The Rise of the British Death Cult

From full-term abortion to assisted dying...

“Hell is empty because all the devils are here.” William Shakespeare’s The Tempest.

The devils who voted this week to allow abortion up to birth and “assisted dying” are in our Parliament.

Image credit @GlennGr17517162

In 2022, Vladimir Putin said:

“Now they have moved on entirely, to a radical denial of moral norms, religion, and family … The dictatorship of the Western elites is directed against all societies… This is a complete denial of humanity, the overthrow of faith and traditional values. Indeed, the suppression of freedom itself has taken on the features of a religion: outright Satanism.”

Although Putin was mainly referring to the promotion of transgenderism and LGBTQ+ rights, his statement applies to the abominations perpetrated by our elected officials this week.

Amendments relating to abortion in the Crime and Policing Bill

These are the key points I’ve selected that relate to abortion in the amended Crime and Policing Bill, which was passed on June 17th 2025:

NEW CLAUSES AND NEW SCHEDULES RELATING TO ABORTION

“Removal of women from the criminal law related to abortion

For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.”

Member's explanatory statement

This new clause would disapply existing criminal law related to abortion from women acting in relation to her own pregnancy at any gestation, removing the threat of investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment. (My emphasis.)

It would not change any law regarding the provision of abortion services within a healthcare setting, including but not limited to the time limit, telemedicine, the grounds for abortion, or the requirement for two doctors’ approval.

In particular:

Sections 58, 59 and 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 are repealed under the law of England and Wales.

The Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 is repealed.

What this means (summarised by ChatGPT):

• Under NC1, a woman cannot be prosecuted even if she self-manages an abortion after 24 weeks.

• This means that in theory, at-home abortion at full term would not be a criminal offence for the woman.

Also from ChatGPT:

Broader concerns

The wider worry is that this is a step toward full decriminalisation, as proposed by NC20 (Stella Creasy). If ILPA and OAPA s.58/s.59 were fully repealed for everyone, and if the 1967 Act were not replaced with new regulation, then:

• There would be no gestational limit in law.

• There would be no criminal consequences for actions taken by anyone, at any stage of pregnancy, unless another law (e.g., assault) applied.

The vote on New Clause 1 (NC1) proposed by Tonia Antoniazzi passed with 379 MPs in favour and 137 against, securing a majority of 242 votes

Quite rightly, the majority of British citizens are appalled. It is legalised infanticide.

Here are some responses on X:

@_HenryBolton writes:

Today’s vote in Parliament has really exercised me. 379 MPs voted to remove the right to life from healthy, full term unborn children. They talk of choice for the mothers, but there’s no justice, compassion or humanity in legalising the killing of a perfectly viable child moments before its birth. The British people didn’t ask for this, weren’t consulted in it, didn’t vote for and, like me, find it morally abhorrent.

Although only 1% of the British public supports it, Parliament did it anyway. That is not democracy.

MPs who supported the vote say it’s about the right of a woman to choose without facing prosecution. But where’s the child’s right to live? When a baby can survive outside the womb, the argument for the right to terminate it becomes an argument for murder for convenience…

for me this isn’t a political issue. It’s about morality, of what kind of nation we want to be. Do we really want to be a society that prioritises personal choice and convenience over the life of children or, for that matter, the elderly? I don’t. (Note: this relates to the “assisted dying” bill I’ll be covering next.)

The public are right to be appalled by this. Today’s vote revealed once again the extent of the moral collapse in Parliament.

Leadership demands moral courage in spades but most MPs lack it. Ultimately though, they’re accountable at the ballot and even if MPs have lost their moral compass and courage, the public have not. This vote must not be the final word. This Bill must be reversed.

Bishop Strickland (@BishStrickland) writes:

On the UK House of Commons Vote to Permit Abortion Up to Birth

With sorrowful indignation, I condemn the vote by the UK House of Commons to permit abortion up to the moment of birth—a decision so barbaric, so devoid of conscience, that it defies the very notion of civilization.

This is not legislation—it is legalized slaughter. It is the cold, calculated permission to tear innocent children from their mothers’ wombs at the threshold of life. What kind of nation, what kind of people, look upon a fully formed child and call her disposable? What kind of parliament declares open season on the most vulnerable and calls it “choice”?

Let us be absolutely clear: this is murder. Euphemisms cannot cleanse this evil. The vote in Westminster is a grave offense against Almighty God, a moral descent into depravity, and a sign of a society that has lost its soul.

@DrCalumMiller writes:

BREAKING: Abortion has been legalised up to birth in the U.K. This is unspeakably evil As a doctor and a human being I will spend the rest of my life fighting against this barbarism You should too

@ArchRose90

This is immoral and sickening. Stella Creasy is one of the most grotesque MPs in parliament.

One supporter of the amendment, @Francinean35966 , writes"

“Just because a woman becomes pregnant does not automatically mean she should be forced to have that child. Rape cases perfect example. It IS and always will be a decision between mother and child ONLY.”

My response:

“A woman who was raped would know she's pregnant within 6-8 weeks. That's a ridiculous argument for full term abortion.”

She mentions the child playing a part in the decision, based on her spiritual beliefs. In extremely rare cases there may be a related soul contract, but that is far more likely to be fulfilled through miscarriage than abortion.

In another comment she claims that “the "child" or spiritual being does N0T enter the body until it takes it first breath.” That claim is contradicted by many spiritual traditions, some claiming the soul enters the body as early as conception.

Here are two other related articles:

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/parliaments-culture-of-death-and-the-churchs-troubling-silence/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/18/abortion-decriminalisation-house-of-commons-uk/

Please note, I am not a follower of organised religion, and I do support women’s choice to have an abortion, but within strict limits. I feel the 24-week limit on abortions in the UK is far too late, especially since babies born at 22 weeks have survived.

I would support a much earlier limit on abortions being allowed. Allison Pearson, in her Daily Telegraph article I’ve linked above, writes:

#No one ever mentions it, but Britain is worryingly out of step with the majority of European countries where the median time limit for abortion is just 12 weeks. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Germany, Italy, Greece, all have a 12-week upper limit.”

Pregnancy is now detectable very early:

• Reliable detection: Around 12–14 days after ovulation (i.e. around the first day of missed period)

• Most at-home tests claim 99% accuracy from the day your period is due

There is no excuse for abortions later than 12 weeks, in my opinion.

The decriminalisation of late-term abortions is no different from satanic ritual sacrifice.

The amendment must pass the House of Lords and receive Royal Assent to become law. Let’s hope the Lords and the King reject it, although I won’t hold my breath.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

AKA assisted dying, or more accurately, euthanasia.

Why I Oppose the Assisted Dying Bill Passed on 20 June 2025

On 20 June 2025, MPs in the UK Parliament voted 314 to 291 in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—a law that would legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults expected to die within six months. While this is being presented as a compassionate choice, I believe the Bill, as it stands, is dangerously flawed. Here’s why:

Safeguards Were Promised – But Then Removed or Rejected

The original proposals included key protections to prevent abuse, but many were quietly removed during debate, and others were voted down.

1. No More High Court Oversight

Originally, each case needed approval by a High Court judge. This would have provided a vital layer of protection for vulnerable people. But this safeguard was removed, meaning no legal oversight now stands between someone’s life and a panel’s decision.

2. Mental Capacity Checks Weakened

MPs rejected an amendment that would have ensured applicants are explicitly assessed for mental capacity, rather than just presumed to have it. This leaves open the risk that someone struggling with depression or pressure may be approved without adequate checks.

3. Risk of Coercion Through Starvation

Another amendment was proposed to prevent people being declared “terminally ill” simply because they had stopped eating or drinking. Shockingly, this was also rejected. That means someone could qualify for assisted suicide even if they weren’t physically dying—just choosing not to eat.

4. No Protection for Staff or Employers

Amendments that would have allowed doctors or employers to opt out of involvement on conscience grounds were rejected too. This could create pressure on healthcare professionals to participate against their beliefs.

What’s Left? A System Open to Misuse

Supporters claim the Bill has strong safeguards—but without the High Court, clear mental capacity checks, or protections against coercion, the law is deeply open to abuse, especially for:

• Elderly people who feel they’re a burden

• Disabled people pressured by subtle social cues or family expectation

• Those who are mentally unwell but undiagnosed

• Patients denied palliative care and feeling they have no other choice

• Many people who have been told they are terminally ill have been misdiagnosed, or live much longer than the predicted 6 months.

Assisted Dying or Economic Euthanasia?

The NHS is failing, and this law could conveniently create a cheaper, quicker “option” than proper end-of-life care. There is no guarantee of improved palliative care in the Bill—only a vague review “within a year.”

We risk creating a culture where vulnerable people are nudged toward death—not out of genuine choice, but because they feel they have no other.

Even the Royal College of Psychiatrists oppose the bill

They raise nine major concerns:

1. Terminal illness increases suicide risk
   Physically ill individuals are more prone to depression and suicidal thoughts—this isn’t just about medical consent.

2. No holistic assessment of need
   The Bill lacks a requirement to evaluate pain, mental health, social stress, loneliness, or financial hardship—all factors that may drive a person to seek death.

3. Assisted dying is not medical treatment
   It ends life—and doesn’t improve health—yet the legislation treats it like a medical procedure, creating legal ambiguity.

4. Mental Capacity Act isn’t designed for assisted death
   That Act is for decisions about care and finances—not about whether someone is capable of making a lifelong decision to die.

5. Unclear role for psychiatrists
   The Bill mandates a psychiatric panel review, but offers no clarity about what psychiatrists should assess or how to examine mental illness in this context.

6. Workforce shortages
   There are not enough psychiatrists available to provide reliable assessments for every case under the current system.

7. Conscience protections needed
   Clinicians should have the right to opt out of involvement in any aspect of the assisted dying process—but the Bill lacks explicit protection.

8. Stronger professional standards required
   The Bill does not include robust oversight or independent regulation to ensure doctors and psychiatrists are acting appropriately.

9. Mental disorder mustn’t qualify someone
   If someone’s terminal illness is intertwined with a mental health condition (e.g., dementia, anorexia), they should be excluded—yet the Bill fails to make that distinction

Labour MP for Bury North, James Frith lays out his concerns on X:

“Like many of my colleagues in Parliament I’ve have been heavily engaged in the debate over Assisted Dying. However, this debate is no longer about the principle of assisted dying but the Bill in front of MPs which I and many of my Labour colleagues believe is deeply flawed and will cause harm to many vulnerable people.

The Commons Speaker has confirmed that only five amendments not proposed by the Bill’s Sponsor will be voted on at Third Reading, today.

It is my view and those of many others that this means the most serious flaws in the Bill remain in place.

A vote for the Bill at this stage is a vote to accept, permanently, a series of deeply troubling provisions. Even if we set aside the principle shift this represents to health and care in our country, I’ve the following observations.

The Bill will permit any doctor to raise the option of ending a patient’s life, regardless of how vulnerable that patient is, including those with learning disabilities, the victim of coercion or the steady rise in cultural and societal expectations that it’s time you go.

It means panels with only a 51 percent level of certainty will be able to approve life-ending decisions, without any requirement that the doctors involved know the patient, specialise in their condition, or consult other professionals.

The independent oversight once provided by the High Court has been removed. In its place are self-selecting panels with no investigative powers. The Chief Medical Officer, a vital safeguard, has been replaced by a Commissioner marking their own team’s homework.

There are no protections for hospices or care homes that object. No legal requirements for drug safety standards. No guarantees around patient awareness of potential complications. No commitment to meaningful data collection. And coroners will be excluded, despite warnings from the Royal College of Pathologists and the former Chief Coroner that this risks concealing abuse and wrongdoing.

The Bill permits for-profit private contractors to run this service without transparency, without a cap on profits, and without proper parliamentary scrutiny. Measures to prevent the marketing of these services were also rejected and so in the event the Bill becomes Law we can expect advertising of this. Another rubicon I do not agree we should cross.

It sidelines MPs from shaping what this will mean for our constituents. And it includes an automatic start date, regardless of whether training, systems, or safeguards are ready.

And experts and NGOs working in areas related to Assisted Dying are also clear that this Bill is not fit for purpose. The Royal College Psychiatrist, the Royal College of Physicians, GPs, disability or domestic abuse charities have all said this Bill will fail people and expressed their concerns about it.

I cannot in good conscience support legislation that embeds so many dangers, fails to protect the vulnerable, and forces through irreversible change without the oversight and safeguards this issue demands.

While many MPs and members of the public are open to the principle of this bill, as MPs we are not elected to debate abstract ideas but the laws presented to us.

Unless we are 100 percent sure that there is no risk to vulnerable people ending their lives early through coercion or self-coercion, we should err on the side of caution and reject this bill at third reading. Otherwise, we risk the vulnerable old, disable people, BAME communities and our NHS being harmed by the lack of protection and safeguards in this Bill.”

This law changes everything.

Once the line is crossed from caring for the dying to helping them die, there is no going back. Laws like this are almost always expanded in other countries—to include children, mental illness, and those not terminally ill. Canada is a prime example.

The UK must not follow that path.

If we truly care about dignity, we must invest in life-affirming care—not laws that support the claim that some lives are no longer worth living.

We already know that patients and their families are pressured into signing DNR orders, and even cases where DNR orders are added to a patient’s records without, and often against, the family’s wishes.

We also know that many COVID patients were killed by treatments like Midazolam, and the withholding of food and water.

Many frontline health workers are immigrants who can hardly speak English, reportedly have fake licences, and misprescribe drugs.

In short, the NHS is not to be trusted with the lives of our loved ones.

What Happens Next?

The Bill now moves to the House of Lords, where peers can make amendments. This is our last chance to demand proper safeguards—or stop the Bill entirely.

In Conclusion

As I said in the title of this article, this government has become a death cult, dead set (pardon the pun) on killing off as many people as possible to please their satanic, WEF puppet masters and support Agenda 2030.

The secretive 71st Bilderberg Meeting, held in Stockholm from 12–15th June, 2025, discussed depopulation behind closed doors, with no reporting allowed.

Coincidence? I don’t think so.

This is the true agenda of the government - they were never meant to be our rulers, they were meant to be the servants of the people. It’s long past time to remind them of that.

This is a wake-up call.

We must take back our power, stand tall in our sovereignty, and take back our country.