Okay. Can you answer my question, please?

I have done. The bill was introduced to Parliament by two Conservatives. The bill was official Conservative Party policy. The bill was passed into law by a Conservative government. It is not Keir Starmer's law.

That wasn’t my question. My question was: “I’m not arguing semantics. It is a bill supported and backed by Keir Starmer and his ministers’. Agreed?” Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

I couldn't care less if Keir Starmer danced outside in a dress singing how he loved the Act (it is no longer a bill), he didn't introduce the bill, he did not frame the bill, he was not PM when it passed into law. It's not his law. I am not a Keir Starmer fan, simply stating it's not his Act.

OK. Well, that’s very dull. I’m not sure why you think such semantics are important or relevant to the conversation, but, uh, well done for knowing who was PM at what time, I guess.

Apparently you don't

? Think reading comprehension may be an issue. Or trolling. Unclear.

You are correct, you seem to think, contrary to all evidence and facts that a bill that was not introduced by him was actually in fact Keir Starmer's law.

Please advise where I said that. Sincerely, I’ve read back through my posts here, and am baffled.

So you agree then? The Online Safety Act 2023 is not Keir Starmer's law?