🧵The Safeguards Parliament Rejected: A System Built for Abuse

This past week, Parliament passed one of the most ethically weighty pieces of legislation in modern times: the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

Much of the public believe this law introduces "compassionate choice" for the terminally ill. But what they were not told is this:

Almost every amendment designed to protect the vulnerable was rejected.

The final version of this Bill passed without the core safeguards that would have made it ethically defensible, clinically robust, or socially safe.

Below is a breakdown of what Parliament chose not to include and how the final Bill fails to protect the very people it affects most. Section 1: Mental Competency and Coercion

What Parliament Rejected and What It Means for Consent and Control

When a person decides they want help to die, the first and most important question is whether that decision is truly free. Not made in despair. Not made in fear. Not made because they feel they are a burden. Not made because they have been subtly encouraged to die.

The second most important question is whether those around them, the doctors, the family, the legal system, have taken every possible step to make sure of that.

Parliament had multiple chances to lock in protections for both. It rejected every one.

🟥 Parliament Rejected

• Amendment 17 (Dr Ben Spencer)
Required a formal mental capacity test based on the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This would have ensured doctors confirmed not just that the person “understood,” but that they had properly processed the implications of their diagnosis and the consequences of their request, including palliative care and alternatives to assisted death.

❌ Rejected

• Amendment NC16 (Rebecca Paul)
Proposed that people should not be eligible if their desire to die was substantially motivated by feeling like a burden, by depression, or by poor living conditions. While it addressed internalised pressures, it did not explicitly reference coercion

❌ Rejected by a vote of 283 to 230

• Amendment 2 (Dame Meg Hillier)
Aimed to stop doctors from initiating assisted dying conversations with patients. This safeguard would have reduced the risk of undue influence by ensuring only patients could raise the topic

❌ Rejected by a vote of 256 to 230

🟩 What the Bill Actually Includes

• Clause 1
Defines eligibility as any “adult” with a terminal illness. It does not restrict eligibility based on state of mind, motivation or coercion

• Clause 3
Requires signoff from two independent doctors and review by an Assisted Dying Review Panel consisting of a lawyer, psychiatrist and social worker, not a judge as originally proposed.
However:

• Neither doctor is required to specialise in the patient’s condition

• The second doctor is not required to meet the patient

• There is no obligation to assess the presence of depression, trauma or internalised pressure

• The psychiatrist on the panel is not required to assess the individual patient

• There is no formal Mental Capacity Act test

• There is no requirement for family input or consultation

• There is no right of appeal for concerned relatives

• Clause 5
Makes coercion a criminal offence (up to 14 years’ imprisonment) but does not provide any mechanism to detect it, such as mandatory psychological evaluation or independent safeguarding review

❗ The Result

Despite what supporters claim, this Bill does not protect people from making life ending decisions under pressure.

Yes, it requires two doctors, but neither needs to know the patient, understand their condition or be trained in mental health. One can simply review the forms and approve the death.

Yes, it requires a panel to confirm the request, but that panel’s role is limited to checking whether procedures were followed, not independently assessing whether the decision is truly free or safe.

There is no mandatory mental health assessment
There is no family consultation requirement
There is no appeals process for concerned relatives

While patients can withdraw consent before administration (Clause 6), there is no mechanism for others to pause the process or ensure the patient hasn’t changed their mind.

No safeguard if the person changes their mind.

🧩 Additional Context

• The Royal College of Psychiatrists has warned that 65 percent of its members do not believe consent is a reliable safeguard in assisted dying cases

• Leading MPs including Rachael Maskell stated in the Commons that the rejection of amendments like NC16 left clear openings for coercion and emotional manipulation

• Despite these warnings, Parliament pressed forward

This is not a framework for dignity.

It is a fast track to death, signed off without certainty, supervision or accountability.

And those left behind will never know if it was truly what the person wanted.

1/ Parliament just passed an amendment that allows women to self abort their child at any stage of pregnancy

Even at full term
Even in the ninth month
Even in labour
No doctor
No oversight
No prosecution

This is now legal in the United Kingdom 2/ There is no gestational limit

There is no requirement for medical supervision

There is no legal consequence if the baby is born alive and no help is called

This is not a hypothetical

This is not sensationalism

This is what the amendment allows

🧵 The UK is about to legalise quiet elimination

No diagnosis
No judge
No family involvement
No appeal
This is not compassion.

It is the Terminally Ill Adults Bill.

It returns to Parliament Friday 20 June.

It must be stopped.
👇 🔹 1️⃣
If passed, the bill will allow:

• Death based on a doctor’s guess that you might die in six months

• No requirement for diagnosis, scans or second opinions

• No family notification

• No appeal

• No judicial oversight

👇

🔴 🧵: The vote on the End of Life Bill was due to happen today Friday 13 June.

It’s now been postponed to Friday 20 June.

Why?

Because it’s unsafe.
Because it’s not fit for purpose.
Because it’s bad legislation.

So bad, 122 amendments were tabled, many just days before the vote.
👇 2️⃣ You don’t throw 122 amendments at a well-written bill days before a final vote.

This isn’t routine, it’s panic.

Even its supporters know it’s full of holes.

They’re now scrambling to patch what never should’ve passed First Reading.

🧵 THIS BILL IS HOW THE NHS COULD LEGALLY END YOUR LIFE — WITHOUT YOU EVEN KNOWING

This Friday, Parliament votes on the
Access to Palliative and End of Life Care and Treatment (Terminal Illness) Bill.

They claim it is about dignity for the dying.
But the truth is far darker.

It gives the NHS the legal power to quietly end your life
Even if you could survive.

Here is how 👇 1️⃣The bill sounds caring.

Who would not support better access to palliative care?

But what it actually does is create a legal framework for silent medical killings

With no consent

No challenge

No consequences

Let us look closer

🧵 The BritCard: The Most Dangerous Policy You’ve Never Voted For

1) They’re calling it BritCard.

A digital ID.

A “convenient” way to access public services.
But behind the branding lies the greatest threat to British liberty in modern history.

Let’s break down what’s really happening… 🧵 2) BritCard would create a mandatory digital ID linked to every part of your life:

Health records

Benefits

Housing

Education

Bank access

Driving licence

Voting rights

You would need it to exist as a citizen.

🧵 The British Democracy Illusion:

How the Royal Prerogative Keeps Power Beyond the Reach of the People 👇 Introduction

We are told that Britain is a democracy. That we vote for representatives who govern on our behalf. That Parliament is sovereign. That no major decisions are made without public accountability.

But this is, at best, a comforting illusion.

Behind the traditions, the rituals, and the televised debates lies a constitutional relic that makes a mockery of democratic principle.

It is called the Royal Prerogative, and it still governs how our country is run.

What Is the Royal Prerogative?

The Royal Prerogative is a set of powers once wielded by monarchs who ruled by divine right.

Today, those same powers are used by government ministers without the need for Parliament’s consent.
These powers include:

Signing treaties
Deploying troops
Appointing ministers and judges
Dissolving Parliament
Granting pardons
Controlling passports and citizenship
And more

Critically, the power to commit the UK to international agreements on matters as serious as public health, defence, or territorial sovereignty remains fully in the hands of ministers.

Parliament does not vote. The public does not consent. Yet the effects are profound and often irreversible.

1/
Did you vote for the WHO Pandemic Treaty?

Did you approve giving away UK territory?

Did you back a 12-year EU fishing deal?

No? Neither did Parliament.

This is how the Royal Prerogative is gutting UK democracy. 2/
The Royal Prerogative is a leftover from the days of kings and queens ruling by decree.

Today, government ministers use it in the monarch’s name to bypass the House of Commons, and they're using it more than ever.

🧵The WHO Pandemic Treaty is the most dangerous attack on British freedom you have never heard of.

And your MP will not vote on it.

Read this carefully. Then share it. 1) This treaty gives unelected officials at the World Health Organization sweeping powers to control how the UK handles pandemics, define what counts as “truth,” and ignore our Parliament entirely.

It is not a conspiracy theory. It is written in the treaty itself.

🚨 Integrity Matters. 🚨

Over the past five months, we’ve worked tirelessly to build a real grassroots movement for Reform UK in our constituencies. We believed in a party that stood for accountability, democracy, and real change.

Sadly, the actions of Reform UK’s leadership have made it impossible for us to continue in good conscience. When integrity is compromised, blind loyalty is not an option.

With deep regret, we—every officer in our branch—are resigning with immediate effect. Our full statement explains why.

(Read the letter below) ⬇️ @ZiaYusufUK @Nigel_Farage @reformparty_uk @TiceRichard @LeeAndersonMP_ @RupertLowe10 Date and Time: Friday, March 14, 2025, 17:10 GMT

Dear Mr Yusuf,

Integrity matters to us.

Cliché it might be, but this letter has been deeply sad to write.

We are the interim Branch Officers for Reform UK, Chester North and Neston / Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, and we are all resigning from our posts, in concert and with immediate effect.

We can no longer represent Reform UK. We can no longer face our voters, your masters, Mr Yusuf, and sincerely defend your Party’s actions. This decision comes after careful thought and with resounding unity.

I Am Thinking of Building a Global Politician Surveillance System.

The Tools Are Already Available.

Who is In?

Governments have built a vast surveillance network to monitor, control and restrict us.

They track our finances, online activity, movements and even conversations.

But who is watching them?

It is time to turn the tables.

I want to build a real time global system that monitors politicians, tracks their votes, analyses their laws and exposes their actions before it is too late.

If they track us we track them. If they try to hide we expose them.

Here is how we can do it🧵 1 What Would This System Do

🔹 Track every bill in real time

✅ Pull legislative data from public APIs starting with the UK then expanding globally

✅ Use AI automation to analyse bills before they pass identifying

•The worst case scenario of each law such as surveillance, financial control and censorship

•Hidden clauses that attack freedoms

•Which MPs are backing it and who is fighting it

🚨 They rely on us only seeing the impact after it is too late. This stops that.

🧵 The Data (Use and Access) Bill

The Digital Control Grid is Here

We stopped the Climate & Nature Bill (for now), but they haven’t given up.

Instead of trying to control our resources first, they’re building the digital infrastructure to control us instead.

This bill is slipping through Parliament quietly and unless we expose it, it will pass before people even realise what’s happening.

Let’s break it down 👇 1️⃣ What Is the Data (Use and Access) Bill?

The Government claims this bill is about:

✅ "Cutting red tape"
✅ "Boosting efficiency"
✅ "Helping businesses and public services share data"

Sounds harmless, right?

🚨 Wrong.

This bill lays the foundation for mass financial surveillance, a national digital ID system, and automated enforcement of government policies.

It’s not about making data more accessible. it’s about making YOU more controllable.

🧵: THEY KNEW. THEY LIED. THEY MURDERED THEM.

1/ Every time I go back to this, it makes me sick. The elderly in care homes were not cared for.

They were systematically killed with Midazolam and Morphine and their deaths were falsely recorded as COVID to fuel a manufactured crisis. 2/ Since 2021, many of us have been exposing this. We were ridiculed, ignored, and silenced. But now, with a senior coroner confirming the truth, the cover-up is crumbling. The state executed the vulnerable and called it a pandemic.

🧵 The NHS is Broken. Vulnerable Patients Are Being Left to Rot Until Someone Kicks Off

1/ Five years ago, my mother in law was diagnosed with dementia.

It is a cruel, degenerative disease. Over time, it strips away memory, independence, and eventually even the ability to move. 2/ Before the COVID Scamdemic, we made the decision to keep her at home rather than put her in a care facility.

We have managed her care as a family, ensuring she had dignity and comfort.

1)

https://x.com/chrislittlewoo8/status/1878431823132229893

2)

https://x.com/chrislittlewoo8/status/1878434062525767864

🚨 The Climate and Nature Bill: A Blueprint for Tyranny 🚨

This bill, with its second reading on 24 January 2025, has the backing of 192 MPs, councils, mayors, and political parties.

But beneath the flowery language lies a chilling reality: mass control, surveillance, and the destruction of your freedoms.

Here’s what they don’t want you to know 👇 1/

The Climate and Nature Bill claims to "protect the planet," but in reality, it will enslave the majority while sparing the elites.

Read the bill yourself and see the truth behind their words:

👉 zerohour.uk/downloads/clim…

UK Labour MP Justin Madders: A Record of Silence and Neglect
A 🧵👇

1/

12 months ago, I met with UK Labour MP Justin Madders, then Shadow Minister for Employment Rights and Protections. I presented clear, scientific evidence on the dangerous inclusion of SV40 DNA in COVID-19 mRNA injections and its implications.

I warned him about the following: 2/

•SV40 DNA: A known oncogenic element capable of integrating into human DNA.

•Its delivery via lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), designed to penetrate cells, making integration even more likely.

•The heightened cancer risk, especially for children, whose developing immune systems are most vulnerable.

They injected your children for profit, status, greed, and power.

The harm, injuries, and deaths of children were mere collateral in their pursuit of personal gain.

IgG class switching, SV40 and the implications for your children.

A 🧵👇 1. COVID Infections Post-Injection:

Every child in the following study caught COVID after receiving the Pfizer injection.

COVID posed an extremely low risk to healthy children, making it unethical to inject them with an untested gene therapy.

A story about @RevolutApp

Going through my VAT return today, I noticed they had decided to take £750 per month in charges out of my account.

Worried, I contacted them.

The following screenshots of our conversation show how bad this is.

FYI I have held this account for a long time and never agreed to these changes.

So we move on with this ridiculous conversation, it’s taken hours

A 🧵that scares me more than anything else. 👇

The slow release of the most terrifying information ever published by the BBC, couched in lies, platitudes & soothing language.

bbc.com/news/health-67… Lie 1

“Covid vaccines given to millions of people could be fine-tuned for even greater accuracy, UK scientists say.”

No, what they really said is the injections have been exposed by independent scientific studies to do exactly what was hidden from Governments & the Public.

A 🧵about the explosive growth of Cancer in 14-44 years olds in the UK

Don’t bother trying to tell me this is all because we closed cancer screening for 4 months in early 2020.

That excuse just doesn’t wash anymore.

I dread to think what 2023 will show.👇 Turbo Cancer 59% Rise in 2022

Analysis of Excess Adjusted Death Rates from Malignant Neoplasms Without
Specification of Site

In the Figure (left) below we can observe that the excess deaths rates from malignant neoplasms without specification of site were close to zero in 2020, then rose to about +32% in 2021 and about +59% in 2022.

In terms of statistical significance of the excess deaths, we observe from the Figure (right) below that for cancers without specification of site, in 2020 the Z-score for adjusted death rates was low, which point to low statistical significance.

In 2021 the Z-score was about 3.1, which is a strong signal in statistical terms.

In 2022 the Z-score was close to 6, which is a very strong signal and indicates that the excess deaths from these cancers are statistically significant deviations from the 2010-2019 trend.

When looking at changes in the fraction of all deaths attributed to cancers without specification of site, we observe that the fraction of deaths from these cancers were slightly below trend in 2020 and at 13% above trend for 2021 (with low statistical significance).

In 2022 however, the fraction of deaths for these cancers jumped about 42%, with a Z-score of above 4, indicating very high statistical significance.

It appears that deaths from cancers without specification of site as a fraction of all deaths deviated significantly from prior trends in 2022.

Summary:

Our analysis shows that the excess deaths rates from malignant neoplasms without specification of site were close to zero in 2020, then rose to about +32% in 2021 and about +59% in 2022.

The excess mortality from malignant neoplasm without specification of site in 2021 and 2022 are highly statistically significant with Z-scores of 3.1 and close to 6, respectively. These are very strong signals, in particular for 2022.

These signals are corroborated by similar findings when measuring rises in the fraction of deaths from malignant neoplasms without specification of site relative to all other deaths with classified causes.