Dame Dinenage proudly displays her endorsement from the UK Royals.


DAME Caroline Dinenage, an alleged “Conservative Party” politician and chairwoman of the UK House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, has become a face of the new global censorship regime endorsed by Fourth Reich globalist Klaus Schwab and his Davos crowd.

The British politician has gained sudden notoriety by writing to social media companies in her official capacity nudging social media companies to financially cripple online “superstar” and stand-up comedian Russell Brand. Dame Caroline has connections to the UK government’s ongoing persecution of people who speak out against official Covid-19 and Ukraine narratives.

Russell Brand … in the firing line.

Alternative media has discovered that Dame Caroline’s husband is Mark Lancaster (pictured above), aka Baron Lancaster of Kimbolton, a former deputy commander in the British Army’s psy-op division who was involved in the British government’s crackdown on dissent during the Covid-19 pandemic.

In a slimy and unprecedented display of authoritarianism straight out of “1984” and “Brave New World” the Dame “politely” wrote to Rumble and TikTok to ask if the platforms would be stopping Brand earning advertising, as if it is normal to punish someone merely on the basis of allegations spread in media.

The Gray Zone notes that the Dame was the UK Digital and Culture Minister from February 2020 to September 2021, overseeing the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), and was personally responsible for pushing the repressive, World Economic Forum-endorsed Online Safety Bill, which has been criticised for threatening the rights to free expression, and privacy.

Also worthy of note is that Dame Dinenage was presented by Princess Anne (Princess Royal), brother of the Green King Charles, with the title of Dame Commander of the British Empire after she made a name for herself pushing this so-called Online Safety legislation. It’s no coincidence that the British royals look favorably on initiatives of the WEF, given that Charlie is a climate change activist and WEF supporter.

In the letter to Rumble’s founder and chief executive Chris Pavlovski, Dame Dinenage wrote: “We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him.

“If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand’s ability to earn money on the platform. We would also like to know what Rumble is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behaviour.”

So Dame Dinenage, since when has it been the practice of governments that follow the UK’s historical Westminster System and common law to “prosecute” people merely accused of wrongdoing, before complaints are laid with police and examined and rule on by a court?

Is your committee a revival of the Star Chamber Court, that had no reference to common law and after the Reformation was misused to arbitrarily inflict punishments on religious dissenters, not dictated by guidelines or laws. Judges could choose the punishment they felt was most appropriate to the crime or criminal. These days the “religious dissenters” are prominent people who dare question the official global narratives.

This is the global authoritarian and neo-Marxist system at work. They champion “victims” of some prominent, outspoken person who is invariably some type of enemy of the state – these days “the global state” aka the “coalition of the willing” of the George Bush era or the “global liberal order”.

Russell Brand quite rightly accused the government of trying to bypass the judicial system after YouTube demonetised his channel, based on the sexual abuse allegations against him. Brand claims all of his numerous sexual encounters during a period of promiscuity some 10 to 17 years ago were consensual.

In a livestream video on the Rumble platform, Brand accused legacy media of being in lockstep with each other to support a state agenda and silence independent media voices. The commedian/commentator’s comments have a strong ring of truth about them, given that Brand has transitioned from a leftist stance – more acceptable to the establishment – to more recent straight out opposition to the globalist agenda.

We might also ask, why did his alleged victims wait more than a decade to start making complaints, to media but not to police? Metropolitan Police report they have “received a number of allegations of sexual offences in London” and other parts of the country.

According to mainstream media, four women “made allegations of rape, sexual assault and abuse” against Brand between 2006 and 2013 as part of an investigation by The Times, The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches program. But would the complaints have been made had the women not been approached by media?

In a statement, Rumble CEO Pavlovski refused to demonetise Brand’s channel and described the letter as deeply inappropriate and dangerous”. “While Rumble obviously deplores sexual assault, rape, and all serious crimes, and believes that both alleged victims and the accused are entitled to a full and serious investigation, it is vital to note that recent allegations against Russell Brand have nothing to do with the content on Rumble’s platform,” he said.

“We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living from doing so. Singling out an individual and demanding his ban is even more disturbing, given the absence of any connection between the allegations and his content on Rumble.”