The UK, in its rush to go full Soviet, is passing laws that will criminalize casual speech in a bar, and penalize bartenders and waitresses if they fail to report you for it

Those who have not yet read The Gulag Archipelago. and or 1984, may want to start right away.

One of the fascinating aspects of the Gulag Archipelago, is the occasional use of the word, Dialectics. At one point, in book 1, section 1, Page 100-101 it is explained that a dialectic is kind of an equivalent of a Fatwa. It is a decree of something ludicrously untrue and destructive to your person and liberties but must be obeyed. At this point, Islam, 1984 in its portrayal of communism and The Gulag Archipelago in its matter of fact description of communism as it actually operated in real time in front of the author and his witnesses, intersect perfectly.

It turns out that in that terrible year Andrei Yanuaryevich (one longs to blurt out, “Jaguaryevich”) Vyshinsky, availing himself of the most flexible dialectics (of a sort nowadays not permitted either Soviet citizens or electronic calculators, since to them yes is yes and no is no), pointed out in a report which

became famous in certain circles that it is never possible for The Interrogation mortal men to establish absolute truth, but relative truth only. He then proceeded to a further step, which jurists of the last two thousand years had not been willing to take: that the truth established by interrogation and trial could not be absolute, but only,

so to speak, relative. Therefore, when we sign a sentence ordering someone to be shot we can never be absolutely certain, but only approximately, in view of certain hypotheses, and in a certain sense, that we are punishing a guilty person.8 Thence arose the most practical conclusion: that it was useless to seek absolute evidence–for evidence is always relative-or unchallengeable

witnesses-for they can say different things at different times. The proofs of guilt were relative, approximate, and the interrogator could find them, even when there was no evidence and no witness, without leaving his office, “basing his conclusions not only on his own intellect but also on his Party sensitivity, his moral forces” (in other words, the superiority of someone who has slept well, has been well fed, and has not been beaten up)

For me at least, this compares perfectly with the part of 1984 where it is explained in the essay on Newspeak, that while 2+2=5 or whatever the party wants it to be, 2+2 ALWAYS = 4 when it comes to making guns, bullets and bombs.

And now in the UK, some of the most astonishing narrative enforcement measures ever in that ancient kingdom.

Having said that, as a Canadian, I have been extremely careful what I say near a waiter or waitress, because at this point the left has been so inculcated with hate, certainty and entitlement already, that while they may not as yet be able to call the police on you, what they can do to your food or drinks may be worse. So situational awareness all around please ladies and gentlemen.