James Laid

mostly just rants about football and politics...

[Rupert Lowe MP @RupertLowe10]

The BBC has issued an official explanation on why it has failed to cover our rape gang inquiry.

'Complex choices' are made for editorial and practical reasons.

These choices 'should not be taken as indicative of bias.'

Their words.

But the BBC were very quick to cover malicious complaints against our inquiry, in an attempt to smear our efforts? They were then forced to later apologise about how they covered the story.

So either the inquiry is worth reporting on, or it's not.

They can't pick and choose.

We're told 'complex choices' are made, meaning that efforts to uncover the industrial rape of young girls is not near the top of list.

Let's take a look at a few stories on the main BBC news page, right now...

'Osaka pays 'love and respect to Japan' in Wimbledon kimono'

'Why £15 durians are being sold at half price - or given away for free'

'We had packed lunches every day for 10 years and retired at 40'

Are these stories more important than the rape gang inquiry?

I think not.

You cannot hate the BBC enough.

I expect no fair coverage from them, I've stopped expecting it.

But the BBC is funded by the British people.

Their continued suppression of our inquiry is a disgrace.

[Retard Finder @IfindRetards]

This tyrant is out of control.

[Restore Britain @RestoreBritain]

Farage says Starmer’s social media ban ‘is well-intentioned’.

We disagree. It is not well-intentioned.

It is sinister.

[Pete North @FUDdaily]

Zero seats.

[Darren of Plymouth @DarrenPlymouth]

Social media bans were not in the Labour election manifesto.

[Benonwine @benonwine]

So let me get this ABSOLUTELY straight…

The public are being told facial recognition cameras, Digital ID and eventually digital currency are all about “security” and “safety”.

Meaning every payment, every document and every movement could one day be linked directly back to YOU.

But here’s the part hardly anyone talks about…

MPs and members of the Royal Family are reportedly exempt from parts of Digital ID systems for “security reasons”.

So the very people creating and supporting these systems won’t necessarily have to live under them in the same way as everyone else.

Ordinary people could end up being monitored through one vast digital network, while those at the top remain outside parts of it.

Whether you support Digital ID or oppose it, surely the same rules should apply to everyone.

Because the moment people believe there is one set of rules for MPs, the Royal Family and the political class, and another for everybody else, trust in government starts to disappear.

And looking around Britain today, it’s not hard to see why so many people are losing faith.

The real issue isn’t technology. It’s whether the people creating the system are willing to live under it themselves and if they aren’t then WHY and WHY should anyone else be expected to then.

[C3 @C_3C_3]

Age verification is a Trojan Horse for censorship.

This is what Starmer’s social media restriction is really about.

Adults can still access social media through age checks like facial recognition, digital IDs, passports and credit cards.

It’s not kid’s safety.

It’s control.

[Spitfire @RealSpitfire]

To the idiots celebrating government controlling kids, you just agreed to adults having to hand over facial recognition, digital ID, passports and/or credit card details to prove you are not a child.

Your stupidity is immeasurable.

[Mannie Quinn & The Dolly Liberation Army @DollidarityArmy]

Just a couple of reminders of how much Starmer cares about the safety of kids.

[C3 @C_3C_3]

Anyone else find it strange…

A couple weeks after the internet exposed the UK trying to hide the Henry Nowak murder the UK is pushing internet censorship?

I’m sure it’s a total coincidence.

[Grifty @TheGriftReport]

Media apps have responded to Keir Starmers social media ban:

YouTube:

“YouTube is a vital resource for young people, educators and parents. Blanket bans push kids out of such curated, supervised, beneficial experiences and towards anonymous, less safe services.”

Meta: (Instagram, Facebook)

“As we’ve seen in Australia, bans risk isolating teens from online communities and information, and driving them to unregulated alternatives that lack built-in protections and parental controls.”

Snapchat:

“Because the majority of time spent on Snapchat is in private messaging between friends and family, an outright ban that disconnects teens from those relationships doesn’t make them safer – it may simply push them to less safe platforms.”

Elon Musk: (X)

“This censorship law is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The real goal is to enable the UK government to track everyone.”

He also said today that the UK is a police state.

[2.0 @blixberrie]

Starmer: We want to digitally ID everyone who uses social media

Brits: Absolutely Not!

Starmer: OK then, we want to ban under 16s from social media (by digitally ID-ing everyone)

Brits: OMG that’s a great idea. Idk what idiot would be against that 🥴

[Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ]

Keir Starmer: “there is no such thing as two-tier policing”.

Police chiefs today: “we will review controversial guidance advising officers to treat ethnic minorities differently”.

The absurdity of modern Britain.

[Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1]

How on earth has Angela Rayner been "cleared" by HMRC?

She didn't pay the extra £40,000 stamp duty that was due. She didn't take the specialist tax advice on her flat purchase that she was advised to take.

She failed to pay the extra stamp duty that she, as Housing Secretary, had brought in for second home purchasers.

For HMRC not to issue a fine means they judged her decision as "reasonable care" having been taken, or it was possibly "careless", but not a "deliberate" underpayment.

She clearly did not take "reasonable care" to ensure her tax was correct. And if it was "careless", it was *deliberate* carelessness.

Do you seriously think that if YOU underpaid your taxes by £40,000 as the then Deputy Prime Minister did, that you would get away without a fine?

Sorry, but this stinks.

[iamyesyouareno @iamyesyouareno]

Diversity is such a strength that it requires 24/7 propaganda to remind us and a police state to enforce it.

[Yogi @Houseofyogi]

Unrealized gains tax for Gen-Z:

You buy a Pokémon card for $50.

Someone offers you $500 for it. You say no. You love that card. You're keeping it.

The government says: "Cool, but that card is worth $500 now. You owe us $100 in taxes."
You: "…I didn't sell it."

Government: "Don't care. Pay up."

You don't have $100 lying around. So you're forced to sell the card you love just to pay a tax on money you never received.

Next month? That card drops back to $50.

Your card is gone. Your money is gone. And the government shrugs.

That's a wealth tax on unrealized gains. They don't pay you back the tax...

Now picture this.

Your mom calls you crying. She has to sell the house she raised you in. Not because she can't afford it. She's lived there 30 years. It's paid off.

But some website says it's worth more now and the government says she owes $15,000 she doesn't have.

So she sells your childhood home. The kitchen where she made you breakfast. The doorframe where she marked your height every birthday.

Gone.

To pay a tax on money that was never real.

Now picture the opposite.

Your dad put everything into his small business. For 20 years he built it from nothing. One year the business is "valued" at $2 million on paper. He owes a massive tax bill. He empties his savings. Sells his truck. Borrows money. Pays it.

Next year the market crashes. His business is worth $200,000.

He lost everything to pay a tax on a number that doesn't exist anymore.

Does the government give him his money back?
No.

Does the government give him his truck back?
No.

Does the government care?
No.

They sold this idea as "taxing billionaires." But billionaires have armies of lawyers, offshore accounts, and trusts. They'll be fine.

You know who won't be fine? Your mom. Your dad. Your neighbor with a small business. The farmer down the road who's had the same land for four generations and now has to sell it because dirt got expensive.

You're not taxing wealth. You're taxing people for owning things.

It's like getting a parking ticket for a car you might drive somewhere someday.

They want you to own nothing and be happy. To fund the fraud, waste and abuse of the welfare state they created.

There is enough money. More tax isn't needed. It's all a lie. But you've been gaslit into believing this is a rich vs poor debate.

I hope you understand what's at stake.

[Rupert Lowe MP @RupertLowe10]

@YvetteCooperMP This week, I have been listening to testimonies from women who have been systemically raped by gangs of Pakistani Muslim men, right across Britain - one woman was raped by 600 - 700 different men.

This is happening HERE. In OUR country.

What are you doing about that, Yvette?

[Collingwood 🇬🇧 @admcollingwood]

For those who do not know, the 'Panopticon' was a plan for a 'perfect' prison. The cells were arranged in a multistory disc around a central guard tower. Because the guards would have a complete view into any of the cells at any time, but the guards in the tower could not be observed from the cells, the inmates would have no idea if they are being viewed or not, but know they could be at any time. Therefore, the theory went, they would be forced to act as though they were being viewed.

Ultimately, the psychological effects of such living were considered too cruel for even prisoners to endure, and such a custodial facility was never built. Many indeed consider the entire concept of the Panopticon the foundation of the theory of totalitarian regimes in operation: if it could seek to arrange society so they every citizen may be watched at any time but cannot know whether they are being watched or not (e.g. the telescreens in Nineteen Eighty-Four's Oceania) a regime could force all citizens to act as though they were being watched at any given time.

And this is what our Home Secretary—the office in charge of the police and MI5 and the justice system—wants to impose on us. This is her dream society. Not even joking or embellishing.

[Dr Philip Kiszely @KiszelyPhilip]

The BBC’s tumbleweed treatment of the Iranian uprising in three easy steps:
1. They don’t want you to see a whole nation rejecting Islamism.
2. They don’t want you to see a downtrodden people heroically standing up to a hated government.
3. They can’t, in all seriousness, act as the UK media’s representative for Hamas while simultaneously criticising its backers.

This is our national broadcaster. Think how things will be in five years’ time.

[Alan Smith @AlanJLSmith]

There are 156 billionaires in the UK.

If the government taxed them all 100% of their wealth, it would cover just one year of social welfare and NHS spending.

What happens after that?

The problem isn’t tax – it’s uncontrolled spending.