JenCan55

@elonmusk And what exactly has it got to do with you??? Keep your beak out of other country's politics

Restore Britain is already at 7%! It will win. It must win. To Save Britain.

@JChimirie66677 And another thought if this doctor behaved in this way with their colleagues how do they behave with patients when noone's looking ??

The NHS tells us there is no money. No money for extra staff. No money for reducing waiting lists. Nurses are urged to be resilient. Taxpayers are urged to understand the pressures. Yet when eight nurses in Darlington asked for something as basic as the right to change without a male present, money was suddenly no object. County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust found more than £600,000 to fight them in court. That sum is not abstract. It is the equivalent of more than nineteen newly qualified nurses' salaries. It is months of treatment for patients on waiting lists. It is resources that could have been spent on care. Instead, it was spent defending a policy that an employment tribunal has now ruled violated the nurses' dignity and amounted to harassment. Employment Judge Seamus Sweeney did not mince his words. Allowing Rose Henderson, a biological male who identifies as a woman, to use the female changing facilities created a "hostile, intimidating, humiliating and degrading environment". Those are not culture-war slogans. They are judicial findings. The trust did not stumble into this position by accident. It chose to defend it. Staff raised concerns. The issue did not disappear. The trust escalated. Lawyers were instructed. Public money flowed. The nurses were forced to fight their own employer simply to assert a boundary that most people would regard as common sense. Only after losing did chief executive Steve Russell apologise for the "distress caused" and confirm there would be no appeal. The money is gone. The damage is done. Now we are promised a "review". This is the real scandal. The NHS is not a debating society. It is a publicly funded service entrusted with care. When frontline nurses say their dignity is being compromised, the instinct of leadership should be caution, not confrontation. Instead, ideology hardened into policy and policy hardened into litigation. The institution treated its own staff as the problem. It took a tribunal to say otherwise. The trust now speaks of "improving private changing spaces" and ensuring arrangements "align with the law". That alignment could have happened years ago. The Supreme Court has clarified that sex in law means biological sex. The legal warning signs were visible long before the final ruling. Yet the trust pressed on, confident enough in its position to gamble more than half a million pounds of public money. That is not prudence. It is institutional arrogance. There is a pattern here that extends beyond Darlington. Large public bodies adopt fashionable policies. Internal dissent is dismissed as prejudice. Legal risks are minimised. When challenged, the full weight of the institution is deployed against individuals who lack comparable resources. If the institution wins, the policy stands. If it loses, there is an apology, a review, and a quiet promise to do better next time. The cost is absorbed. The culture remains. What should disturb the public most is the hierarchy of priorities this case reveals. There is always a shortage when nurses ask for support. There is never a shortage when leadership decides to defend a principle it believes cannot be questioned. The message to staff is clear: compliance is cheaper than dissent. The message to taxpayers is clearer still: your money will be spent not only on care, but on defending the indefensible. Bethany Hutchison, one of the nurses who brought the case, called the spending "appalling". She is right. No nurse should fight years of legal battles for basic privacy, and no trust should spend £600,000 defending what a tribunal ruled a degrading environment. That choice speaks volumes about leadership. This was never just about a changing room. It was about whether common sense and the law would yield to institutional dogma. The tribunal has answered that question. The nurses were right. The trust was wrong. And the public paid for it. Bethany Hutchison and Rose Henderson

@JChimirie66677 The changing spaces already aligned with the law in the first place; just some sanctimonious Trust cabal and a doctor decided otherwise

@Kash_Patel Genuine question. Why are you going to Italy. In the UK we would never pay for the head of the Met to go and help athletes celebrate

For the very concerned media - yes, I love America and was extremely humbled when my friends, the newly minted Gold Medal winners on Team USA, invited me into the locker room to celebrate this historic moment with the boys- Greatest country on earth and greatest sport on earth. 👊🏼🏒🇺🇸

@herefordrama828 @mattvanswol You maybe need to compare all those things with those mentioned in the Epstein files

I have absolutely horrifying news. Charlotte NC officials confirmed that although ICE agents asked them to transfer this CHILD R*PIST ILLEGAL ALIEN into federal custody... ...THEY REFUSED AND RELEASED HIM!!!!! Thankfully, he was re-arrested for failing to meet his bond conditions and ICE agents lodge ANOTHER DETAINER on him so he isn't released AGAIN. WHERE ARE THE PROTESTS FOR THIS??????!!!!! THEY LET A CHILD R*PIST ILLEGAL ALIEN OUT OF PRISON AND NO ONE EVEN KNOWS ABOUT IT!!!!!!! THIS IS AN ACTUAL PED*PHILE AND NO ONE IS PROTESTING AT ALL!!!!!!!

@TheTruthIN3D @MichelleMaxwell Voter photo ID has been brought into the UK; against s background of practically zero voter fraud cases. Many older people do not have passports & had given up their driving licence so no photo ID. Local councils issue ID but obviously only easy if you have Internet access

Ok my little waterbrained friend no one is confused about what a marriage certificate is. The issue isn’t “how does paperwork work?” The issue is what new burdens are being created and when. You just gave a 3rd grade civics lesson on how name changes work. Nobody said: • Women forget their maiden names • Marriage certificates don’t exist • Birth certificates get rewritten That’s a strawman. Here’s the part you’re skipping while pretending this is “basic admin.” Under stricter documentary proof laws, registration requires presenting citizenship documentation in person. That means: • Finding your original or certified birth certificate • Finding your marriage certificate • Making sure they match exactly • Taking time off work • Going to the proper office • Paying fees if you don’t have copies • Hoping clerks interpret everything correctly You’re describing an ideal paperwork scenario. Reality is messier. Some women: • Were married decades ago • Were married in another state • Have divorced and remarried • Have hyphenated names • Have clerical errors on one document • Don’t have certified copies • Don’t have easy access to county records • Don’t have transportation • Don’t have spare money for duplicate records No one is saying “marriage certificates don’t solve it.” They’re saying adding extra document requirements creates friction. And friction affects real people. You also conveniently gloss over: REAL ID does not prove citizenship. A driver’s license does not prove citizenship. Most Americans do not routinely carry certified birth certificates. So when you say “this isn’t new,” that’s false. What’s new is federalizing documentary proof requirements and tightening acceptable forms at registration. That’s the debate. Not “do marriage certificates exist.” If the policy is so harmless, you wouldn’t need to talk to people like they’re 10. You’d just defend it honestly. And the reason people are pushing back isn’t because they’re stupid. It’s because they understand how bureaucracy actually works outside of a perfect courthouse fantasy. Big difference.

Let’s Explain the SAVE Act & How This Affects Married Women Like We’re 10… Because apparently this is too confusing for people to understand because we have democratic leaders fear mongering people into believing nonsense.. So here is the easiest version of what this means that you will find: When you are born in the United States, you get a birth certificate… That birth certificate has: • Your full name • Your date of birth • Your parents • Your place of birth If you’re a girl, it has your maiden name… Why? Because no one knows if you’ll ever get married or who you’ll marry… Now fast forward.. You meet someone. You get married. What do you need to get married? A marriage license… You go to the courthouse. You apply. You get married. Everyone signs the paperwork. You file it.. Then the courthouse issues a marriage certificate.. Your marriage certificate shows: • Your maiden name (because that was your legal name when you filed) • Your spouse’s name • The legal connection between your old name and your new name That document is what legally ties your maiden name to your married name… Now if you choose to change your name, what’s step one? You go to the Social Security office. And guess what they require? The marriage certificate.. You do NOT change your birth certificate. It stays the same forever and forever until the end of time.. So let’s say years later someone says: “Your birth certificate says Smith, but your driver’s license says Johnson.” What do you do? You show: • Your birth certificate (Smith) • Your marriage certificate (Smith → Johnson) And that legally connects the two.. Problem solved.. You do not: • Change your birth certificate • Lose your citizenship • Lose your right to vote • Need to erase your maiden name from history Your marriage certificate exists specifically to document the name change.. That’s literally what it’s for… So the idea that married women are suddenly unable to prove who they are because their birth certificate has their maiden name? That’s not how documentation works in America.. and democrats should be held accountable for spreading this lie that somehow “women will lose their right to vote” We already use supporting documents for: • Driver’s licenses • Social Security updates • Passports • Banking • Insurance • Taxes This isn’t new… at all. It’s basic administrative record-keeping.. And if someone tells you married women would automatically be blocked from registering because their names don’t match …ask one question: “What is a marriage certificate for?” Because that document has solved this “problem” for decades.. That’s it.. thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.. - Janet Elaine Parks

@iOccupyNigeria @elonmusk You also forgot the Native Americans

Elon, I love America as much as you do, realizing it is THE shining city on a hill, but you do realize that millions of Black Africans were stolen from Africa and brought to America in chains, right? They did not “come here” chasing opportunity. They were trafficked, enslaved, brutalized, and forced to build the economic foundation of the country you are romanticizing. Cotton. Tobacco. Rice. Sugar. Rail lines. Infrastructure. Generational wealth. All of it soaked in the blood pouring from open gaping wounds of stolen people. So what exactly is “American culture” without them? Jazz. Blues. Rock. Hip-hop. Gospel. Soul. R&B. Much of modern pop. Southern cuisine. Barbecue traditions. Language, slang, fashion, sports dominance, military service in every major war. Civil rights movements that forced America to live up to its own Constitution. Invisible because they're not English-Scotts-Irish? Or inconvenient to the narrative? If American culture is “worth fighting for,” then be honest about who built it. You cannot praise the house while pretending the people who laid the bricks do not count because they arrived in chains instead of steerage. History does not start at Ellis Island nor did it start on Plymouth Rock.

For a country to survive, there has to be a common culture. Nobody dies to defend a “multicultural economic zone”! American culture, with its English-Scotts-Irish origin, is great and worth fighting for. Some may not realize it, but that’s why people come here. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

@AmberJehangir @allenanalysis Don't think his cabinet and donors are losing; they are not doubt getting an awful lot richer

@allenanalysis Protecting someone ? Yep gotta protect his donors 🧃 Her bank account will tell her story It's not just about the ones in the those files but there are victims to think about #EpsteinFiles

🚨 BREAKING: Marjorie Taylor Greene just admitted the Epstein files were blocked by Donald Trump himself. “He fought the hardest to STOP these files from being released.” Not Democrats. Not the DOJ. Not “the deep state.” Trump.

@JohnCleese The lunatics have taken over the asylum. The fact that the US would have fiercely criticised other governments, and threatened to overthrow them for this similiar behaviour, and policies that currevtly comes from the WH

I think you are risking your life and I thank you for doing that

@d2fl @EdKrassen And judging by the comments on here, the Bondi/Trump playbook is working l; victim blaming instead of looking at the disgusting men who took part

@EdKrassen Threaten them into silence? Silence about what? These women, as best I can determine, were never part of a child trafficking ring and came into Epstein's orbit as consenting adults. Am I wrong?

BREAKING: Multiple Epstein victims tell NBC News that Pam Bondi intentionally un-redacted their names and other victims' names as a way to threaten them into silence! “I think we all realize now that [the DOJ] really wanted to silence us, and [they] thought that [they] could scare us by putting our names out there.” “It had a list of victims, and one was redacted. That makes no sense. This is a list of victims. That is INTENTIONAL!” This is an impeachable offense. Pam Bondi needs to be impeached immediately!

@FeedMuslims2dog @pdxsteeler @d2fl @EdKrassen By your reckoning is any girl who wears a short skirt asking for it and by default, a slut??

@UK_Needs_Reform No

BE HONEST, WHAT DO YOU THINK ???

@footsgrandson @rospigge60559 The US , in many cases, needs to keep its nose out of Global affairs. The US squeak about the immigration problem in Europe; bombing the hell out of Iraq, Afghanistan etc has exacerbated that exponentially

You seem like a reasonable person with legitimate viewpoint of both systems. Can you imagine what would happen to the world economy if the US started spending 50% GDP on government, instead of whatever the ratio is now? Do you realize what would happen to the shift in power when the remaining superpower cuts its defense spending by the amount that would be necessary to do that? Would countries like Sweden be okay with the US leaving a vacuum where its military presence is currently on a global scale?

I live in Sweden. And I work more than half of my time in the United States. I know both systems — not from headlines, but from daily life. Sweden has a capitalist market economy. Private ownership. Competition. Global companies. We also have social reforms: healthcare, paid parental leave, paid vacation, and social security. This is not socialism. This is not communism. It’s capitalism with guardrails. The market creates wealth. Society prevents bad luck from becoming a life sentence. Our freedoms are intact. Our economy is competitive. And no — this isn’t theory. I live it.

@benonwine Civil servant

What do you think he does for work?

@donwinslow Pretty sure Trump had been hinting at this for a long time; you won't have to vote again etc, etc.....

THEY ARE NOT TRYING. THIS IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING NOW IN REAL TIME

@BROKENBRITAIN0 Trial by media will negate a fair trial; not that it will ever get that far anyway

🚨BREAKING: The MET police have just issued a statement URGING the government to “avoid publishing ‘specific documents’ relating to Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson 🇬🇧 THEY ARE TRYING TO COVER THEIR TRACKS❗️ WHAT ARE THEY HIDING, AND WHO FOR❓

@TRUMPDIVA Lack of self respect

What do Republican women have that Democrat women don't?

@EdKrassen The Orange toad/turd is deliberately creating chaos so he has an excuse to cancel the elections. The US is currently no better than Iran; the hypocrisy and irony is frightening

BREAKING: Senator Mark Warner reports that the FBI raid in Fulton County has some suddenly suspicious things going on. The FBI head of the field office in Atlanta has suddenly quit or been fired, likely because he didn't think this search warrant was warranted. The US attorney who signed on the search warrant is also from Missouri, not Georgia, which is extremely odd. Meanwhile, Tulsi Gabbard was there, and she's been taking apart the intel community that was in charge of looking at voter interference. Trump is trying to rig the election!

@TheLaurenChen You are stupid. He was executed after he was disarmed. That's it

Regarding Alex Pretti: My timeline is filled with left-wingers trying to use this agitator's death for their political ends. Half of the right is framing this guy as a terrorist-to-be, "he brought too much ammo," "he didn't have his ID," "he shouldn't have been armed," and whatever else that contradicts their arguments during the Kyle Rittenhouse trial and other 2nd Amendment issues. The other half of the right are calling this a bi-partisan issue of government overreach. "The American government should not be able to execute citizens like this!" As if this guy didn't put himself, the people around him, and federal agents into a dangerous position. Only a few people have any actual connection to reality. Pretti had a right to carry his firearm and whatever else he had (no, I really don't care that his ID wasn't on him). But exercising this right also comes with additional responsibilities. Introducing a firearm into a potential conflict immediately augments its gravity. Pretti was fully in the right to carry, but under no circumstances should he have been physically resisting an officer of the law. The chances of him getting shot in such an altercation are extremely high, as the officers now have to react to the existence of that firearm during a struggle. The idea that we should expect law enforcement officers, even if they were the best men among us, to wrestle with armed men and to completely disregard their own safety is simply a fantasy. And to be clear, I am not saying that one forfeits their right to life simply because they are armed and encounter the police. Kyle Rittenhouse is a great example of this. When confronted, he raised his hands and informed officers he was armed. He complied with their orders. No one got hurt. It doesn't even really matter what the law is, or what your rights are, in a moment like that. If two armed parties engage in a struggle, the chance of lethal force being applied is substantial. A cop will fear for his life just as much as anyone else, and is an enforcer of the state's monopoly on violence. If you choose to test his mettle, you are playing a very dangerous game. If you want whatever legal principle you are standing for to be honored - take it to the courtroom. That's your best chance. If you try to find justice with a policeman, and you die, it really doesn't even matter if you're in the right. You're dead, and no, there is no justice that can make you whole again. This is why you need to de-escalate confrontations with the police, and be extremely measured in your actions. So, it feels the response from the right should be obvious: an armed man physically resisted the police and it got messy. It's terrible, but we can't reasonably expect otherwise from a bunch of men being actively harassed by interferers and then finding out one of the people wrestling with you has a weapon. The cops do not have frame-by-frame technology in that moment. Things happen fast (possible misfire of Pretti's sig), and decisive action is necessary. Pretti didn't have to die. Do not interfere with law enforcement, and especially do not do so while being armed. As always, it's also important to contrast the media outrage of Pretti's death with the complete silence that occurs from the corporate press when Americans are killed by illegal immigrants. The deportations must continue.

@Biker6946 @ryangrim Let's hope nobody you know ever needs the help of a passing decent person

If I’m the officer who emptied my clip into Alex Pretti’s back, I’m starting to get worried. Also we need to know who the agent is who clapped and celebrated as his colleague fired 4 extra shots into his lifeless body. He should never work in law enforcement again. Agents are about to find out how far they can take Stephen Miller’s promise that they have absolute immunity.