Alex Lambert 🏴󠁧󠁢

Independent Futures Trader

[Bernie @Artemisfornow]

🚨This is important. And it’s why i constantly bang on about what’s happening in the Global background.

The WHO has expanded its responsibilities, in to areas of your life you had no idea was an unelected organisation’s business. Because it shouldn’t be!

On 9 July 2026, the WHO and International Telecommunication Union ( this isn’t a union, it’s a division of the UN) published a 254-page draft blueprint for “Digital Public Infrastructure for Health.”

The UN & the WHO have set out a “Lifelong Health Record” covering your entire life and interactions with the NHS.

It says this record is not an optional extra but part of the “minimum viable foundation” for digital health infrastructure. You would access it through a portal, mobile application or digital health wallet. ( oh hello NHS app )

That record then feeds a public health surveillance platform and will cover

▪️digital identity
▪️lifelong health records
▪️health wallets ‘ verifiable credentials
▪️patient, workforce &facility registers
▪️cross border exchange
▪️public health surveillance
▪️automated clinical decision support
▪️links to digital payment infrastructure.
Er ….

The WHO says countries should build their health systems on top of existing digital identity, data exchange and payment infrastructure, (remember Burnham said he’d cancelled this, he hasn’t) rather than create separate systems.

This effectively sticks the UN and the WHO above national systems. They say the database will remain national, they will not access records but every country should have a common framework.

You didn’t vote for this.

I warn about this and much more in my book. The link to the WHO document is in the thread.

[Rand Paul @RandPaul]

My committee combed through millions of COVID documents, and what did we find?

Anthony Fauci destroyed records. He told others to delete emails. And then he told them to delete them from deleted files.

He and his allies privately doubted the "implausible" line on a lab leak while publicly attacking anyone who raised it.

And he never took responsibility for funding dangerous research in China.

Next week, Dr. Fauci goes under oath in front of my committee, and he’s going to answer for everything we’ve found.

[Sama Hoole @SamaHoole]

Jeremy Clarkson made £144 farming a thousand acres in his first year.

In year six he lost five thousand.

His own words to his land agent: dispiriting enough to clear a hundred and forty-four quid at the start, and here we are six years on, down five grand. The harvest had been projected at thirty-seven thousand profit. Weather and prices took it.

Now look at what that thousand acres has behind it that yours does not.

One of the best land agents in the country. A farm manager who has worked that ground since he was a teenager. A farm shop with a queue down the lane, a pub, bestselling books, more than a quarter of a million in subsidy across three years, and a television production paying for the entire thing to be filmed.

It is the most commercially advantaged thousand acres in Britain, and the farming still loses money.

That figure should end every conversation about British agriculture, and it is the one number that never makes it onto a campaign graphic. Not the glyphosate. Not the pig housing. The margin.

Because everything people object to on a farm grows straight out of it. The field pushed to the very edge. The hedge that came out because the government paid to have it removed. The shed instead of the yard. The supermarket contract signed below cost because the alternative was no contract. Nobody intensified out of malice. They were priced into it over sixty years by a policy that decided cheap groceries mattered more than a countryside, and by a retail sector that kept the difference.

Britain now grows around sixty per cent of its own food. More than a third of British farmers are past sixty-five.

The man with the Amazon cheque cannot make a thousand acres pay.

The seventy-year-old with three hundred and no film crew is doing it anyway, and being told by people who have never sold a tonne of anything that he is the problem.

[Amy Mek @AmyMek]

🚨 GEERT WILDERS’ WARNING TO AMERICA

Look at New York: Mayor Zohran Mamdani swore on the Quran - the Book of Hate - refuses to condemn “globalize the Intifada,” and wants Columbus statues torn down.

Look at Minnesota: Ilhan Omar sneers at the country that gave her refuge while advancing Somalia’s interests in Congress.

Look at Dearborn: Mayor Abdullah Hammoud told a citizen who objected to honoring a jihadist, “You’re an Islamophobe. Move out.”

They want your history erased, your statues smashed, your streets renamed, and their crescents raised.

They want you a stranger in your own land - apologizing for being American.

Europe’s lights of freedom are almost out.
America is next on the menu.
You already had 9/11

.Will you rise up… or wait until it’s too late?

[Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ]

Why was there a national debate over the far right after Jo Cox but is no debate over the far left today?

Why did MPs openly speculate about a 'far right plot' in Suffolk but tell us not to do so after Ann Widdecombe?

And why is the far-left constantly excused?

Latest post⬇️

[Basil the Great @BasilTheGreat]

Amazing clip of Elon Musk shutting down a journalist who uses the term 'Far-Right'

"If you go back 10 or 15 years these were completely normal policies"

Secure borders
Safe cities
Sensible spending

"These are not far right, these are normal people"

[Elica Le Bon الیکا‌ ل بن @elicalebon]

Can somebody ask @NYCMayor Zohran Mamdani why he isn’t plannning to arrest Pezeshkian, the president of the Islamic Republic, who is attending the same UN conference as Netanyahu in September?

Tens of thousands of Iranians murdered in two days.

The worst massacre of our time.

No speech?

No arrest?

No performance?

[Stuey Beef 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @stuey_beef]

Angela Rayner didn’t just underpay roughly £40,000 of stamp duty on her Hove flat and breach the ministerial code – she then pocketed a £16,876 “golden goodbye” for resigning over it, funded entirely by the taxpayers she short-changed.

Now Andy Burnham has simply reinstated her as Housing Secretary, same department, same brief, same salary, as if nothing happened – while she keeps the cash for a job she’s now doing again.

Ministers are supposed to get severance if they leave office – Rayner turned it into a revolving-door bonus: resign in “disgrace”, bank 25% of your ministerial salary, then stroll back in with your mate in No10.

If this were any other workplace, it would be called what it is: taking money under false pretences. Why should families who pay every penny of their tax bill fund a redundancy payment for a minister who wasn’t actually made redundant?

[Alex Lambert 🏴󠁧󠁢 @alambert67]

@toadmeister Another case of 'invertism' on the left. They should be called Hate Not Hope!

[Alex Lambert 🏴󠁧󠁢 @alambert67]

@Riley_Gaines_ Bravo Sophie 👏🏻

[Bernie @Artemisfornow]

At this stage I really think the Government needs to inform the public how many foreign criminals will be released from prison in September under the early release scheme.

It is in the public interest to know exactly how many of those prisoners will remain in the UK, how many will be automatically deported, and what support, if any, taxpayers will be funding going forward. The Government should also tell us the migration status of those foreign prisoners.

I find it completely unacceptable that the Government is appealing the Information Commissioner's decision rather than publishing information about the categories of offences committed, and is also refusing to tell the public what happens to these prisoners when they are released. Don't you?

[The Free Speech Union @SpeechUnion]

The new Government should axe its plans for an Islamophobia tsar and abandon the official definition of “anti-Muslim hostility”.

The Starmer Government effectively reintroduced Britain’s blasphemy laws — for Islam alone — via the back door, 18 years after Parliament voted to abolish them.

Since the introduction of this de facto Islamic blasphemy law, we have seen Labour MPs and public bodies, such as South Wales Police, weaponise the definition to silence legitimate criticism of Islam, its history and its practices.

In a free country, no religion should be put on a pedestal or afforded greater protection than others. Nor should any religion be shielded from legitimate challenge and debate.

The definition also risks fuelling community tensions, leading to an increase in genuine incidents of anti-Muslim hostility.

Far from tackling genuine hatred, this definition risks undermining that very objective.

[Alex Lambert 🏴󠁧󠁢 @alambert67]

@AllForProgress_ I prey you're successful 🙏🏻

[Toby Young @toadmeister]

"'Hate speech' laws didn't just target incitement to violence. They opened the door to criminalising opinions and laid the foundations for today's cancel culture. We should do away with them."

@JonHolb on the Sceptic.

Full episode 👇

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

Akhmed Yakoob Doesn't Want Shabir Ahmed Deported. He Wants a Fight He's Already Rehearsed

Akhmed Yakoob says deporting Shabir Ahmed, a man convicted of raping children as young as twelve, would amount to "appeasing the far-Right." Read that sentence again. In Yakoob's framing, removing a child rapist from the country is the dangerous act. The man who calls him a "dangerous, dirty criminal" in one breath spends the next warning Shabana Mahmood he'll "make it an issue" on the doorsteps if she goes through with it. That is not concern for justice. That is a threat, delivered in the language of concern.

It is worth knowing who is making it. Yakoob told a mosque audience in Dewsbury that Allah had put him in his position to "challenge the Zionist regime," and has described Zionism as a "fascist ideology" that "controls everything." During the Birmingham bin strikes, he and Shakeel Afsar warned council officials, including Majid Mahmood, the city's cabinet member for environment and transport, that they would be confronted at their private homes if the dispute wasn't resolved on their terms. That is a documented pattern: grievance dressed as principle, backed by the implicit threat of disorder if it isn't met.

Seen against that record, his intervention here isn't really about Ahmed at all. It's the same method applied to a new target. Shabana Mahmood, a British Pakistani Home Secretary who stood against Yakoob at the last election and beat him, is now facing the same tactic she presumably thought she'd left on the campaign trail: a rival who cannot win an argument on the substance, so instead threatens to make her life difficult among the voters he claims to speak for.

The Telegraph's own framing does Yakoob an unearned favour. He appears in this story as one voice among several "senior figures" in a "divided" community, sitting alongside Lord Mohammed, who raises reasonable concerns about diplomatic fallout, and Ayesha Ijaz Khan, who makes a defensible legal argument that Pakistan is within its rights to refuse Ahmed's return. Both are arguments. Yakoob's is not. Flattening all three into "the community is divided" treats a threat and a legal opinion as though they belong to the same category of speech.

A source close to Mahmood put the actual stakes plainly: "So he would rather have a grooming gang leader who sexually abused multiple children in the country." That it was said anonymously, rather than by Mahmood herself on the record, tells its own story. Even a Home Secretary facing this from a challenger with Yakoob's history is choosing to let a spokesperson carry the sharpest line rather than risk being drawn into a public fight framed on his terms.

This is what sectarian politics looks like once it moves from council chambers to national policy. It does not argue that a position is wrong. It signals that holding the position will cost you something, at your door, on the doorstep, in the ballot box, regardless of whether the underlying policy is right. Mahmood is proposing to deport a man who ran a network that fed twelve-year-old girls to grown men for cash. That is not a controversial position requiring careful management of "community sensitivities." It is the minimum a government owes its citizens.

Yakoob is entitled to disagree with immigration sanctions on diplomatic or legal grounds, as others quoted in this same article do without controversy. What he is not entitled to do is dress a threat in the language of grievance and expect it to be treated as legitimate politics. Britain has watched this method work before, in Birmingham's council chamber and on its picket lines. Whether it works again, on a Home Secretary facing down her own former rival, will say a great deal about whether intimidation has become simply how politics is now done.

"Akhmed Yakoob says deporting Shabir Ahmed, a man convicted of raping children as young as twelve, would amount to "appeasing the far-Right.""

[Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK]

🚨What kind of a government does this to its own people?

Labour's new India trade deal just came into effect.

Labour have snuck in a last-minute amendment granting Indian professionals FIVE YEARS of exemption from National Insurance contributions.

That means that if an Indian company wants a job doing in Britain, they will get a tax break for choosing to send an Indian employee to do it, rather than hiring someone in our country.

That creates a massive incentive to increase immigration as the number of job openings sinks to the lowest level in years.

Britain's young people, in particular, have been slapped in the face yet again: youth unemployment here has now surpassed that of Greece and is getting close to Spain’s disastrous levels.

It’s yet another example of the political class putting everyone else ahead of British citizens.

In one breath, Labour denies the existence of two-tier Britain. In the next, they introduce yet more discrimination against the people they’re supposed to represent.

How much longer are we expected to tolerate a government which spits in the face of the British people?

[Rt. Hon Ben Wallace @BenWallace70]

I am no fan of Refom but every time the @timespolitics @guardian mentions Geroge Cottrell the prefix it with “convicted criminal.”. They must prefix Louie Haigh then with “convicted fraudster.” Not to do so is to show disdain for professional journalism.

[Alex Lambert 🏴󠁧󠁢 @alambert67]

@dickiematthews5 None.... He's a pitiful excuse of a politician

[spiked @spikedonline]

‘The people telling us not to “politicise” Ann Widdecombe’s murder are the very same people who immediately blamed Jo Cox’s murder on the Brexit campaign. These are bad-faith actors trying to police our emotions’

Claire Fox on the killing that shook a nation:

[Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK]

So the rules are Reform MPs - fearing for their lives - cannot even insinuate that the brutal murder of their colleague may have been a targeted attack - even when it was obvious from the start.

But the Labour Home Secretary, PM, incoming PM, Police, the BBC and entire establishment media can instantly speculate wildly and loudly about a “right wing” terrorist plot on an Islamic event -

only for the it to be proven totally false.

This is Britain in 2026.

This is why Britain needs REFORM.