Terry McMahon⚽️⛈️🐸🚜🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧

A McMahon of Thomond.
Sic nos sic sacra tuemur.
Awake not Woke.
All views expressed are mine and mine alone.

[Terry McMahon⚽️⛈️🐸🚜🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 @mcmahon64]

@keirwrong Option 3: An arrogant socialist without glasses from somewhere in the middle.

[Terry McMahon⚽️⛈️🐸🚜🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 @mcmahon64]

'Safe and Effective', allegedly.

[Birgitte Milling @Birgitte1234]

PFIZER HAS PUBLISHED THE LIST OF SIDE EFFECTS FROM COVID VACCINE

1) Blood clot,
2) Acute kidney injury,
3) Acute flaccid myelitis,
4) Positive anti-sperm antibodies,
5) Brainstem embolism,
6) Brainstem thrombosis,
7) Cardiac arrest (hundreds of cases),
8) Heart failure,
9) Cardiac ventricular thrombosis...
10) Cardiogenic shock,
11) Central nervous system vasculitis,
12) Neonatal death,
13) Deep vein thrombosis,
14) Brainstem encephalitis,
15) Hemorrhagic encephalitis,
16) Frontal lobe epilepsy,
17) Epileptic psychosis,
18) Facial paralysis,
19) Fetal distress syndrome,
20) Gastrointestinal amyloidosis,
21) Generalized tonic-clonic seizure,
22) Hashimoto's encephalopathy,
23) Hepatic vascular thrombosis,
24) Shingles reactivation,
25) Cancer reactivation...
26) Turbo cancers,
27) Immune-mediated hepatitis,
28) Interstitial lung disease,
29) Jugular vein embolism,
30) Juvenile myoclonic epilepsy,
31) Liver damage,
32) Low birth weight,
34) Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children,
35) Myocarditis,
36) Neonatal seizure,
37) Pancreatitis,
38) Pneumonia,
39) Stillbirth,
40) Tachycardia,
41) Temporal lobe epilepsy,
43) Testicular autoimmunity,
44) Thrombotic stroke,
45) Type 1 diabetes mellitus,
46) Neonatal vein thrombosis,
47) Vertebral artery thrombosis,
48) Pericarditis,
49) Sudden infant death syndrome.

@vonderleyen didn’t know that 🙄
@US_FDA didn’t know that 🙄
@SSI_dk didn’t know that 🙄
@BillGates didn’t know that 🙄
@Fauci didn’t know that 🙄
@WHO didn’t plan that 🙄
@wef didn’t plan that 🙄
@fn didn’t plan that 🙄

Have stupid do you think we are ?

🇩🇰 Det Nye Folkeparti 🇩🇰

#dkpol #dkmedier @berlingske @politiken @jyllandsposten @LMSTdk @Pfzers @BenteMerrild @benediktekiaer @DanskDf1995 @KU_DK @KonservativeDK @Enhedslisten @alternativet_ @SFpolitik @tv2breaking @24NYTdk @Kentfrihedniels @DRBreaking

[InfantryDort @infantrydort]

The British Isles are beginning to remember what every civilization eventually remembers:

A government that cannot protect its people eventually loses the moral authority to govern them.

Everything that follows is just the timetable.

[Terry McMahon⚽️⛈️🐸🚜🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 @mcmahon64]

@triffic_stuff_ @Irene48 He's just using the low-cost method to create more prison space for critics of his governments policies.

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

The EU Acted. Hungary Acted. The US Acted. Britain Signed Hotel Contracts Until 2039.

Yesterday the European Parliament voted 418 to 218 to pass the strictest returns legislation in EU history. The lead negotiator described it as the final missing piece of Europe's migration system. After almost twenty years of standstill, he said, Europe finally has effective return measures. The vote followed the Chișinău Declaration of 15 May, signed by all 46 Council of Europe member states, pushing back against the European Court of Human Rights' increasingly expansive interpretation of migration law. Europe's governments, operating inside the ECHR framework, have decided they have had enough of judicial overreach. They are acting anyway.

Britain's removal rate for illegal arrivals stands at 4%. The EU's removal rate, the number so catastrophically low it triggered yesterday's emergency legislation, stands at 20%. Britain is removing at one fifth the rate of a system the EU itself just declared broken beyond tolerance. While announcing it wants to stop the boats, the Home Office has signed accommodation contracts for asylum seekers running until 2039. A government that intends to remove people does not contract for 15 years of housing them.

The standard explanation is the ECHR. Ministers have cited it for years as the primary obstacle to removal, the external constraint that ties Britain's hands regardless of political will. It is worth examining that claim against the Court's own published data. Of more than 430,000 applications processed by the ECHR in the past decade, fewer than 2% concerned immigration. Of those, over 92% were dismissed. Fewer than 450 cases, one in every thousand applications to the Court, resulted in a finding of human rights violation on immigration grounds.

The obstacle is not in Strasbourg. It is in Chancery Lane. The domestic immigration tribunal system, staffed in part by judges whose documented backgrounds lie in open-borders advocacy, produces rulings that no democratically elected parliament ever intended and that the ECHR itself would not require. And the institutional machinery surrounding it ensures that challenging any of this carries consequences. A new Islamophobia definition, opposed by the government's own former anti-extremism adviser and by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, is being embedded across every school, hospital, broadcaster and public body in the country. Two-tier policing, documented in Hampshire's own Race Action Plan and in the College of Policing's guidance, conditions officers to treat a racism accusation as the primary fact requiring response. The framework does not just permit the embedding of mass migration. It is designed to make objecting to it a disciplinary matter.

The EU has now demonstrated, within the ECHR framework, that effective returns legislation is achievable. Hungary has demonstrated that a 4% removal rate is a political choice, not a legal inevitability. The United States has demonstrated that border crossings can be reduced from 1.6 million to under 240,000 within months of a government deciding to act. Every external constraint Britain's government cites as the reason it cannot act has now been dismantled by other governments operating under comparable or identical legal obligations.

Mass immigration is not an act of nature managed by people smugglers. It is a policy choice sustained by successive governments across thirty years, maintained by an institutional framework that classifies concern about it as extremism, and defended by a legal excuse that the EU just voted 418 to 218 to stop hiding behind.

The smugglers did not build this system. The government did. Yesterday, 418 members of the European Parliament decided they had had enough of pretending otherwise. Britain's government has not.

"Mass immigration is not an act of nature managed by people smugglers. It is a policy choice sustained by successive governments across thirty years"

[DNI Tulsi Gabbard @DNIGabbard]

Today, on my final day as Director of National Intelligence, I’m releasing never-before-seen communications and documents exposing how Dr. Fauci provided millions in US taxpayer dollars to fund dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab, worked with politicized elements within the Intelligence Community to suppress the truth about his actions and hide the virus’ lab-leak origins, and lied to Congress while under oath in 2024. It’s time you know the truth.

https://t.co/3YJSstB7d4

[GB Politics @GBPolitcs]

🚨NEW: Football legend Harry Redknapp has spoken out on areas like Green party-led Bristol council banning England flags during the World Cup

"What is wrong with these people? We are proud to be English, that is what we are. Fly your flags, be proud of your country!"

[Terry McMahon⚽️⛈️🐸🚜🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 @mcmahon64]

@RightSide_Uk Twits🤡🤡

[Terry McMahon⚽️⛈️🐸🚜🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 @mcmahon64]

@BasilTheGreat I bet Starmer will offer the UK as a 'return hub'.🤔
Mind you, we will probably have to pay the French government for the privilege.😳

[Terry McMahon⚽️⛈️🐸🚜🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 @mcmahon64]

@BasilTheGreat @Ireland2020 The ultimate 'Nanny State', socialist do-gooders that know what is best for The Greater Good.
Their arrogance and hypocrisy is sickening.

[taz @Oscarshowa]

Slimy sneaky underhand bastards
1968 will become more relevant as we go along
A general strike will have to get these out
Callaghan was brought down it’s a lesson for Labour
They have tried to take free speech, they are taking juries, they have tried to take elections they are now changing the rules to give themselves more power
Their arrogance is astonishing they want to rule by treating us like mushrooms ..keep us in the dark and feed us shit
We will have to do a 1968 as they are amoral and disgusting
History shows that when people are pushed they do rise
The unions would have to be onboard and they are not there yet
They will though as when Labour bankrupt us again, the unions will come for their share of the pie they gave donations for they will get nothing! then it will kick off
The IMF are waiting with a bailout it will have to come, they do it every-time in government they bankrupt us

[Terry McMahon⚽️⛈️🐸🚜🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 @mcmahon64]

@TheBritishIntel Chuck them all out of office. They just want to silence any dissent as they strip away our citizens rights.

[Terry McMahon⚽️⛈️🐸🚜🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 @mcmahon64]

@Artemisfornow Who elected this buffoon🤔😳😂😂😂

[Terry McMahon⚽️⛈️🐸🚜🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 @mcmahon64]

@elonmusk @tyrelle123 Our prisons aren't big enough for this @elonmusk😢

[Terry McMahon⚽️⛈️🐸🚜🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 @mcmahon64]

@ChrisKeighley62 @MartinKnight_ @PogoSkyBlues42

[Terry McMahon⚽️⛈️🐸🚜🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 @mcmahon64]

@_Patriot1776Q_ @liz_churchill10 The UK government simply do not care about the electorate that put them in power. They are cut from the same cloth as the Democrats in the USA.
Unfortunately, virtually the whole of Westminster is the same. Our nation is governed by a radical left Uniparty.

[Fiona Rose Diamond @CoviLeaks]

Look closely at what the government is promising you here (published 15th June). They claim that if your account is over 16 years old, you are safe from the dragnet. But then comes the casual, insidious trap: if you do have to prove your age, they say it will be 'as simple as a facial recognition check.'

Do not let that soft language fool you. 'As simple as a face scan' means surrendering the unchangeable, mathematical architecture of your human identity.

Here is the brutal reality: this is a biometric harvesting operation masquerading as child safety. Your biometrics - your face, your irises, your unique biological signature - are the most sensitive pieces of data you possess. If a password leaks, you reset it. If your biometric blueprint is hacked, leaked, or scraped into a government database, your identity is compromised for life. They are normalising the idea that you must scan your body just to access the public square. It is the ultimate blueprint for a permanent digital cage.

Once your biological data is stored in their centralised databases (which it will be) your privacy is dead forever. You aren't just logging into an app - you are voluntarily handing over the keys to a corporate and state surveillance engine.

An app-level 'under 16s ban' is universally recognised by security experts as unpoliciable and structurally broken.

Following the mass backlash from tech companies, the UK government reconsidered its stance... But this is what they're not telling you - something we have warned you about for years.

The UK Gov already appointed an expert panel to 'fast-track' a national, official Digital ID scheme earlier this year, that will (despite their current lies) eventually serve as the master credential to 'solve the problem' with an unenforceable 'under 16s social media ban.'

It has NEVER been about Children's safety. Ever. So, to coerce compliance of all UK adults, we will soon see the beginning of another textbook manufactured crisis.

Do not be fooled by the ongoing political theatre. The predictable failure of this ban is completely by design. As the system intentionally glitches, the media will flood the headlines with weaponised fear - amplifying stories of online horror and grooming to rile up panicked parents.

Once again, they are engineering a crisis of fear so severe that the public will ultimately beg for the exact Digital ID grid they would have otherwise rejected.

Cast your mind back to September 2025: 'mass illegal migration' didn't work as an excuse for Digital ID, did it? So the Epstein Class now use Children's safety as the excuse.

By wrapping the digital credential inside the emotionally charged issue of child safety, dissent is effectively silenced. Anyone arguing against the tracking framework is politically painted as being against child protection.

https://t.co/0I7TNOXtJq

[Paul White Gold Eagle @PaulGoldEagle]

THE BANKING SYSTEM WAS CREATED THE SAME YEAR TARTARIA WAS ERASED.

This is not a coincidence. It's a confession.

1913. The Federal Reserve Act was enacted, creating a private central bank that controls the U.S. monetary supply. The same year, Amendment 16 introduced the federal income tax — requiring all Americans to pay a percentage of their work to the government.

Before 1913, there was no income tax. Not even a central bank. No national debt. Americans kept 100% of what they earned.

Now let's see what else happened between 1890 and 1913:

— The last references to "Tartaria" disappeared from the encyclopedias
— The Smithsonian collected and "lost" thousands of giant skeletons
— Orphan trains completed their last routes
— Kirkbride's last asylum seekers were filled to the maximum capacity
— The World's Fairs showed their latest "temporary" cities
— Free energy technology was abolished (Tesla funding cut in 1904, Wardenclyffe demolished in 1917)

The old world ran without banks. Debt free. No income tax. The energy was free. The architecture was inherited. The earth belonged to no one because it belonged to everyone.

You cannot CONTROL a population that has free energy, free land and no debt.

So you introduce the scarcity. You measure energy. Fences the earth. You create "money" backed by nothing. You lend it with interest. You record the work. And suddenly, every human being on earth is born in DEBT.

The Federal Reserve was not created to "stabilize the economy." It was created to SLAVE reboot survivors.

Think about it: Why would a free people voluntarily accept a system in which a private bank prints money out of nowhere, lends it to their government with interest and then records THEM to pay the interest on money that never existed?

They wouldn't. Unless they know no other way. Unless the generation that remembered freedom was already dead — locked up in asylums, scattered on orphan trains, or buried in those ornate cemeteries.

By 1913, the draft was complete. The last people who remembered the old world were gone. And the new system got stuck.

You are not free. You are an income generating asset in a general balance sheet. Your birth certificate is a bonus. Your social security number is an account number. You are a guarantee for a debt that was created before you were born.

The old world didn't have banks. No debt. Not even taxes. Not even gauges.

Now you know why it was destroyed.

📢 Preserve this knowledge. Share it before it gets deleted again.

@TartariaEmpire

[Terry McMahon⚽️⛈️🐸🚜🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 @mcmahon64]

Yes, he is correct, the cell doors on the digital prison are closing and there will be no parole.

[Patriotic 🇬🇧 Nation @HoodedClaw1974]

🚨Breaking News

Elon Musk claims that the real goal of the UK online safety bill is to track everyone.

Is he right?

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

An Iraqi Too Westernised to Deport. A Nigerian Too Possessed. An Albanian Not Extreme Enough. This Is the System Philp Wants to Dismantle.

Chris Philp announced something this week that deserves more attention than it has received. Leave the ECHR. Repeal the Human Rights Act. Abolish the immigration tribunal system entirely. Replace it with Home Office decisions subject to a quick internal appeal. The only remaining route to court would be judicial review on a single ground, that the government had acted outside its legal powers. Philp estimates this would remove 98 percent of immigration cases from the courts.

Judge the policy on its own terms, because the cases Philp cites are real and devastating. An Iraqi drug dealer avoided deportation because a judge ruled he had become too Westernised to safely return. A Nigerian armed robber assessed as presenting a high risk of serious harm to the public won his appeal because mental healthcare in Nigeria was deemed inadequate and he might be considered possessed there. An Albanian burglar with 50 convictions was allowed to stay because a judge decided his offending was not very extreme. These are not edge cases. 93 percent of small boat arrivals whose claims are decided are permitted to stay. Only 12,000 failed asylum seekers were removed last year against 80,000 rejected applications. Twenty thousand foreign criminals who should be deported by law remain in Britain.

Philp's diagnosis is correct. The problem is not that Parliament has failed to legislate. It is that whatever Parliament legislates, ECHR jurisprudence and a tribunal system staffed in part by judges with documented backgrounds in open-borders advocacy will find a way to reach the same outcome.
Shabana Mahmood's reforms, restricting Article 8 to immediate family, a 28 week appeal limit, a single appeals body, operate entirely within that framework. Philp's point, that Labour is tinkering, is hard to dispute when the tinkering leaves intact the legal architecture that produced the Iraqi, the Nigerian and the Albanian rulings in the first place.

Reform's own proposals go further in one respect, an outright bar on asylum claims for anyone arriving illegally. On the core mechanism, removing the courts from the centre of immigration policy and returning the decision to elected ministers, the two parties are not describing different destinations. They are describing the same destination by routes that converge.

Which is why the silence around this announcement is worth examining. A policy this radical, more radical in its institutional implications than anything Labour has proposed, has been almost entirely absorbed into the noise of Belfast, Makerfield and the social media ban. The government's response, that this is far too late and that Labour has already announced a system addressing this, is not really a rebuttal of the policy. It is a rebuttal of the messenger, and it works because it's not wrong about the messenger. The Conservatives had 14 years and the Boriswave happened on their watch, with Philp himself serving as a minister inside that government.

That history is real and it matters. But it doesn't make the policy wrong, and the people most likely to privately agree with it, Reform voters who have spent years insisting the Conservatives are part of the problem, are the least able to say so without seeming to concede the argument that got them to Reform in the first place. That's not a comment on the policy. It's a comment on how thoroughly trust has collapsed, to the point where the right answer and the credible messenger for it currently belong to different parties, and voters are left choosing between the two rather than getting both.

Philp is right about the courts. Whether anyone believes him is now a separate question from whether he's correct.