage and Jenrick, reflects perceptions that authorities treat white protesters more harshly than ethnic minorities, a claim NSOIT flagged as inflammatory. While the government denies direct censorship, its actions, pressuring tech firms and deploying police to monitor speech, suggest an intent to control the narrative rather than address underlying grievances. This approach risks alienating communities further, as a 2025 YouGov poll found 55% of Britons feel cultural heritage is under threat, a sentiment often tied to immigration debates.
The U.S., under the Trump administration, has taken notice. Congressman Jim Jordan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, subpoenaed TikTok to uncover NSOIT's communications, warning that "mean tweets get you a longer prison sentence than many violent offences." The U.S. State Department labelled Europe's social media regulations, including the Online Safety Act, as "Orwellian," with American congressmen meeting Peter Kyle to express concerns about censorship of U.S. companies. This international scrutiny underscores the global stakes: if the UK can suppress speech under vague "safety" pretexts, other democracies may follow, such as Australia, also under the yoke of a Labor federal government.
The UK's trajectory is alarming. A government unit, rebranded from its COVID-era role, uses counter-terrorism tools to monitor lawful speech. An elite police squad polices "anti-migrant sentiment" while street crime persists. The Online Safety Act, with its expansive reach, enables state pressure on tech platforms, chilling free expression. These measures, justified as protecting public safety, echo the authoritarian playbook: control narratives, silence critics, and prioritise state power over individual rights.
The NSOIT's actions during the Southport riots, flagging posts for their tone rather than illegality, set a dangerous precedent. As Big Brother Watch warns, "legitimate concerns about racism and violence must not become a blank cheque for censorship." The government's denial of direct censorship rings hollow when its "trusted flagger" status and urgent emails pressure platforms to act. The jailing of individuals like Lucy Connolly for inflammatory posts, while serious crimes often receive lighter sentences, fuels perceptions of a "two-tier" justice system, further eroding trust.
The UK must reverse course. Free speech, as Reform UK and civil liberties groups argue, is the cornerstone of democracy, not a threat to be managed. The government should dismantle the NSOIT, commission an independent review of its activities, and repeal the Online Safety Act's overly broad provisions. Policing should focus on physical safety, addressing knife crime and public disorder, rather than thought crimes online. Public concerns about immigration, from housing costs to cultural cohesion, deserve open debate, not surveillance.
The UK stands at a crossroads. One path leads to deeper tyranny, where dissent is criminalised, and liberty is sacrificed for control. The other demands courage to defend free speech, confront hard truths about immigration, and rebuild trust through transparency. The retreat from liberty must end, or the UK risks becoming a state where criticism is a crime, and tyranny reigns under the banner of safety.
Comments