The British State, in its infinite filth and hypocrisy, would like you to believe that it is deeply concerned about what you do with your penis. Or more precisely, what you look at while your hand is on it. The latest wheeze—part of the Online Safety Act—is mandatory age verification for all pornographic websites. We’re told it’s to stop children from seeing naughty videos. In reality, it’s a spyware regime disguised as child protection, devised by a ruling class that snorts coke with one hand while signing surveillance warrants with the other.

Let’s start with the pretence. No one in Westminster cares what children watch online. These are the same people who presided over the industrial-scale rape of working-class girls in Rotherham, Telford, Rochdale, and elsewhere—refusing to intervene for fear of “racism.” The idea that they now lie awake worrying about a Year Eight boy glimpsing a MILF thumbnail on Pornhub is an insult to the intelligence. They don’t care about children. They care about you.

The age-verification scheme isn’t just about proving you’re eighteen. It’s about linking your name and your age, and your IP address to your viewing habits. Whether it’s ID upload or facial recognition or some third-party database, the outcome is the same: a digital file that knows what you watch and when you watch it.

In a normal country, this would be recognised as deeply perverse. In ours, it’s dressed up as safety. The State that can’t fix the trains, that can’t keep the hospitals clean, now wants the power to log whether you’re big-enders or little-enders. And all under the banner of protecting the kiddies.

Yes, of course it’s technically possible to anonymise verification. But only if you believe that governments, regulators, and their corporate collaborators are incapable of abuse. That’s a belief I do not share. This is the same British government that let GCHQ harvest your webcam feeds and your phone calls under the TEMPORA programme. You didn’t vote for that. You weren’t told about it. You found out because Edward Snowden blew the whistle.

Do you really think the same regime won’t take an interest in which adult videos you watch? Anyone with an ounce of memory knows how this goes. Every intrusive policy begins with “think of the children.” The Video Recordings Act. The Dangerous Dogs Act. The Terrorism Act. And now the Online Safety Act. Once the infrastructure is in place, it never stays limited to its original purpose.

The definition of “harmful content” is vague for a reason. It can grow. It can stretch. Today it’s Pornhub. Tomorrow it’s Twitter. Then it’s dissident blogs, pro-life websites, or even a dodgy meme about immigration statistics. In the end, the target isn’t porn—it’s dissent.

Ofcom, that talentless bureaucracy, has already delayed implementation because no one quite knows how to define “pornographic content.” The law requires technical standards and compliance frameworks that don’t exist yet. But that won’t stop them. Eventually they’ll settle on a definition—and it’ll be one that can change without debate.

This is not about protecting children from seeing things that will scar them. If it were, the focus would be on the YouTube algorithm that feeds suicidal ideation to 14-year-olds. Or on TikTok, which teaches anorexia like it’s an A-Level. But no, it’s the adult who wants to watch consenting adults having sex that must be monitored.

This is surveillance theatre. A moral panic used to smuggle in a tracking regime. Once enough adults submit ID to watch porn, the database becomes an instrument of leverage. The police, the taxman, your employer—all might find it handy. A divorced dad who watches trans porn? A teacher into BDSM? The potential for social control is almost unlimited.

Meanwhile, the whole scheme is laughably easy to bypass. VPNs are widely available and often free, and require no more technical skill than installing Spotify. Children are not stupid. They will find workarounds. The only people likely to comply are law-abiding adults—precisely the ones the State wants to track.

There is something uniquely foul about a government so morally rotten that it wants to track your private pleasures while turning a blind eye to public crimes. This is a regime that protects paedophile MPs and jails whistleblowers. It sells arms to dictators. It gives cover to genocide in Gaza. And now it wants your driving licence before you can look at breasts.

These are people with no moral authority whatsoever. Their private lives are a catalogue of cocaine binges, rent-boy orgies, private flights to Epstein’s island, and child support scandals. We are governed by people whose own browsing histories would make the Marquis de Sade blush.

The difference is that when they indulge, they do it on taxpayer money, with absolute immunity. When you do it, they want a file. A record. Something to use against you later—when you apply for a job, or say the wrong thing online.

We see you. We know what this is. We know that “protect the children” is the fig leaf. We know that surveillance is the point. And we know, too, that once you get your foot in the door, you will not stop. You never do.

So here is a simple warning to the politicians, the regulators, and the parasites advising them: the internet is not your property. What adults do in private is not your business. And if your own private lives were ever subjected to the scrutiny you now wish to impose on others, you would flee Parliament faster than a Tory donor from a paternity test.

You’re not our guardians. You’re our enemies. And we know it.

Related posts:

A Civil War Britain Deserves—But Will Never Fight

Powered by YARPP.