Bren Rogers 🇬🇧 ✂️💚🤍💜

#Adult Human Female. Big egos are big shields for lots of empty space - Diana Black

[Bren Rogers 🇬🇧 ✂️💚🤍💜 @brenrogers]

@kevinhollinrake How dare you !! you really need to do your homework and actually look into what Nazism stood for! Disgusting behaviour from you and the Conservatives 🤬

[Renée Hoenderkamp @DrHoenderkamp]

Women of this insane country, send your best wishes and support to @MartineBBC who is not allowed to have her protected beliefs upheld at the @BBC who now have veto on facial expression.

Martine, you were right, the only 'people' who can get pregnant are women. We women support you.

[Chris Rose @ArchRose90]

This isn’t left vs right.

It’s not Sarah Pochin vs Labour (and sadly a few Tory rejects).

It’s facts vs lies.

I choose to be on the side backed with facts.

[Queen Bee @KingBobIIV]

Can anyone angry with Reform, simply just explain to me why this is ok but what Sarah said isnt? Just tell me the difference, explain it to me like Im 5.

[Allison Pearson @AllisonPearson]

This is shameful from @TowerHamletsNow
The Pink Ladies is a spontaneous uprising of concerned mums, grandmothers, aunts, sisters who don’t want undocumented migrants dumped in their communities.
Nothing far right about protecting your kids.
@pinkladies_uk

[Chris Rose @ArchRose90]

35 strikes under Boris as Mayor of London.

Sadiq Khan: That’s a disgrace and walkouts are a sign of failure!

149 strikes under Sadiq as Mayor of London.

Sadiq Khan:

[Bren Rogers 🇬🇧 ✂️💚🤍💜 @brenrogers]

@basilthegreat @Nigel_Farage @reformparty_uk is this true ? I may have to rethink my membership @ZiaYusufUK @TiceRichard

[The Constitution @TheConstit71705]

Public Statement on North Somerset Council’s Letter to Schools

Ladies and gentlemen,

North Somerset Council has issued a letter to schools regarding its proposal to become a ���Council of Sanctuary.” While the stated intention is to create a welcoming environment, the letter itself raises serious legal and moral concerns.

First, the legal issues.
The Education Act of 1996 is clear. Section 406 prohibits schools from promoting partisan political views, and Section 407 requires that when political issues are discussed, schools must present a balanced view. Immigration and asylum policy are unquestionably political issues. By encouraging schools to “raise awareness,” “encourage action,” and engage with the branded campaign of “Council of Sanctuary,” the Council risks breaching these legal duties.

Furthermore, the letter steers schools toward reporting so-called “hate incidents.” The Home Office has issued a Code of Practice to prevent lawful dissent from being recorded as a “non-crime hate incident.” Free speech, particularly on political questions, is protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. Disagreement with council policy cannot and must not be treated as a hate incident.

Second, the moral breach.
A local authority must act with neutrality, transparency, and respect for open debate. By framing community objections as “prejudice” and directing schools to take sides in a political campaign, the Council risks intimidating parents, teachers, and pupils who hold lawful opposing views. Schools are meant to be places of balanced civic education, not vehicles for council-endorsed activism.

What should happen now?
One, the Council must withdraw and replace this letter with neutral guidance that reminds schools of their impartiality duties under the Education Act.
Two, the Council must publish all policy records and third-party materials linked to the “Council of Sanctuary” scheme.
Three, advice on hate incident reporting must be corrected in line with the Home Office Code of Practice, making clear that lawful dissent is protected speech.
And four, if schools discuss this proposal, they must present opposing views fairly and avoid requiring pupils to adopt or promote any campaign position.

In conclusion.
Welcoming vulnerable people is a legitimate goal, but it must be pursued lawfully and without political bias. The Council’s letter risks breaching legal duties, chilling free expression, and undermining public trust. It is imperative that North Somerset Council corrects course immediately.

[Jonathan Wong @WONGthink]

Hi, former Chinese takeaway owner, and over 30-year family history in the Chinese food industry here.

It's okay to eat Chinese and love your country 🇬🇧

[The Constitution @TheConstit71705]

MOJ & THE MET: THE TWO-TIER CLOWN COURT OF INVERTED JUSTICE

Or: When a Labour councillor can mime a decapitation on camera and walk free, but you get jailed for a meme

By Maximilian-Rex Cromwell
The Constitution

SECTION I: RICKY “SLICE & DICE” JONES WALKS FREE – THE JURY BLINKED TWICE

So let’s get this straight. A sitting Labour councillor shows up to a protest, calls people “Nazi fascists,” then follows it up with a literal throat-slitting gesture, all captured in glorious HD.
Charged? Yes.
Guilty? Not in this political panto.
The jury took 30 minutes to come back with “Not Guilty,” which is about as long as it takes to microwave a Tesco lasagne, or the time it takes the CPS to decide if they feel brave enough to prosecute anyone Left-wing.

Meanwhile, if you so much as whisper the wrong pronoun during a Facebook rant, you’re frogmarched to the gulag by Avon & Somerset’s TikTok Diversity Squad.

SECTION II: WELCOME TO BRITAIN – WHERE LAWS APPLY TO YOU, BUT NOT TO LABOUR

This isn’t a justice system. It’s a loyalty scheme.

Tier One: Labour MPs, councillors, and activists. Say what you want. Threaten, scream, gesture, accuse, do the whole interpretive hate-dance, and you’ll be acquitted by lunchtime with a standing ovation from the Guardian.

Tier Two: You. The pleb. The tax-paying, flag-waving, food-bank-skipping citizen. Say anything not approved by the hive mind, and it’s arrest, charge, and straight to jail, do not pass GO, do not collect public sympathy.

SECTION III: THE MET POLICE – SERVING, PROTECTING, AND OCCASIONALLY FILMING FROM THE OTHER SIDE

Ah, the Metropolitan Police. Ever ready to pounce if you tweet a spicy limerick, but weirdly absent when a known councillor is on video doing his best Gaddafi impression at a political rally.
Maybe the Met thought it was performance art?
Maybe their bodycams had the day off?
Maybe they were too busy compiling arrest warrants for blokes in Croydon who posted memes of Labour logos Photoshopped onto tanks.

Honestly, the Met is starting to resemble a Netflix improv troop with batons, clueless, politically aligned, and armed with a list of forbidden punchlines.

SECTION IV: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE – NOW SERVING SELECTIVE OUTRAGE À LA MODE

The MOJ leapt into action so fast on Ricky Jones, it’s like they’d rehearsed the whole thing. Quick charge. Flashy headlines. Then a verdict so soft it needed subtitles.
What was the excuse?
“Heat of the moment.”
“Emotional distress.”
Right.
Try that next time you insult someone outside a protest. Let us know how comfy the cell floor is.

This isn’t justice. It’s just-us, and you’re not invited.

FINAL SECTION: THE WHOLE THING SMELLS LIKE A GYM SOCK SOAKED IN DOUBLE STANDARDS

Here’s the plain truth:
If Ricky Jones had been holding a Union Jack and shouting against mass migration, he’d be in solitary right now writing apology letters in 52 languages.
But because he’s Labour and his tantrum aligned with the narrative, the whole system played goalie and let him slide.

Welcome to Britain: where one law exists for the party-approved, and another for the party-uninvited.
Where the police are more afraid of hashtags than hatchets.
Where justice isn’t just blind, she’s got a Labour rosette taped over her other eye.

FINAL VERDICT
MOJ: Ministry of Job-Dodging
MET: Mostly Enabling Tyranny

Justice in 2025? A circus tent where the clown with the red rosette gets a free pass, and the audience gets arrested for booing.

Signed
Maximilian-Rex Cromwell
The Constitution

[The Constitution @TheConstit71705]

To: Rt Hon Sir Edward Davey MP
Subject: Your Letter on “Racism” and the Real Debate

Sir,

Your recent letter frames “racism” as the core reason behind legitimate public dissent, but let’s be candid. The term “racism” has become the political left’s emergency brake: pulled whenever debate is lost on facts, logic, or public sentiment. It’s been weaponised to shut down opposition rather than address valid concerns.

You conflate two separate realities:

1. Legitimate protest against failed immigration control, cultural destabilisation, and lack of public consent.

2. Isolated acts of violence which no rational person condones.

By lumping these together under the banner of “hate,” you erase the grievances of millions of ordinary Britons who see their communities changing beyond recognition without their agreement. That’s not democracy; that’s policy by diktat.

Your claim that the UK is defined by “offering sanctuary” selectively edits history. Our tradition is conditional sanctuary, built on integration, mutual respect, and a balance between compassion and national security. To present it as unlimited and unconditional is a modern political invention, not a historical truth.

You cite “hate preachers and conspiracy theorists” as the cause of unrest, yet ignore the failures of political leadership, law enforcement, and border control that created the conditions for unrest in the first place. Labeling dissent as the work of fringe agitators is a convenient way to avoid taking responsibility.

As for your portrayal of the British people’s “best” being found in passive vigils, this overlooks another British tradition: active defence of home, culture, and law when those in power fail. You are keen to praise docility, but quick to condemn defiance, even when defiance is driven by legitimate concern for the nation’s stability.

If you wish to speak for “a caring country,” then start by respecting the right of the people to raise objections without being smeared. Sanctuary cannot come at the cost of sovereignty. Compassion without control is not virtue, it is negligence.

The real debate is not about race. It is about consent, control, and the survival of a nation’s character. Until political leaders can face that honestly, the gap between Westminster’s rhetoric and the public’s reality will only widen.

Yours sincerely,
Maximilian-rex Cromwell

[J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling]

A large number of people (mostly men, in my experience) who're sympathetic to some of women's opposition to gender identity ideology, nevertheless think it's cruel to point out that a trans-identified man looks like a man, and unkind not to 'respect' his pronouns. They think these are 'compromises' women should be prepared to make. 'What does it matter?' they say. 'How does it hurt you?'

The psychological effects of being coerced, manipulated or pressured into doing something that is against a person's own beliefs or values are well known. 'Moral injury' occurs when a person is forced to betray deep-held convictions, or stand in silence while those convictions are being betrayed. The individual feels transgressed at a core level. The inevitable consequences are stress, anxiety and anger.

Workplaces across the west have imposed a Kafkaesque situation on women. A belief system most people consider nonsensical, but which, in elite circles, has become almost a religion, has been imposed from on high. Women are being persecuted and punished for not pretending they think men can change sex. The policing of pronouns, and the harassment and shaming of women who won't pretend they can't recognise a man when they see one, is merely the tip of genderism's gigantic, threatening iceberg.

Any man who seeks to force women to play along with the fantasy that he's female is engaging in a typically male power play. At worst, he will suffer narcissistic injury from her non-compliance, but that doesn't make him objectively vulnerable. The non-compliant woman, though, suffers lasting moral injury by being forced to participate daily in a lie - a lie, moreover, that constitutes a fundamental threat to her own rights to privacy, dignity and safety.

It has been profoundly illuminating to see how many people - possibly because their own values spring, not from a place of rationality or true conviction, but from fashion and self-interest - see male narcissistic injury as so very much more worthy of compassion than the moral injuries suffered by women.

[J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling]

The Sandie Peggie employment tribunal is currently exposing, as perhaps no court case to date has, the issue of class as it relates to the top-down imposition of gender identity ideology in the workplace.

'Diversity officer' Isla Bumba has now admitted in court that she didn't bother consulting the 1992 regulations guaranteeing single-sex spaces when she told a trans-identified male, Dr Beth Upton, to use the female changing room at the hospital where he was working. Bumba justified this decision with comments that I assume sounded really clever and convincing, inside her own head.

'I don’t know anything about Beth’s body. I didn’t at the time. I don’t now. I don’t need to know. But it wouldn’t be something that I would ever have the information of exactly what she is made of, biologically.'

Kate Searle, a consultant in emergency medicine, backed Bumba up, expressing outrage on the witness stand that anyone would be so insensitive as to ask about Upton's chromosomes.

‘I could only imagine how upsetting and invasive a question that would be for Beth, and also not relevant to a colleague to ask another colleague. Beth identifies as female, and it does not matter what her chromosomes are to her.’

In Bumba and Searle's world, a belief that gender identity trumps biological sex is proof you're intellectually and morally superior to women like Sandie Peggie, so I'd imagine it's come as a shock to discover, in a blaze of public and press scrutiny, just how idiotic and cruel they appear to people outside their dinner party circle.

When Upton, a 6' tall, 28-year-old ex-rugby playing male, claimed that a petite 50-year-old female nurse was making him feel 'unsafe', his word appears to have been taken as gospel. Searle, Bumba and management fell over themselves to coddle the middle-class doctor who shared their voguish post-modern views on gender. What did Sandie matter? She's just one of those ghastly uninformed bigots who still thinks sex is real and important - so embarrassingly gauche and simplistic! Whisper it - she probably drinks red wine with chicken, too.

According to @tribunaltweets, an emotional Searle blurted out on the stand 'I am kind.' This is not something genuinely kind people need to say. Genuinely kind people don't find themselves compelled to explain in court why they helped whip up a witch-hunt against a woman whose only crime was wanting to change her clothes without a man watching.

Well, the nurse who was supposed to shuffle off in disgrace wasn't having it. Sandie Peggie refused to be sacrificed on the altar of elitist ideologues who believe themselves to be higher and better than she is. She fought back, for herself and for every other woman who's currently being silenced, persecuted and punished by a smug management class that preens itself on its virtue while imposing rampantly misogynistic policies on its workforce.

Sandie Peggie is a heroine. The woman NHS Fife thought they could treat abominably without any consequences to themselves has succeeded in shining the brightest spotlight yet upon the brain rot and compassion deficit suffered by supposedly intelligent people when they embrace gender identity ideology. Women everywhere owe her a debt of thanks. Whatever the outcome of this tribunal, Sandie Peggie has already won.

[J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling]

I’m naturally 5’8” as long as I’m wearing four inch heels.

[Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ]

I found the 20th anniversary of the 7/7 Islamist attacks yesterday odd and disturbing. Our leaders are living in a parallel universe. Sadiq Khan said we are building a "safer London". Yvette Cooper said "we will always confront the threats facing this country".

A reminder 🧵

[Chris Parry @DrChrisParry]

Why aren’t migrants given loans (like students) that they have to repay if they remain in the U.K. instead of free handouts at our expense?

[Caroline Farrow @CF_Farrow]

�� This thread will probably get me arrested.

But I don’t care.

Because someone has to say it.

The UK is now investigating people worried about mass immigration…

As potential terrorists.

Not jihadists.
Not hate preachers.

Concerned parents. Ordinary Brits.

👇 THREAD 🧵

[GB News @GBNEWS]

'Indefinite leave to remain serves no purpose. It’s a legal loophole that lets people live off the British taxpayer.'

Rob Bates of @MigrationCtrl says the UK must scrap this system — and stop funding foreign nationals who’ve made no economic contribution.