Hezbollard

[Jewish Jess @jessisajew]

Another Palestinian propaganda campaign being rolled out on X about a supposed child dying because of cold.

Just for clarity - it's currently 20c/70f in Gaza. No child has died of cold. It's not cold.

Idiots.

[Hezbollard @HEZBOLLARD]

🤣🤣🤣

[Shiri_Sabra @sabra_the]

Remember when Hamas made their own PR video showing them digging up pipes in Gaza and using them to create rockets to fire on Israel?
Well now they have no water and sewage system and they have flooding and guess who is to blame for that?

[Hezbollard @HEZBOLLARD]

@travelingclatt That a man or a woman?

[Hezbollard @HEZBOLLARD]

@AngelaRayner lying amd hiding stuff again, no wonder labour can't be trusted.

[Paul @Paulrestore]

John Burrows
1 October ·Thursday 1 October 2026 at 14:31
PLEASE PASS THIS AROUND, UNTIL EVERY ONE HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT... THIS IS SURELY SOMETHING WE ALL NEED TO THINK ABOUT!!!!
THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S CALCULATION OF AVAILABLE PENSION IS THAT THEY FORGOT TO FIGURE IN ALL THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY EVER COLLECTED OLD AGE PENSION.
WHERE DID ALL THAT MONEY GO?
Remember, not only did you and I contribute to our Pension, our employer did, too.
It totalled 15% of your income before taxes.
If you averaged only £15 000 over your working life, that's close to £220,500.
Read that again.
Did you see anywhere that the Government paid in one single penny? No they didn’t!!!!
We are talking about the money YOU and YOUR employer put in a Government BANK to ensure that you and I would have a
retirement pension from the money YOU put in!
It was not money that the Government had any right to spend elsewhere.
Now THE GOVERNMENT have started to call the money we paid in an ‘entitlement’ when we
reach the age to take it back.
If you calculate the future invested value of £2500 per year
(yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5%
interest (that's less than what the govt. pays on the money that it borrows from overseas), after 49 years of working you'd have
£892,919.98.
If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive £26,787.60 per
year and it would last better than 30 years (that means until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit!
If you bought an annuity with the money and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of £1976.40 per month.
THE CROOKS IN GOVERNMENT HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER ROBBERY THAN THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERS EVER DID.
Entitlement!!??
My foot!
IT'S MY MONEY!
I paid IN cash for my pension.
Just because they borrowed the money to spend on other things, that doesn't make my pension some kind of charity or handout!!
Remember MP's benefits? ---
They get free healthcare,
They get outrageous retirement packages,
They get 67 days paid holidays,
They get three weeks paid holidays,
They get unlimited paid sick days.
Now that really should be called welfare entitlements, yet they have the nerve to call my O A P retirement payments entitlements?
We're "broke" and the government can't help our own OAPs, our ex-service personnel, our orphans or our homeless.
Yet in the past few years we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile, Turkey, India, Pakistan, etc., etc., etc. Literally, BILLIONS of Pounds !!!
But they can't help our own citizens!
Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed’ old age pension have to beg social services to receive additional aid, while our government and religious organizations pour hundreds of billions of £££ tons of food to foreign countries!
They call the old age pension an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives, and now, when it's time for us to collect, the government is running out of money.
Why did the government borrow from it in the first place?
It was supposed to be in a securely locked box, not to be used as part of the Government's general funds.
Sad, isn't it, that some people won't have the guts to forward
this. I'm in the category with guts enough to do it - - - and I just did.
I hope some of you will do the same.

[Ady G33tt @garr18547]

Now Lib Dum Caroline Voaden has been shown as a liar, should she resign ?
I say yes..

[Hezbollard @HEZBOLLARD]

@CarolineVoaden Mps be lying again, what's new.

[Hezbollard @HEZBOLLARD]

@andrewc44104127 Lying.

[Sandra jane 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @Sandrajane1966]

💯 all of the uk 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🇮🇪🇬🇧

[Hezbollard @HEZBOLLARD]

Probably on the way to the uk, given a lift by @RNLI

[Eva Herman @EvaHermanEx_ARD]

‼️ EILMELDUNG: FRANZÖSISCHER GEHEIMDIENST LÄSST BOMBE PLATZEN
"Muslimische Randalierer wurden auf den Straßen von Paris, Lyon und Marseille dabei beobachtet, wie sie AK-47-Sturmgewehre und Maschinenpistolen mit sich führten.

Der französische Inlandsgeheimdienst erklärt:
„Wir erleben in Frankreich URBANEN TERRORISMUS.“

"Das Tragen eines AK-47-Sturmgewehrs hat nichts mit Protest zu tun. Das ist Krieg. Das ist keine Demonstration. Das ist ein koordinierter Straßenkrieg gegen französische Städte.

Teilen, bevor es unter den Teppich gekehrt wird.“

[Hezbollard @HEZBOLLARD]

@andrewc44104127 The true face of cousin marriage.

[Sandra jane 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @Sandrajane1966]

💯

[Hezbollard @HEZBOLLARD]

@RTChurches @CllrScottC @metpoliceuk Did you even read the op before you commented.

[ℝ𝕠𝕘𝕦𝕖_𝕘𝕦𝕟𝕟𝕖𝕣𝟙𝟚 @Rogue_Gunner12]

Nothing to see here according to the MSM 👇

[Hezbollard @HEZBOLLARD]

@BidenHolocaust @WittyCrypt0 We fight like men, not hide behind guns like you, that's why we ruled most of the world at one point. Un like the yanks whos had there ass handed to them more times than we have. We have furniture with more history than youre while nation, who's language do you use again? 🤣

[Hezbollard @HEZBOLLARD]

@BidenHolocaust @WittyCrypt0 Thays why you have so many school shootings and murder, nit really a great point for you to leave on but there you go, better look next time no neck.

[Hezbollard @HEZBOLLARD]

#NotMyKing

[The Kenzie Report @AskBritain_]

Should Britain ABOLISH the Monarchy?

[Hezbollard @HEZBOLLARD]

@BidenHolocaust @WittyCrypt0 Typical yank response. Yall ain't nothing without your guns

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

Britain Debates Conscription. Into What Army?

Britain is talking about conscription again. One historian suggests unemployed graduates could be first in line. Those who refuse might face fines. Russia threatens British interests. Warnings of wider European conflict grow louder by the month. Before deciding which young Britons should be sent to fight, there is a simpler question nobody in Westminster wants to answer first. Fight with what?

The 2025 Strategic Defence Review already told us the answer, and it was not reassuring. Decades of reduced capacity have left the Armed Forces thin, ammunition stockpiles low, reserves weak and the defence industrial base shrunk. The review called for a whole-of-society approach, recognising that modern war demands factories and engineers as much as soldiers, supply chains as much as rifles. Britain read that review. Britain has done little to answer it.

Successive governments spent the peace dividend after the Cold War. Budgets were cut. Military establishments shrank. Industrial capacity withered. Yet Britain kept speaking as though it remained a major military power, all while quietly hollowing out the means to act like one. Ukraine has shown the world what industrial warfare actually consumes. Ammunition disappears in weeks. Equipment is destroyed faster than it can be replaced. Stockpiles built for a different era vanish within months of serious fighting.

Now the state proposes to ask young civilians to make up the shortfall. Historian David Swift suggests unemployed graduates might be conscripted first, on the grounds that the policy would prove popular. Popular with whom? Certainly not the graduates being called up. Unemployment is not a military qualification. A degree is not evidence of combat readiness. Recruitment built on who is least likely to object is not recruitment built on who the country actually needs.

Fairness matters here too. If conscription is genuinely necessary for national survival, the burden must fall according to principles the public can see and test. Essential civilian work would need protection. Conscientious objection would need proper process. None of it means anything without instructors, equipment and the command structures to turn recruits into soldiers rather than bodies in uniform. A state that conscripts thousands without the capacity to train them has not strengthened its defence. It has created a queue.

Sixteen months after the Strategic Defence Review exposed Britain's military weaknesses, the government is still developing legislation to strengthen its ability to mobilise military personnel and increase industrial capacity in a crisis. Ministers acknowledged earlier this month that the details remained unfinished. Britain needs to know whether its factories, supply chains and industrial workforce could sustain a prolonged war. Yet even the legal framework for preparing the country remains incomplete.

Russia's nuclear arsenal makes direct confrontation a serious danger, which is precisely why credible conventional deterrence and NATO's collective defence matter so much. Weakness invites aggression. Strength does not guarantee peace, but it narrows the room for miscalculation, and narrowing that room is the entire point.

Politicians owe the public an account before they start drafting lists of who might be compelled to serve. What happened to the forces, the factories and the stockpiles that defence used to rest on? A generation should not be handed the bill for three decades of political neglect without first being told how it accumulated.

If Britain is serious about preparing for war, rebuilding the means to deter one would be the sensible place to begin. Conscription without capacity is not a defence policy. It is a slogan wearing a uniform.

"Historian David Swift suggests unemployed graduates might be conscripted first, on the grounds that the policy would prove popular."