Freeman & Co.

19/10/2026

Supporting Israel is not extremism.

Yet a mother of two from County Durham found police on her doorstep after a Prevent referral, three weeks after a press trip to Israel.

They asked why she was interested in "Jewish issues". Whether she had been to Auschwitz.

Their own report admitted there was no counter-terror concern.

So why was she referred at all?

In my view, this is what happens when a counter-extremism programme spends years avoiding the threat it was built to tackle.

Prevent needs a sharper focus, not a longer list of suspects.

I hope she makes a formal complaint to Durham Police and requests independent oversight.

Is this the consequence of pursuing a false Islamist narrative?

Influencer Holly Passmore, from Durham, received a visit from the police on her return from a press trip to the Jewish state

19/10/2026

ULEZ: CLEAN AIR POLICY OR A VERY EFFECTIVE MONEY MAKING MACHINE?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I remain deeply sceptical about ULEZ.

Transport for London says the scheme exists to improve air quality. And yes, compliance is now extraordinarily high, more than 97% of vehicles in London comply.

But follow the money.

In 2025/26 alone, ULEZ generated around £116 million in charge income and another £47 million in net enforcement income from penalties.

TfL says that income is reinvested into London’s transport network.

My question is whether motorists are being asked to shoulder too much of the burden in the name of environmental policy.

We are constantly told to replace older cars and move towards electric vehicles. But manufacturing any new car, particularly one with a large battery carries an environmental cost too.

So are we genuinely pursuing the cleanest possible policy?

Or have we created a system that also happens to generate a very substantial amount of money from motorists?

ULEZ: environmental necessity or cash cow?

Nick Says; tell me what you think.

16/10/2026

A DRIVING INSTRUCTOR KNOCKS A CYCLIST OFF HER BIKE.

The victim suffers life changing injuries.

The driver gets a suspended sentence.

Is that justice?

This is precisely the sort of case that divides opinion.

The driver didn’t set out to hurt anybody. There was no intention to cause injury. But she failed to see a cyclist and in a matter of seconds, another person’s life was changed forever.

So what should sentencing reflect?

The driver’s intention?

The standard of the driving?

Or the devastating consequences for the victim?

Because when somebody is left living with life changing injuries, a suspended sentence can feel very difficult to understand.

But criminal sentencing is not simply about matching punishment to the severity of the injury. The court also has to consider culpability, the circumstances of the offence, mitigation and the relevant sentencing guidelines.

That doesn’t make the question go away.

If your driving causes another human being catastrophic, permanent harm, should you actually go to prison?

Or is a suspended sentence sometimes the correct legal outcome?

Nick Says: tell me what YOU think.

14/10/2026

CAN THE POLICE TAKE YOUR CAR AT THE ROADSIDE?

Yes.

And in some circumstances, you could be standing on the pavement watching it disappear on the back of a recovery truck.

If police have reasonable grounds to believe you’re driving without the correct insurance or without the proper licence they have powers to seize the vehicle.

If the vehicle is reported stolen, connected with an offence, abandoned or dangerously parked, there may also be grounds for police recovery or seizure. If the driver is wanted, the driver may be arrested and what happens to the car will depend on the circumstances.

And remember this: the fact that the car itself is insured does NOT necessarily mean you are insured to drive it.

So if blue lights appear behind you, don’t assume the worst that can happen is a ticket.

Sometimes, you’re walking home.

12/10/2026

LOOPHOLE has always been treated like a dirty word.

I’ve never seen it that way.

My job is not to decide whether my client is a good person or a bad person. It is not for me to apply my own morality and decide who deserves defending.

Everyone is entitled to a defence.

My job is to defend my client fearlessly, within the law.

And that means having a forensic knowledge of the law, knowing exactly what the prosecution has to prove, exactly what the legislation says, and exactly where mistakes have been made.

That is not cheating the system.

That is the system.

And here’s the part people often miss: I have spent years campaigning for the Government to close loopholes and improve road safety. I have published a road safety charter, lobbied for tougher and clearer rules, and petitioned Parliament for changes to the law.

Because if the law is wrong, change the law.

Don’t blame the defence lawyer for knowing it.

That is the difference.

09/10/2026

How Well Do You Actually Know The Highway Code?

On this week’s Mr Loophole Passenger Seat, Myling is in the hot seat.

I’m testing her Highway Code knowledge, watching what she does behind the wheel… and, naturally, checking her speed.

Here’s the uncomfortable bit: the latest official figures show that 43% of cars exceeded the speed limit on 30mph roads when traffic conditions allowed them to.

That’s not a tiny minority.

Most drivers think they’re good drivers. Far fewer seem quite so confident when someone starts asking questions from the passenger seat.

So, Myling, Highway Code genius or another driver who’s been getting away with it for years?

Watch until the end and tell me honestly: how many questions would YOU get right?



The AA UK
Department for Transport

08/10/2026

Is Andy Burnham simply a pound shop Tony Blair?

That’s the question I raised on The Jeremy Vine Show.

I want politicians with integrity, conviction and the courage to stand by their principles.

Andy Burnham’s political positions appear to keep evolving. But there’s a difference between changing your mind because the evidence has changed and changing your position because the political wind has shifted.

A Prime Minister leads a government, not a personal manifesto. Policies must be accountable to the party’s promises, Parliament and, ultimately, the electorate.

For me, integrity isn’t about never changing your mind. It’s about being honest enough to explain why.

Are we witnessing political leadership or political reinvention?

I’d genuinely like to hear your views.

Jeremy Vine On 5

07/10/2026

Middle-Lane Hoggers: It’s Time To Get Tough.

We’ve all seen them.

Empty motorway. Clear inside lane.

And there they sit, planted stubbornly in the middle lane, completely oblivious to the queue building behind them.

It creates frustration.
It creates congestion.
And, in my view, it creates unnecessary danger.

Yes, middle lane hogging can already fall within careless or inconsiderate driving.

But I don’t think that goes far enough.

We have increasingly sophisticated technology monitoring our roads. So why aren’t we using it to identify persistent lane hoggers?

I’d like to see a specific, enforceable offence backed by technology.

Caught unnecessarily occupying the middle lane?

Three points and a fine.

Driving requires concentration. Motorways work properly when drivers keep left unless they are overtaking.

This isn’t about punishing someone for drifting into the wrong lane for a few seconds.

It’s about those drivers who sit there mile after mile, seemingly unaware of everybody around them.

Would three points finally make people move over?

Or is that too heavy handed?

Tell me what you think.

National Highways Department for Transport

05/10/2026

£72 MILLION. LEGAL TODAY. ILLEGAL TOMORROW?

That should make every one of us sit up.

Reform UK received £72 million in political donations which it says complied with the law as it stood.

Now The Labour Party is looking at legislation which could retrospectively change the rules governing those donations.

Forget, for a moment, whether you support Labour, Reform or neither.

The real question is much bigger:

Should a government be able to change the law today and then apply that new law to something you lawfully did yesterday?

I have spent my career dealing with legislation, loopholes and the consequences of badly drafted law.

Laws should tell us what we can and cannot do NOW, and provide certainty about what happens in the FUTURE.

Because once you start legislating backwards, where exactly does that principle stop?

You may despise the donation.
You may despise the recipient.
You may desperately want the rules changed.

But should something that was lawful when it happened subsequently be treated as though it wasn’t?

That is the conversation we should be having.

Change the law if Parliament believes the law needs changing.

But changing the past is an altogether more dangerous proposition.

Do you agree or should governments be able to legislate retrospectively in exceptional circumstances?

Tell me.

Nigel Farage Andy Burnham

Law

01/10/2026

Credibility Isn’t Just About What You Say.

It’s about how you behave when you’re challenged.

I once watched a police officer give evidence while chewing gum.

When challenged about it, he denied he was chewing.

A tiny moment.

But it damaged his credibility in front of the magistrate.

And that’s the point.

Whether you’re in court, in business, in negotiation or in leadership, people don’t just listen to your words.

They watch:

How you react.
How you carry yourself.
Whether you become defensive.
Whether your behaviour matches what you’re saying.

A strong skill set isn’t simply about speaking well.

It’s about remaining credible under pressure.

Sometimes the smallest reaction tells people more than a thousand words ever could.

Do you think credibility is judged more by what someone says or by how they behave when challenged?

Tell me what you think.

The Law Society
Judicial Office
College of Policing