Watch this short video, please. The Cold War essentially forced us to embrace God Free Market and consumerism. But as Oakeshott (and later Scruton) said: materialism isn't enough. Man does not live by bread alone. We need a new centre. This is why I am a member of @TheSDPUK.
@bluebirdk7 That was my typo. Can’t think why I said it. You are right. Aluminium. I also transposed the speed of first run to 296.7 rather than 297.6mph. Sometimes our mouths don’t say what our brain thinks.
@Bestie69506249@LittlemanT16@bluebirdk7 That was my typo. Can’t think why I said it. You are right. Aluminium. I also transposed the speed of first run to 296.7 rather than 297.6mph. Sometimes our mouths don’t say what our brain thinks.
I submitted my tax return to HMRC one day late.
I was fined £100. And I didn't even owe them any tax!
Angela Rayner tried to avoid paying £40,000 stamp duty for nearly a year and could have been fined £8,000 by the HMRC after she recently coughed up the money, (shortly after being gifted £50,000 from a refrigeration company for 'Office Expenses').
She wasn't fined a single penny. No fine. No penalty. No comeback whatsoever.
Is it any wonder that us little folk are getting so pissed off with these freeloading, opportunistic, money grabbing, holier than thou, two faced charlatans?
Activist: "Those sheep are being exploited for wool."
Farmer: "They need shearing. Without it: heatstroke, fleece so heavy they can't stand, and fly strike. Flies lay eggs in wet wool. Maggots eat the sheep alive."
Activist: "In nature they wouldn't need it."
Farmer: "In nature they'd be dead. Domestic sheep aren't wild animals."
Activist: "You bred them to be dependent on you."
Farmer: "Yes. That's what domestication is. Ten thousand years of it."
Activist: "It's still exploitation."
Farmer: "They get relieved of ten pounds of wool that's killing them. We get wool. No petroleum. No microplastics in the waterways."
Activist: "They can't consent."
Farmer: "They also can't shear themselves."
Activist: "You should let them be natural."
Farmer: "You're wearing a North Face."
Activist: "What?"
Farmer: "Petroleum. Sheds microplastics every wash. Five hundred years in landfill."
Activist: "That's different."
Farmer: "There's a renewable, biodegradable fibre growing on that sheep right now. Needs removing or the animal suffers horribly."
Activist: "Just let them keep their wool."
Farmer: "I'll let you explain that to the sheep in August."
Sorry, but I genuinely don’t know how Keir Starmer has the nerve. Some of us have been calling for action on this for years. The person who has had had their eyes firmly shut to the problem is him. Because actually acting was politically inconvenient.
Well done @limebike for another really well-planned location, a Piccadilly traffic island with a crossing through the middle. Particularly good for disabled people and anyone pushing a buggy
Our regime imports terrorists, gives them passports, calls them ‘British’, then says ‘oh he turned out to be a violent terrorist but he’s British so this has nothing to do with immigration, diversity is our strength, you’re racist if you disagree’.
Most voters think this is mental but it’s been *cross party consensus* for 25 years like prioritising rights of foreign murderers over Britain’s safety in law.
It will continue for years.
If you get killed the MPs will babble ‘thoughts and prayers’ but leave the laws in place
Yesterday's edition of the Financial Times carried a lengthy interview with Lord Hermer KC, the present Attorney General of the United Kingdom.
If you haven't seen it: oh, boy.
The interview was part of the FT's fluffy "Lunch With" feature, a sympathetic profile format whose previous subjects have included most of the 'grown ups in the room' of the British establishment over the last 40 years. The Hermer instalment was, by the FT's own pitch, an opportunity for the Attorney General to "open up about the Keir Starmer people don't see," and to explain the merits of the Chagos deal.
The piece appeared. The comments section opened. And in those comments, you could see a country on the precipice of major change.
The Financial Times's readership is not, to put it as politely as the situation will allow, known for its raucous lower-class anger. It is the readership of senior partners at City firms, central bankers, retired civil servants, retired ambassadors, and the broader metropolitan managerial caste of Britain at the fatter end. It is, on almost every available political question, the most reliably establishment-tarian readership of any newspaper in the United Kingdom.
The comments, before they were closed, were so brutal that readers were openly asking for the article to be withdrawn and threatening to cancel their subscriptions in numbers the FT had not seen before. When the FT readership turns on a Labour Attorney General, the Labour Attorney General has a problem.
If you were wondering what caused such an outbreak of fury from the terribly polite class, here's a summary of the last three decades of Lord Hermer's career.
Lord Hermer, before he became Attorney General, made his name and his living as a human-rights barrister whose principal practice, for a meaningful slice of the relevant period, was the prosecution of civil claims against the British state.
Suing his own country. He got particular mileage out of pursuing claims against the British armed forces, on behalf of foreign nationals alleging mistreatment by British servicemen and women in the field.
The most notorious of these matters is the Al-Sweady litigation. Lord Hermer was lead counsel for eight Iraqi claimants who alleged that British soldiers had murdered, mutilated, and tortured Iraqi prisoners after the Battle of Danny Boy in May 2004. The claims occupied the Ministry of Defence, the Royal Military Police, and a public inquiry for the better part of a decade. The inquiry, at its conclusion, found the claims to be "wholly without foundation," and the result of "deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility."
On 22 April this year, the Daily Telegraph published more than 25,000 pages of contemporaneous emails and legal documents from Lord Hermer's chambers' handling of the Al-Sweady litigation. Among the documents was an internal communication in his own writing, advising on how to "get the big story out there" and noting the need for "wriggle room if the killings did not in fact happen."
Today's edition of the same paper carries further documents from the same info dump showing Hermer privately criticising serving British soldiers, in correspondence with his legal team, while praising publicly the Iraqi lawyers whose own clients the inquiry had found to be lying.
Hermer has, rightfully, been formally referred Lord Hermer to the Bar Standards Board for serious professional misconduct. Lord Glasman, a Labour peer who knows him personally, has called him "an arrogant...fool." Boris Johnson, the former Prime Minister, has said directly that Hermer "aided false war crimes claims against British troops."
(Fancy losing a moral high-ground to Boris Johnson...)
This is the Attorney General. He is the chief legal officer of the Crown. The man whose entire constitutional function is to ensure that the legal interests of the British state are properly defended in the highest forums is a man who, before assuming the post, made his career attacking the British state on behalf of liars, liars whose lies were specifically calibrated to destroy the reputations of British servicemen and women.
There is a word for this kind of legal practice when it is done at scale and in a particular direction. The word is "lawfare." The deployment of judicial mechanisms as a substitute for politics by other means.
The systematic use of human-rights frameworks, judicial review, and aggressive litigation to constrain the actions of one's own state, to attack one's own armed forces, and to advance a worldview that the elected institutions of one's country have repeatedly declined to advance through the ballot box.
It is, at its outer edge, a form of treason that wears a wig. And Hermer, who practices it, is an enemy of our state.
VAT on private school fees was sold as a policy on two grounds.
1) Taxpayers were “subsidising” private education of the wealthy.
2) The policy would raise £1.5 billion a year and fund 6,500 new teachers.
These were both lies, and have been proven to be so.
The Adam Smith Institute (ASI) suggests that the net cost to the economy of this crazy policy could reach as much as £1.58 billion.
In other words
1. Private schools were actually already subsidising state education.
2. Rather than filling the public purse with extra revenue this policy is sucking funds out of the public sector pot.
Once again, as with every major government policy, these people were elected on a raft of lies and invalidated assumptions.
No, it stands for English civilisation winning.
You stand for putting treacherous lawyers who collaborate with criminals in charge of lawfare against the SAS.
A future regime will jail your mate Hermer and RICO through your network
RETWEET IF AGREE
This is Sean Egan. He joined Morrisons at the age of 17.
After 29 years of dedication at supermarket chain, he was dismissed for confronting a shoplifter, which led to a scuffle with thief who spat at him.
A shameful decision by @Morrisons.
He should be thanked, not sacked.