This national challenge really is an every‑single‑person challenge — apart from the ones being challenged. In this easy chat, Sean and I break down what the PAP is actually about, why it’s nothing like the local PAPs, and why it finally tackles the legal footing of LGR instead of fighting over who runs it. After the PAP stage, we’ll need support for the court fee, and every contribution helps. fundraising link : https://sites.google.com/view/nationalresidentscivicaffairs/resident-led-judicial-review-fund-governance-audit-and-consent?authuser=0

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit hplibrary.substack.com

A note on this morning’s appearance with Sonia Poulton

I am grateful to lovely Sonia Poulton for the opportunity to speak this morning. For those of you who have been following this work from the beginning, you will know how difficult it is to compress years of documented evidence into fifteen minutes, and into general summary of the issue.

But that is exactly why I am sharing the clip here. For many people the small print being read loud in Parliament right now is still completely unknown. The regulations, the secondary legislation, the FOI responses, the ministerial letters confirming one thing while councils do another , none of it makes the headlines. And yet it is precisely in that small print that decisions affecting every part of our lives are being made, reshaped and pushed through.

If this little conversation reached even a few people who had never really come across devolution and the current LGR programme before, then that in itself could help create the clarity needed for real change.

One final note. Published today .. the same day the Bill returns to Parliament, the Local Government Chronicle’s confidence survey finds that only 16% of senior council figures believe local government is being listened to by Westminster. Not 16% of residents. 16% of the councils supposedly leading this programme. Only 35% expect power to actually be devolved , down from 59% when the programme started. Only 24% trust the government - halved since 2024.

The “locally led” Bill that strips out real local consent is not even trusted by the people it claims to be led by

.

Thank you Sonia. The work you do in keeping a space open for conversations that don’t make the mainstream, or some of the big “alternative” outlets either - matters more than I can say.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit hplibrary.substack.com

PART ONE(click)

Watch on youtube

These documents are only a tiny selection from a much larger national evidence archive obtained by the Heritage Party and by residents across the country.

A small selection has already been submitted to the House of Lords in debates that are now reshaping local government — decisions that affect our present, and future generations.

The wider archive has also been provided to the National Audit Office and other oversight routes, because what these documents expose is not a minor dispute.

They show a blatant democratic failure: major structural change is being pushed through while the key element is missing — real public consent, backed by real evidence, real consultation, clear decision routes, and a lawful process.

That is why this is a forensic audit. It is not opinion. It is the paper trail

PLEASE SUPPORT:

JOIN- SUPPORT-HERITAGE PARTY

.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit hplibrary.substack.com

Are you really hearing what’s being said — or just the slogans designed to keep you comfortable and engaged?If it feels reassuring, it may be doing its job.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit hplibrary.substack.com

Across the UK — and increasingly in Wales — a troubling pattern is emerging. Wildlife deaths are rapidly attributed to avian influenza, emergency responses are triggered, carcasses are removed, public access is restricted… and then the trail of hard evidence goes cold.

What remains is not a clear, site-specific scientific picture -past formal objections but a protocol-driven narrative that something dangerous happened and swift action was justified.

The problem is not that bird flu exists.The problem is that assumption is starting to replace investigation.

And when wildlife disappears under an “emergency” label, the environmental protections that normally restrict land use and development can quietly erase along with it.

As part of our investigation, we submitted formal information requests to the relevant authorities seeking the documented evidential basis and decision frameworks underpinning their emergency disease declarations and response measures. The responses received — including APHA correspondence dated 28 January 2026 and Cardiff Council’s EIR response 14, January 2026 - revealed that actions were largely guided by national mitigation protocols rather than site-specific investigation

“In the Roath Park Lake case, APHA confirmed laboratory detection of Influenza A viral RNA in two swans (APHA Ref. 28-B0010-12-25), but no post-mortem evidence was provided demonstrating that avian influenza was the confirmed cause of death. Subsequent mortality events at the site were managed under precautionary surveillance protocols, with most carcasses neither collected nor laboratory tested.”

“Cardiff Council’s response (FOI24614) confirmed that no independent environmental assessment — such as water quality, toxin screening, or ecological differential diagnosis — was undertaken at the site, and that decision-making meetings were not recorded or retained.”

Case Study: Roath Park Lake, Cardiff – December 2025

At Roath Park Lake, two swans tested positive for Influenza A viral RNA. That is a confirmed laboratory finding.

But here is what did not happen:

* No post-mortem pathology confirming avian influenza caused their deaths

* No testing of most other dead birds found at the site

* No environmental investigation (water quality, toxins, botulism, algae, pollution)

* No documented local risk assessment

* No retained record of decision-making meetings that triggered public warnings and site actions

Instead, after two positive detections:

✔ Testing largely stopped✔ Remaining deaths were treated as part of an “avian flu incident”✔ Precautionary measures rolled out✔ The situation managed under a pre-written mitigation protocol

That is not a full investigation.That is emergency procedure operating on limited confirmation.

Detection Is Not the Same as Cause of Death

A PCR test detects viral RNA. It does not automatically prove:

* That the virus caused the animal’s death

* That all nearby deaths have the same cause

* That alternative explanations have been ruled out

Yet once a few positives are found, the label often spreads to every carcass in the area — without testing.

That is an evidential leap.

The Broader Pattern

This is not just one park.

In multiple locations where Freedom of Information requests have been made, similar features appear:

* Very small numbers of birds tested compared to total deaths

* Heavy reliance on “surveillance thresholds” that limit further collection

* Decisions based on national contingency plans rather than local investigation

* No environmental exclusion of other mortality causes

* Poor documentation or loss of decision records

The language is always the same:“Scientific advice”, “standard protocol”, “precautionary approach”.

But site-specific evidence is often missing.

When Wildlife Disappears, So Do Planning Obstacles

Here is the uncomfortable reality.

Wildlife and protected species are often the strongest legal barriers to development. Environmental law requires surveys, mitigation, habitat protection, and sometimes refusal of planning applications.

Dead birds and depopulated areas change that landscape.

This article does not claim that disease responses are deliberately used to clear development paths.

But it is a fact that:

* Wildlife loss reduces ecological constraints

* Disease classification can accelerate removal of animals

* Once labelled a disease event, scrutiny often decreases

That overlap deserves examination — not dismissal.

The Real Issue: Evidence vs Assumption

At Roath Park Lake and elsewhere, the key distinction is this:

Confirmed Not Demonstrated Virus detected in limited tested birds.

That avian influenza caused all deaths National disease protocols exist

That local environmental factors were investigated Precautionary management applied

That proportionality was evidence-based

Emergency frameworks are designed for speed.But speed without evidence becomes automatic attribution.

And automatic attribution can hide the real causes — or justify actions that go beyond what the data actually supports.

A Call for Proper Investigation

No one disputes that disease control can, in some cases, be necessary — but disease control does not automatically mean culling

The wildlife disease responses should be:

* Evidence-led

* Site-specific

* Transparently documented

* Open to independent scrutiny

If a virus is the cause, show the full chain of proof.If other causes were excluded, show how.

Without that, “bird flu” risks becoming a label that ends investigation instead of starting it.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit hplibrary.substack.com

What we are facing today in Britain is not something new.It is something very old, something many of us have already lived through and fought to escape.

In communist Poland, control did not arrive all at once.It arrived through documents, permissions, stamps, and a thousand small rules that slowly tightened around everyday life.Everyone carried an internal identity book.The police could stop you at any moment and demand to see it, and your entire future depended on what it contained.Your home, your work, your ability to travel, even the way teachers spoke to your children — all of it was shaped by whether the state considered you politically obedient.

The Soviet Union had strict movement zones, but Poland had its own version of the same logic: residency registration called meldunek, constant identity checks, and permissions tied to whether you were a “reliable citizen.”The system captured you from childhood.Every pupil was issued a temporary ID booklet by the local authority, and you had to show it — along with your health ID book — each time you started school, each time you started a job, and during routine inspections.It taught us very early that your life was only valid if the state recognised it.

Travel abroad was almost impossible.A Polish passport wasn’t your property.You didn’t keep it at home.You applied to borrow it from the authorities, and only the most obedient citizens were ever approved.If you were one of the lucky few, the passport was taken from you the moment you returned and replaced with your internal ID book, now carrying fresh stamps confirming your compliance.

And those stamps mattered.They were the communist version of a social-credit score.A good stamp could open doors — a holiday at a state resort, a better flat, a chance at university, permission to buy a car.A bad stamp could close everything: education, housing, travel, career.One small document controlled your entire life.It didn’t just show who you were.It showed who you were allowed to be.

People today believe this belongs to the past.But Britain has quietly rebuilt the same system — not on paper, but in data.

You no longer carry an ID book.Instead, the state carries your whole identity inside its systems.The old stamps and annotations now appear as credit ratings, risk markers, Single Customer View profiles, NHS digital files, school behaviour scores, Ofcom trust classifications, police information feeds, and AI-driven assessments.You are not stamped anymore — you are scored.And those scores increasingly determine your access to banking, travel, communication, employment, renting, and even healthcare.It is the same system as before, only faster, quieter, and hidden behind the language of safety, fraud prevention, and public protection.

And here is the part most people don’t know:Councils across the UK are already collecting and merging your personal data without consent.They pull information from housing, benefits, council tax, schools, NHS contact, and even police databases, and match it using third-party global companies.This is not speculation.FOI responses show it clearly.And when you ask them for the legal authority to do this, they cannot name one.They rely on vague “general powers” that were never designed for mass surveillance.In plain terms, the current system is unlawful.And they know it.

This is why they are rushing Local Government Reorganisation at such extraordinary speed.Reorganisation isn’t tidying up councils.It is restructuring the entire country into large, centralised authorities where digital identity, data-matching, and behavioural scoring can operate without resistance.It removes the checks and balances that still exist today.It creates one merged mega-council for each region, one leadership structure, one data system, one digital identity, and one enforcement chain — the modern version of the communist wojewoda.Once these structures are in place, digital ID becomes compulsory by function, not by choice.Access to services becomes automated.Every right becomes a permission.

This is why they cannot slow down.They must rewrite the law before the public realises that under the current framework, everything they are doing can still be challenged.Reorganisation is the backbone, the wiring, the delivery system.Remove it, and the entire digital-control architecture collapses.

Most people don’t resist any of this because they are afraid of confrontation, afraid of authority, or simply focused on their own comfort — their house, their street, their view.Fear and self-preservation helped the old system grow.Fear and self-preservation help this one grow too.

But the truth is simple:Digital identity, behavioural scoring, and the compliance economy can only be built if reorganisation succeeds.Stop reorganisation, and you cut the root of the entire system.The centralisation fails.The data-matching fails.The behavioural scoring fails.The new powers in the Infrastructure Bill cannot be applied.The global contractors lose their access point.

This is the last piece of democratic machinery we still have control over.If we use it now, we can still stop what comes next.If we don’t, the system will lock into place — and once it does, it will not unlock again

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit hplibrary.substack.com

The dog restrictions aren’t about fouling or safety; they’re about clearing dog walkers - the very people who stand in the way of development - the ‘obstacles’ Angela Rayner says must be removed with a sledgehammer.:

(“I’m absolutely determined to break that system, and I’m handing mayors the sledgehammer. Mayors are at the centre of our plan to build 1.5 million homes by giving them the power they need. Mayors are an army to take on the blockers. We are backing them to work across huge regional geographies to get the job done”)

For years we’ve been told the same fairy tale: “It’s just about dog fouling. Be reasonable.”Last week Folkestone & Hythe District Council finally answered my Freedom of Information request and official complaint about their new district-wide dog control PSPO.Their reply proves the fairy tale is a lie.

They admitted:

* ZERO dog-attack or injury cases were used to justify the order (all those scary “dangerous dogs” headlines were hot air).

* The entire legal basis rests on 248 “dog-RELATED complaints” (incl. dog are racists like in Wales?)

over three years

* They refuse to release the actual logs because it would cost more than £450 to collate (i.e. they don’t want you to see that one serial complainer with 150 emails counts as 150 “cases”).

But the mask slipped further.

The Real Agenda

* Taxpayers already pay millions for street cleaning — yet dog owners are punished for a problem the council is paid to solve.

* Responsible dog walkers are the unpaid park wardens who pick up the broken glass, needles and vodka bottles left by actual anti-social humans.

* “Behaviour change” social engineering — the cabinet papers drip with nudge-unit language about “cultural change” and “responsible ownership”.

* Land grabs in plain sight — many of the new “dogs on leads by default” zones sit on or next to Otterpool Park garden town and “biodiversity net gain” sites. Fewer dog walkers = fewer objections when the diggers move in.

And yes — it’s already happened elsewhere. In Wales, council officers openly cited “community cohesion” and the fear that off-lead dogs make some minority groups feel unsafe (the infamous “racist dogs” scandal, 2022–23). The minutes are still online if you can stomach them.

While They Criminalise Your Spaniel… Here’s What Actually Kills Britons

How much more likely you are to die from everyday accidents than from a fatal dog attack (UK):

Choking on food (including sandwiches):280 deaths per year — 47× more likely than a fatal dog attack

Falling out of bed:150 deaths per year — 25× more likely

Drowning in the bath:25 deaths per year — 4× more likely

Tripping over your own trousers or jeans:10–12 deaths per year — 2× more likely

Fatal dog attacks:6 deaths per year …..

..Fatal dog attack figures never separate unprovoked attacks from cases involving abused or provoked dogs, or dogs defending themselves or their owners

You are FORTY SEVEN TIMES MORE LIKELY to choke to death on a ham sandwich than to be killed by a dog.

You are twenty-five times more likely to die falling out of bed.

Yet no councillor is proposing a Public Spaces Protection Order for beds, sandwiches, or trousers.

What the Council Refused to Answer

* Where is the animal-welfare impact assessment? (None exists.)

* Where is the proportionality assessment required by human rights law? (Also none.)

* Why were no dog-owner groups formally consulted?

* Why is broken glass from drunks never a PSPO offence, but letting your spaniel sniff a buttercup is now a £100 fine?

A Reality Everyone Knows but the Council Pretends Not To

The irony is that responsible dog owners have never denied the problem. Of course there is the occasional 1% who fail to pick up — and it’s unpleasant, nobody wants to step in dog mess. But let’s be honest: people also leave dirty nappies in piles on the beaches every summer, broken glass on park paths (one shard went straight through my thick winter boots last year), human waste behind bushes, nitrous oxide canisters scattered across play areas, and even used syringes in the sand.

And everyone living here knows the bigger truth: when residents call the police about actual anti-social behaviour in the parks — groups of drunk men shouting abuse, aggressive drug users, teenagers vandalising trees and smashing bottles — the police rarely come. You’re told to “report it online” or fill in an email form that disappears into the void. The people who genuinely make public spaces unsafe are left to it.

Yet none of this triggers district-wide Public Spaces Protection Orders. None of it results in £100 fines for families trying to enjoy a walk.Only dogs do — and always, curiously, in the same locations where new housing, “green infrastructure”, or development allocations are being quietly pushed forward.

When the authorities ignore crime but crack down on spaniels, it isn’t public safety — it’s policy theatre.

The 248 “Cases” Myth

Divide 248 by 1,095 days (2023–2025) = 0.226 complaints per day.Across 250+ parks, beaches and open spaces.That’s not a crisis. That could easily be one grumpy person — even a councillor — with too much time and a hunger for self-importance

The Real Crisis

The real crisis is a council that would rather criminalise ordinary families than admit it has failed to manage parks properly. The real crisis is the creeping British disease of banning everything that isn’t nailed down because it’s easier than targeting actual criminals.

They ended their reply with the usual threat: comply or face the Information Commissioner.I will. And when the ICO forces the data out, every dog owner in Folkestone & Hythe will see the truth: this PSPO was never about poo.

It was about control, cheap land management, and virtue-signalling at your expense.

What You Can Do

* Study the development pipeline.Pull up your council’s planning proposals, Garden Town maps, BNG sites, and “green infrastructure” plans — then compare them with the new dog-control zones.The pattern speaks for itself.

* Demand cost transparency.Ask exactly how much they’ve spent on:

* PSPO enforcement

* “Behaviour change” programmes

* Outside consultants

* Signage, mapping and legal drafting

* Patrols, staff hours, and communicationsYou pay for all of it.

* Request documentation on behavioural manipulation projects (yes, councils use them):

* “Nudge theory”

* “Behaviour change frameworks”

* “Community safety narratives”

* “Cultural compliance programmes”

* Walk the land.Dog walkers are the people who consistently spot early development prep: fencing, ground testing, quiet surveying.This PSPO removes you.

* Share the truth.Once residents understand why the bans exist, the council’s narrative collapses.Because if we roll over for this, the next PSPO will be for barbecues, ball games, or just breathing too loudly in a public space.

No more excuses.No more leads.

Madeleine HuntHeritage Party | Fighting for common sense

References & Further Reading

* FHDC Dog Control PSPO 2025 (official document)

* Cabinet Report 16 July 2025 – search “dog control” on folkestone-hythe.moderngov.co.uk

* Welsh “community cohesion” dog zones controversy (BBC Wales, 2022)

* Otterpool Park garden town masterplan

* DEFRA Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs

* ONS, HSE, RoSPA, TORRO fatality data (2020–2025)

Share this post

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit hplibrary.substack.com

Welcome to The Real Agenda, with Madeleine Hunt and Sean Turner.We speak only from evidence — formal correspondence, official statistics, and legal records.No gossip. No conspiracy. No propaganda.Each episode examines the facts behind government and council decisions: the legal duties, the breaches, and the truth hidden in plain sight.This is not the story told by media — mainstream or alternative — but the one written in official documents.It’s time to stop the distraction and focus on reality

.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit hplibrary.substack.com

..... "In the 1900s, some scientists began to suggest Earth’s climate was warming and that increased levels of carbon dioxide were to blame.”

Let’s pause on that word: "some"...

Because throughout history, some scientists have also:

Burned women as witches under the guise of “medicine”.. (yes, that too was once ‘settled’ by experts)..

- Endorsed eugenics and racial purity policies in the name of progress - ..recommended cigarettes to calm nerves - with ads quoting doctors..

- Promoted lead in petrol, asbestos in homes, ..and DDT on food-

-…And used radioactive uranium/(Radium)! in toothpaste, face creams, children’s toys, and bedroom lamps — all backed by “trusted science”

The point isn't to demonise science — it’s to remind us that science is a method, not a moral compass. And when “some scientists” offer an alarming theory that’s then adopted by global institutions, political bodies, and schoolbooks without challenge, it’s not education. It’s INDOCTRINATION.

This isn’t how truth is found. — This is how compliance is manufactured.

What they don’t say?:

Climate has ALWAYS fluctuated, long before human industry. Ice core data and geological records show natural cycles of warming and cooling over millennia—NONE of which were caused by fossil fuels or modern CO₂ emissions.

“By the 1980s, however, the evidence was more compelling, and the scientific community began to unite and call for action.”

Debunked :

In fact, the 1970s and early 1980s were full of global cooling panic. Publications like Time and Newsweek ran covers warning of a new ice age. The idea that “the science was settled” by the 1980s is simply false. Climate models even today fail to match real-world outcomes, and many remain unverified.

Manipulative Language

The book paints a dramatic and oversimplified image of climate action—framing it as a noble global crusade based on consensus. But science is not consensus—it is evidence and falsifiability. What’s presented here is political unity masquerading as scientific agreement.

The Paris Agreement Hype

A glossy photo of John Kerry signing the Paris Agreement—while holding his granddaughter—is used to pull emotional strings and portray climate deals as heroic. Yet the Paris Agreement contains no binding enforcement mechanism, allows the biggest polluters (like China and India) to continue growing emissions, and primarily serves as a tool for economic and behavioural control in the West. We must remember ! that the UK’s CO₂ contribution is less than 1%, making local emissions virtually untraceable and statistically irrelevant. Yet children are being taught that their parents are destroying the planet simply by driving to the countryside or the beach.

What’s Really Going On?

This page is not about helping children understand the climate. It’s about: Instilling early guilt and fear,

Conditioning acceptance of global governance, Normalising policy-driven science, replacing critical thinking with compliance, this isn’t science education—it’s ideological INDOCTRINATION!

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit hplibrary.substack.com

There was a time the rainbow belonged to everyone.

It was a moment of awe after the storm, a sign that the sky still held mysteries. Children saw a rainbow and wondered where it came from, what it meant, whether someone or something had placed it there. It inspired stories, dreams, and imagination. It belonged to no one and yet to all of us, a natural miracle, not a political banner.

Today, the rainbow has been hijacked. It is no longer simply a beautiful arc in the sky. It has been transformed into the global emblem of the LGBT movement - a movement focused not on childhood or innocence, but on adult sexual and gender ideologies. And now it’s everywhere: on flags, in schools, on government buildings, on NHS signage - even in children’s cartoons, where it no longer represents wonder or nature’s magic, but has been rebranded as a symbol of adult sexual ideology.

For children growing up today, the rainbow no longer represents wonder or imagination. It’s become a signal - not of nature, but of identity politics. It introduces children prematurely to adult themes, blurring lines between education and indoctrination, between tolerance and manipulation.

It’s not just the rainbow that has been politicised. Sunshine is now framed as a threat. Children are taught to fear the heat, the weather, the car, the airplane. Nature itself is portrayed as unstable, and humanity, especially their parents’ generation - as reckless villains.

We are witnessing the systematic erosion of childhood wonder. Every story, every symbol, every part of the world that once offered beauty or mystery is being rewritten to serve ideology. We are raising children in a climate of fear, guilt, and submission - not to truth, but to narrative.

Let’s be honest: this is not accidental.

This is deliberate. It is strategic. It is a cultural transformation that relies on repurposing symbols of joy and innocence - like the rainbow - and rebranding them with political and sexual significance. It is designed to condition, not educate. To shape young minds before they can think for themselves.

But this will not last forever.

Many of us were raised in systems that tried to do the same. We were bombarded with propaganda, denied space for independent thought, told what to believe and how to live. And yet.. we found our way through it. We remembered who we were. And we broke free.

So we must fight for the next generation. We must reclaim symbols, language, and truth. We must say clearly: you do not get to use the rainbow to push sexual politics onto children. You do not get to destroy wonder in the name of progress.

The rainbow belongs to no one - and to everyone. And it is time we took it back.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit hplibrary.substack.com