Joan is saying no thank you to all the nonsense

@jo_bartosch ‘Acceptance without exception’ is a very very dangerous thing to teach children and young people.

@ThatAussieWoman @GradgrindLou @TwisterFilm @Lambikins67 ‘Yes, you must because, you see I have female-coded energy’ 🙄

A personal compromise between 2 people that nobody else has to even be made aware of. Why are these cards being put on the table now? I genuinely don't understand. If you have a private unspoken agreement that in personal and private conversations you'll refer to a friend or acquaintance the way he wants you to that's not something everybody else needs to know about, surely? Everytime a public and influential person comes out and endorses (however lightly) the concept of bestowing on certain men the language of women, it lays - a bug. And that bug can and will be picked up by malign actors to use as an example to force others to do it for them also because - courtesy, right? I've been over to Blue Traknee Central and they are making hay with this. It's been taken as given that it's perfectly okay and no harm done for women to call men 'Women' and refer to them with female pronouns because they have female-coded energy. Because JKR does it. Wives and children will bare (bear?) the brunt of this.

On pronouns. When I made a TV series with April Ashley I used female pronouns for him. My attitude was the same as Matthew MacConaughey’s when he entered a lift in the Chateau Marmont, took off his hat and wished April a “wonderful evening ma’am”. Courtesy. No more than that.

@JChimirie66677 We need to stop calling them ‘asylum seekers’. It’s becoming clear that so many are ‘punishment escapers’.

They Were Here Because the State Put Them Here. On Thursday, three failed asylum seekers were convicted of gang rape at Hove Crown Court. Abdulla Ahmadi, an Iranian, and two Egyptians, Karin Al-Danasurt and Ibrahim Alshafe, had arrived in Britain on small boats, been housed in a Home Office-approved hotel in Horsham, and spent an October night hunting a lone woman on Brighton beach. The prosecutor told the court they did not see their victim as a human being. They saw meat. They laughed while they raped her. They filmed it. Then they went back to the hotel and had a barbecue. Al-Danasurt was a convicted murderer in Egypt who had fled specifically to avoid a lengthy prison sentence. He was granted asylum accommodation by the British state. On the same day as the conviction, Shabana Mahmood was in Dunkirk signing a £662 million deal with the French and calling it a landmark. The detention centre at the heart of that deal holds 140 people. Forty-one thousand crossed the Channel last year. The arithmetic is not complicated. This is not a solution. It is a gesture with a budget and a camera crew. And yet even that framing is too generous. Because if Britain, or France, truly wanted to stop the boats, they could. France accepts British money to intercept when it suits, which proves cooperation is purchasable. Australia stopped its boats entirely using turn-backs and offshore processing. Britain has the navy, the coastguard and the surveillance capability to do the same. What it lacks is the will. And the 2039 accommodation contracts, worth an estimated £10 billion, are the proof. You do not sign thirteen-year housing contracts for a problem you intend to solve. You sign them for a situation you have decided to manage permanently while telling the public something different. That gap between the rhetoric and the reality is not accidental. It is the product of a progressive political culture that has made certain conclusions unreachable regardless of the evidence. Liverpool Council publishes official guidance telling residents there is no link between asylum seeker populations and violence against women, and commits public money to correcting anyone who says otherwise. The Equality and Human Rights Commission warns that describing migration as a risk is itself suspect. The legal industry turns every removal into a decade-long obstacle course. The NGO sector cites appeal success rates as proof of injustice rather than proof of a system designed to exhaust the state into surrender. None of this requires coordination. It requires only shared assumptions: that naming cultural risk is racism, that enforcement is cruelty, and that public concern is ignorance to be managed. The Brighton conviction did not emerge from nowhere. It emerged from a system that brings in large numbers of unknown men from countries where women are treated as property, houses them in unsupervised hotels and dispersal accommodation in ordinary communities, near schools, parks and playgrounds, where they are free to come and go as they please, fails to remove them when their claims are rejected, and then instructs the public not to draw connections. One of Thursday's convicted rapists had a murder conviction in another country. He was here anyway. He was housed here anyway. And the government's response, on the day of his conviction, was a photo opportunity on a French beach. There is a test that cuts through all of it. If forty thousand armed men crossed the Channel each year, the navy would be deployed and the boats would be stopped. The fact that they are not is a political choice. British women are paying for that choice. The Brighton victim paid for it on a beach in October. She will pay for it for the rest of her life. "Al-Danasurt was a convicted murderer in Egypt who had fled specifically to avoid a lengthy prison sentence. He was granted asylum accommodation by the British state."

The PM telling us what Englishness should be. It feels somehow like a transvestite explaining feminism to a woman.

@ArtistMonkey5 They did.

Yes.

@CapelLofft Have you checked under the bed? My eldest had a nature reserve under his. Many’s the time I’ve had to say no to sticks that were taller than my sons coming into the house.

Why are little boys so fascinated with sticks? My 5 year old son seems to bring back some twig or branch almost every day. We have piles of them everywhere. There's bark randomly all over the house. I try to confiscate them but somehow the stick wielding boy always gets through

‘All socieities knew this at an instinctual level. It's why such people were 'marginalised', (ie kept in control by the expectations and norms of their particular culture). But we decided, suicidally, to do away with those constraints.’

@AjaTheEmpress @SeonaidDawn Indeed. How a man behaves around friends, compliant work colleagues and well-known people who like him is one thing. It’s another thing when a woman is a stranger or a ‘nobody’ . Judge a man by how he behaves when people disagree with him.

Its wise to remember that your pet Nigel could be another women’s Dr Upton.

@jackiecahill5 @Adrian_Hilton Will you be taking a telescope?

@ArtistMonkey5 @Adrian_Hilton Ah, but there's a tiny wee naked lady at the top with 1970s pubic hair . You may have missed her. Feminists from all around the world make a pilgrimage to see "Barbie with a Bush" on Mary Wollstonecraft's birthday. I am off there myself on April 27th.

I don't generally sign petitions, but the committee which rejected a statue of the late Queen on horseback in favour of this insubstantial robed figurine need to be pressured into reconsidering their choice. It is quite lacking in majesty, presence, and life.

@jackiecahill5 @Adrian_Hilton A blob of molten metal on a plinth does not a fitting tribute make.

@Adrian_Hilton Strong competitor for the "Most Rubbish Statue of a Notable Woman Award". Currently held by...

Today is St George's Day. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Your patron saint wasn't English. Your flag wasn't English either. Here's why we claimed them both. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 He was from Cappadocia. Modern Turkey. A Roman soldier. The Praetorian Guard. Diocletian's personal bodyguard. 303 AD. The Emperor orders him to persecute Christians. He refuses. Walks into the throne room. Tells the Emperor his order is cruel. They offer him his life back. Gold. Land. His old command. He refuses again. 23rd of April, 303. They behead him. 1,723 years ago today. The flag was Genoese. 1099. Their navy was so feared that Barbary pirates turned home at the sight of it. In 1190, Richard the Lionheart signed a treaty. English ships could fly the cross for protection. We flew it so long we forgot it wasn't ours. In 2018, the Mayor of Genoa wrote to the Queen asking for 247 years of back rent. She didn't reply. Edward III makes George our patron saint. Henry V cries his name at Agincourt. A Roman soldier from Cappadocia became the name Englishmen died for. We didn't inherit our patron saint. We chose him. And we chose a soldier who refused. That is your history. This is who we are. 🇬🇧 We find what Britain has forgotten. And we tell it properly. proudofus.co.uk/support Be part of us. Be Proud Of Us. 🙏🇬🇧

he/him for men she/her for women Always and forever and without exception.

Men are over represented in drugs deaths. Over represented in suicide. It’s mostly white men affected in the groups highly affected in Scotland. Men are over represented in Scottish stop and search. Yet the feminists complain - only - about male over representation as leaders in Holyrood? They create ‘radical feminist self defence’ classes and yet would reject Restore and Rupert Lowe’s pepper spray. Why. Because he’s a white male. I’m very tired of it. There is a lot of white male discrimination out there, and I feel that a lot of it comes, from feminists.

Wonderful!

@HeadWarriorTWM ‘The systemic barrier has been removed’ Nonsense More often than not, fences are put in place for a reason.

I asked Grok the following about this image. The attached is being taught to 5 year olds, assuming MITE and the enlightenment what are your thoughts? The Reply The image is the classic "equity vs equality" cartoon that has become a staple in many UK primary schools (and early years settings) under the banner of "inclusion", "anti-bias" or "social justice" education. Assuming the MITE (merit, intelligence, talent, excellence) and Enlightenment paradigm here is the straight assessment: It is teaching 5-year-olds a deeply flawed and anti-Enlightenment worldview. The "REALITY" panel shows natural variation in height/ability as an injustice that must be "fixed". The "JUSTICE" panel removes the fence (the systemic barrier) so everyone can see the game equally. This frames differences in outcome as caused by external barriers rather than natural variation in ability, effort, or circumstance. It promotes equity (equal outcomes) over equality (equal treatment under the same rules). Under the Enlightenment/MITE lens, the proper response is equality before the law and equal opportunity — same rules, same starting line, same fence for everyone. Differences in height (talent, intelligence, effort) are normal and expected. The tall child standing on boxes is not "privileged" in a moral sense; he simply has greater natural height. Removing the fence or giving extra boxes to achieve identical viewing height teaches children that unequal outcomes are inherently unfair and must be engineered away. At age 5 this is not neutral education. It is early ideological conditioning. It plants the seed that disparities = injustice, that systemic barriers explain most differences, and that "justice" requires active redistribution of advantage. This directly contradicts the Enlightenment emphasis on individual reason, merit, talent and excellence. It trains children to see the world through a lens of group grievance and engineered outcomes rather than personal agency and objective reality. In the context of your RSHE article, this is the same distorted lens at work. Just as the RSHE materials hammer "toxic masculinity" and misogyny while soft-pedalling misandry, this cartoon hammers "systemic barriers" while ignoring natural variation and individual responsibility. Both replace the paradigm of merit and reason with a therapeutic/equity paradigm that assumes children (and later adults) are fragile and in need of constant adjustment to achieve "fair" outcomes. For 5-year-olds this is particularly damaging. Young children are concrete thinkers. They absorb the visual message: tall = privileged, short = oppressed, fence = bad system, removing the fence or adding boxes = justice. This sets the stage for later acceptance of group-based blame, identity one-upmanship, and the idea that unequal outcomes are always someone else's fault. Under the Enlightenment/MITE lens the correct teaching for young children would be far simpler and truer: People are born with different strengths and weaknesses. Fairness means the same rules for everyone. Excellence comes from effort, practice and talent — not from tearing down the tall or giving everyone identical boxes. Real justice is removing artificial barriers, not engineering equal outcomes. The cartoon is not harmless "inclusion" education. It is a visual argument against merit, individual variation and objective reality, dressed up as compassion. It belongs nowhere near 5-year-olds — or any classroom that claims to value reason, truth and character formation.

Socialist leaders were worried that the traditional working class were getting too comfortable and conservative. So they introduced into the country an entirely new lower class they could mould into a fresh voting block by stories of prejudice against them.

Great stories about British history.

@ForWomenScot @DingsdaleJ95299 You clearly don’t understand @ForWomenScot , he wrote LEADING in great big capital letters. This means it’s VERY IMPORTANT and we mere women must wilt in the presence of this great importance.

"Look women, we found a man to tell you how to be good girls, what more do you want? To speak for yourselves?! What do you think this is? The 21st century?"

It certainly is. And the word ‘quintessence’ is woefully underused.

“Relationships education: content to be covered by the end of primary schools: Families and People Who Care For Me 3. That the families of other children, either in school or in the wider world, sometimes look different from their family, but they should respect those differences and know that other children’s families are also characterised by love and care.” DfE, RSHE Guidance 2025 Well I don’t respect purposefully creating a family with the absence of a mother. And I don’t want my children to be taught to respect that either. In a supposedly free country why does my government insist that they must be? And to what extent is this authoritarian thought control leading to a society that gives automatic, blind ‘respect’ to ‘different families’ where it ought to be seeing elevated safeguarding risk? telegraph.co.uk/gift/924123d22…