Reposted by Canny McAlreetson
So @willsommer.bsky.social got hold of the script for The Daily Wire's upcoming pro-ICE movie, which is centered in Minneapolis. It has a scene with a Renee Good stand-in, who is described as a "fat blue-hair," but this time she kills an ICE agent with her car.
www.thebulwark.com/p/daily-wire...
![Then the film’s Renée Good stand-in enters, slamming her Subaru into the ICE van. Described with the subtlety of a brick as “MELANIE (40), a fat blue-hair,” the woman, blasting NPR, revs up again and fatally hits ICE agent “Juan” with her car. Then his ICE partner, “Mike,” shoots her in a justifiable killing.
Melanie reacts to the drawn gun with panic...
She MASHES on the gas as she throws the car into reverse, accidentally SLAMMING Juan out of the way. He goes flying into the gutter, bleeding...
And as the car reverses, Mike FIRES TWICE through the
windshield...
The first shot takes the [sic] Melanie in the neck, below her covid
mask. The second in the head, above her covid mask.
Blood SPLATTERS on her PASSENGER’s (40s, female, overweight)
forehead and matching covid mask.
From there, the ICE agent drags his suspect into the pawn shop, with an Antifa mob hot on their heels. The stage is now set for a siege, during which numerous Molotov cocktails will be thrown and shotgun shells will fly. Rest assured that no liberal piety will survive.
Inside the pawn shop, we meet its grizzled Hispanic owner and his son, newly back from college and majoring in Chicano studies. Much to his father’s chagrin, the son is dressed in a Che Guevara shirt and “listening to a POP SONG unfitting for a man.” A pawn-shop security guard quips they’re lucky the boy didn’t get a sex change.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:kjjhbsc3pp3vkqjsivk6z2yd/bafkreidce3ljkoi6ahrmoetlfnser4bo7vv7tappnjtcckvh3sfao66y7y)
![Article 8 privacy and data protection
Further, and in any event, we remind you of the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 the "Act).
We refer you to the chronology of events set out at (2) above. You will therefore appreciate that pursuant to the Act our client's conviction is spent, as of 14 December 20244.
A conviction which is spent for the
purposes of the Act is that person's private information pursuant to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As the Supreme Court put it:
"As [the conviction] recedes into the past, it becomes a part of the person's private life".
That principle was upheld more recently in NT1 & NT2 v Google LLC®.
Our client therefore has a reasonable expectation of privacy in that information. In all the circumstances, given the lack of any legitimate or genuine justification for publicising it, whether on X, Substack or otherwise, there can be no public interest in the publication you have threatened and already effected, let alone one which is sufficiently strong to outweigh the compelling Article 8 rights of our client.
NT1&NT2 also clarified that a person's criminal conviction, particularly if that conviction is spent, constitutes personal data and is therefore protected by UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 ("DPA").
2(1999] UKHL 45
Section 1(1) and 1(4)(a), Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
* Section 5(2), ibid
5 R(L) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009) UKSC 3 at (27]
• (2018] EWHC 799 (QB)
10-113064784-2068140-0
4
Dr J T D Wilson
10 April 2026
The provisions of the UK GDR concering the processing of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences are detailed and onerous, imposing a higher duty of care on controllers and processors of such information, which in this case is you.
It is highly unlikely that the journalism exemption under the DPA® would be applicable in these circumstances, given that (a) you are not a journalist, and (b) in any event, not only - for the …](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:movn6xzezospl7lnkhy7nzpt/bafkreidkd36t4s5z47luqrplaqxizdb42nj2icbdagyxai6dsrygjnt5wi)
