Joyce Clark

[For Women Scotland @ForWomenScot]

Just over 200 years after Elizabeth Fry won rights for women in prison, we have established that the Scottish Government's cruel policy of incarcerating women with violent male prisoners was never lawful. We are thrilled with the result, but it should never have come to this.

[Denise Findlay 💚🤍💜 @gracebrod1e]

I was in court & it was bloody obvious the Scottish Government didn’t have a case but they wasted our tax money defending male murderers being housed in women’s prison.
The SNP do not deserve your vote
They are stupid and dangerous

[Joyce Clark @joysuze]

@InTheTrenchesUK Thank you for this - shared.

[Christian @InTheTrenchesUK]

THE BILL: WHAT WE PAY FOR THE PERMANENT GOVERNMENT

510,080 civil servants. Half a million people taking orders from Romeo.

Annual cost: £16.6 billion minimum. Likely £21 billion when we include their gold-plated pensions, generous expenses, and perks.

That is twenty-one thousand million pounds. Every year. From our taxes.

The average civil servant earns 14.5% more than we do. While we cut back, they get raises. While we struggle, they expand. While we pay more tax, they hire more people.

Romeo herself repaid £31,000 in dodgy expenses. First class travel. Luxury lifestyle. Our money.

Rachel Reeves wants a "smaller, more efficient civil service." Even she admits it is bloated. Even she admits it costs too much. Even she admits it is broken.

But she will not sack the mandarins. She will not touch the permanent government. She is the understudy. They run the show. And we pay for the privilege.

Mother England is bleeding. We are paying for the bandages. And the civil service is pocketing the change.

[Christian @InTheTrenchesUK]

MOTHER ENGLAND IS BLEEDING

She has been betrayed. Not by enemies at the gates, but by the permanent government within. And they are mortgaging her future.

Four people. Four names you never voted for. Four people who control more power than the Prime Minister, more power than Parliament, more power than you. And they are borrowing billions from your children to pay for it.

DAME ANTONIA ROMEO - The Bully
She controls 500,000 civil servants. Her own staff called her "unreasonable, degrading, demeaning." She repaid £31,000 in dodgy expenses. Investigated for bullying in New York. Multiple women came forward. Starmer promoted her anyway. She decides what ministers see. She decides what policies live or die. She runs the machine that outlasts every government.

SIR JAMES BOWLER - The Debt-Maker
He controls the Treasury. The borrowing. The "no" to tax cuts and the "yes" to debt your grandchildren will pay. He admitted Britain is "dependent on the kindness of strangers" to borrow. He commits billions that future governments cannot undo. Four Chancellors have come and gone. He remains. He has never faced a voter.

GARETH DAVIES - The Gatekeeper
Fresh into Home Office, now controlling who enters, who stays, who is removed. The borders are his. The policing is his. The small boats keep coming. He keeps his job. Who appointed him? Why now? What commitments has he made that will bind the next government?

VIJAY RANGARAJAN - The Sovereignty-Giver
He negotiated the Chagos handover. British territory given to Mauritius. The cost? £35 billion. A 99-year commitment that binds your grandchildren. £101-165 million every year until 2124. Long after Starmer is dust. Long after the next government is forgotten. The payments continue. The unelected man who gave away British territory now runs British elections. He investigates Reform UK repeatedly. Finds nothing. Questions about Brendan Cox associations. Questions about loyalty.

THEY WERE ALL APPOINTED WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS.
Romeo - February 2026.
Bowler - entrenched since 2022, borrowing for decades.
Davies - April 2026.
Rangarajan - March 2024, committing billions for a century.

Fresh appointments. Fresh power. Fresh debt. They will outlast Starmer. They will outlast the next government. The permanent government commits. The elected politicians pay. Your children inherit the bill.

WHO DO THEY REALLY SERVE?

Not you. You never voted for them. You cannot remove them. Yet they control the money, the borders, the elections, and the civil service. They borrow billions your grandchildren will repay. They give away territory your grandchildren will never reclaim. They make commitments that bind for 99 years.

They hide behind "operational independence." They hide behind "expert advice." They hide in plain sight while mortgaging your future.

MOTHER ENGLAND IS BLEEDING.
Her sovereignty sold for £35 billion. Her borders open. Her elections overseen by the sovereignty-giver. Her Treasury run by the debt-maker. Her civil service run by bullies. Her future mortgaged by people she never elected.
This is not democracy. This is intergenerational theft by bureaucratic dictatorship.

WHO HAS THE RECEIPTS?

I am compiling the complete dossier. If you have evidence, documents, verifiable facts about these four, submit them. Facts only. Sources required.

The next government must remove them. All four. On day one. Cancel the Chagos commitment. Fire the debt-makers. Clean house.

No more operational independence. No more expert advice. No more permanent government. No more borrowing from our children's future.

Mother England will not bleed forever. The British people will not be ruled by those they never elected. And we will not pay for their 99-year mistakes.

Submit what you have. I will verify. I will publish. I will not stop.

Your move.

[John Galt @BristolGalt]

The British government knew that they were importing rapists.

They knew because they ordered our soldiers not to intervene when our Afghan ‘allies’ raped children on a daily basis.
The British government literally instructed the military top brass that raping children is part of Afghan culture and then they brought 100,000 Afghans to the UK.

They also knew about the Pakistani/muslim rape gangs from the 1950s… yet they still allowed millions more to come here.

Why?

Labour: Rapes for Votes.
(They all vote Labour)

Tories: Rapes for Cash
(Wage suppression, property tycoon donors, etc)

There’s roughly 10x more rape in Britain today than there was 25 years ago and the government’s response has been to simply stop recording the ethnicity of the rapists.
Over 60% of rapists have their ethnicity recorded as unknown.
That’s how the government hides the fact that they have brought rapists to our country.

We need to collect that data and remove any group with high rape statistics.
I don’t care if our corrupt government has given them a British passport.

They cannot stay here raping British women and girls.

[Chay Bowes @BowesChay]

I've examined the "fantastic"
BBC report in detail that alleges Russia tried to kill the most unpopular British prime minister in living memory.

Remember who the BBC works for.

The spurious and collander like attribution to the Russian state rests on exceptionally weak foundations. The court convicted two men of "arson for financial gain" It made no finding whatsoever that the operation was directed by the Russian government or that the perpetrators were even aware of the political significance of their targets.

The alleged "handler" who paid them in cryptocurrency remains an anonymous Telegram account. The BBCs claim that this account belongs to a specific 23 year old Russian relies on a combination of matching initials, a distinctive item of clothing, attendance at certain events, and social media activity. None of these elements constitutes proof of identity, let alone evidence of Russian state direction.

Whats also being ignored is that any competent intelligence service (MI6) could fabricate such a profile seeking to shape the narrative. The possibility of a false flag operation or double maskirovka cannot be dismissed.

The entire BBC "case" is built on circumstantial, supposition and inference, open source pattern matching, and entirely anonymous briefings. It falls far short of the forensic standard required to attribute responsibility to a foreign state.

The BBC has, as usual presented vacuous supposition as "investigative journalism". The convictions stand on their own narrow terms, but the leap to Kremlin orchestration is bordering on comedic.

[Jeff Wright @merelyjwright]

"This was not horny men out of control or even cross-cultural understanding gaps around the age of consent. This was a targeted program of ritualized torture and subjugation as a means of ethnic domination. In other words, these gangs are conducting war against the White British using serial child rape and torture as a form of conquest.

These are not crimes in the conventional sense. These are war crimes being conducted by one civilization against another, and they need to be treated as such."

[Svetlana Lokhova @RealSLokhova]

📰 What is a D-Notice?

The UK government doesn’t want you to know something important?

They send a quiet letter to every major newspaper, TV station and website saying:

“Please censor this story for ‘national security’”

It’s called a D-Notice (now DSMA-Notice).

Here’s the dirty truth:

It’s “voluntary”… but almost everyone obeys

No court, no vote, no public debate

Just a cosy club between spies and editors deciding what YOU are allowed to read

Real stories about war crimes, spying on citizens, or government lies get killed in secret

It’s not a law. It’s self-censorship by gentlemen’s agreement, the most British form of censorship ever invented.

They call it “protecting the country.” In fact, they are protecting the powerful from the public.

This system has been running since 1912. Still going strong in 2026.

The “free press” isn’t as free as they tell you.

[James Melville 🚜 @JamesMelville]

Yet another community note for Starmer.

[Stuey Beef 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @stuey_beef]

If Vladimir Putin changed the voting system days before an election to stop his opponents winning, every British journalist would call it what it is: rigging the rules.

Tonight, Labour rammed through a last‑minute switch in the Lords so that if Andy Burnham wins Makerfield and quits as Greater Manchester Mayor, his replacement won’t be chosen on a simple first‑past‑the‑post ballot, but on the supplementary vote system instead.

Why now?

Because Labour knows the race to replace Burnham would be a straight two‑horse fight with Reform UK – and under FPTP, the candidate with the most votes wins, no second chances, no back‑room redistributions, no “stop Reform” stitch‑ups.

Under SV, Labour gets a second bite of the cherry: if their candidate can limp into the top two, they can hoover up second preferences from every other party and magic a “majority” on the second count, even if Reform tops the poll on first preferences.

This isn’t “modernising democracy”. It’s the governing party using its Commons majority and the unelected Lords to hurriedly doctor the rules of one specific contest because it’s terrified the voters might choose someone else.

When the establishment preached to the world about “rules‑based order”, they forgot to mention one thing: in Britain, the rules are “based” on whether Labour thinks it might lose.

[The Free Speech Union @SpeechUnion]

The Free Speech Union has serious concerns about the Government’s proposal to ban under-16s from some social media platforms (but not others).

When the proposal was first announced, ministers cited supposedly 'harmful' platforms such as X, Facebook and YouTube, but made no mention of the left-leaning Bluesky.

A selective ban, rather than a blanket one, means Ofcom will be tasked with enforcing the political preferences of whichever government happens to be in power. If there's a change of government, will X be taken off the banned list and Bluesky put in its place?

Another concern is enforcement. How exactly does the Government intend to make the ban work in practice? In Australia — the model ministers appear keen to follow — many under-16s continue to access social media through VPNs.

Will the Government’s next step be to ban VPNs as well? That would put the UK in the same company as Turkmenistan, Iran and North Korea.

The Government has also failed to explain how this proposal can be reconciled with its duties under the Online Safety Act to protect content of democratic importance and journalistic content — duties that are due to come into force next month.

This is particularly important given the Government’s intention to extend some social media restrictions to 16 and 17 year-olds and at the same time lower the voting age to 16.

How can 16 and 17 year-olds be expected to participate meaningfully in the democratic process if the Government is restricting the content of democratic importance and the journalistic content they're able to access?

The Free Speech Union will be keeping a wary eye on the Government’s plans 👇

[irmgard @gardirms]

250,000+ British girls.

What's included in this report is fucking harrowing:

- A baby was abused and had cigarettes stubbed out on it while the mother was forced to watch; the baby was then killed.
- Girls were set on fire.
- Girls were sent to “red rooms” to be tortured, some of them killed, some of it livestreamed.
- One girl was raped by a dog while men bet on whether it would vaginally or anally rape her.
- Girls were forced to have abortions with knitting needles.
- Glass bottles, keys, baseball bats, and other objects were forced inside them, some shattering.
- Girls were gang-raped by dozens of men at a time in “party houses.”
- Girls were whipped, hung upside down, suffocated, and urinated on.
- Girls as young as 5 or 6 were tied up and abused.
- Girls were locked in dog cages.
- Girls were branded with an “M” for Muhammad.
- Girls were threatened with being killed and fed to pigs.
- Girls were mocked for wearing a crucifix during the rapes.

All of this was carried out by predominantly South Asian, Pakistani men, with smaller numbers from Somali, Iranian, Syrian, Turkish, Bangladeshi, and Iraqi men.

And yet perpetrators were let off, authorities turned a blind eye, and it continues to this day because people are scared of being called racist.

Anyone who covered for this needs to face the death penalty alongside all of those who hurt these girls.

I'm glad Rupert Lowe and everyone else behind this put this together; it needs to be seen by everyone.

[Jane Rochford Boleyn 🇬🇧 @VictoriaHa50399]

WOW!

When there is UK Gov't talk on TV about:

"UK Internet CURFEWS, UK Government STATE CONTROL of the internet & BANNING of VPN's in our country"

Britain is now a COMMUNIST REGIME

Welcome to the:

"Democratic People's Republic of Britain!"

Was there a Communist Revolution I was not aware of?

Has anyone noticed that ALL this is happening, while most of the country is DISTRACTED by the World Cup?

Can someone explain to me, in plain English, EXACTLY what the actual f*ck is happening?

INTERNET CURFEWS????

[John Galt @BristolGalt]

I just wanted to give some context to the rape gangs because not enough people fully understand the scale of what has happened.

Rupert Lowe’s Rape Gang Inquiry report estimates at least 250,000 young White British girls have been subjected to repeated rapes, trafficking & torture by Muslim (largely Pakistani) men.

“The true number is probably higher.”

Historically, for crimes on this scale, words like ‘genocidal rape’, ‘war crimes’ or ‘crimes against humanity’ have been used…
Even for far fewer numbers.

Here are some examples:

• Indian Partition 1947: 75,000–100,000 women raped by both Indians and Pakistanis

• Bangladesh Liberation War 1971: 200,000–400,000 women raped by… it’s them again, Pakistanis

>>> Pakistanis used rape as a weapon of war in both 1947 & 1971.
Their grandfathers did it to Hindu girls in 1947, their fathers did it to Bengali girls in 1971 and now they’re doing it to British girls.
Three generations of genocidal rapists.

Other examples include:

• Bosnian War 1992–95 Serb forces vs Bosniak women: 20,000–50,000 women raped

• Rwandan Genocide 1994 Hutu vs Tutsi: 100,000–500,000 women raped

• Rape of Nanking (Nanjing Massacre) 1937–38 Japanese Imperial Army vs Chinese civilians: 20k–80k women raped

These are the kinds of atrocities that compare in scale to the rape gangs.
So just calling them ‘rape gangs’ is probably not strong enough.
We are talking about one of the worst rape atrocities of all time.

The worst part is.
The rapists are still roaming our streets, our daughters are still not safe and the politicians who all looked the other way, the traitors who actually ALLOWED this to happen…

They are still in government.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

The politicians imprison people to hide their crimes

[PeterSweden @PeterSweden7]

Let's be real.

The real reason that Britain is beginning to censor social media is because of things such as what police did to Henry Nowak.

It was covered up by the media.

But the truth came out on X.

That's why they want to censor social media.

[James Melville 🚜 @JamesMelville]

The social ban on under 16s is the diametric opposite of concern for kids welfare. So many teenagers rely on social media to communicate with their friends in the evenings. To take this away from them is vindictive.

If Starmer wants to effectively clean up inappropriate content on social media then he should discuss this with the social media companies rather than punish teenagers from communicating with their friends.

Starmer is once again using a virtue smokescreen to try and get what he really wants - a pathway to digital ID on social media - including adult verification. He is being horrendously manipulative here. And how dare he use the safety of children as the bait towards government controlled digital ID. Absolutely shameful.

[Neil Oliver @thecoastguy]

I know I'm droning on about the social media ban - but I cannot believe the numbers on here believing it's to do with children's welfare. There are actual heartfelt debates about how the ban - only a lever for digital IDs - comes from a place of caring even a jot about children.

[Tom Harwood @tomhfh]

I can't believe I'm sharing this, but here is 13 year old Tom, vlogging on his youtube channel from his bedroom.

This a video from a channel long since shut down, from the year of our lord 2010.

None of it is my proudest work - but I got better as I got older. I learned skills and made friends, some of whom I still know to this day.

Making these silly videos over time taught me so much about video editing, talking to cameras, and being effective on social media. I failed a lot before I got better. But I had the chance to try. I developed skills that have helped me enormously in adult life.

Had I not been able to make silly videos on youtube - and get motivated/excited about thousands of people watching them - my subsequent life would have certainly looked very different.

Some might argue that would have been for the better, but it would have certainly been for the more boring.