Zack Polanski, the leader of the Green Party, has signed an open letter demanding that a database be created of 2,000 dual British-Israeli nationals called up for service since the terror attacks by Hamas on October 7 2023
🔗: https://t.co/M2Vg5pII8a
Natural England wants to remove 90% of Dartmoor’s ponies.
Our Exmoor ponies are next. These animals have been here for thousands of years.
A government quango, destroying the countryside and its heritage.
I gave my son a summer job last year because he couldn't find one otherwise. I kept him on in case he needs work this year
Now I have to file monthly returns to HMRC saying I'm not paying him at the moment
They set debt collectors on me because they assumed with zero evidence I would pay him the same every month. I ignored the debt collectors as they'd never get a court order to enforce a debt that didn't exist
Now the pensions regulator is demanding I prove he doesn't need me to start a pension for him. How did they know I had employed him? Probably from HMRC.... So why don't they also know he didn't earn enough to pass the threshold
These people are out of control
It's hard not to see the state as my actual enemy these days rather than an inconvenience to be navigated
Ideological conditioning and two-tiered policing are glaring symptoms of civilizational decline. They must be rejected across the West.
The United States sends our condolences to the family of Henry Nowak and the people of the United Kingdom at this troubling time.
Wiltshire Police has been taken to court for marching under the Pride flag. Officers didn't simply attend a local event; they marched in uniform, wore trans-themed lanyards, and ran stalls under political banners. This was not policing. It was participation in an ideological campaign. And that distinction matters more than most people realise.
Because what's unfolding here is part of a toxic revolution that has spread through every British institution – one that preaches equality but demands obedience. What used to be the impartial machinery of state has been captured from within by a new orthodoxy: Diversity, Equity, Inclusion – the soft language of the hard Left.
This is how a nation is hollowed out. Not by riots or coups, but by bureaucrats with clipboards and slogans. It begins with the soft phrases – "be kind," "celebrate difference," "diversity is our strength" – the moral lullabies of a movement that masks coercion as compassion. Then come the symbols – rainbows painted across patrol cars, the oath replaced by the lanyard. And finally, the inversion: neutrality becomes "hate," disagreement becomes "extremism," and those who refuse to accept the creed are cast out as enemies of progress.
Pride has become the state's moral test. Refusal to affirm it is treated as heresy. When police forces sponsor Pride zones and hand out stickers, they aren't serving the community – they're serving the creed. They're telling every citizen with gender-critical, conservative, or religious beliefs that their views are now beneath protection.
Sarah Phillimore, a family law barrister and co-founder of the free speech group Fair Cop, has spent years exposing how British policing has drifted from enforcing the law to enforcing ideology. Her challenge to Wiltshire Police is about more than one parade. It's about who governs Britain – the law, or the ideology that has replaced it. When judges have to remind police forces that impartiality is a legal duty, not a lifestyle choice, you know the system is rotting from within.
Every captured institution follows the same pattern: moral cause becomes policy, policy becomes dogma, and dogma becomes law. The NHS waves flags. The BBC manufactures narrative and calls it news. Our universities churn out zealots instead of thinkers. The police enforce feelings. A state once anchored in reason now runs on emotional coercion.
This is what capture looks like in the twenty-first century – not uniforms and salutes, but hashtags and training slides. It's control sold as compassion. And every time the police march under a political banner, the message is clear: allegiance to ideology now outranks allegiance to law.
The revolution happened in daylight. Most people mistook it for kindness. But behind the rainbows lies something colder – a bureaucracy that no longer serves the public, only itself.
It can still be undone, but only if the public stops apologising for wanting neutrality. The police have no business picking sides in moral crusades. Their badge should mean justice, not fashion. Because when the state kneels to ideology, the citizen kneels next.
"Sarah Phillimore, a family law barrister and co-founder of the free speech group Fair Cop, has spent years exposing how British policing has drifted from enforcing the law to enforcing ideology."
@Ajaon_of_All@sainsburys First they invented #Bovaer and mandated it some countries. And now they're coming for eggs. They (the CCC) said they'd do this, so it's hardly a conspiracy theory. What is though is fraud. The whole edifice of #netzero is built on scientific and financial fraud.
Let me categorically Debunk this utter rot. @sainsburys.
I am a poultry Breeder. The hens that lay white eggs (Amberline/White Star) DO NOT have a lower carbon footprint.
Yes they eat a bit less and produce roughly the same amount of eggs as the Brown egg layers (Bovan/Lowman/ISA Brown) but they live shorter lives, are prone to dying suddenly when startled, a flighty and nervous and because they live shorter productive lives (12 -18mnths) vs brown 18/24mnths (both commercial farmed), you have to incubate more which is increased (Electricity/gas costs) and their eggs are not the same quality.
I breed and keep 20+ different breeds, including: ISA Brown hens and White Stars. All my hens are 100% free range, Not a single barn kept bird, I have ISA browns that are 5yrs old and still laying beautiful Brown eggs, I have not seen a White star live beyond 3yrs and certainly none have laid eggs past 18-24mnths.
White stars Lay themselves to death. They are slender birds and because they dont eat a lot, it drains their personal vitality to keep up laying the eggs you want to sell because of the nonsensical lie that they are "More Carbon Neutral"
You want to know about eggs, come talk to someone like me, Don't rely on some hairbrained imagination of a buyer who's trying to squeeze the profit margin for a few extra pennies at our expense and to the poor hens detriment.
It’s not just the PM, every political figure, notable media personality, celebrity, sportsman, influencer—and above all every serving policeman—should now take the knee in public for Novak and much else besides. It is a cost-free gesture of physical rhetoric that might, just might, bleed off some of the explosive tension now building across these islands.
They invented this symbolic act and once urged it on with fanatical insistence. Today they cannot perform it. That inability is the tell.
To take the knee is not a polite nod of respect; it is ideological submission. It was always a rhetorical bludgeon designed to force public signalling of allegiance.
Refuse it and you declare for your tribe; perform it and you declare for the other. Such overt tribal markers only become urgent when people sense the approach of real stakes—when security feels fragile and the ancient business of friend-and-foe calculation begins. We are on the cusp.
Britain’s culture war is no longer a metaphor. It is the prelude and the recruiting sergeant for something uglier. Rotherham, Oldham, Southport; grooming scandals airbrushed for decades; two-tier policing that can no longer be denied; official reports shelved while 2024’s rioters were branded 'far-right' and far larger provocations ignored—these are not isolated failures.
They are symptoms of a profound cleavage over who we are, what our laws still mean, and whose side the state is truly on. When the institutions meant to protect the vulnerable instead shield the predators and gaslight the public, legitimacy begins to haemorrhage.
James Davison Hunter, who popularised the term 'culture war,' feared symbolic struggle would harden into actual conflict. He was right to be afraid. British strategists who still treat this as mere noise—something separate from the 'real' wars that preoccupy them—do disservice to their craft.
Wars are not always tidy ways-ends-means calculations within the bounded world of soldiers and statesmen. Sometimes they erupt volcanically from below. This is not outside Clausewitz’s trinity; it reveals its terrifying malleability.
When the passion of the people becomes dominant, the army can become spectator, and a state that has lost legitimacy finds itself unable even to guarantee its own survival.
The tribes are already counting their numbers. History is brutally clear on what follows when they stop trusting the state to keep score. A simple kneeling could once have signalled magnanimity and bought vital time. The fact it is now impossible for one side shows how late the hour truly is.
Peel's Founding Philosophy Has Guided British Policing For Two Centuries. We Have Spent Fifty Years Dismantling It.
In 1829 Sir Robert Peel established the Metropolitan Police on a founding philosophy that has guided British policing for nearly two centuries. That philosophy was later codified into nine principles known as the Peelian Principles and is still taught to every new recruit today. Those principles contain everything British policing needs to know about what went wrong on a Southampton street on December 4th 2025.
Principle two. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
Principle five. The police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
Absolute impartial service to the law. Not racial equity. Not colour awareness. Not white privilege training. Not disproportionality monitoring. Not community sensitivity. Absolute impartial service to the law. Every person. Every community. Every accusation. The same standard. Without exception.
Principle seven. The police are the public and the public are the police. Not the police are the ethnic minority communities and the ethnic minority communities are the police. The public. All of them. Equally.
Principle nine. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it. Not the reduction of disproportionality in stop and search. Not the diversity of the workforce. Not the number of officers completing unconscious bias training. The absence of crime and disorder. That is the test.
Now place those principles alongside the documents governing Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary on the night Henry Nowak died.
The Hampshire Race Action Plan commits to pursuing offenders who cause harm to ethnic minority communities specifically. Not all communities. Ethnic minority communities specifically. The NPCC guidance tells officers that a commitment to racial equity does not mean treating everyone the same or being colour blind. The Metropolitan Police race action plan informs officers that neutrality is a myth and that their whiteness prevents impartiality. The Hampshire Inclusion Matters diversity course made nearly twenty percent of officers afraid they would be rejected for saying the wrong thing. The University of Reading noted that officers who did not respond well to the training may benefit from further intervention, monitoring or coaching.
Peel said absolute impartial service to the law. The Metropolitan Police said neutrality is a myth. Peel said the police are the public. The NPCC said the police cannot be colour blind. Peel said the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder. The College of Policing said the test is reducing disproportionality in the use of police powers against ethnic minorities.
These are not compatible frameworks. They are opposing philosophies. One treats every citizen as equal before the law. The other treats citizens differently according to their ethnicity and the accusations they make. One produced two centuries of policing by consent. The other produced the officers who handcuffed Henry Nowak.
Alexis Boon, the chief constable of Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary, described the national outcry as a furore that had been whipped up. He does not accept the term two tier policing.
Principle two. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
The public approval is gone. The respect has been lost. The chief constable who cannot see why has not read the principles he was taught on his first day.
The answer has been there since 1829. What changed was the decision to abandon it.
Swinney originally said the £600K independence fighting fund was ringfenced, now he's saying the SNP spent it.
No wonder he's being investigated by the police.
Not for the first time, @RishiSunak was right.
When he warned in 2023 that Net Zero would reduce the supply of meat and suppress demand, his critics mocked him as a conspiracy theorist.
But the test was never whether the CCC used the words "meat tax", as the BBC and other SW1 insiders claimed at the time. The real test was whether Net Zero policy requires lower meat consumption, fewer domestic livestock and less land used for farming. In other words, whether it would shrink supply, push up prices and force down demand.
Fast forward three years and Ed Miliband is legislating in line with the CCC’s recommended level for CB7. That matters because the CCC’s pathway shows what meeting that target will likely require.
The CCC assumes cattle and sheep numbers fall by 27% by 2040. Yet this is not happening in a vacuum. Sky News recently found in a mini investigation that farmers have already reduced cattle herds by roughly 3% a year for a decade, due in part to rising costs and changes to UK domestic agricultural policy.
Labour is also pursuing measures that may not carry the Net Zero label, but will have the same practical effect. As we speak, Ministers are considering environmental permits for cattle farmers. They say this is about river pollution, but whatever the stated purpose, the cumulative effect is clear.
Even without a formal "meat tax", this Labour government and their allies in the green blob are adding cost, regulation and pressure to domestic livestock production.
The end result? Higher food bills.
Chart source: @7Kiwi
In October 2024, the Free Speech Union came to the aid of Rick Prior, the elected Chair of the Metropolitan Police Federation, after he was suspended for saying that rank-and-file officers had become so fearful of complaints of racism — and potentially losing their jobs — that they no longer dared challenge allegations of racism, particularly when made by people of colour.
According to Prior, some officers were reluctant to intervene when they suspected a crime was being committed if the perpetrator was a black or brown person for fear of being accused of racism.
Fortunately, with our support, Rick Prior won his
Given the circumstance of Henry Nowak's death, it's clear that Rick Prior was right to raise these concerns.
The police have overcorrected in response to the perception that the force is institutionally racist, and that needs to be addressed.
People like Rick Prior — and other elected federation chairs — must be free to speak out about what they believe has gone wrong and propose common-sense solutions without risking suspension or dismissal.
The lack of free speech within policing on these issues has contributed to the current state of affairs in which officers appear to be more concerned about not following up accusations of racism than protecting people from violent criminals.
Watch the Free Speech Union’s General Secretary, Lord Young, below 👇
This is utter rubbish. Politicians make mistakes.
@ClaireCoutinho would be the first to admit that she is not infallible and that collective responsibility constrained her in government. She also came at the fag end of the administration!
I have been very critical of the Conservatives over the past 14 years for their abymsal record on energy. But that changed after the election.
However, labelling her a "hypocrite" is wrong. She is not saying one thing and doing another.
She has reasoned from first principles and adopted a pragmatic position that fits the geopolitical, technological and economic facts. The Conservatives have said climate change and the environment matter, but Britain should not lead the charge globally at the expense of national prosperity and security. She is holding Ministers to account and calling them out for their overreliance on blob-sponsored advocacy material.
But there is a broader point here. Plenty of politicians have made errors in office that they later regretted.
Churchill returned Britain to the gold standard in the 1920s and accepted the Washington Treaty, which reduced the size of the Royal Navy and left Britain poorly prepared for the 1930s. Thatcher supported our entry into the EEC and closed more grammar schools than Shirley Williams. Keith Joseph later regretted serving in Ted Heath’s government.
No one would call Churchill, Thatcher or Joseph hypocrites for changing their views in light of experience! We should judge politicians by whether they learn from reality, not by whether they pretend they have never changed their minds.
Identity politics divides our country whoever is doing it.
The Conservative Party rejects it.
We believe in universalism and equality under the law. We must not treat people differently on the basis of skin colour. We have to build faith and trust in our institutions.
If there is one thing that should come from Henry’s death, it is that we make things better, so that this does not happen to any of our boys again.
That is what I am committed to.
I do not want his death to be in vain.
Let’s do this for Henry. Let’s get this right.
Given that some people are now trying to *completely* re-write history it is worth recalling which minister got lots of flack back in 2020 for attacking critical race theory.
So public money may have been raided from SNP accounts and John Swinney still doesn't want a parliamentary inquiry?
What exactly is he afraid we'll find?
The Novak family made clear that the police got things wrong, and spelled out how with infinite dignity.
Police double-standards are an entirely legitimate subject for public debate.
As someone who 'took the knee' for the discredited BLM movement (which sought to abolish prisons and defund law enforcement) you are in no position to criticise anyone for politicising a death in police custody.
As a politician struggling to hold onto office you are entitled to play every card at your disposal.
But this is amoral and grotesque.
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.
£600,000 vanished.
The Chief Executive is convicted.
And we're supposed to believe the SNP leadership saw absolutely nothing?
This SNP scandal isn't over just because one man has been convicted.