@SandyofSuffolk@TalkTV I may be wrong but I think they can claim Pension Credits :
Single person guarantee: £238 a week (approx. £1,030.56 a month)Couple guarantee: £363.25 a week (approx. £1,574.08 a month)Savings limit: Up to £10,000 in savings will not affect your claim,
Here it is. My manifesto for the 2026 Clacton By-Election. It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Join me, clean up Clacton and let's make 13th August Bin Day! #VoteBinface#VoteyMcVoteface#YesWeTinCan
What about female Londoners Mr Khan?
Should they be able to live without fear and prejudice?
Fear of men accessing their single sex spaces and services.
Because politicians like yourself appear to think the feelings of cross-dressing men and those with ‘gender identities’ are more important than keeping women and girls safe?
Your parents arrived from Sri Lanka in the early 1980s.
Your father as a paediatrician. Your mother as a nurse. Both worked in the NHS. They settled. They naturalised. You were born here in 1986 as a direct result of that legal migration pathway.
Without the system that allowed skilled overseas medical staff to come, work, and stay, you would not be posting from London as a Reform UK frontbencher.
Now look at the language you just used.
You describe the post-Brexit intake as “the WHOLE Boriswave of 4 million non-EU unskilled migrants” who must be denied settled status and lifetime welfare access.
You frame any softening of retrospective ILR reforms as a catastrophic giveaway. Yet a significant slice of that same cohort includes doctors, nurses, paediatricians and care workers filling the exact same NHS and social-care roles your parents filled. Many arrived under the points-based system, paid the Immigration Health Surcharge, paid taxes, and worked the same shifts.
You are not drawing a clean distinction between legal and illegal. You are drawing a distinction between the migrants who produced you and the migrants who look like them today. The former get the full “my parents played by the rules” treatment. The latter get “unskilled” and a warning about welfare. That is not principle. That is selective memory deployed for political effect.
You know the difference between a Channel-crossing small-boat case and a nurse who entered on a skilled visa. You choose the broader, more emotional framing because it weaponises public anxiety more efficiently.
The TikTok dig at Burnham is theatre. The real move is to treat the settled-status question of people doing the jobs your family once did as an existential threat, while your own family’s story is presented as the model of legitimate immigration.
I can’t believe that this has to be said but here we are!
Amnesty is no longer the organisation that defended all who were persecuted for their freedom of speech. It has become a self-appointed, vainglorious policeman of wrongthink. It tweets out ideological slogans. It demonises those who disagree with those slogans. It intervened in FWS v Scottish Ministers, on the side of those determined to keep men in women’s prisons and rape crisis centres.
Some of us haven’t forgotten that Amnesty stopped supporting the since-murdered prisoner of conscience Alexei Navalny because they deemed he’d said unacceptable things in the past. They reversed that decision due to public backlash, exactly as they withdrew the recent defamatory report, before I or anyone else had responded to it, because they panicked on seeing the reaction. A cynic might think they changed their minds on both occasions, not on principle, but because they were afraid of losing money.
You cannot be simultaneously an impartial defender of freedom and speech and a wealthy international witch hunter that publicly vilifies and intimidates small campaigning groups with whom you disagree. As for ‘silencing’ Amnesty, I have neither the power nor the desire to do so. I want them to explain as loudly and extensively as possible why they are using their might and formerly lustrous reputation to attack small non-violent campaigning organisations with legally protected beliefs.
@peakay81@Rc_lou@jk_rowling Are you seriously suggesting that women can identify male predators by looking at them with kindness and without paranoia ? It’s that easy ? Just look at them ? Wow if only the 77,000 + rape victims in 2025 had just used their eyes !
@peakay81@Rc_lou@jk_rowling And how do Women tell the difference between ‘real’ trans women with years of pain and suffering behind them and the so called imaginary straight male predators?
This man murdered Chloe Devey Waterhouse by stabbing her. Headline glorifies him as a maths graduate while reducing her to the ‘sweetheart’ of a violent man who didn’t love her. Chloe held a first-class maths degree and a Master’s in statistics.
@Mioewing@ManOfKent15 How was it fair that a Duke in a mansion and a low paid worker in a one bedroom flat paid exactly the same ? It is considered by historians and economists as deeply unfair and highly regressive