When I was little, my mother pointed to a policeman wearing the old-fashioned helmet and said I must always find a PC if I was frightened or in trouble.
How many parents today would recommend their kid trust a police officer?
What a tragic decline thanks to a mad DEI cult.
If the Government really wanted to protect kids like they’re claiming, they’d change sentencing to stop paedophiles getting suspended sentences…
They’d stop dirty foreign sex cases being housed in hotels and HMOs next to schools.
Make me wrong, I challenge you.
You want to know what's worse than incompetence? Knowing the truth and burying it anyway.
They knew. That's the bit nobody is saying. They knew.
Two days after Henry died Hampshire Police secretly recorded Digwa in a police van speaking Punjabi to his brother. Digwa admitted stabbing Henry. Discussed claiming self defence. Made zero mention of racial abuse. Not one word.
Hampshire Police had that tape.
They knew Digwa was lying about the racist attack. They had the evidence. They had his own words and then tried to smear Henry as the aggressor anyway.
Three days after his death their statement read “it was reported two men had been assaulted by an unknown man.” Henry was the unknown man. The boy bleeding out on the street. They flipped it.
Family complained. Statement changed. Then police told the family their NEXT update would again infer Henry was the initial aggressor. His family had to fight them a second time. While grieving their murdered son.
Then during the trial Hampshire tried to issue a statement telling the public to stop talking about it online. Calling it disinformation. The CPS had to step in. Told them they were about to collapse their own murder case.
This is the force that handcuffed a dying boy. Missed the murder weapon twice. Had a secret tape proving the killer lied. And still tried to bury Henry's name.
That's not incompetence. That's a machine protecting itself. At the expense of a dead boy's reputation and three officers are still on active duty. Not suspended. Treated as witnesses. To their own actions.
Hampshire Police didn't just fail Henry on that street. They kept failing him for six months after he died.
When will more start calling out the madness being foisted on us..?
We're headed into a situation few can envisage...
Can the grown ups, whoever they may be, take back the reins from the economically unhinged and the ideologically driven...
Labour risks being forced to seek emergency help from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as Britain lurches toward a debt crisis, leading economists are now warning.
Former IMF chief economist Ken Rogoff says, in a new interview, that there is “more than 50:50 chance” of a major UK debt crisis before the end of this decade.
He is joined by Sir Charlie Bean, a former senior official at both the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility, who says the need for an IMF bail-out is now a “material risk” for the British economy.
I not only firmly agree with Ken Rogoff and Sir Charlie Bean – but have been repeatedly issuing the very same warnings for a very long time.
Because the grave risk of a major fiscal meltdown has been apparent for at least the last two years – to anyone who combines serious knowledge of UK economics and politics and global debt markets with an open mind.
The UK's public finances were already fragile when Labour took office back in July 2024.
But this government's misguided, ideologically-driven statist policies have made a bad situation much worse, seriously increasing the danger of a deep fiscal crisis - which would cause a disastrous state funding shortfall and a very nasty inflation spike.
That would result in Downing Street being forced to follow the orders of unelected technocrats flown in from Washington and elsewhere.
It would be a very major national humiliation combined with a deep economic slump and an even more intense cost-of-living crisis – in which low-income households, as ever, would suffer the most.
Yet those of us that have shown the brains and courage to point out these inconvenient truths over recent months and years have long been dismissed and derided for our trouble - not only by ignorant politicians and approval-seeking journalists but also the overwhelming majority of "leading economists".
Ahead of the general election in mid-2024, with Labour on course to win, the conventional wisdom among the great sages of broadsheet journalism and the economics establishment was that "the adults would soon be back in charge" ... Labour would "get lucky with the economy" ... and "Britain would now enjoy an extended period of political and fiscal stability".
I thought that was total nonsense – not least as I was well aware Labour's plans irresponsibly to increase borrowing and spending would be met with deep scepticism by the global pensions funds, insurance companies and other institutional investors that lend governments serious money.
My weekly @Telegraph "Economic Agenda" column of 23rd June 2024, a fortnight ahead of the general election, was a total outlier. I recounted the disaster of 1976 – when Britain was forced to go "cap in hand" to the IMF for a bailout – and warned that "The Ghosts of the 1970s" would haunt Labour's (so-called) economic resurrection".
Six months later, after the October 2024 "Hallowen" budget in which Chancellor Rachel Reeves did indeed sharply hike borrowing and spending, I assessed the market reaction then doubled-down – warning more assertively in my column of 12th January 2025 that "The UK risks a return to 1976 unless Reeves changes course".
And then again on 20th July 2025, as Labour's policies raised the costs of doing business, translating into price pressures which pushed up government borrowing costs even more, I again cautioned that "Inflation risks are taking Britain to the debt-crisis cliff edge".
"It’s now screamingly obvious that Labour’s crude Keynesianism – “pump priming” the economy by upping state borrowing and spending – isn’t working," I wrote in that column last July.
"Worse than that, this Government’s actions are pushing Britain towards a budgetary crisis every bit as serious as that in 1976 – when the UK was forced to go “cap in hand” to the IMF for a bail-out".
It's been a lonely task issuing these warnings. I've been hounded in public debates, slagged off by senior civil servants and often dismissed by "leading economists" as "alarmist".
So what do these same "leading economists" now say to Rogoff (Harvard Professor, Former IMF Chief Economist) and Bean (LSE Professor and Former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England)?
The "economics establishment" – with very few honourable exceptions, the brilliant @jagjit_chadha among them – has been and remains extremely reluctant to point out the deeply unsustainable nature of this government's addiction to ever more borrowing.
The systemic fiscal dangers of evermore "tax and spend" – and the prospect of a serious spike in gilt yields and related fiscal meltdown – are now so real and present as to be completely undeniable.
Yet the UK government is about to shift even further to the left, pushing up borrowing and spending even more under a new leader, in a bid to appease the massed ranks of economic illiterates among Labour's Parliamentary party and activist base – making those dangers even more acute.
Yet, still, the silence among "public intellectual" economists is deafening.
I'm glad the likes of Ken Rogoff and Charlie Bean are now issuing clear warnings. So where is the rest of the "economics establishment" - those who purport to understand fiscal management and financial markets, and often funded by taxpayers' money?
Britain is now clearly in the crosshairs of a very serious danger. The government's creditors are increasingly fickle and based overseas – with no regulatory or cultural obligations to lend money to the UK government.
Those holding UK gilts are increasingly "speculative" rather than "strategic" long-term investors – looking for quick returns, financing their government bond purchases with "leverage" (money borrowed from elsewhere), which will quickly be withdrawn when senitment decisively shifts, causing a plunge in gilt prices and a sharp additional surge in government borrowing costs, setting up a vicious circle.
The UK government is very heavily indebted – and the global investors we rely on to bankroll a huge slice of our state spending are alarmed that of the £132bn the government borrowed last year, no less than £110bn was spent on debt interest – as I wrote in a column on 17th May 2026, "As Labour lurches further left, the markets are calling time".
Global investors are alarmed the UK has consistently had the highest inflation in the G7 (which pushes up borrowing costs) and has easily the highest share of index-linked debt (which magnifies the burden of inflation on the state's balance sheet).
And they are deeply, deeply alarmed that when Labour came to power in mid-2024, the Office for Budget Responsibility was forecasting additional state borrowing of £323bn by 2029, the scheduled end of this Parliament.
But Labour’s runaway spending and growth-crushing tax rises mean that the same five-year borrowing forecast is now £583bn – 80pc higher. And still, the trade unions, MPs and Labour activists who will choose Starmer’s successor now want even more.
It is not too late to pull the UK back from the fiscal brink, to avoid the extremely painful and deep, lingering damage of being forced to go to the IMF and perhaps other multi-lateral creditors for a bailout.
It is not too late to avoid the inflation surge, the currency crash, the shocking blow to consumer and business confidence alongside the sky-high interest rates that will seriously whack our economy – or the perhaps even deeper damage of yet more of the British electorate losing faith in the ability of our establishment to manage the country in a manner that avoids imposing serious hardship on so many hard-working people simply trying to make their way.
But our political and media class needs to start acknowledging the economic and financial truth – that the UK government is borrowing and spending too much, taxation is now so high that it's hammering growth and employment, and that trying to finally get the economy moving by "moving further left", borrowing and spending even more, will result in a fiscal collapse.
Smart, experienced, high-profile economists need to start speaking out – as Rogoff and Bean just have – raising the alarm in a bid to force the broader establishment to face reality. Before it's too late.
If you've read this far, you clearly think this analysis is worthwhile and important. So please like and share.
And for more, read my "Economic Agenda" column in The Sunday Telegraph each week – and subscribe to "When The Facts Change: Economics and Politics in a fast-moving world, with Liam Halligan"
Further to what I wrote in this piece Trevor Phillips has since made two really excellent points:
1. Starmer’s comments about George Floyd were made even BEFORE the trial had taken place. This is fascinating - by comparison JD Vance waited until after the the conviction and sentencing. Should Starmer - the lawyer and Mr Proper Process - not have known better than to risk prejudicing the George Floyd/Derek Chauvin trial?
2. Lammy used THE VERY SAME WORDS as Vance - defending “righteous anger” - in commenting on George Floyd. And yet Lammy and co have the audacity to hypocritically criticise Vance for daring to give this opinion
https://t.co/UitTRcrEzj
34-year-old Katie Fox, the woman stabbed in the neck in Birmingham last Friday, has now died in hospital.
Djeison Rafael has been charged with her murder.
This follows 19-year-old Lily Whitehouse being stabbed to death in Oldbury two days earlier.
Mohammed Azim was charged with her murder. He is allegedly the same Mohammed Azim who previously served an 11-year sentence for manslaughter, and sentenced to 16 years in prison for three rapes in 2013.
Every day, one of our wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers is murdered and raped by men who never needed to be here in the first place.
Enough. They have to go.
Do you want to know something interesting about the decision to remove Winston Churchill, Alan Turing and Jane Austen from bank notes?
Savanta, a market research company, was chosen to run a focus group.
The result of that focus group is that Churchill was “divisive”, Turing “an imperialist” and Austen “contentious and not representative”.
Yet that focus group had only 119 people in it.
And only one person called Turing “imperialist”. Someone who probably did not even know that he was not only instrumental in the Allies winning WW2 but was a gay man who was chemically castrated to “cure him”.
Turing was left fat, flabby and so unhappy that he carefully injected cyanide into an apple and ate it. He was found with half the apple by his side.
The Bank of England claims that the focus group was only part of its decision and it ran a broader public inquiry that favoured animals and flowers. Who did they ask? Primary school kids?
The same Lewis Hamilton who used a corporate leasing structure to save money on taxes (around £3.3 million in VAT) when acquiring his Bombardier Challenger 605 private jet in 2013? The same Lewis Hamilton who bought the £16.5 million jet through his British Virgin Islands company (Stealth Aviation Ltd) and who then set up an Isle of Man leasing company (Stealth (IOM) Ltd, to import it into the EU and sub-leased it to a UK jet management firm (TAG Aviation), which in turn provided it back to Hamilton and his Guernsey company under charter agreements? *That* Lewis Hamilton?
The trouble is, those who have either drunk the DEI Cool-Aid or are making significant sums from its implementation, can’t or won’t consider what we can all see.
To them they’re being kind, fighting for equity & they’ve convinced themselves that any consequences, if they admit there are any, are worth it…
We’re screwed…
When DEI Replaces Medicine. Three Dead In Nottingham. The NHS Called It Reducing Inequality.
In May 2020 Valdo Calocane attempted to break into a neighbour's flat during a psychotic episode. Mental health professionals decided not to section him. They cited the over representation of young black males in detention. Hours later he attempted to break into another neighbour's flat. A woman was so frightened she jumped from a window and broke her spine. In June 2023 he stabbed Barnaby Webber, Grace O'Malley-Kumar and Ian Coates to death on the streets of Nottingham.
A Care Quality Commission representative visited the secure ward where Calocane was treated shortly before the killings. Standing on a ward housing twenty patients who had all committed serious offences the representative told the doctor words to the effect of we all know half of these people shouldn't be here. You're doing wrong keeping these people locked up, and that goes particularly for the black patients. The CQC subsequently noted that opportunities to stop Calocane were missed.
Prof Sir Robin Murray, one of the world's leading researchers in psychosis at King's College London, said the pressure to reduce black sectioning rates is akin to saying that it's very unfortunate that so many black patients are having treatment for prostate cancer, so we should decrease the number having operations. Black people have an increased risk of sickle cell anaemia and prostate cancer. Nobody calls urologists racist. A doctor said once a patient has psychosis, we shouldn't perform sociology, we should perform medicine.
Nine current and former NHS psychiatrists told the Telegraph they had been encouraged to limit the number of black patients they section to avoid over representation. Team members questioned sectioning decisions warning it could be construed as racism. One senior professor put it precisely. You are seen as failing if you admit a black person on a section. Admit a white person and it's clear they are very ill and needed it. Frustrated doctors said DEI had become an industry, with trusts employing diversity leads who had a financial incentive to allege racism in sectioning decisions.
Lord Sewell chaired the 2020 Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. His central finding was precise and simple. Racial disparities are not automatically evidence of racism. Disparity and discrimination are not the same thing. The Commission concluded that the evidence does not support claims of discrimination within psychiatry. The challenge was convincing vulnerable people in ethnic minorities that mental healthcare is neither a threat nor a punishment but something genuinely helpful.
The progressive establishment denounced the report as a whitewash. Activist groups and public sector unions attacked it. Media outlets amplified the outrage. Several commissioners were vilified online and professionally punished. The University of Nottingham rescinded the honorary doctorate it had awarded Sewell for his work in education. They said the report was too controversial. Calocane was also a Nottingham student. It was there that he first experienced hallucinations.
Emma Webber, whose son Barnaby was one of three people Calocane killed, told the Nottingham Inquiry that police and mental health services were spending far too much time worrying about discrimination and segregation and doing the wrong thing because somebody's of a certain colour or certain religion. If you're dangerous, you're dangerous, and it does not matter what colour you are or where you're from.
Sewell's closing observation is the verdict on all of it. When identity politics replaces evidence the consequences are not just intellectual. Sometimes they are deadly. Barnaby Webber. Grace O'Malley-Kumar. Ian Coates. Henry Nowak. Different institutions. Different victims. The same cause.
"Calocane was also a Nottingham student. It was there that he first experienced hallucinations."
Sky's @TrevorPTweets, a former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, says he feel "rage" because the Henry Nowak case is one of many examples of "misjudgements about people based on their race leading to a young life being cut short."
He shares three other examples ⬇️
They told you the planet is dying… and you’re the problem.
Your food.
Your habits.
Your existence.
Meanwhile, behind closed doors, something else is growing.
AI data centres in the UK alone could pump out 123 million tonnes of carbon emissions — the equivalent of millions of human lives over a decade.
But where’s the outrage?
Instead, they blame cows… tax farmers… and squeeze the people who actually feed you.
While tech giants expand quietly… signing deals… building systems that never sleep… and never get questioned.
Different rules.
Different targets.
Same script.
So let me ask you…
Why are everyday people being punished…
while the biggest emitters keep getting rewarded?
Is this really about saving the planet…
or controlling who pays the price?
Drop your thoughts below — I want to hear what you think.
And if this made you stop and think for even a second… share it.
More people need to see this.
The Somerset Farmhouse of 1 North Street, Williton were approached by a "food influencer" that wanted to charge them £2,000 for a review.
They put out a video of Sally eating a sausage roll instead 😆.
Lets make Sally and the Somerset Farmhouse famous for free.
Since this was published Saturday morning it’s been revealed that the Royal Navy’s entire available fleet of hunter-killer submarines is stuck in port unable to sail — all five Astute class subs currently laid up awaiting maintenance and other repair work. Leaves the UK’s sub-sea internet and power cables dangerously vulnerable to sabotage by the Kremlin
@FursieRS6@HannahIamthest1 I remember taking one of the best ever references on a candidate for a project I was undertaking for a client; “he left this organisation as he started. Fired with enthusiasm !!”
🤣🤣
🚨(1)BREAKING: Christian community police officer wins settlement after being forced out of his role for questioning and criticising Islam during diversity training.
Luke Salmons, who has been supported by the Christian Legal Centre, was suspended for six months, forced to resign and put on a police barring list after he had questioned radical Islam in a training session.
He had been told that the session was a 'safe place' for discussion, but after expressing his beliefs, the consequences were devastating.
After taking legal action, his case has now been settled on confidential terms, however his story raises serious concerns about free speech and religious freedom in UK policing.
See more in this thread 🧵on our website and breaking in the media:
https://t.co/Ed9elAMIKa
https://t.co/sAkxcVf9PW