People seem to have forgotten that it rained *constantly* this year in Britain between Christmas and Easter, and again for much of May. There is no water shortage. We’ve drained and desecrated our landscapes to the extent that they are now simply incapable of storing all that rainfall for us. The water is sent barrelling down land drains, ditches, artificially straightened streams and rivers to the sea, causing mayhem as it goes, and leaving us with no water afterwards. It’s so easy to fix this. It’s called ‘natural flood management’. Put back the bogs and marshes, the ponds and wetlands, re-wiggle the streams, liberate and reconnect the rivers to their flood plains, and we’ll find we have way less flooding, fewer hosepipe bans and cleaner water. Yet all we get each winter are hysterical calls for *more* dredging and straightening of the rivers, more draining of the fields. We must be the very last country in the world to grasp this basic natural hydrology.
There are people in senior roles right now who were preening about Edward Colston and continue to talk about reparations while we have Kurdish slavers living in sleepy Leicestershire villages.
Absolutely must come down like a tonne of bricks on this.
Striping infrastructure for scrap metal is fastest way to South Africa/3rd world status. If this becomes normalised your civilisation is over.
2 yrs for repeat offences is no deterrent. Needs to be 5 yrs for 1st offence.
This is one of the best examples of anarcho-tyranny I’ve heard from an MP. Lam is exceptionally good at exposing the sheer rot at the heart of Britain.
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.
We’ve had so many off ramps. I think for me the worst was when David Amess was murdered and MPs instead chose to place the blame on social media and advocate for censorship. A colleague, a man that was by all accounts decent and upstanding, a man many of them knew. Horrible
The exchange would have gone something like this:
Minister: why are we letting in so many asylum seekers? Have checks been done to ensure they aren’t a danger to the public?”
Home Office mandarin: we can’t do proper checks because they throw their ID docs in the sea. We have to let them in ‘cos ECHR.
Minister: I don’t care. Stop letting them in.
Government lawyer: no can do Minister. That’s unlawful.
Conversation continues round in circles.
Until we grapple with the bureaucratic state and the underlying legislation nothing will be fixed
Completely insane that an African man with no reason to be in Ireland literally tried to behead a local man on the street, and people saw the video and are still doing whataboutism
Nick Ferrari: Would you take the knee for Henry Nowak?
David Lammy: I…I..I…errr…no, I don’t think the family are asking for symbolism.
Nick: So you agree taking the knee is mere symbolism?
Lammy: We were in a pandemic!
David Lammy’s hypocrisy on full view.
People are very tired of this sort of disingenuous whataboutery — we all know that South Asian cultures have kinship based loyalties that often supersede the rule of law. Of course it’s about immigration and integration, stop insulting our intelligence.
The family of Rhiannon Whyte, who was stabbed to death by an illegal migrant with a screwdriver, have called for all illegal migration to end. They say Keir Starmer is responsible for the death of their loved one.
Why hasn't Starmer et al respected THEIR wishes?
When gangster Chris Kaba was shot by a police marksman, Neil Basu called it a "watershed moment" & announced the "black community don't trust policing at all".
But when Henry Nowak bleeds to death in police handcuffs, we mustn't talk about it because it's "divisive".
Hypocrite.
"Politicising" an event is just code for "drawing conclusions we don't like".
What you're meant to do is pretend this stuff is lightning from a clear blue sky, freak happenstance, and that it all just shows how diversity is our real strength. Not point out that our approach to managing the costs of that diversity led police to handcuff an innocent, dying man begging for help.
He told the police he couldn't breathe. He told the police he'd been stabbed.
British police officers handcuffed him and arrested him while he was choking on his own blood because the magic word - "racism!" - was invoked.
Why do they feel the need to do this? Why is it even allowed?
The oath is about allegiance to our shared public institutions, not the individual or their identity. It is supposed to be humbling and transcending, not another chance to show off how different and special you are.