50 Photos and videos
As often the case, the left think they will always be in power, not giving a second's thought what a centrist, centre-right or even hard right government would do with the powers they are giving to the state!
Bit odd that that investigating child abuse by grooming gangs was resisted for years but then now all of a sudden, child safety is the number one priority for Keir Starmer.
Just watch this government build the machinery to verify every adult online at speed. And once the infrastructure exists, the uses for it will go far beyond social media age checks
8
It is not hyperbole to say this proposal is a mark of a fearful and authoritarian government who sees its population as the problem.
Jun 15
Media apps have responded to Keir Starmers social media ban:
YouTube:
“YouTube is a vital resource for young people, educators and parents. Blanket bans push kids out of such curated, supervised, beneficial experiences and towards anonymous, less safe services.”
Meta: (Instagram, Facebook)
“As we’ve seen in Australia, bans risk isolating teens from online communities and information, and driving them to unregulated alternatives that lack built-in protections and parental controls.”
Snapchat:
“Because the majority of time spent on Snapchat is in private messaging between friends and family, an outright ban that disconnects teens from those relationships doesn’t make them safer – it may simply push them to less safe platforms.”
Elon Musk: (X)
“This censorship law is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The real goal is to enable the UK government to track everyone.”
He also said today that the UK is a police state.
6
Many a true word is spoken in JEST...
All credit to Labour, a very smooth transition from authoritarianism to totalitarianism.
x.com/Polymarket/status/2066…
6
Orwellian is often cited, sometimes incorrectly. In this case, perhaps not!
Jun 15
Under the pretext of banning under-16s from social media to “protect the children,” Keir Starmer has snuck in some small print that should make Americans really glad that all the tea was dumped into the Boston harbour back in 1773.
Adults will still be “allowed” to use the platforms… once they’ve handed over facial recognition, digital ID, passport, or credit card details to prove they’re not a child.
So it was never really about the kids. It was about making sure every single person who wants to speak online has to first tell the government exactly who they are.
Step 1: Link your real identity to your speech
Step 2: police have a lovely searchable database of every spicy take, meme, or complaint you’ve ever posted
Step 3: bring in the consequences - arrests, travel ban, debunking, for out-of-bounds speech
The UK is in a free fall.
Andrew retweeted
Jun 15
Catherine McKinnell MP. The "mum at the station" anecdote. How wonderfully convenient. How perfectly timed. How completely made up.
This is X, Catherine. Not Facebook. We don't do "heartwarming" here. We do facts. And the fact is: every Labour MP suddenly has a "mum at the station" story in the last 24 hours. What are the odds? Did you all share the same mum?
"Excited for her younger son to have more quality time" by banning him from communicating with his friends? By giving the state control over his digital ID? By pushing him to VPNs and darker corners of the internet where you can't track him?
That's not quality time. That's surveillance time. That's "we couldn't be bothered parenting so we outsourced it to the state" time.
Keep your saccharine stories for your constituency Facebook page. On X, we see the digital ID agenda behind the smile. We see the tracking behind the "protection." We see the votes you're hemorrhaging behind the "mum at the station."
The government isn't taking action to support parents. It's taking action to control children. And the only person excited about that is you, Catherine. Because it gives you something to tweet about while the country burns.
Stay in your lane. The platform for made-up feel-good stories is three clicks that way. This is X. We deal in truth here.
42
174
1,046
9,193
Andrew retweeted
Jun 14
I’m sick of Jews who believe that Judaism has more in common with Islam than with Christianity, just because Islam promotes “pure monotheism.”
That’s a shallow view. Judaism and Islam share nothing. The god of Islam is the antithesis of the God revealed in the Hebrew Bible.
Islam claims to be a monotheistic religion, yet its very structure suggests otherwise.
True monotheism means that God alone is supreme, that He alone dictates morality, and that no other being, human or otherwise, can share in His divine authority.
But in Islam, Muhammad is not just a messenger. He is more than that. He is, in practice, greater than Allah.
The Quran, which Muslims claim is the eternal, unchangeable word of Allah, repeatedly intervenes in Muhammad’s personal life, not to guide humanity, but to conveniently grant him whatever he desires.
Even Aisha, his 9 years old wife, noticed this.
When Muhammad received “revelation” permitting him to marry as many women as he wished, including the wife of his own adopted son, Aisha sarcastically said:
“I feel that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desires.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 4788)
Think about that.
The supposed God of the universe conveniently "reveals" solutions to Muhammad’s personal issues, whether it's approving his sexual desires, justifying his political decisions, or silencing his critics.
Is that a God who is supreme? Or a prophet who is using divine revelation to serve himself?
In Islam, you can blaspheme against Allah and still be forgiven. You can repent, and Allah will accept it. But if you insult Muhammad, you die. No repentance.
This is written explicitly in Islamic law. Ibn Taymiyyah, one of the most influential Islamic scholars, stated:
“Whoever insults the Prophet, even if he repents, must be killed.”
Countless people, Muslim and non-Muslim, have been murdered for “insulting” Muhammad, from ancient Islamic conquests to modern assassinations like the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
How can you claim that Allah is supreme when mocking Him is forgivable, but mocking Muhammad is a death sentence?
Islam demands that every Muslim prayer include praise for Muhammad. The Shahada, the Islamic declaration of faith, does not simply acknowledge Allah, it requires the mention of Muhammad alongside Him:
There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger of Allah.
Muslims can't even complete a single prayer without sending blessings upon Muhammad.
Yet in true monotheism, a prophet is just a messenger.
56
142
563
10,068
I've just listened to this as a podcast and it's even more terrifying than previous conversations I've heard of his.
@LiquidFaerie worth a listen/watch.
The immediacy of the threat is brought out in this discussion and sadly - and I hope he's incorrect - it's inevitability.
If he is correct, the risk to minorities, especially Jews will be immense.
youtu.be/L2K2O7skuP8
2
3
287
Several points in this can no doubt be disrupted, but the inability of our political and media class to hold two thoughts in one's head is indeed valid.
The violent attacks prevent the conversation we desperately need and serve to enable the state to write-off the problem of mass migration as "racist."
Jun 10
Danny Finkelstein delivers a withering assessment of extremist rage on both sides following last night’s violent scenes in Belfast.
“Nobody has the right to burn people out of their homes to make a point.”
@Dannythefink
15
"There's nothing to see here... Move along!"
Jun 12
What’s living in the UK like? I’ll tell you. In the last week alone we have had to process:
-an attempted beheading by an illegal migrant from Sudan in Belfast
-while still trying to make sense of a boy, Henry Nowak, being stabbed to death while police were more anxious about allegations of “racism” than trying to save his life
-then we learn children in Scotland were assaulted by Bulgarians while the police didn’t believe them either
-while reading that a vulnerable 18-year-old was r*ped by an asylum-seeker from Pakistan
-while an asylum-seeker from Iraq got only 6 years for r*pe
-while an Iraqi national, was found guilty of eight counts of r*pe and grooming children as young as 12
-and his friend from Iran who arrived illegally skipped bail and is on the run
-and now we learn that a teenage girl has been stabbed in the neck by no doubt “a local man” in Burnley.
That’s one week in the UK. Oh, and the Left say talking about all this is “divisive”, they blame social media and Elon Musk, and local councils have told us not to fly our national flag because it might “intimidate” migrants. One week. The UK. 🤡
9
'In the face of Islamic expansionism, not by sword, but through ideological power, mass migration, legal agitation, and cultural intimidation, Western nations must decide:
Will you be Spain or Egypt?'
Jun 12
Spain or Egypt?
Both were conquered by Islamic armies. Both were centers of rich, pre-Islamic civilization. But only one reclaimed its soul.
For nearly 800 years, Spain lived under Islamic rule. But the Spanish people never accepted it as final.
Through centuries of resistance, revolts, and the unrelenting Reconquista, Spain eventually drove out the occupiers. Spain reclaimed its civilizational integrity.
Today, Spain is a Western, secular, democratic state. The Spanish language, Christian heritage, and European identity were not erased.
Egypt, on the other hand, the cradle of one of humanity’s oldest civilizations, a land of pharaohs, hieroglyphs, libraries, and monotheism before Islam ever appeared, was invaded in the 7th century.
The Coptic Christian majority had no organized defense. The result was that Islam absorbed Egypt’s identity. Arabic replaced Coptic. Mosques replaced temples and churches.
Over generations, the Egyptian mind was colonized spiritually and linguistically, until the population no longer remembered what it had lost.
Today, Egypt is an Islamic republic. Less than 10% of Egyptians remain Christian, persecuted in the land where their faith once thrived.
Unlike Spain, Egypt didn’t fight for its cultural survival. It adapted, assimilated, and submitted.
This is more than a history lesson. It’s a mirror held up to the West today.
In the face of Islamic expansionism, not by sword, but through ideological power, mass migration, legal agitation, and cultural intimidation, Western nations must decide:
Will you be Spain or Egypt?
13
This helps explain why our justice system doesn't make any sense.
Jun 11
The woman David Lammy wants to choose our judges says they should NOT be appointed on merit alone.
She thinks diversity should determine appointments.
She must not be allowed to run the Judicial Appointments Commission.
13
Andrew retweeted
Jun 11
The Home Office: "Avoid travelling to Sudan because it's extremely dangerous and violent there."
Also the Home Office: sets up a fast track system for Sudanese fighting age men to enter the UK with minimal vetting.
Make it make sense...
80
1,557
7,775
56,733
I'd almost forgotten about the Dundee axe girl - just one more blip in the chaos engulfing the UK.
The part that stood out for me was:
'Prosecutor Michael Robertson asked Belov: "You were the adult in this situation, you could have just walked away couldn't you?"
Belov replied: "You are right. I needed to know why they are disrespecting me for no reason."'
The culture of disrespect is indeed foreign to most Brits. Attitudes have to change.
bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2d…
26
In a country where we no longer know what will get us arrested, outside voices are more important than ever.
Whilst the govt still allows X to exist, more like @japan_nobunaga must lend their voice to an increasingly silenced population.
Jun 10
British people on X keep telling us they cannot speak freely.
That saying the truth about mass immigration and crime will get them arrested, fired, or labeled for life.
That is exactly why Japanese accounts have to say it out loud.
Your country is being fundamentally changed against the clear will of the native population.
Your children are paying the highest price.
Your police protect the perpetrators more than the victims.
We in Japan see it clearly.
And we are asking — how much more are you willing to lose before you decide that your children’s future matters more than being called names?
The window is closing. Fast.
16
The government and press seek to deflect rather than ask the tough questions why people are angry.
Violence isn't the answer and must stop, but the nation is hurting, but 'their' solution is to accuse those speaking out of fuelling the tension and anxiety.
4
And so the censorship begins apace.
Not: "we will end mass uncontrolled immigration and will make your communities safe."
No, instead it us: "we want you silent so that you don't report what your eyes are telling you, so that we can continue with the illusion multiculturalism is working."
Jun 10
Those who use social media to incite violence and disorder are breaking the law.
Next week we will lay in Parliament an update to the Online Safety Act requiring services to take quicker action to remove illegal content circulating during times of crisis.
8
Very true and accurate, but also terrifying for the future.
Jun 10
Here’s the problem. The liberal political class wants us to treat atrocities like Belfast as single, random, isolated incidents. “Yes, it’s horrific, but don’t overreact,” they say. “Let the police do their job. Justice will be delivered. Let’s remain united,” and so on.
But the public can see that such incidents *aren’t* random or isolated. They are, in fact, all the consequence of massive state failure in the area of asylum and immigration. All roads lead back there.
That’s why people are angry.. They are sick of the platitudes that get trotted out after each fresh incident. They don’t want to hear them anymore. They know that the decisions of establishment politicians have brought us to this current pass, and they don’t trust those same politicians to fix things, especially when some of them refuse to even recognise that the public’s anger is justified.
There has been a huge vibe shift in recent years. Imagine - God forbid - there were another 7/7. Does anyone think the public response would be anything like as restrained as it was then? We are in really dangerous territory.
The public don’t want flowers and candles and “Don’t let them divide us.” They want someone who says, “I recognise that the state has failed abjectly. We have allowed far too many people to settle in the country without knowing who they truly are. It has disrupted your communities. Your anger is justified. And I will do everything in my power to put things right.”
Any politician unwilling to articulate that message, fully and sincerely, is effectively sanctioning more years of growing social disharmony and discord. Things cannot heal until those in power recognise the extent of the problem and what it will take to fix it. And, on both counts, most of them don’t.
That’s why the next few years are going to be very, very turbulent.
6
Sometimes an outsider gets the situation correctly. It's also important when those insiders no longer have freedom of speech!
Well done @DMcP92 for getting out pretty much right.
Jun 10
I’ll give an American who recently lived in the UK. The Brits have extraordinary ability to endure pain and discomfort and not say anything about it. It is colloquially known as a “stiff upper lip”. And they take a lot of pride in it.
There is a reluctance to rock the boat.
There is white guilt in their history.
There is an alarming socialist/marxist thought.
They are led by a Marxist human rights lawyer.
Labour and the Tories are a uniparty. The other more institutional parties are even father left. Only recently has Reform and now Restore gained some popularity.
They would be horrified to be called racist.
There is an elitism that remains strong from their aristocratic and class driven history. The victims are in the working class and are seen as trash.
They do not have freedom of speech — in law or even practice. I would routinely speak to my Brit coworkers and they’d have to close the door to speak truthfully. Even then they were afraid.
The few people that do speak out the media and elites brand as “far” right. And immediately attempt to ostracize them.
All relatively good people.
But it’s bad there. Like dystopian bad. There are so few courageous ones left. I am a fan of their history and what they gave to the world. I wish for a more confident and strong UK
1
14
Liberating the captured institutions will be an uphill struggle, but without doing so there will be little chance of saving the UK.
The University of Oxford ‘allowed’ trans protests that led to the cancellation of a lecture series on gender and the law.
Equality law expert Dr Michael Foran has been forced to cancel the remaining two lectures in his four-part series examining how sex and gender have shaped the law, including controversies surrounding single-sex spaces, freedom of expression, privacy, sport and sexual intimacy.
Trans activists disrupted two separate events by walking to the front of the lecture hall and telling the audience that Foran is a bigot who should be no-platformed.
Footage from 29 May shows one protester claiming that Foran “masks his transphobia behind a thin veneer of academia”.
The protester went on to say:
“If you are here in a critical capacity to challenge his ideas… that is not the same as refusing to platform him. He will not be convinced by your arguments. Please join me in walking out and refusing to platform this bigot.”
During the second lecture, on 5 June, the same two protesters returned and again addressed the audience. This time, they were largely drowned out by audience members. After they left, two more activists who had been planted in the audience continued the disruption.
A university source has now revealed that Oxford’s Proctors’ Office gave permission for the protests to go ahead.
Students who attended the lectures also said that, despite complaints about the disruption and intimidating atmosphere at the first event, university officials still allowed activists to protest at the second lecture.
The Proctors’ Office is responsible for enforcing the University’s conduct regulations. Students must seek permission from the office to stage a protest, on the condition that it is peaceful and does not disrupt “the lawful exercise of freedom of speech”.
It is clear from the footage that this was not a non-disruptive protest.
Yet all we have heard from the University of Oxford is a mealy-mouthed commitment to freedom of speech and academic freedom.
It must do more.
Read more below in The Times 👇
1
7