@jk_rowling He repeatedly says that he's 'listened to clinical experts', but has only ever named Baroness Cass. But, as I put it to him, there are dozens of experts who are against this trial. Why hasn't he met with any of them?
Possibly, as Minister for Health, James Murray could compel the adult gender clinics to hand over the data they refused to give to Cass. We might then find out just how much benefit these interventions confer long term, without needing to perform experiments on children too young to give meaningful consent.
Read the testimony of the ever-expanding numbers of detransitioners. Grasp that these young people, many of them extremely vulnerable - autistic, care-experienced, abuse survivors, same-sex attracted in unsupportive families - have been irreparably harmed, left with their fertility destroyed, unending medical complications and profound psychological damage.
This is a medical scandal of epic proportions and people of power and influence are still too frightened of trans activists and trans lobby groups to do the right thing and put an end to the insanity. Kids are being sacrificed to ideology and cowardice.
Excellent journalist? If you openly despise the person you’re reporting on, you’re not an objective journalist. By definition, you’re not an excellent one either.
Oh, Gabriel. He/Him. The brave truth-teller. The fearless investigator. The man who looked at his pronouns in his bio and decided this qualified him to destroy politicians who actually threaten the system he serves.
You broke the story, didn't you? You "revealed" that Farage accepted support before he was an MP. You coordinated with Josh Babarinde, President of the Liberal Democrats, to ensure the letter landed with maximum impact. You are not a journalist. You are a stenographer for the establishment. A hitman with a byline. A smug, self-satisfied little man who believes putting pronouns in his bio makes him virtuous while he does the dirty work of the powerful.
Look at you. Beaming in your profile picture. The Sunday Times correspondent. The insider. The man who lunches with the people he pretends to hold accountable. You are not speaking truth to power, Gabriel. You are power, speaking lies to the public. You are the attack dog of a dying consensus, snapping at the heels of the only man who threatens your masters.
Your investigation is not journalism. It is a political operation. A coordinated smear. You found nothing illegal. Nothing that wasn't already known. But you packaged it with your pronouns and your sanctimony and your "BREAKING" tweets, and you served it up to a public that is sick of your kind. Sick of the smug. Sick of the woke. Sick of the establishment pretending to be rebels while they protect their own.
You want to know who controls Farage? The British people. The ones your newspaper has lied to for years. The ones your pronouns cannot save from noticing that you are not one of them. You are the enemy. The propagandist. The smug git with a press pass and a mission to destroy anyone who steps outside the lines you have drawn.
Keep writing, Gabriel. Keep revealing. Keep showing us exactly who you are. The public are watching. And they are not impressed.
I really can’t believe France is this far gone.
A Senegalese migrant stabs 18 year old Théo to death in a phone store over a €93 bill and the court says he’s not criminally responsible because of “mental illness”.
Just treatment, no prison.
His mom nailed it: you can kill with impunity in France now.
Total disgrace.
@kevinhollinrake@RobertJenrick@Nigel_Farage Have you been told to post today like the Labour traitors? We can smell your fear. No wonder you don’t want a GE. You’d be sent to hell in a hand basket. Where you belong
This reminds me of the US, fake slanders issued by the US Democrat government about Trump during an approaching election. Russia gate, Hunters laptop. This play book is not new!!!!
No Election Chose This Law. It Will Govern What Britain Reads Regardless.
On 23 June, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport published a Green Paper proposing that YouTube, Facebook and every major platform be required by law to place BBC, ITV and Channel 4 content ahead of everything else in the nation's feeds. On the same day, Sir Keir Starmer announced he would resign as Labour leader. The man who presided over this policy's launch will not be in office to answer for its consequences. The policy will still be law.
That sequence matters more than the policy's stated aim. A government whose leader is already leaving is asking the country to accept a permanent restructuring of how information reaches every citizen. No election produced this mandate. No successor has endorsed it. It arrives instead through the ordinary churn of departmental process, the kind that continues whether or not the politician who signed off on it remains in the building.
Consider what the paper actually asks the public to trust. It proposes to give legal priority to "trustworthy providers," yet admits it has not decided what trustworthy means. The definition is still out for consultation. The beneficiaries are not. BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 are named in the document before the criteria that would justify naming them have been written. The conclusion arrived before the argument.
This would be troubling in any circumstance. It is harder to defend given the BBC's own conduct. The corporation spliced two parts of a Donald Trump speech, delivered an hour apart, to make it appear he had ordered supporters to march on the Capitol, while removing the part where he told them to be peaceful. Trump is suing for ten billion dollars. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy called the BBC "the most trustworthy source of news, not just in this country, but across the world" on the very day her department opened a consultation asking what trustworthy should mean. The institution under active litigation for fabricating a world leader's words is the institution the policy assumes as its benchmark.
The mechanism is not hypothetical. A version of it already exists. Under the Media Act 2024's prominence rules for connected televisions, Ofcom's draft code requires six designated broadcaster apps, the BBC, ITV, STV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and S4C, to appear within the first nine tiles of a smart TV menu, leaving three slots for everyone else, including the platform's own service. The nine-tile window rather than six exists because STV serves Scotland and S4C serves Wales, so which broadcasters a viewer sees depends on where they live. The regulator built in room for that swap. Even so, the arithmetic still favours the state's chosen six. If the same ratio carries into search results and social feeds, it tells you plainly what happens to every independent voice competing for space. Nothing about "prominence" adds room. It only reassigns the room that already exists, and reassigns it toward the six providers the state has already chosen.
This is not the first time the state has drawn a legal line around legitimate journalism. The Online Safety Act already defines a "recognised news publisher," a category invented to grant certain protections online. The Green Paper points to that same definition as a likely basis for deciding who counts as trustworthy now. A boundary drawn once for one purpose is being reused to decide, a second time, whose speech the algorithm must promote and whose it may bury. Each use of the boundary makes the next easier to justify.
What should worry the public is not simply that a broadcaster with a documented record of fabrication is being handed statutory priority. It is that no vote produced this law, and no vote will be needed to keep it.
"Ofcom's draft code requires six designated broadcaster apps, the BBC, ITV, STV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and S4C, to appear within the first nine tiles of a smart TV menu"
Someone should remind Ms. Bell Ribeiro-Addy that she is the MP for CLAPHAM not the CARIBBEAN
Why is a Labour MP advocating for foreign powers that seek to BANKRUPT Britain by demanding TRILLIONS in reparations?
These countries are led by incompetent & substandard leaders - many of them corrupt, too - who have run their economies into the ground.
Rather than admit that, they seek to blame their ills on colonialism.
The reparations grift has nothing to do with slavery.
In fact, according to a reputable poll taken in 2011, a whopping 60% of Jamaicans said they would be better off if Britain had never left. Only 17% said they would be worse off.
And the facts back them up.
Today, the parts of the Caribbean which remain overseas territories or departments of the UK, France (Guadeloupe, Martinique etc.), the Netherlands (Aruba etc.) and the United States (Puerto Rico etc.) have significantly higher incomes and better public services than the fully independent Caribbean states.
Like all former British colonies, the independent Caribbean states inherited all of the assets (infrastructure, civil service, legal system, parliament, military, police etc.) required to become a success story.
Former colonies like Singapore have been fortunate to be led by competent - indeed, brilliant - leaders.
The Caribbean story, however, has been one of corruption and incompetence. Rather than admit that, they sink into the corrosive politics of victimhood: blaming others for their sad predicament and seeking hand outs.
The British built more than 20 hospitals in Jamaica before it achieved independence in 1962.
How many hospitals has the Jamaican government built since 1962? Two.
Me on @GBNews:
BREAKING:
A Sudanese asylum seeker has stabbed 3 people in Clermont-Ferrand, France.
He also tried to stab a policeman in the neck but was then shot by the officers. A slew of attacks by Sudanese migrants has recently rocked Europe, including an attempted beheading in Belfast
More and more Sudanese asylum seekers are expected in to start making their way to Europe as the civil war in that country is has entered its 4th year and many internal refugees are losing hope of being able to return to their homes anytime soon.
Large parts of the country under control of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is closely allied with the Sudanese Armes Forces under General Al-Burhan.
The general is fighting the civil war against how former ally Hemedti and his Rapid Support Forces.
Islamist propaganda and calls for extremist violence have surged in Muslim Brotherhood-controlled areas during the civil war, with frequent calls for “unbelievers” to have their throats cut.
🤯 Listen to this extraordinary exchange between Camilla Tominey and Labour’s Health Secretary James Murray. It is genuinely jaw-dropping.
Camilla: “You’re quite pro-trans, aren’t you? Do you think a woman can have a penis? Because you did previously?”
Murray: “No, I don’t.”
Camilla: “So you’ve changed your mind?”
Murray: “Yes.”
Camilla: “Why?”
Murray stumbles. He says he’s been thinking about the issue over recent years and would not now say trans women are women.
Camilla hits back: “You must have known that before. You are very well educated. How on earth can you have previously thought that a woman can have a penis?”
He had no real answer. Because there isn’t one.
This is not some backbench MP. This is the Secretary of State for Health, the man responsible for the entire NHS, puberty blocker policy, women’s health services, and child safeguarding.
He spent years either believing or pretending to believe that biological sex is fluid and that women can have penises. Only now, when the Cass Review, court rulings, and public opinion have made that position politically toxic, has he magically “changed his mind”.
Think about the damage done while he held that view. The eroded women’s rights. The confused children fast-tracked toward hormones and surgery. The female prisoners and athletes forced to share spaces with biological males. All enabled or ignored by senior Labour figures like him.
This level of ideological delusion at the very top of government is not just embarrassing, it is dangerous. Basic biology should never have been up for debate, let alone something a Health Secretary had to “evolve” on.
One politician complaining about X doesn’t worry me.
It’s when several of them do it at once as it normally means they are getting ready to do something censorious.
Examples this week: Lisa Nandy, Lucy Powell, Sadiq Khan
Question: Who is the famous and controversial MP who declared gifts and freebies totalling more than £100,000 - the highest of any MP - and who has accepted more gifts than any other MP since 2019?
Answer: Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer
(Stats via Reuters)