Joined September 2010
1,665 Photos and videos
David Nealon retweeted
A blazing Sammy Woodhouse exposes a @GMB producer who told her not to mention the race or religion of the Pakistani Muslim men who raped and trafficked thousands of girls like Sammy. Exactly why the monsters got away with it for so long!
This morning, I appeared on Good Morning Britain in a live interview about the grooming gangs. Before I went on air, I was told not to mention the race of the perpetrators. I, of course, didn’t listen. I have now received an apology from the editor. My interview is below: 👇🏻
147
1,561
6,774
110,880
David Nealon retweeted
Quite fucking literally.
So basically, child welfare services in the UK are just a matchmaking service putting grown Paki men together with underage, poor British girls
133
2,441
17,110
261,901
250000 young girls have been groomed and raped over decades by mainly Muslim men All covered up by people for fear of being racist or caught themselves This started before the internet and mainly done offline after that but remember banning social media will make kids safe!!
9
David Nealon retweeted
This is approximately a million times worse than Epstein. It’s not even remotely close. The scale. The nature of the crimes. The powerful institutions implicated. And yet something tells me that many of the Epstein obsessives will have nothing at all to say about this.
The Rape Gang Inquiry Report. bit.ly/4uE5odw
1,282
6,493
35,112
737,061
David Nealon retweeted
Jun 15
So far England journos have leaked the line-up, the set piece takers, the focus on corners and where they’re standing. Croatia won’t have to watch any tape at this point, they’ll just wait for Sami Mokbel, Craig Hope and Henry Winter to tweet out the specifics and jobs done
England take leaf out of Arsenal playbook with focus on set-pieces in training ahead of Croatia. Declan Rice, Reece James and Bukayo Saka among designated dead ball specialists, though doubt remains over Saka’s fitness due to Achilles tendonitis issue. bbc.com/sport/football/artic…
60
695
9,837
634,225
David Nealon retweeted
The ban on social media for children under 16 is an idea that has merits. But the way it is being done is simply a way to force everyone, including adults, to identify themselves online, creating the most powerful surveillance and censorship architecture in human history.
773
3,156
18,628
384,863
David Nealon retweeted
The Rape Gang Inquiry report will be published today.
607
5,445
42,065
777,002
David Nealon retweeted
BlueSky is now officially Britain's State-endorsed Paedo app. It's going to get very weird over there with just leftists and kids. Very fucking weird.
115
971
9,989
100,523
David Nealon retweeted
Hey @KeirStarmer, how about educating parents on how to do this? Or would that not achieve the desired result you're *actually* aiming for?
28
263
1,003
22,123
If this was purely about protecting kids this would be the easiest way to do things surely!! #socialmediaplan
#SocialMediaBan: Instead of tripping up teens aged 13-16 in December 2026 or Spring 2027 the government should start their ban with all kids aged 12 years 11mths and leave all the 13-16 group alone who are used to accessing social media. I think suddenly removing social media from the current 13-16 group will have damaging short and long term effects. Reversing routines must be gradual and gentle not out of the blue. After 3 years the ban will correct itself with most, if not all, 13-16 year olds oblivious to what they’ve been banned from.
1
2
162
David Nealon retweeted
My first instinct was to support the UK’s social media ban for under 16s. Protecting children from grooming, exploitation and harmful content seems like common sense. But I’m seeing a lot of opposition to it, so I’m genuinely curious as to why? One thing making me second guess is that platforms like bluesky are exempt, while at the same time there’s a push to let 16 year olds vote. To me that looks less like child protection and more like controlling where young people get their information. Interested to hear other perspectives.
1,935
295
3,942
959,293
David Nealon retweeted
Jun 15
The Left is pushing for identification to use the internet while pushing for no identification to vote. Think about that.
376
12,679
66,245
540,444
David Nealon retweeted
Parents who were so weak they were happy to let their children have unfettered access to social media will not suddenly become good parents now their children don't have access to social media.
74
322
2,690
26,890
David Nealon retweeted
Jun 15
Starmer: We want to digitally ID everyone who uses social media Brits: Absolutely Not! Starmer: OK then, we want to ban under 16s from social media (by digitally ID-ing everyone) Brits: OMG that’s a great idea. Idk what idiot would be against that 🥴
167
3,141
20,830
331,498
David Nealon retweeted
So let me get this straight: Leftists want 16 year olds to vote. They want 12 year olds to be able to consent to sex changes. But they don’t want those same teenagers to read conservative opinions on social media, only Blue Sky? Their agenda is pretty obvious.
🚨BREAKING: Bluesky will NOT be blocked for under 16’s as part of UK government’s social media ban
813
14,888
62,523
871,683
Pretty simple solution make parents Parent
I have 7 kids at home. They get a dumb phone when they get to an age when we need to pick them up from their extra curricular activities. As they get older they get a regular phone, but have restrictions and they are monitored, as is their access to computers. They do not get an email till they are 13. Their school has a no social media policy that parents sign on to. They are not allowed x, insta, snap or facebook till they are 18. No government supervision required. Just good old parenting.
46
David Nealon retweeted
I have 7 kids at home. They get a dumb phone when they get to an age when we need to pick them up from their extra curricular activities. As they get older they get a regular phone, but have restrictions and they are monitored, as is their access to computers. They do not get an email till they are 13. Their school has a no social media policy that parents sign on to. They are not allowed x, insta, snap or facebook till they are 18. No government supervision required. Just good old parenting.
381
969
9,099
163,271
David Nealon retweeted
We are ruled by idiots. Do they not know every 15 year old revises GCSE’s on YouTube? Do they not know that teenagers track their friends are home safely on SnapChat? Do they not realise that - especially in rural areas with no transport - teenagers social lives are on… social media. Do they not know that teenagers will find ways round - as has been shown in Australia. This ban is illogical and damaging. If I hear another parent say “it’s so hard to police them” I’ll scream. It’s a parent’s job. Take responsibility the children you are meant to be bringing up. It is not the government’s job to look after your children. But the government will now insist all adults provide ID to prove we are over 18. 😡
🚨 SUMMARY: The UK's social media ban for children from early 2027: - "User-to-user" apps where people create, share and interact with content (e.g. TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, X, Facebook) will be banned for under-16s - WhatsApp, Signal and YouTube Kids will be exempt - Under-16s will also be banned from livestreaming, messaging strangers on gaming apps like Discord and using disappearing messages - 16 and 17 year olds will face nightly social media curfews and limits on infinite scrolling with more details next month - AI "romantic companion" chatbots will be banned for under-18s - Adults can still access social media through age checks like facial recognition, digital IDs, passports and credit cards
914
2,180
10,763
747,661
David Nealon retweeted
This censorship law is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The real goal is to enable the UK government to track everyone.
It’s important to know that the social media ban for under 16s is not a ban for under 16s. It is a ban on *selected* social media for EVERYONE. Until you identify yourself.
9,761
43,483
229,143
16,549,569
David Nealon retweeted
Reposting without comment….
This case has huge implications for Clubs who feel they were disadvantaged by Chelsea's breach of the Premier League rules, and, IF found guilty, Clubs who may have lost out to Manchester City for trophies and Champions League places. Any sports lawyers thinking of going on holiday may have to postpone them.
24
36
398
151,636