In Sept the Information Commissioner's Office delivered a Decision Notice that supported a London secondary school in keeping a Relationships and Sex Education lesson hidden from parents. I am Appealing against that decision in a First Tier Tribunal. Please support my case.🙏

Losing your job then having to fight for justice and compensation, in the hope that a judge concludes that in your particular case stating a fact can reach the bar of being worthy of respect, because you’ve pretended that fact is some kind of fundamental ‘belief’ according to a bizarre little test thought up in another court case - all on appeal! - is not ‘free speech’ worth celebrating. It’s a fudge. We need reform of equality law so that lies are no longer protected before free speech stands a chance of being properly restored.

What if both of the people in the two posts below are absolutely correct? Because I believe they both are. This small exchange represents the vortex at the very heart of the storm that new tech has brought upon us. And it does not surprise me that it is a man who has correctly identified the risk to our liberty if we try to suppress it, whilst a woman has correctly identified the risk to our children if we do not. In Britain, both problems are being caused by the dissolution of our self-governing constitutional monarchy in the face of a technological revolution beyond our regulatory reach that is so profound it is sweeping away all our prior social structures - be they personal, familial, national, legal or constitutional. Purist free trade and free speech alone cannot be the answer in the age of commercial surrogacy, snuff porn and the sudden seismic restructuring of our entire workplace - but then neither is a tyrannical nanny state, which, finding itself unable to regulate US companies beyond its reach, decides to regulate us instead. Especially when our current Govt knows its own liberal policies have failed to the point they face insurrection anyway - what a convenient excuse child safeguarding will be. So what to do? Well I believe we would do well to start by realising that a tremendous crime has been committed, to which our governments have been negligently blind, one that you cannot even begin to fathom the magnitude of - the most audacious cheat of any time in history since Babylonians decided to arrogantly build their way to heaven… Specifically, the words, thoughts and pictures of billions of people have been (and are still being) harvested as we speak, with no respect for private intellectual property or personal boundaries, for the use of a very small number of people (most of whom are not in our jurisdiction) who own the devastatingly powerful monopoly of AI. However should we respond to that in Britain in such a way that we keep both our liberty and our children safe? Indeed - can we even preserve our humanity at all? The debate must start here - we do not yet have the solutions.

Expect more secret Netflix lessons in British schools folks, on emasculating gender spectrums, critical race theory, veganism, the joys of anal sex, climate catastrophes, our evil colonial past, toxic masculinity, British rape culture and how to self flagellate your straight, white privilege into apathetic compliance… this one is going to need it turned up to 11 to keep the country on its ‘multicultural’ tracks.

An interesting observation from the Human Rights charity that still won’t call for repeal of the Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment, which protects cross dressing and identity fraud in front of women, children and the vulnerable anywhere men like in the workplace… 🤷‍♀️

A point for TERFs in Australia as we move to now clawing back some single sex spaces 👇Do not concede on accepting gender in the law. It’s a lie. And leaving the lie in the law will mean something and that something will be bad for women and children.

He’s right. 💯 And most of the structural, constitutional revolution has already been achieved, we’re now just being dragged through the corresponding cultural revolution *after the event*, in order that we accept it and divert our lingering loyalty from a self governing, sovereign, constitutional monarchy of Great Britain, to the hollowed-out vassal territory of technocratic, socialist Modern Britain. This is why the schools are full of indoctrination - to make sure the treasonous conversion is accepted without question in future generations. The genius of the Fabian revolution was a) not to announce itself but to conduct it through impenetrable, legal sophistry in the name of something else b) to run it mostly alongside the old constitution, rather than as a full or direct replacement then c) to slowly switch our loyalty from one track to the other without us noticing the conversion. And make no mistake, whilst this revolution has been laundered through abstract, idealist human rights law and identity politics, its eventual target is materialist redistribution of property. See the words of none other than our PM Keir Starmer here, written in 1995: “Our task, as socialist lawyers, is to begin on the difficult road of drafting an instrument worthy of our conception of democracy which holds out the promise of an equal (or at any rate more equal) distribution not only of political power, but also of economic power. We could do worse than to begin by dismantling those common law rules governing the property entitlements of private parties which for almost a thousand years judges have been happy to regard as pre political norms. Keir Starmer on behalf of the Executive Committee” You see “worthy of *our* [meaning socialist lawyers’] conception of democracy” - not the British people’s, not the settled constitution that has given us internal peace for hundreds of years… but the preferred vision of a mandarin class imposed on everyone else by stealth under the guise of ‘human rights’. This is a proposal for tyranny, as surely as ever there was one - albeit the lack lustre, technocratic tyranny of a beta male son of a tool maker.

This is an important division here. Anyone who wants to understand the rift between the dominant, liberal LGB-GC women’s rights activists and those labelled ‘ultra’ who are skeptical of their work (which includes me!), you need to research this area. Crucially, Bev is mistaken in the two causes she mentions for the sadistic exploitation of the gender industry - she forgets a third *and the most significant* of the motivations; sexual perversion and predation - especially involving a range of fetishes and paraphilias from cross dressing to castration fetish and paedophilia, especially aimed at boys. The fact that the ideological fallout of the original motivation of male gender perversity has been monetised to injure girls in the majority (becsuse they fall for cult social contagion more easily), should not divert us from what the original, dark motivation is. Take a look at WPATH and eunarch fetish, at the mad US sexologists Money and Kinsey, at Foucault and Peter Newell (who imported gender ideology to the UNCRC) and indeed the rampant sexual corruption in the UN generally… and the very founding and development of the gay rights movement in the UK leading to ILGA, (which has never been without infiltration by predators like Ian Dunn from its inception), and which has repeatedly failed to clean up its own rainbow house - see Stephen Ireland. This is why the LGB-GC rear guard action to return women just ‘some’ of their rights via a ‘GC belief’, whilst retaining rights for ‘trans’ - and thus continuing to ruin child safeguarding within a rotten UN framework of corrupted human rights and equality law - was never going to be a serious solution. And the LGB-GC exclusion of sound thinkers like @AlessandraAster or @NoXYinXXprisons and others, only goes to show the gay rights and liberal feminist movements have learned nothing, and are operating on the same doomed, ‘shhhh we know best’ mandarin fantasy of control that brought us the ‘gender’ problem in the first place.

Erm, so why did you just use the term “LGBT community” then? That is precisely what the commentator above explained was a politicised abbreviation advancing the ‘woke’ agenda that gay Reform supporters wish to escape. I’m afraid you do not fill me with confidence that you know how to end DEI if you are still using that term. And actually, whilst I appreciate the point the guy in the video is making, about how the LGBT moniker has injured the standing of ordinary gay people who do not wish their sexuality to be politicised, there is a point that should have been made and broadcast before that one - which is that the ‘LGBT ’ moniker and gay rights generally, have been used to do untold damage to women and children in our society - something that far too many gay people in conservative political circles have been either blind to, or atrociously late to admit and oppose. Worrying about their own standing now ought to come second in my view to speaking up for women and children. If gays are joining Reform in droves to avoid ‘wokism’, then expect heterosexual women and mothers to have serious doubts about the significance of that until Reform properly addresses this social policy area. And @danny__kruger’s recent alignment with the human rights charity Sex Matters (who are offering nothing but poor compromises with trans laws) will not cut it. Women and mothers will want to know that this group are not agitating for surrogacy rights in the party, and that they recognise the need to undo LGBT activism in our schools to protect our kids from indoctrination. Can you give these reassurances sI that we can welcome this new alignment with non-woke gay members?

Good as it is to see a rebalancing in the US between authoritarian schools and ‘parents’ rights’, we should do better than this. Firstly, we should not be thinking about this issue from the litigious, abstract and divisive point of view of ‘parents’ rights’ at all - this invokes conflict between the competing rights of parents, children and schools, and thus breaks up the sense of family and community we need to look after all children properly together. Instead, we should be discussing all children’s needs (not rights) for being safe and cared for, to which the role of parental responsibility (not rights) and the schools’ duty (not rights) should be harmoniously dedicated. And that is a universal obligation for safeguarding all children and should not be determined by whatever a given parent or school thinks about religion, politics or gender theory. This is why we have higher, universal principles and rules regarding prohibiting political indoctrination in British schools (s406/407 Education Act) that are not related to guaranteeing nebulous rights, but rather prohibit certain ‘wrongs’. Instead we should address the nature of LGBTQ teaching itself, wrt whether it is accurate, truthful and safe, as well as considering who created it, who is delivering it and why. Having looked into those very questions (including writing a report for @womenpolicyctr here womenpolicycentre.com/wp-con…), it seems clear to me that by all objective measures, these topics in schools are unsafe. They introduce unverifiable gender ideology as fact, employ indoctrinating techniques, have routinely been hi jacked by political, commercial or even predatory exploiters, and are totally unfit for children and schooling altogether - regardless of whether some parents do or don’t agree with these topics. Offering a ‘right to withdraw’ for observant and conscientious parents to a system of thought that inherently amounts to cult formation and is a safeguarding risk, is not a solution. This merely leaves the most vulnerable children at risk of harm - not to mention creates visible political division between families and ear marks the children that are withdrawn as ‘outsiders’. Quite simply, we need to prohibit contemporary LGBTQ teaching snd resources full stop as part of a wider reappraisal of sex education, which has been infiltrated and captured at the international level by grossly corrupt interests that (funnily enough) mostly originated in the US.

You will find the same testimony given by teachers (and no doubt NHS workers as well as the corporate sector), anywhere where union or human resources culture has been heavily influenced by EDI in response to the rotten Equality Act. The EA2010 is an excuse for bullying.

Peel's Founding Philosophy Has Guided British Policing For Two Centuries. We Have Spent Fifty Years Dismantling It. In 1829 Sir Robert Peel established the Metropolitan Police on a founding philosophy that has guided British policing for nearly two centuries. That philosophy was later codified into nine principles known as the Peelian Principles and is still taught to every new recruit today. Those principles contain everything British policing needs to know about what went wrong on a Southampton street on December 4th 2025. Principle two. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect. Principle five. The police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law. Absolute impartial service to the law. Not racial equity. Not colour awareness. Not white privilege training. Not disproportionality monitoring. Not community sensitivity. Absolute impartial service to the law. Every person. Every community. Every accusation. The same standard. Without exception. Principle seven. The police are the public and the public are the police. Not the police are the ethnic minority communities and the ethnic minority communities are the police. The public. All of them. Equally. Principle nine. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it. Not the reduction of disproportionality in stop and search. Not the diversity of the workforce. Not the number of officers completing unconscious bias training. The absence of crime and disorder. That is the test. Now place those principles alongside the documents governing Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary on the night Henry Nowak died. The Hampshire Race Action Plan commits to pursuing offenders who cause harm to ethnic minority communities specifically. Not all communities. Ethnic minority communities specifically. The NPCC guidance tells officers that a commitment to racial equity does not mean treating everyone the same or being colour blind. The Metropolitan Police race action plan informs officers that neutrality is a myth and that their whiteness prevents impartiality. The Hampshire Inclusion Matters diversity course made nearly twenty percent of officers afraid they would be rejected for saying the wrong thing. The University of Reading noted that officers who did not respond well to the training may benefit from further intervention, monitoring or coaching. Peel said absolute impartial service to the law. The Metropolitan Police said neutrality is a myth. Peel said the police are the public. The NPCC said the police cannot be colour blind. Peel said the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder. The College of Policing said the test is reducing disproportionality in the use of police powers against ethnic minorities. These are not compatible frameworks. They are opposing philosophies. One treats every citizen as equal before the law. The other treats citizens differently according to their ethnicity and the accusations they make. One produced two centuries of policing by consent. The other produced the officers who handcuffed Henry Nowak. Alexis Boon, the chief constable of Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary, described the national outcry as a furore that had been whipped up. He does not accept the term two tier policing. Principle two. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect. The public approval is gone. The respect has been lost. The chief constable who cannot see why has not read the principles he was taught on his first day. The answer has been there since 1829. What changed was the decision to abandon it.

Oh importantly, a separate antidiscrimination law for disability - perhaps the one bit of law guaranteeing fairness and inclusion (as far as is affordable by society) that we should spend the most time on, but is frequently last in the queue after all the me, me, me LGBT feminist CRT neo marxist theories have made a mess. (See the casual coopting of disabled toilets for 'gender' needs.)

It’s intent, as was expressed by a Labour Minister in 2009 was to embed ‘Socialism in one clause’ (specifically a public sector equality duty) into anti discrimination law, so that minority identity markers could stand as a proxy for class and lead to the ‘positive action’ of authoritative redistribution of power and resources (ie clandestine cultural communism). And you can see how exceptionally well it has worked as intended - it has redistributed power from women to transvestites and from white boys walking home from the pub to wife wielding maniacs.