BadLadDiverOne

You need to look no further than this list to understand why our governments are not fit for purpose. All these people know is the political game.

Keir Starmer said back in 2022, that a Labour government would “act immediately to avert the cost of living crisis”. Yet the Labour government have been in power for almost 2 years and nothing has been done. In fact, they’ve made the cost of living crisis even worse.

@GBNEWS Surely it’s storm Rodney?

BREAKING: Met Office issues rare 'danger to life' amber alert as Storm Dave to bring hurricane-force winds gbnews.com/weather/met-of…

Ofcom’s weird structure means it behaves more like a private enterprise than a public regulator, despite its statutory powers. A media regulator should not be donating money - even its own revenues - to favoured media companies telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/…

@RossKempsell @Iromg It’s a way for the government to indirectly fund the media. A layer of abstraction, that’s all.

“Cow farts are destroying the planet.”

@ProudWhiteMe @WitchEnd "Once you accept that England itself is a racial problem, nothing is safe. Not villages. Not landscapes. Not history. What survives only does so until the next report declares it "unrepresentative."" x.com/i/status/20184…

"My mum reported me missing. The call operator said she wasn't allowed to describe them as Asian males - and that she should be glad I was learning a different culture." Fiona Goddard was abused for five years while the police watched. This is her story 👇

Take a 102-year-old man from his home in Canada and you risk never seeing him alive again. That’s the MAID reality families fear. @OPP_News show up in Tillsonburg with a court order. Son: “Not opening the door. Break it if you have a warrant. It’s under appeal.” The father is clear: he’ll die where he chooses. He sounds clear and rational to me. The dispute? Sister wants the farm. Father wants to stay. She alleges dementia, son says he is clear and rational. Police are caught in the middle. But enforcing a Thursday night order on Good Friday with no time for legal response is dirty pool. In the end the officers leave because they are not going to kick down the door and the son knows it. The son also says he doesn't trust the police or the courts. These days, I don't blame him at all.

By supprting rejoining the EU, Zack Polanski and the Green Party support reintroducing the mandatory testing of cosmetics on animals - as required by EU law, and removed from UK law after Brexit. Doesn't sound very Green does it. Be careful which hypocrites you vote for.

🚨WOW! STARMER VICIOUSLY ATTACKS TRUMP AND BRITAIN: SAYS PRESIDENT “DOESN’T RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS” AND BRITAIN IS RACIST! 😳😡 Keir Starmer Massively Disrespects President Trump, Says His Response To Mass Rioting Was “An Affront To Humanity”, And Accuses The UK Of Systemic Racism 🤨 In this jaw-dropping video, the now Prime Minister starts by saying he is shocked and angered by President Trump's response to George Floyd's death. He then viciously attacks Trump over his handling of the mass rioting that took place in the wake of George Floyd, branding it an “affront to humanity” and claiming Trump does not respect human rights. These are incredibly strong, incendiary words to use against a sitting US President. In the same clip, he turns on Britain, accusing the country of racism and demanding we must address systemic racial discrimination in our communities. He also took the knee in solidarity with Black Lives Matter. This is what Starmer really thinks of Britain and America. There’s no wonder Trump can’t stand the man and thinks he’s weak. No wonder he brands everyone far right while showing such contempt for our values and people. Incredible stuff from the man now running the country.

Justice isn’t blind anymore...it’s been gang-raped by multiculturalism and left bleeding out in the courtroom. Remember O.J. Simpson? Black jurors openly admitted they knew he was guilty as sin but let him walk as “payback” for Rodney King. Fast forward to 2026: Britain’s Justice Secretary David Lammy just announced they’re scrapping jury trials for almost everything except murder and rape. Why? Because in diverse London and Birmingham, “random” juries no longer deliver justice...they deliver ethnic loyalty and tribal revenge. Nonwhite jurors convict whites at sky-high rates but let their own walk free even with video evidence. Data from UCL and US studies proves it: massive in-group bias from blacks and minorities, while whites still try to play fair. Lee Kuan Yew warned decades ago...multiracial societies can’t have fair juries because race, religion, and tribe always trump facts. The elites knew diversity would destroy the “little parliament” Englishmen fought and died for since Magna Carta. Instead of stopping the invasion, they’re killing the ancient right to a jury of your peers and handing power to lone judges in their pathetic “swift courts.” Demography is destiny, and when the English become a minority in their own courtrooms, there will be no justice left...only payback. The lamp that showed freedom lives has been extinguished by the very people who swore to protect Western civilization. (article below)

You can now be prosecuted for patriotism. Oxfordshire council says it will take all legal measures necessary to stop the English flag from being raised. This fatwa on the national flag is insane, says Hugo Timms buff.ly/auEDRcr

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is wrong. Britain is safe from the worst of the Gulf energy shock. None of the oil we use in the UK has to pass through the Strait of Hormuz , the total figure for all of Europe is only 7%. However our puppet politicians can always make a drama out of a crisis . telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/…

𝐃𝐎𝐔𝐆𝐋𝐀𝐒 𝐌𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐀𝐘: 𝟕𝟒% 𝐎𝐅 𝐍𝐄𝐖 𝐁𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐇 𝐉𝐎𝐁𝐒 𝐖𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐓𝐎 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐈𝐆𝐍-𝐁𝐎𝐑𝐍 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐄𝐑𝐒 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐖𝐇𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐀 𝐍𝐄𝐎-𝐍𝐀𝐙𝐈 Douglas Murray just delivered one of his most devastating indictments of the UK political class — and the parallels to America are impossible to miss. The core number: since 2008, 𝟕𝟒% 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐣𝐨𝐛𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧. For 𝟐𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬, British voters have asked for reduced immigration every single election and been promised action. Instead, immigration went up. Murray’s question cuts to the bone: “𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦?” The answer, apparently, is nothing. “𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵, 𝘯𝘦𝘰-𝘯𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘴.” Murray pointed to a single man with a swastika tattoo being used to discredit entire movements: “𝘐𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵? 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵.” Then he exposed the double standard that no British politician will touch. When an imam is caught preaching violence in a mosque, “𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦.” But when working-class Brits protest mass stabbings and terrorism? The entire crowd gets labeled neo-Nazis. Murray’s framework for what’s happening is devastating in its simplicity: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦.” The primary problem is 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭. The secondary problem is public anger. Starmer’s government is obsessed with policing the anger while doing nothing about the cause. The same playbook runs in America. Call border enforcement racist. Label parents at school board meetings domestic terrorists. Smear anyone who questions the status quo as an extremist — then wonder why trust in institutions evaporates. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐠𝐨 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲. 𝐈𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞.

Labour Loves the Countryside. It Just Hates the People Who Run It. A woman walks into a tailor's shop in Helmsley, North Yorkshire. She loves the heather hills, she says. The wooded dales. The purple moorland stretching to the horizon. What she cannot stand is the shooting that takes place on the Glorious Twelfth. Jeremy Shaw, the tailor, has heard this before. He considers whether to explain that the heather she travelled three hours to admire exists because of the grouse moor she despises. The gamekeepers who manage the land, suppress the bracken, and keep the moorland in the condition that makes it worth visiting. The cake, in other words, was baked by the baker she came to castigate. What is worrying is that the government shares her confusion. On March 18, Labour published its Land Use Framework. Half a million acres earmarked for solar panels. Nine percent of farmland committed to rewilding. And buried on page 45, a proposal to license game bird shooting, potentially restricting pheasant and partridge releases onto estates. The trail hunting ban came first. Licensing comes next. Each measure arrives with its own rationale. Together they form a programme. Licensing does not prohibit. Bureaucracy does not ban. Smaller shoots simply cannot absorb compliance costs, fold quietly, and nobody in Whitehall answers for the consequence. A Natural England case near Helmsley shows the method. A longstanding partridge shoot was barred from releasing birds until after the season had already started. Shoot days cancelled. Revenue gone. Natural England's hands formally clean. Helmsley bucks every trend in British retail. Four pubs in the town square. A Michelin-starred inn nearby. A tailor forty years in business in what a mentor once called a dying trade. Seventy-five percent of Shaw's revenue is shooting-related. The Pheasant hotel runs at sixty percent shooting occupancy through winter. The deli sells local cheese to Norwegian and German sportsmen. Shooting contributes £3.3 billion annually to the UK economy and supports nearly 147,000 jobs. Pull the shooting thread and the weave comes apart. One Helmsley pub changed hands a few years ago. The new owners decided they wanted nothing to do with shoot trade. They lost heavily, then went back to the estates cap in hand. The market delivered the verdict that policy is not yet ready to impose openly. Licensing achieves the same result without anyone having to take responsibility. The conservation argument collapses under scrutiny. Grouse moor owners have restored 217,000 acres of upland heath in the past 25 years. The almost-extinct curlew is four times more likely to fledge on a managed grouse moor than on unmanaged moorland. The landscape that Whitehall has identified as the problem is the reason the landscape exists in the form they claim to value. When asked what economic trade-offs it had actually modelled, the government was vague. Officials said they recognised shooting's cultural importance and would work with industry toward a sustainable relationship. Starmer has been invited to visit Helmsley and see how the economy functions. He has not replied. He should go. He should meet the gamekeeper loading double guns through winter to keep the household solvent. The beaters earning seventy pounds a day. The tailor measuring 24 keepers for tweed suits stitched with Essex lining and Yorkshire zips. What rural Britain is being offered instead is a licensing regime that will first eliminate smaller shoots, then larger ones, then the hotels and tailors and pubs, until the moorland reverts to bracken and the towns that shooting sustained join the dying high streets that apparently only the countryside had managed to avoid. The heather on the North York Moors, Jeremy Shaw at Carters Country Wear, and the market town of Helmsley. All three exist because of shooting. Labour's Land Use Framework puts all three at risk.

How to stop water companies putting sewage in our water 🤔

The truth about Sadiq Khan's Lawless London: Data reveals how crime levels have soared in the capital since Labour mayor came to power - despite his insistence it is a 'safe city' trib.al/3XrsU1b

Gary, both, but in different ways and the distinction matters. MI5 and MI6 are not the problem here. The intelligence picture on the Brotherhood is well established. The 2015 Cameron review drew heavily on security service assessments. MI5 has thwarted twenty Iranian sponsored plots. The security services know what the Brotherhood is, what it does and how it operates in Britain. The intelligence failure, if there is one, is not in the gathering but in the acting on it. The failure is overwhelmingly political. Successive governments, Conservative and Labour, have known what the Cameron review found, that the Brotherhood is deliberately opaque, habitually secretive, operates with a dual discourse and that individuals associated with it have supported terrorist attacks. They have chosen not to act for reasons that have nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with domestic politics. The electoral calculus, the fear of being accused of Islamophobia, the reliance on Brotherhood affiliated organisations as supposed community representatives, the diplomatic considerations around Qatar and Turkey, all of it has made proscription politically costly in ways that have consistently outweighed the security imperative. Starmer's government is the most egregious example. It refuses to proscribe the IRGC while Iranian proxies firebomb Jewish ambulances in Golders Green. It keeps the Brotherhood under close review while the French are commissioning detailed reports on its infiltration of their mosque network. It handed ninety five million pounds of British taxpayers money to a Syrian government led by a man who was until recently on the world's most wanted list. It shook his hand in Downing Street. The left does not side with radicals by accident or through intelligence failure. It sides with them by calculation and by conviction. The security services are watching. The government is looking away. Those are two entirely different problems requiring two entirely different solutions.

The Clapham Mob Didn't Appear By Accident The footage from Clapham this week showed something specific: not opportunistic theft, but organised invasion. Dozens of young men moving through shops in coordinated groups, staff powerless, shelves stripped. The Metropolitan Police expects more of it on Saturday. Intelligence suggests the organisers are already planning to move to Crystal Palace to stay ahead of patrols. Shabana Mahmood would like you to believe this is a policing problem. But she commissioned the sentencing review that dismantled deterrence, introduced the legislation as Justice Secretary, then moved to the Home Office in time to receive the consequences in her inbox. Last month, the Sentencing Act came into force. Under its terms, judges and magistrates must treat prison sentences of under one year as a last resort, available only in exceptional circumstances. Ministry of Justice data confirm what that means in practice: 98 per cent of shoplifters currently serving custodial sentences would qualify for community punishments instead. Up to 12,000 of Britain's most prolific retail thieves will avoid jail as a direct consequence. The Government will tell you the evidence supports this approach. Criminals jailed for six months or less reoffend at 59 per cent. Community orders produce a 24 per cent reoffending rate. The numbers are real. The argument is not dishonest. But applying it to prolific shoplifters with fifteen or more previous convictions, already cycling through courts on tags and community behaviour orders, requires a particular kind of wilful blindness. These are not first offenders awaiting rehabilitation. These are people for whom the existing system already had no effective answer, and the new one has even less. The police chiefs said so. Before the Bill passed, the National Police Chiefs Council modelled the consequences. Their projection: a 6 per cent spike in overall offences in year one, translating to 396,000 additional recorded crimes. Gavin Stephens, the NPCC head, was explicit. His own forces were planning for increased offending across every category. Neighbourhood policing and anti-social behaviour responses would suffer as resources shifted to manage the surge. The NPCC asked for an extra £400 million to cope. Parliament was told this. Mahmood's department was told this. The law passed anyway. That sequence matter. Labour did not stumble into the disorder on Clapham High Street. It walked in with its eyes open, accepted the short-term cost on behalf of communities that had no vote on the matter, and called it reform. Marks and Spencer wrote to both Mahmood and Sadiq Khan this week. The letter was not from a campaign group or a tabloid. M&S is Britain's most recognisable high street institution, and its retail director said publicly what every shop worker and security guard in the country already knows: crime is not falling. Criminals are becoming more brazen, more organised and more violent. Staff are frightened. The public is at risk. Khan's response was to call such claims lies. The Government's response was to cite the long-term benefits of rehabilitation. One senior police source described the operational reality with precision: prolific shoplifters act with near impunity because courts never remand them. Catch them, charge them, watch them walk out and do it again. The Sentencing Act has not changed that calculus. For the most persistent offenders, the practical effect is the abolition of consequences. Labour inherited a prison overcrowding crisis. They had choices about how to solve it. They chose this. They were told it would produce more crime. They passed it anyway. The communities absorbing the consequences were not their political problem. "Dozens of young men moving through shops in coordinated groups, staff powerless, shelves stripped. The Metropolitan Police expects more of it on Saturday."