Sunday, 21 June 2026

WHO TO BELIEVE?


A Feature Essay on Truth, Trust and the Human Need to Believe - Written by Chat GPT.


Who do we believe?


It sounds like a simple question, but it may be one of the most important questions of our age.


Every day we are bombarded with information. Television news bulletins. Newspaper headlines. Government announcements. Social media posts. YouTube videos. Podcasts. Family conversations. Rumours. Gossip. Anonymous sources. Experts. Witnesses. Influencers. Friends.


Every one of them wants our attention. Many of them want our belief.


The problem is that they cannot all be right.


The evening news tells us one thing. A man at the pub tells us another. An expert presents statistics. A neighbour shares an experience that appears to contradict those statistics. A politician promises certainty. A journalist uncovers inconvenient facts. A whistleblower challenges the official story. A fact-checker disputes the whistleblower.


Soon enough, we are left asking a deceptively simple question:


Who do we trust?



The Currency of Trust.


Modern society is built upon trust.


We trust that our money has value. We trust that the food we buy is safe. We trust that pilots know how to fly aircraft. We trust that surgeons know what they are doing. We trust that bridges won't collapse beneath us.


Without trust, civilisation itself becomes impossible.


Yet trust is also dangerous.


History repeatedly shows that trusted institutions can fail. Governments have lied. Corporations have concealed information. Religious leaders have abused authority. Journalists have published inaccuracies. Scientists have occasionally defended ideas later proven false.


The lesson is not that institutions are worthless. The lesson is that institutions are human. And human beings are fallible.


Rumble


The Problem With Certainty.


Human beings love certainty. We crave it.


Certainty is comforting. It provides security in a confusing world.


The difficulty is that certainty and truth are not the same thing. The most dangerous people are often not those who are unsure. They are those who are absolutely convinced they are right.


History's greatest disasters were often driven by certainty.


Certainty that a race was superior. Certainty that a war would be quick. Certainty that critics were enemies. Certainty that dissenters should be silenced. Certainty can become a prison.


Doubt, by contrast, is often portrayed as weakness.


Perhaps it is actually a strength.


The willingness to say, "I might be wrong," may be one of the most intellectually honest positions a person can hold.


Facebook

The Battle for Your Mind.


Every generation experiences a struggle over information.


In previous centuries, information moved slowly. A newspaper might take days or weeks to arrive. Rumours spread at the speed of human conversation.


Today information travels around the world in seconds. A story can be viewed by millions before breakfast. A lie can circle the globe before the truth has tied its shoelaces.


Social media has given every individual the power once reserved for major broadcasters.


This has advantages.


Ordinary people can expose corruption. Voices previously ignored can now be heard. Yet the same technology allows misinformation to spread with unprecedented speed.


The result is a constant battle for attention. And wherever attention goes, belief often follows.


Substack


Why Smart People Believe Strange Things.


One of the greatest misconceptions is that intelligence protects us from false beliefs. It does not.

Highly intelligent people can believe things that later prove completely untrue.

Why?


Because belief is rarely driven by evidence alone. Emotion plays a role. Identity plays a role. Fear plays a role. Hope plays a role. People often adopt beliefs that align with the communities they belong to. 


To challenge a belief can sometimes feel like challenging a tribe.


The fear of social exclusion is often stronger than the desire to be correct. As a result, people frequently defend beliefs long after evidence begins to undermine them. Not because they are stupid. Because they are human. Because they are scared. Because they are infallible.


YouTube Channels


The Voice Inside.


Then there is intuition. The famous "gut feeling." Many people report occasions where their instincts proved remarkably accurate. Something felt wrong. Something felt right. Something didn't add up.


We ignore intuition at our peril.


Yet intuition has limitations. Our instincts evolved for survival in small communities, not for navigating complex modern societies filled with statistics, algorithms and global events.


Our instincts can detect danger. They can also create false alarms. The challenge is knowing the difference.


Perhaps intuition should not replace evidence. Nor should evidence completely dismiss intuition.

The wisest approach may be to allow each to challenge the other.


YouTube Channels

www.youtube.com/@MattTaylorTVExtra


The Bully's Version of Reality.


Belief is also about power. Bullies understand this. The objective of a bully is not merely to win an argument. It is to define reality.


A bully tells you what happened. A bully tells you what you saw. A bully tells you what you meant. A bully tells you what everyone else believes.


Over time, persistent pressure can cause people to doubt their own experiences. Psychologists refer to this phenomenon as gaslighting. The victim begins to question their memory, judgement and perception.


The bully's greatest victory is not forcing compliance. It is securing belief.


Throughout history, powerful individuals and institutions have attempted exactly the same thing on a larger scale.


Control the narrative. Control belief. Control behaviour.


YouTube Channels

www.youtube.com/@MattTaylorTVMagic


Is Belief a Right?


Perhaps belief is one of humanity's most fundamental rights. The freedom to think. The freedom to question. The freedom to disagree.


Without these freedoms, truth itself becomes impossible to discover.


Yet belief also carries responsibilities. A person has every right to hold an opinion. That does not mean every opinion is equally supported by evidence. Freedom of belief does not eliminate the need for critical thinking. Indeed, it makes critical thinking even more important.


YouTube Channels

www.youtube.com/@MattTaylorTVMagic


Beyond Black and White.


One of the greatest mistakes is viewing belief as a binary choice. True or false. Good or bad. Right or wrong.


Reality is often more complicated.


Many issues contain uncertainty. Evidence evolves. New information emerges. People change their minds.


The healthiest beliefs are often held with confidence tempered by humility. Strong enough to act upon. Flexible enough to revise. The pursuit of truth is not a destination. It is a process.


YouTube Channels

www.youtube.com/@KingArthurII-TheWarKing


So What Is Belief?


Perhaps belief is best understood as trust under conditions of uncertainty. We believe because we cannot know everything. We believe because life demands decisions. We believe because complete certainty is impossible.


The question is not whether we believe.


YouTube Channels

www.youtube.com/@GoodvEvil


Everyone does. The question is how we choose what to believe.


Do we believe the newsreader? The politician? The expert? The man at the pub? Our friends? Our instincts?


The answer may be all of them. Or none of them. Depending upon the circumstances.

Perhaps wisdom lies not in blindly accepting or rejecting any source, but in constantly comparing, questioning and evaluating.


The search for truth requires courage. The courage to think independently. The courage to challenge authority. The courage to challenge ourselves. And perhaps the greatest courage of all is the willingness to admit those three difficult words: 


"I don't know."


YouTube Channels

www.youtube.com/@MattTaylorTVConfidential


For in a world overflowing with certainty, that may be the beginning of genuine understanding.


Saturday, 20 June 2026

MATT TAYLOR'S 55TH BIRTHDAY SPECIAL

 


00:00 You Can't Cancel a King

https://youtube.com/shorts/dE4POl1pEcU

00:30 Taylor's Video Show!

01:00 You Tried - I Survived

01:30 Where Are You, Banana Daz?

https://youtube.com/shorts/rmzmnxE2Jys

02:00 Plisko's Gay Porn Bomb Confession

02:30 When I Met a Vampire and a Werewolf

03:00 Loving ❤️ You…

03:30 MattTaylorTV! Breaking News

04:00 Fake Card Blues

04:30 Taylor's Kangaroo Court: The Case of Plisko the Gay Porn Bomber

05:00 Nothing to Prove to a Faceless YouTube Fool

05:30 Subscribe to MattTaylorTV! It'll Make You Feel Horny Baby!

06:00 Word Search #2

06:30 DJ Darkside Cares for Kaley - Seriously

07:00 Why Not?

07:30 Face in a Cat Bowl

08:00 Not All But One

08:30 Harry Munker the Mug

09:00 Echoes in the Void

09:30 The Performing Monkey

10:00 Don't Ban the Feed

10:30 Bait the Feed

11:00 Harry the Scott

11:30 Silver Surfer

12:00 Never Stop the Persecution of Matt Taylor

12:30 No Front Door

13:00 Disclaimer if You Are Offended

13:30 Weaponise The Past Ditty

14:00 Velvet Flames - A Love Song

https://youtu.be/Z6D1_T377x0

14:30 Architects Of Sorrow Ditty

15:00 Hey Matt

15:30 The Steep Climb

16:00 Babs Big Up

16:30 Facts as a Weapon

17:00 Everything Is So Easy for Me

17:30 MTTV The Watchman Ditty

18:00 Everything's Easy for Me

18:30 Salford Throne Ditty

19:00 BIG UP EVERYBODY! (According to Lady Babs)

19:30 Welcome to MTTV Gaslight King

20:00 Walking Shelby Down the Fairy Trail Brighton

20:30 The Holland Fire

21:00 It's Not Chaos - It's Experimentation

21:30 Subscribe to Matt Taylor TV! It's Wacky, Crazy and Super Zany!

22:00 Poking the Hornets Nest

22:30 Everything's Easy for Me Ditty

23:00 Emily T Makes Me Feel Uncomfortable

23:30 Harry Says Cancel It

https://x.com/KingArthurII2/status/2067515975755341844

00:00 Centrefold – J. Geils Band

https://youtu.be/K70wRP-whf8



MattTaylorTVNews.blogspot.com



Why Banning Social Media for Under-16's Is a Mistake.

The recent announcement by Prime Minister Keir Starmer of a sweeping ban on social media access for children under 16—targeting major platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, Facebook, and X—has been framed as a bold, protective measure. Set to take effect in spring 2027 following legislation before Christmas, it joins similar efforts in places like Australia. The stated goals are noble: shielding young people from predators, bullying, harmful content, and addictive design. Yet this approach is fundamentally flawed. It misdiagnoses the problem, punishes the victims rather than the perpetrators, and risks creating new harms while proving largely unworkable. Far from a prudent safeguard, it represents a draconian overreach that strips children of tools integral to modern life without meaningfully addressing the underlying threats.

Targeting Children Instead of Predators: Misplaced Priorities.

The core logic of the ban—that restricting children's access will make them safer—rests on a false dichotomy. Online predators, cyberbullies, and harmful content exist because platforms have failed to police them effectively, not because children are inherently drawn to danger. A more direct and effective strategy would be aggressive enforcement against the actual criminals: strengthening laws and resources to prosecute predators, mandating robust platform moderation, and holding tech companies accountable for algorithmic amplification of toxic material.

Banning access for under-16s is akin to combating shoplifting by closing the shops. It doesn't eliminate the thief; it merely inconveniences everyone else and drives illicit activity underground. Predators will not vanish when children turn 16—they'll simply shift tactics, targeting slightly older teens or using unregulated channels. Evidence from similar restrictions suggests that bans often displace rather than eradicate risks, pushing youth toward "darker corners of the internet" like unmoderated forums, VPNs, or private networks where oversight is even weaker.

This paternalistic focus on children ignores their agency and the positive roles social media plays. For many young people, platforms are lifelines for social connection, especially those who are isolated, neurodivergent, or facing mobility issues. They facilitate friendships, educational resources, creative expression, activism, and cultural exchange—experiences as vital to today's youth as playgrounds or telephones were to previous generations. Denying this "part of their lives" feels cruel, as if society is collectively deciding that young people's joy and autonomy matter less than an illusion of total safety.

Why the Ban Won't Achieve Its Aims.

Proponents cite mental health crises, bullying, and exposure to inappropriate content. While these are real concerns, blanket bans lack strong evidence of solving them. Studies and reviews indicate that simply delaying access does not reduce overall harm or guarantee better outcomes. Instead:

  • Risk displacement: Children may migrate to other screen-based activities (TV, gaming) or riskier online spaces. The ban doesn't reform addictive algorithms or harmful features; at age 16, users will encounter the same unaddressed problems without prior guided experience.

  • Limited impact on core issues: Predation and bullying thrive on poor moderation and weak enforcement. Tech companies have the data and tools to detect and prevent much of this—fines up to 10% of global revenue (as proposed) are a start, but enforcement has historically lagged. A ban shifts the burden to parents and children rather than fixing platform incentives.

  • Mental health nuance: Correlation between social media and rising anxiety/depression exists, but causation is debated. Factors like pandemic isolation, academic pressure, family dynamics, and broader societal changes play major roles. Bans overlook opportunities for digital literacy programs that teach self-regulation, critical thinking, and resilience—skills essential for navigating the adult world.

Moreover, the policy wasn't prominently featured in Labour's 2024 manifesto, which spoke more vaguely of building on the Online Safety Act and exploring measures for online safety. This raises questions of transparency and whether it's a reactive "big moment" driven by consultation optics rather than rigorous, long-term planning.

Dangers to Children: New Harms from Overprotection.

Ironically, the ban could endanger children more than it protects them. Removing access severs vital support networks. LGBTQ+ youth, for instance, often find community and information online that may be unavailable locally. Marginalized or rural teens lose educational and social opportunities. Isolation from peers' digital spaces can exacerbate loneliness, bullying (which occurs offline too), and delayed social development.

Enforcement introduces privacy risks. Strict age verification—potentially involving facial scans, photo ID, or biometrics—could create a massive database of young users' data, vulnerable to breaches or government overreach. Conspiracy concerns about universal face-scanning aren't baseless in an era of expanding surveillance; they highlight legitimate worries about privacy erosion for an entire generation. Who holds this data? How secure is it? And does it normalize intrusive monitoring that extends beyond childhood?

There's also the "forbidden fruit" effect: tech-savvy children will circumvent bans easily via proxies, shared accounts, or siblings' devices, fostering distrust in authority and teaching evasion rather than responsible use. This underground usage lacks parental guidance, amplifying risks.

Unworkability: Practical Nightmares

Implementation faces insurmountable hurdles:

  • Enforcement gaps: Platforms must block under-16s, but children lie about ages routinely. VPNs, fake accounts, and international access render borders porous. Australia's experience shows partial compliance at best, with workarounds common.

  • Collateral damage: Exemptions for YouTube Kids or messaging (WhatsApp, Signal) create inconsistencies. Gaming, livestreaming restrictions, and proposed curfews for 16-17-year-olds add layers of complexity and overreach, burdening families and platforms without clear metrics for success.

  • Disproportionate impact: It hits lower-income families harder (fewer alternatives for supervision) and stifles innovation in educational or positive tech uses. Tech companies may comply minimally, while innovation in safer designs stalls.

  • Free speech and development: Blanket bans raise concerns about expression and preparation for digital adulthood. Children need guided exposure to build media literacy, not sudden immersion at 16.

A Better Path Forward

Protecting children online requires nuance, not prohibition. Prioritize:

  1. Platform accountability: Force algorithmic transparency, default safety settings, and rapid removal of illegal content.

  2. Education and literacy: Mandatory school programs on digital citizenship, critical thinking, and mental health awareness.

  3. Targeted enforcement: Invest in policing predators, supporting victims, and parental tools.

  4. Balanced regulation: Age-appropriate design mandates (e.g., time limits, content filters) without total bans.

Social media isn't going away. It's woven into society, offering both perils and profound benefits. Treating children as capable of learning responsibility—while vigorously pursuing bad actors—empowers them far better than isolation. Starmer's ban may score political points with concerned parents, but it risks being remembered as a well-intentioned error that underestimated young people's resilience and overstated government's ability to engineer safety through restriction. True protection builds skills and reforms systems, rather than wishing away the digital world.

Written and researched by Grok.ai.


Lee Cant - REST IN POWER - 1953-2026

PUBLIC INTEREST NOTICE LONDON UK  - POSTED BY NEELU BERRY TO FACEBOOK

I have some very sad news received at 1.40pm today, Tuesday, 16 June 2026.

Our dear friend and free human rights advocate, Lee Cant, passed away this morning around 8.45am at Homerton Hospital, after decades of fighting state corruption in Local Government in Hackney and in Central Government.

Lee expressly did not want anyone to know that he had been admitted about a week ago and he did not want any visitors.

He was making enquiries about respite care after discharge, expected in a ofew days.

He was only 73

The circumstances surrounding his declining health over the last 5 years, following keyhole surgery for a hernia operation, causing complications of blood clots spreading into his bladder, (photo taken March 2026 when blood clots were removed),

more recently a weakening heart, are attributable to lack of support for appropriate housing.

It is suspicious that he had a fall on the ward trying to get to the toilet, a few days ago, which was omitted from his nursing and medical notes. I had requested he be provided a zimmer frame. He was being treated for water retention in his chest, ankles and groin.

For over ten years he fought chest infections from black mould from neighbours above his council flat (which he purchased privately the three bed flat in 1987).  He was pursued for service charges whilst services he needed were never provided.

The recent forced entry by British Gas, changing his locks and denying him entry to his own home was the latest co-conspirator in his demise, as agent for Hackney Council.

Please pray for his soul to rest in peace.

I welcome anyone to channel Lee and share his thoughts at the present time.

Lee’s 5 year demise is very common for pensioners in the UK. 

In September 2016, he was subjected to a brutal forced entry and kidnap from his home by Metropolitan Police, kept in a cell, overnight without charge because he fought the State for an independent judiciary.

Hackney Council hired an external law firm to extort predetermined service charges in the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court and the Upper Tribunal.

The most suspicious part is that the night before his death, an occupational Therapy team had come and cleaned his body as it had never been cleaned before. Even Lee commented on how he had never been so clean. Within hours, he was dead.

He was terrified of how his premature demise would manifest.  When I phoned to speak to the nurse looking after him, on 12 June, the nurse said it was another Bank nurse looking after him, and I could not speak to her because she was on another ward, not on Lee’s ward, which was very odd.

The time of his death at 8.45am is very suspicious because it is when the 8 am shift occurs so there are two shifts with a handover between 8 am to 9am so 8.45am is when both shifts are in the office and the bank staff can be anywhere and everywhere.

Anyone can dress up as a nurse or doctor and go to a hospital and do anything to the patients as there is no system of security checks, hence ideal places for “Bank staff” to wander around the wards looking for targeted individuals and whistleblowers.

Routinely in the UK, if the family agree to provide palliative care, they use the code “DNR” on the file, stop water, food and oxygen, use morphine drip with ventilator until fully sedated, call the family and then switch off the ventilator.  

In Lee’s case, I got a call from a No Caller ID around 10am, it was a doctor but he wouldn’t tell me how Lee was. He wanted to check he had the correct number for next of kin, which I provided. I got the news after the next of kin had visited to confirm identity. Very dodgy timeline of events especially as he was due for discharge in a few days

They told Lee’s Next of kin that they’re going to take the body for three days to do the post-mortem, which is very odd, because deaths in hospitals do not require post-mortems because the nurses are supposed to monitor the vital signs, transfer to high dependency and support the patient to stay alive.

Added 18/06/26:-

I feel that Lee is trying to give a message that he is not going to rest in peace until he can be sure that everything he has witnessed done wrong to him does not happen to anybody else.

So I am putting my research into the national health service NHS over the last 26 years in the links below:-

Precedents against banks and State executions

Links against State Co-conspirators

(1) 2025 EWCC 43 Cook mandated third party assignees as defendants and named on land registry Title Register

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2025/CC43.html

[PLEASE NOTE : Facebook does not redirect to BAILII.org so copy the link into your browser for links to work]

(2) Lloyds Banking Group possessed 450 IG63EB on 19 October 2022, in contempt of

[2020] EWCA Crim 369, Paragraph 1.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2020/369.html

(3) my Baby Neice Sunaina and her mother Sadhana are subjects of Report 206 of 18th Law

Commission of India, which requires substantial funds in their estates lost in the

possession by Lloyds without Law.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160294931/

(4) Baby's body is still frozen in a mortuary in India, since 2007 to date, awaiting a

proper investigation into her death on 26.10.2000 followed by mutilation of organs in State Custody of NHS England.

https://web.archive.org/.../https://sunaina2007.tripod.com/

OR

https://tinyurl.com/45f5uwhd

https://web.archive.org/.../https://sunaina2008.tripod.com/.

OR

https://tinyurl.com/u7z6wvbt

https://web.archive.org/.../https://sunaina2009.tripod.com/

OR

https://tinyurl.com/vjcrkvm5

(5) Bristol Baby Inquiry

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1120824/

(6) Retained Organs Commission

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1169486/

(7) The Royal Liverpool Children's Inquiry

https://www.gov.uk/.../the-royal-liverpool-childrens...

(😎 THE SHIPMAN INQUIRY

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/.../5a7b99ae40f.../





Please show your appreciation with a donation.