For the past week in New York and Philadelphia, I’ve been quietly blending in, asking Democrat voters a series of questions about election integrity —without revealing where I stand politically.
Here are five short takeaways from what I found… 🇺🇸🧵
1) Democrat voters are sympathetic to the press
With my English accent and explaining that I’m in the U.S. to ask questions about election integrity, Democrat voters were more willing to give unfiltered opinions on whether they see election fraud as a major issue.
Their trust in the media was striking. In contrast, Trump voters I spoke to were also eager to share their thoughts but were reluctant to go on camera, fearing it could jeopardize their jobs.
2) Democrats do not see election integrity as a major issue
There have been reports showing that non-citizens have illegally voted in this 2024 election, mail-in ballots have included votes from the deceased, and states without voter ID requirements are vulnerable to manipulation.
Yet, when I presented this evidence to Democrats and asked if they felt it was significant, they dismissed it as a minor issue, suggesting it occurs on too small a scale for Americans to worry.
3) Is Voter ID racist?
I asked both white liberals and non-white liberals if they believe Voter ID laws in the U.S. are “racist.” Nearly every white liberal I spoke to said yes, claiming it “prevents people of color from voting.”
But when I posed the same question to non-white liberals, none had heard this argument before, and they all responded, “Of course it isn’t racist.”
4) Election integrity is only a topic because of Trump
Some Democrats I spoke with believe that election integrity and fraud only became issues because Trump made them political.
However, election manipulation by both parties was documented before 2016. When I reminded them of this, they ultimately conceded that election integrity remains a legitimate concern but often attributed its prominence to Trump’s influence.
5) “Do you think the U.S. government is fixing election fraud/interference issues?”
When I asked this question, most Democrat voters paused, struggling to answer.
They knew Harris/Waltz don’t support Voter ID, despite it potentially closing voting system loopholes. Yet, each one strangely insisted, “Yes, the government is working on it; I just don’t know when.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
NOW — I’ve obtained a Treasury briefing, prepared for Davos 2020, revealing how the UK government aligns itself with WEF priorities like “inclusive growth,” climate change policy and digitisation.
Whilst 5 years old, it’s important to view this and how it’s structured.
🧵(1/9)
This document was drafted for the Chancellor ahead of Davos. Though it remained a draft (the Chancellor didn’t speak), it sets out the UK’s positioning on global fiscal & monetary policy in the WEF’s own framing.
🧵(2/9)
The document contained biographies of other attendees including, the Secretary of the Treasury (USA), President of the European Central Bank and the Vice-Chancellor and federal minister of finance, Germany.
The Telegraph have just lifted my exclusive FOI scoop without a single mention or credit.
The Telegraph previously lifted one of my FOI exclusives and didn’t credit, I was just grateful the story got wider attention. But this is just becoming plagiarism.
On July 31st, I published official NHS data obtained via my FOI showing that over 920,000 full-health HC2 certificates had been issued to asylum seekers since 2020.
Now, The Telegraph have run the exact same figures, same framing, and same headline narrative without credit. Again.
🧵 THREAD: Today I submitted 60 FOI requests to 14 UK government departments across 11 thematic areas — covering climate policy, surveillance, immigration, censorship, ideological training, and more.
All findings will be published in full.
Each request targets a critical area of modern governance — from climate data manipulation and digital surveillance to immigration enforcement, NGO influence, and ideological conditioning inside public institutions.
This is a broad-spectrum transparency campaign focused on exposing:
- Technocratic overreach
- Institutional bias
- Globalist policy alignment
- Withheld or suppressed public interest information
Requests have been organised by theme and will be published as responses arrive.
🧵THREAD: The WHO Pandemic Agreement has now passed.
There was no parliamentary vote, no public debate, and no referendum.
This thread explains what was agreed, how it happened, and why concerns about sovereignty, accountability, and global governance are growing.
[1/15]
On 20th May 2025, WHO member states adopted the organisation’s first international Pandemic Agreement at the 78th World Health Assembly in Geneva.
The treaty was adopted by consensus, not a formal vote, which means that governments, including the UK, signalled approval without domestic scrutiny.
[2/15]
The treaty is designed to address failings exposed by how countries "handled COVID-19."
It outlines legal commitments to:
– Share pathogen samples & genetic data
– Distribute vaccines & therapeutics “equitably”
– Strengthen international surveillance
– Comply with WHO-led emergency declarations
– Develop global digital health certification systems
I’ve submitted multiple Information requests on key issues -- from government propaganda to immigration policy, meetings with Bill Gates & Larry Fink, corporate influence, media control, and AI development.
Here’s what we are waiting for 🧵
Government-Funded Anti-Migration Ads
The UK government launched advertising campaigns aimed at deterring Albanian migrants from coming to Britain. These campaigns portrayed the UK as an undesirable place for them to come.
- Who funded them?
- How much was spent?
- What impact did they have?
I’ve requested documents revealing the strategy behind this campaign, other anti-migration campaigns and whether the government believes it actually worked (it hasn't and the taxpayer is wasting more money).
The Meeting between Bill Gates & Keir Starmer
Shortly before the Labour government announced its budget in 2024, Bill Gates met with Starmer and Rachel Reeves. Since my first request back in December, this request has been delayed for 3 months, citing that disclosing the information may 'affect the public policy-making process.'
- Was the Gates Foundation involved in shaping UK agricultural policy?
- Were land ownership and climate policies discussed?
My request seeks records of the meeting, where a response is expected by February 20th.