mick

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

Replacing Churchill With a Puffin: The Quiet Erasure of Britain

The Bank of England has made its decision. Churchill goes. Turner goes. Jane Austen goes. Alan Turing goes. In their place, wildlife. A stoat, perhaps. A puffin. A hedgehog. The consultation found it popular. The anti-counterfeiting argument was sound. And so, without a parliamentary debate, without a public vote, without anyone in authority pausing to ask what it means to remove the faces of the people who built and saved this country from its own currency, it was quietly done. This is how erasure works. With a consultation and a press release.

Churchill's face on the five pound note is not decoration. It's a daily reminder that Britain has a history worth being proud of. That the people who shaped and defended this nation deserve to be remembered. And that national identity is something real. Hand over a fiver for a coffee and catch a glimpse of the man who stood between Western civilisation and Nazi conquest. The man who refused to negotiate when every pressure was on him to do so. The man who defined British resolve at its finest hour. Replace him with a puffin and you have made a statement about what Britain now thinks of itself. You have made it to every man, woman and child in the country. Without a debate. Without a vote. Without asking anyone.

That is the pattern. It's always quiet. It's always administrative. It's always defended on its own terms, as common sense, as progress, as a neutral technical decision. Statues fall to angry mobs and the establishment calls it a moment of reckoning. Street names are changed by council committees and it's called sensitivity. The curriculum is rewritten by academics and it's called balance. And now the currency is stripped of the faces that connect a people to their past, and it's called anti-counterfeiting policy.

Individually each decision is defensible. Cumulatively they form a pattern that is not accidental. The institutions entrusted with stewarding British identity have been captured by people who regard that identity as a problem to be managed rather than an inheritance to be protected. The long march through the institutions that began in the universities and the civil service fifty years ago has reached the point where it makes decisions about whose face appears on your money, and nobody with the power to stop it seems minded to try.

The consequences are not abstract. A population severed from its history, its symbols and its heroes loses the connective tissue of national identity. It cannot defend what it no longer recognises. It cannot demand loyalty to values it has been taught to be ashamed of. Lebanon's Christians believed their country was too civilised, too plural, too decent to fall. They were right about the decency. They were wrong about what decency alone can protect. Britain is making the same error by different means. You do not need armed factions to hollow out a nation. You need a Bank of England consultation, a university diversity committee, and fifty years of patience.

Churchill understood what was at stake when identity and resolve were under pressure. He said so, repeatedly, in language that would today be considered inflammatory by the very institutions that once celebrated him. The irony of removing his face from the currency of a country he saved, in an era when the threats he warned against have taken new forms, is apparently lost on the people who made that decision.

A stoat will never evoke what Churchill evoked. That is not sentiment. That is the point. The replacement of meaning with the merely decorative is not a neutral act. It's a statement about what a nation values, made quietly, by people who were not elected to make it, and cannot be held to account for having done so.

If we cannot defend the face on a banknote, we will not defend what that face represented. And the people dismantling it, piece by piece, consultation by consultation, know that perfectly well.

[Rod Bishop @rodbishop15]

#DavidLammy and the BLM knee bending race baiters, exposed for the grifters they are.
#WhiteLivesMatter…

[mick @qprmicky]

@daveatherton bet they get through some factor 50 eh ?

[Brussels Signal @brusselssignal]

COMMENT: EU digital sovereignty is a grand delusion in a sharper suit, writes @Norm_Lewis

https://t.co/LBh4LENmeu

[mick @qprmicky]

@GBNEWS another business gone to the wall,Labour are certainly making a difference all right.

[mick @qprmicky]

@Artemisfornow @CeeMacBee Labour's whole net zero madness is based on nothing more than virtue signalling dogma, if the UK were to produce zero Co2,it would reduce global emissions 1% which makes absolutely no difference to global emmissions, it's the economics of the madhouse and destroying our economy.

[M.A. Rothman @MichaelARothman]

𝐍𝐄𝐓 𝐙𝐄𝐑𝐎’𝐒 𝐃𝐈𝐑𝐓𝐘 𝐒𝐄𝐂𝐑𝐄𝐓: 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐔𝐊 𝐂𝐔𝐓𝐒 𝐄𝐌𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒 𝐁𝐘 𝐒𝐇𝐈𝐏𝐏𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐓𝐒 𝐅𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐀𝐋-𝐏𝐎𝐖𝐄𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐀

Claire Coutinho exposed the con at the heart of Britain’s Net Zero push: the emissions aren’t disappearing, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲’𝐫𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚, 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭.

British industry in chemicals, glass, and steel shuts down, the work relocates to countries with 𝐧𝐨 𝐞𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫, and the products get shipped right back.

So the UK pats itself on the back while global emissions actually rise. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘬!𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘫𝘰𝘣𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘒 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘰 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭, she said.

𝐈𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐭. 𝐈𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐣𝐨𝐛𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐲𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐦𝐮𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬.

[mick @qprmicky]

@BootsieCat2 @YourSouthend but tbf,they know about football fans in advance,and can plan for it,they didn't know this was going to happen and can't be everywhere at once.

[mick @qprmicky]

@NJ_Timothy no juries and ethnic minority judges dispensing justice to British people, what could possibly go wrong?

[mick @qprmicky]

@DavidLammy @KemiBadenoch Labour still pushing the diversity agenda instead of a meritocracy, read this list,these are the people who will be judges in the future.

[mick @qprmicky]

@lambo555 @RestoreBritain but you'll get who doesn't, you think that's a good outcome?

[mick @qprmicky]

@rodbishop15 dear god in heaven, these people have taken leave of their senses.

[Christian @InTheTrenchesUK]

This is exactly who Labour are.

The party that took the knee for George Floyd within days.
The party that stayed silent for weeks while Henry Nowak died in police handcuffs.
The party that censors YouTube live streams of British parents protesting their child’s death.
The party that calls grieving mothers and fathers “far right” for demanding answers.

Nigel Farage spoke up for a British teenager who was left to bleed out while his killer was treated with kid gloves. He said what millions of people were thinking. Labour’s response? Attack the man showing anger instead of the people responsible for the two-tier disgrace.

You want to talk about who people are? Let’s talk about who you are.

You are the party of two-tier policing.
You are the party of foreign flags over British cities.
You are the party of grooming gang denial and veteran prosecutions.
You are the party that only finds its voice when it’s attacking the people pointing out your failures.

This is exactly who you are. And the country is finally seeing it.

[mick @qprmicky]

@lukeakehurst @AndyBurnhamGM hope you explained exactly why 5m pounds of taxpayers money is being wasted on a by election at all,since Labour already had a local MP in their constituency,you may have trouble persuading them it was for their benefit and not the Labour party's.

[mick @qprmicky]

@KemiBadenoch funny how people can jump on any passing bandwagon.

[Brexit Facts4EU.Org @Facts4euOrg]

“To Join, but not to Rejoin, that is the question”

With this Government heading ever faster into the EU’s arms, we ask what it really knows.

Important news for current (and possibly future?) members of the UK Government.

Report: https://t.co/8GR66rWkPI
Pls re-post !

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

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."

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

Full Transparency. Except For The Phone. And The Stolen Device. And The Redactions.

The Mandelson files were released today. More than 1,500 pages of messages, emails and correspondence covering Peter Mandelson's time as British ambassador to Washington. They confirm what has long been argued and add several dimensions that were not previously on the public record. They also confirm, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this is a cover-up.

Start with what is missing. The Cabinet Office wrote to Mandelson via his solicitors on March 31 requesting any information held on his personal phone. Mandelson declined to comply. The government has no further recourse. The files contain multiple references to conversations between Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's former chief of staff, for which there are no records. Those records are on a phone a man under criminal investigation for potential misconduct in public office has refused to surrender to a parliamentary inquiry.

McSweeney's phone was separately stolen in October. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, Darren Jones, told the Commons today he had his own WhatsApp exchanges with Mandelson that are not included in the files because he decided unilaterally they did not involve government business. Parliament did not make that judgment. The ISC did not make it. He made it himself.

Meanwhile civil servants briefly explored whether Mandelson could be excused from security vetting entirely, on the grounds of parliamentary privilege. A Ministry of Defence official suggested it. A Foreign Office civil servant called the suggestion very helpful and made further enquiries. Mandelson was ultimately vetted. He failed. The fact that officials were actively looking for a way to exempt him from the process that subsequently found him to be a high security risk tells you everything about the culture surrounding his appointment.

What the released files do show is a pattern of involvement that goes well beyond the ambassador's remit. Mandelson advised Starmer on 2024 election strategy. He advised No 10 on the Lord Ali freebies row. He told Pat McFadden the government should be more Trumpian. He lobbied David Lammy for his own appointment promising the government would never regret it. And he privately dismissed Wes Streeting as having a midlife crisis while Streeting publicly maintained their friendship was not close.

The most telling exchange has received the least attention. Two days after Labour's election victory, Environment Secretary Emma Reynolds messaged Mandelson to discuss the result. She told him Labour had won at least half of the Muslim vote. She described being shouted at on the street during the campaign. She added that a big priority was to build bridges with Muslim voters. A Cabinet minister, two days into office, discussing electoral strategy with an unvetted ambassador whose security clearance had been denied, framing the cultivation of a specific religious community's votes as a priority. Not policy. Not governance. What Labour needed from the community. That sentence is in the files. It is documented. It is on the record.

The country was promised full transparency. What it received is 1,500 pages, a refused phone request, a stolen device, a Chief Secretary's self-exempted WhatsApps, ministers who had to be asked twice, civil servants who tried to exempt Mandelson from vetting entirely, a vetting summary withheld at police request, redactions approved on grounds unrelated to national security, and an ISC that has publicly accused the government of obstruction. The government will not use the word cover-up. Every document released today justifies it.

"Darren Jones, told the Commons today he had his own WhatsApp exchanges with Mandelson that are not included in the files because he decided unilaterally they did not involve government business."

[Julian Jessop @julianHjessop]

FYI, the usual suspects are still circulating this chart as evidence of the "huge economic damage" done by Brexit.

My thread below explains why this is misleading, starting with the Italian and Spanish data... 👇