Jim

morals and integrity is all you need in life ! common law advocate ! life is for living !

[Bernie @Artemisfornow]

Yes it’s true … British tax payers are going to be forced to bail out the National grid.

Just so you know the ‘National Grid’ isn’t owned by us. Er no….

It’s a privately owned company with international shareholders, with almost £49 BILLION of debt, forecast to reach £60–70 BILLION by 2031.

The massive costs of upgrading the grid including financing costs and shareholder returns (obvs) , is paid through increasing OUR energy bills.

Much of this investment is because of the Government’s Net Zero targets.

And if it gets into serious financial trouble, the law even allows government financial support (paid for by taxpayers)

It’s a bloody brilliant private investment where the investors never lose. And ordinary people always pay.

Now watch what they do with nature.

[Jim @ldaftinterlect]

@Artemisfornow Debt debt debt everywhere

[Connor @cslfc95]

Why do @itvfootball keep persisting with Sam Matterface and Lee Dixon 🙈 nobody wants them to commentate on England games but they've somehow been doing it for ages #ENGCRO

[Jim @ldaftinterlect]

@cslfc95 @itvfootball I literally had to turn it off I cannot listen to Lee Dixon he’s fucking useless and sounds like he’s half asleep

[The Texas Longhorn @DannyMintys]

This is the real reason why they took him down.

[The Maggie Oliver Foundation @TMOFCharity]

Today is the day. David vs Goliath. Today we go to the High Court for our landmark judicial review against the Government. We have been shocked at the arguments being advanced by the Home Secretary in defence of its failure to implement key recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). These arguments include, that The Maggie Oliver Foundation does not have standing to bring this challenge on behalf of children, that the Government is under no obligation to implement child protection measures, and that the public at large cannot rely upon promises made by the Prime Minister and Ministers that are made in Parliament.

The Government's legal defence raises fundamental questions about public trust, accountability and whether promises made to survivors following public inquiries mean anything at all.

At the centre of the judicial review are 20 key recommendations issued by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) proposed to better protect children across the UK from sexual abuse. These include properly collecting data relating to child abusers and victims of abuse and exploitation, ending the use of pain-inducing restraint techniques on children in custody and regulation of staff in children’s homes.

We are concerned that more effort and public money appears to be going into defending a challenge designed to ensure these critical improvements in child protection are made than into implementing them.

The simplest example of this is this – if the Government had implemented the first recommendation of the IICSA, there would have been no need for a further three-year, £65 million public Inquiry (The Statutory Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs).

WHO IS ALLOWED TO ASK THE QUESTION?

The Secretary of State is a challenging whether The Maggie Oliver Foundation and our founder and Chair, @MaggieOliverUK , have standing to bring the case at all.

This raises a deeply troubling question.
If organisations representing survivors and working every day with the consequences of child sexual abuse are not entitled to ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who is?

The Government is trying to exclude from the debate the very people closest to the consequences of these failures.

For years survivors have been told to come forward. Speak up. Tell the truth. Many have done so at enormous personal cost, but now the Government says they, and those who represent them, cannot object to failures to protect children. Their voices must be silenced.

This challenge was never about politics. Governments of all stripes have let down children. It is astonishing that the Government's first argument in this judicial review is that victims can have no voice.

If organisations representing survivors, and survivors themselves, cannot ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who can?

IF GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE TO ACT, WHAT IS THE POINT?

A central plank to the Government's defence is that ministers are under no legal obligation to implement recommendations made by public inquiries.

If that is right, why spend hundreds of millions of pounds on public inquiries if Government is just going to ignore what they find? We genuinely struggle to understand how anyone can think that is acceptable.

Millions are spent, years of hearings are had, victims pour out their hearts, findings and recommendations are made, promises are made by Government and then broke – but when someone has the temerity to ask why those promises haven't been kept, the Government's response is we never had to keep our promises.

If that is right, the Government must be open about it, and explain to the public why they hold expensive public inquiries at all.

IICSA took seven years, heard from more than 7,000 survivors, cost more than £200 million and made twenty recommendations intended to protect children. But the Government now says, we have no obligation to fulfil its promises to implement recommendations to protect children.

CAN POLITICIANS DENY THEIR PROMISES MATTER?

We are also challenging the Government's position regarding promises made by the Prime Minister and ministers following publication of IICSA's recommendations.

Repeated assurances that action would be taken have been made by senior politicians across successive governments.

The Government's defence includes arguments relating to parliamentary privilege. In effect the Government say that The Foundation cannot rely upon ministerial promises made in Parliament, and that such promises cannot give rise to expectations about future action.

If the public cannot rely on promises made in Parliament, what can they rely on?

Survivors and the public hear ministers make promises.

They hear repeated assurances that lessons have been learned and change will follow.

They build their expectations around those promises.

Many survivors have spent years believing ministers when they said action was coming.

To now be told that those promises cannot be relied upon is not just a legal argument, it is a fundamental betrayal of the trust survivors (and children across the UK) were asked to place in the process.
Trust works both ways.

Survivors are asked to trust public inquiries with the most painful experiences of their lives.

Governments should not then be able to argue that survivors cannot rely on the promises they receive in return.

WHILE GOVERNMENT ARGUES, CHILDREN ARE STILL BEING ABUSED

Government figures show that approximately 2 million children have been sexually abused since IICSA published its recommendations in October 2022.

That astonishing number must not be lost amidst legal arguments and the Government’s technical defences. This case is about the protection of all British children.

What shocks us most is how much ingenuity and effort has gone into finding reasons not to act.

Imagine if half of the same energy had been invested in implementing child protection measures.

Imagine if the resources currently being spent defending this case had instead been spent protecting children.

How many children might already be safer?

While well paid Government lawyers argue, children are still being sexually abused.

That is the reality we cannot lose sight of.

This case was never about clever legal arguments.

It is about whether promises made to children and survivors mean anything at all.

The Maggie Oliver Foundation will not be silent on that question.

[Radical Eyes @RadicalEyesUK]

🚨 CHANNEL 4 OFFERS MONEY TO WOMAN TO LlE ABOUT RUSSELL BRAND

Channel 4 found out this woman slept with Russell Brand and kept contacting her to offer her a large sum of money to make up lies about him.

If this doesn’t prove the whole ordeal is corruption then I don’t know what does. I now further believe Russell Brand has been fully stitched up.

ZERO EVIDENCE. 10 YEARS IN PRISON.

What a fucking joke.

[Right Said Fred @TheFreds]

This is well worth a listen.
Mel K breaks down the list of artists, celebrities and corporations who all benefited financially from the pandemic.
No wonder we were cancelled and still are to a degree, although 7 years on that particular hot seat seems to be cooling 👍😎

[Steven Barrett @SBarrettBar]

This is corruption.

[Felicity Campbell @feli_campbell]

When I posted yesterday about Andy Burnham’s political machine secretly intercepting public emails to protect his Abu Dhabi property deals, my inbox was flooded by people thanking me for finally calling out what goes on in Manchester.

Well, I woke up this morning and looked at the latest financial disclosures coming out of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, and the rabbit hole just got so much darker.

Burnham's authority has been caught funnelling nearly £1,000,000 of taxpayer money to completely anonymous beneficiaries in a series of secret payments.

They paid out £83,000 in rent to a hidden landlord. They handed out thousands in anonymous "consultancy fees." Worst of all, they gave a £210,000 capital grant to a property developer and completely redacted the name from the public ledger.

When journalists finally confronted them, the authority claimed hiding the £210,000 developer payout was just a "human error" and blamed the rest of the secrecy on data protection laws.

Look at the terrifying double standard at play here.

If a working citizen misfiles a tax return by fifty pounds or makes a mistake on a local form, the state will investigate their entire life, apply ruthless penalty fines, and threaten them with court.

But when Burnham's regional authority hands a fifth of a million pounds of public cash to an anonymous property developer, they simply shrug and call it a clerical typo.

This is exactly how the modern British political cartel operates. They use the language of bureaucracy and data protection as a legal shield to funnel public wealth to private, hidden corporate interests.

I am sorry, but they are not governing a city. They are running a shadow ledger with your money, and they are terrified of the public finding out who is actually cashing the checks.

[SIMON RAM @KULIRAM1976]

wtf is going on here 🤔🐷

[Brock Riddick @BrockRiddickIFB]

Something beautiful is happening on X right now.

[Mark Dagnall @dagnall_mark]

@jimmytwhu @VividVocalVixen The govt are doing all of this by design. The only way you stop the madness is to remove 600+ politicians from parliament and 2 to 3,0000 civil servants by what ever means possible.

[Dr Jennine Morgan @jemmm85517813]

I would like to know the names of the directors. This looks like blatant fraud. The pensioners should be suing them for this!

[Dave XRP @DaveXRPLion31]

BQQQQQQQM💥THEY ARE TERRIFIED OF US REALIZING THIS TRUTH - IT ALL ENDS WHEN WE UNDERSTAND THIS! 🍿🐸 SHARE!

[Dr Jennine Morgan @jemmm85517813]

Fraud? And is this not what government is now planning with pension pots?

[Shayṭān is truth @ShaytanTruth]

He has Nailed it on Russell Brand

[Charging… @RedPillSayian]

“The whole lie of the Holohoax, the real Holocaust was Bolshevism, which was the deaths of sixty-six million Christians”

[Jim @ldaftinterlect]

@Rugmeister78 And this picture tells you everything! They must have pissed their pants when seeing this. When we have a dumbed down population like this we will never get anywhere

[Jim @ldaftinterlect]

@Rugmeister78 I will never forgive these cunts. My family never too their poison