The degree of censorship makes political life very difficult.
There could be another set of grooming gangs trials ongoing. We wouldn’t know.
There could be another scheme to import thousands of Afghans. We wouldn’t know.
We cannot have normal debate as in these condition.
Sadiq Khan said last year there was no "indication of ... grooming gangs" of the Rotherham model in London.
He was wrong. This form of abuse needs a particular focus to overcome the denial and obfuscation that has blighted investigations in the capital and all over the country.
Well-known Bradford takeaway found with three illegal immigrants working there. Owner refused to answer questions, impeded officers, tried to have his company struck off to avoid the £80k fine (still unpaid). https://t.co/2AtY2P7om2
⚖️ Our @dampierguy in @realDailyWire on the Henry Nowak case and the consequences of two‑tier policing.
“Instead of helping him, as he repeatedly tells the police officers that he has been stabbed, a policeman says, “I don’t think you have, mate.””
👇
https://t.co/jQDr6rKijc
From 2020: "Mike Barton, former chief of Durham Constabulary, told me that because of cultural diversity, ‘impartial’ must now be interpreted with reference ‘to all communities’, rather than as ‘slaves to law’." https://t.co/mD3UPcHHLo
The problem prime minister is that the IOPC are useless. They haven’t a clue. In the Nottingham attacks, we as a family have investigated more, reviewed more and pointed out more than IOPC investigators.
If I had let the Leicestershire police professional conduct panel go ahead,the fact that there was an outstanding warrant for Valdo Calocane would have been covered up. The fact that the officer knew there was a warrant and did nothing would have been covered up.
@Fhamiltontimes@Alison1mackITV@nottm_post@EmilyMayTV@10DowningStreet@LabourSJ@ukhomeoffice
@johnpmerrick What do I actually mean? Because nothing in what you have posted contradicts what I wrote (that there was no overt racism but there was unconscious influence, which is what people are criticising in the Nowak case).
"The revealed preference of Westminster, for decades, has been to run a higher risk of murder and violence so long as there is no risk that it is perceived as “biased”. This time, the consequence was caught in high definition footage."
Yesterday, while political attention focused on the shocking Nowak case, Ed Miliband confirmed to Parliament what had long been expected. He said the Government intends to legislate for the Seventh Carbon Budget (CB7), committing Britain to cut emissions by 87% below 1990 levels by around 2040.
Under the Climate Change Act, ministers must legislate for the budget by 30 June 2026. Miliband has said the delivery plan will be published "as soon as reasonably practical".
Why does CB7 matter?
Politicians often sell Net Zero as simple substitution and "transition". Petrol cars become electric cars. Gas boilers become heat pumps. Aviation fuel becomes sustainable aviation fuel. Life then continues much as before but cleaner.
But the CCC’s own pathway shows something much broader and intrusive. It requires not only new technology and electrification, but managed changes in demand, diet, aviation, land use, industry and much more.
Aviation exposes the problem. Ministers can use the oldest rhetorical tricks in the book and claim that holidays are not banned, but the real question is whether flying becomes more expensive and restricted. With little evidence that SAF, electric flight or other innovations can decarbonise aviation at scale, demand growth will have to be limited using a mix of indirect and direct measures. As the CCC said in February, "Aviation demand can only grow if aviation sector technology roll-out progresses."
Diet follows a similar logic. Policymakers rarely dwell on meat and dairy, but the CCC pathway assumes lower meat consumption, fewer domestic livestock and land released from farming. Ministers haven't really started and yet we are already seeing the consequences. Milk, butter and beef are among the fastest-rising food categories, in part because UK policy has helped shrink domestic herds. Cow numbers have been falling by roughly 3% a year for the last decade.
This is why language matters. Sanitised terms such as "demand management", "low-carbon choices" and "land-use change" sound administrative. In practice, they mean state direction of ordinary life and a managed retreat from the freedoms of modern consumer capitalism.
Ed Miliband has been very explicit about this. In Go Big, his post-pandemic manifesto, he writes that the purpose of his climate mission is "to abandon this 300-year model of economic growth."
This is why the argument now comes down to trust.
For two decades, politicians like Miliband have told the public that the green transition would make energy cheaper and more secure. That promise has not survived contact with reality. In 2026, Britain has some of the highest power prices in the developed world. With so little spare capacity, we have also left ourselves more exposed to energy shocks, from the war in Ukraine to instability in the Middle East.
The next phase of Net Zero now reaches into family holidays, diet, farming and everyday freedom of movement.
Can we really trust the same political class that got energy costs so badly wrong to impose the next round of legally binding emissions cuts? They have failed to protect the public during the cost of living crisis. Why should anyone trust them to protect us from higher costs and taxes over the remaining 24 years of the "transition"?
The stakes at the next election could scarcely be higher.
Really vital for western elites to understand that looming Chinese technological dominance is not just a matter of "green technologies" like solar, batteries and EVs
The left have traditionally seized on the flimsiest of prefixes to transform our institutions. The Macpherson report found no evidence of racism, while George Floyd, of course, was in another country.
The Macpherson report concluded there was "no overt racism or discrimination" but that institutional racism led to failings. The point critics have made is that Nowak was not believed by the police while his murderer was because of this sort of institutional anti-racism.
It comes as no surprise that these organisations have many common funders. As per usual, “civil society organisations” have been used to push a political programme — in this case, an incredibly harmful anti-racism agenda, which directly led to the death of a young white man.
💷 @TiceRichard in conversation with @defossardf during our 3rd Free Market Roadshow on how tax incentives can fix Britain.
He sets out where Britain went wrong on taxation, and the practical policies that could get us back on track.
Watch here👇
https://t.co/wH9clUml8M
⚒️ Our @RDLaverty in conversation with Dr Alex Tokarev on free markets vs socialism.
Dr Tokarev reflects on growing up in socialist Bulgaria, and why he now believes that free markets and the prosperity they enable are under threat.
Watch here👇
https://t.co/rjotkzZZjd
None of this really matters when we have on camera that the police arrested a dying man because his murderer accused him of racism.
The entire edifice of post-MacPherson policing must come down. We are not doing this anymore. Too many have already been sacrificed for anti-racism